Listen to my two new songs:

“Jack The Super Hero” by Camero Jones

“I Know Jack” by Camero Jones

Click here to watch video.

Click here to see the video.

The DOJ alleges the statute is unconstitutional and is basing its entire case on the claims that it violates the provision in the constitution known as the supremacy clause. The effect of this clause is that Federal law trumps any incompatible state law. The exact language of the clause goes like this:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The problem with the DOJ case is that there is nothing “to the contrary” in the Arizona law. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Arizona statute follows Federal law. All it does is put the state in the business of helping the Feds enforce their own law. Obviously, this is help the Feds don’t want because they have no intention of enforcing the law.

There is some irony in the DOJ’s complaint that the Supremacy clause renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional while doing nothing about the so-called “sanctuary cities” that actually are acting “to the contrary” to Federal law. By protecting illegal aliens, prohibiting their police officers from inquiring into the immigration status of suspicious persons, and failing to turn over discovered aliens to the Federal authorities, these cities are engaging in practices that would land an individual in jail for obstruction of justice.

It what appears to be an attempt to give the lawsuit some moral basis, President Obama declared that the Arizona law “has the potential” of being enforced in a discriminatory manner. And that, of course, is true even though the plain language of the statute prohibits racial profiling. The problem with the President’s claim is that is true of just about any law.

Suppose, for example, the U.S. Dept. of Justice were to enforce the Federal Voting Rights Act only when the accused violator is white and the victim is black. Should that ever happen it still would not be grounds for striking down the statute. Although it would justify firing the U.S. Attorney General. But of course, that would never happen. Did it? I mean, would it?

There is also the idea that a state has it own jurisdiction over immigration. In an old (1837) case the city of New York had a statute that required the captain of a vessel entering New York harbor with aliens on board to report in writing to the Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. The Court found this did not conflict with Federal authority over immigration. The majority opinion ruled that a state “has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people.”

Apparently, in the absence of an explicit prohibition the state is free to enact its own laws even if the Federal government also deals with the same subject provided there is no conflict to trigger the supremacy clause

In addition to a weak legal case, the President appears also to be skating on thin political ice. A new Rasmussen survey finds that 56 percent of voters disagree with challenging the Arizona law and only 28 per cent agree. Another 16 per cent are not sure. The survey also found that 61 per cent of voters would like to see a similar law enacted in their state.

Even worse for the President and his party is that 86 per cent of likely voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, and 55 percent say it is “very important.” Among voters who consider the immigration issue “very important” to how they will vote 72 percent disagree with the challenge.

Click here to watch.

It would make no difference if Obama were born in Mayberry right down the street from Sheriff Andy.  He is not an American and it is not because of where he was born. It is because he does not consider himself an American and has no loyalty to this country and what it stands for.

The recent flap over Joe Barton and his apology to BP are an example.  It is an American maxim that everybody is entitled to his day in court and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Nobody has to prove he is innocent.  But Obama, in that lame speech about the oil spill, simply stated as a fact that BP was “reckless” and that he was going to extract at least $20 billion from the company and put it into an escrow fund to compensate persons injured by the spill.

This was contrary to the principle of separation of powers which is a key factor distinguishing the American form of government from that of its European predecessors.  It is also contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”  That means BP’s alleged recklessness must be proven in court and if it is, the court will determine the remedy.  Barack’s action was more kingly than American.

By the way, Joe Barton was right the first time.  It was a shakedown and the GOP leadership that jumped all over Barton needs to grow a pair and stand up for the constitution.

Another uniquely American ideal is the belief, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure our rights.  This was a reversal of the old European notion that kings ruled by “divine right” making governments the agents of God.  In America, the government was made  the agent of the people.

A mid-June Rasmussen poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 per cent) believe that principle has been abandoned and that government has become a threat to our rights.  Only 37 per cent believe the government is performing the job for which it was created – protecting our rights.

Which brings us to another hallowed principle underlying the American form of government – the belief — set down in the Declaration of Independence – that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Only 21 per cent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen survey, believe that today the government has the consent of the governed.

Would a true American, elected to the presidency, choose for a science adviser a man who believes the government has the right to introduce sterilizing chemicals into the nation’s drinking water in order to limit population growth?  Science adviser John Holdren set out his views on population control in a book he co-authored with population fanatic Paul Ehrlich who predicted in 1968 that the human race wouldn’t make it through the 1970s because of population pressures.

And Holdren doesn’t confine himself to the U.S. government determining how many children we should be allowed to have.  He believes that chore should ideally be turned over to a “Planetary Regime.”  This Planetary Regime, he suggests, could determine the “optimum population” for the world and decide each country’s share of population.

And the Regime’s authority shouldn’t stop at population control.  Such an international, body, he proposes, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable.”

Does that sound like someone an American president would turn to for advice on science issues?

It’s pretty clear that Obama, regardless of where he was born, does not identify with this country, its history, its fundamental values.  In fact, the waves of immigrants who came to America in the 19th century, although born in places like Italy, Ireland, Poland and Russia, were more committed to American values than the interloper who now presumes to govern this country.

The most important thing we can do now is work to elected an American to the White House in 2012.
Your Favorite Political Pooch
Jack M. Pinscher

Nancy Pelosi warned us.  She said the Obama health care bill would have to be passed so we could find out what was in it.

Thanks to Paul Guppy, Vice-President for Research at Washington Policy Center, we’re finding out a few things about the health care bill which is now the health care law.

What may be the biggest Jack in the Health Care Box is a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions.  That means if you sell a house for $200,000 you will owe a tax of $7,600 if the profit from the sale pushed your gross yearly income above $200,000 – which it surely will if you sold the house for that much.

“Other real estate transactions” includes income from rental properties.  This is paid by the property owner but renters should not deceive themselves that they are not affected. The property owner gets the money to pay the additional tax from his tenants.

The same facts apply for the $200,000 income threshold.  This will be advertised as “soaking the rich” but renters, who are among the lowest earners in society, will be providing the money — in the form of higher rents – that the “rich” will be turning over to the government.  Since many rental properties are owned by real estate corporations, very few renters will avoid contributing to the property owner’s payments.

The government labels money gained from renting homes and other property as “unearned income.”  And this is typical of the deceptive language the government employs to sugar coat its raids on our money.    In truth, “unearned income” is money you find on the bus.  There is nothing “unearned” about rental income.  The property owner pays the mortgage on the property, he pays for its upkeep, he pays the property taxes on it, he pays to insure it against fire and other damage. In the real world, as opposed to government, rental income is certainly earned.

Another important point, about this additional tax, it is applied to money that is already taxed.  The property owner pays regular income tax on the rents he collects.  And then pays the additional 3.8 percent tax on that same income if his total income from all sources is more than $200,000.    Again, since many rental properties are owned by real estate corporations –or individuals with other sources of income – most will exceed that $200,000 level.

This real estate tax is just one of 19 new taxes imposed by the health care bill.  It also imposes a 3.8 percent tax in investment income.  Individuals earning over $200,000 and families making $250,000 are covered.  Guppy points out that this is not indexed to inflation so, just like alternative minimum tax, it will hit more people every year.  Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401 (k) plans will be hardest hit.

Then there is the coerced purchase of health insurance.  Individuals who don’t purchase a health insurance policy, or who purchase one that doesn’t suit the government, will be taxed up to 2.5 percent of their annual income.  What kind of policy will satisfy the government?  You’ll find out when the IRS comes around to take your money.

Families with children will be hit with a penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if they don’t buy a government approved health insurance policy.  There are a lot of things wrong with this, in addition to the loss of freedom it entails.  A couple may decide they will not have any more children and don’t need maternity coverage.  But if the Feds include maternity benefits in the required coverage, that couple will be forced to buy and pay for it.

The government may decide that a suitable health insurance policy must pay for abortions.  Americans who oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds would be forced to pay for a policy that covers hem.  The bottom line is that nobody knows what kinds of policy we’ll have to buy to avoid the penalty.

There are just too many families with too many differing needs and preferences for the government to get into the business of dictating what kind of health insurance policy we all have to buy.

Your vote-dictatorship or capitalism?

For one thing, Sen. John McCain, who lives in Arizona and knows a thing or two about military matters, says at least 6,000 troops are needed. That’s how many President George W. Bush and it didn’t stop the flood of illegals. Senate Democrats shot down an attempt to increase the deployment to 6,000.

For number two, the U.S. State Dept. has announced that the troops will not be used to stop illegal immigration. This, according to AP, came at the urging of the Mexican government. So instead the troops will be used to counter the movement of guns and drugs across the border. Reportedly, the Mexican government is cool with that. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley announced, “We have explained the President’s announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it.”

Apparently Obama is confused about which country he works for.

Even within that limited mission, the troops will not operate like soldiers. Instead, they will perform, “support function” to free up civilian law enforcement personnel to patrol the 2,000-mile-long border. In other words, they will wash cars, do office work, go for coffee and do other chores unrelated to confronting drug smugglers, terrorists and other illegal border crossers.

The bottom line is that Obama’s deployment of National Guard troops to the border is a joke and he is still taking his orders from the President of Mexico.

While our alleged President is continuing to refuse to do his job, a recent incident in Dallas demonstrates that there is more involved in border security that jobs, drugs, and street crimes. Hosam Smadi, an immigrant from Jordan in the U.S. illegally has admitted setting what he thought was a bomb in a garage underneath the 60-story Fountain Place Building.

Fortunately, the FBI was onto Smadi and an agent, posing as an al Qaeda operative, gave the terrorist a decoy. After attaching a timing device, he left a truck with the fake bomb in the garage and rode away with an FBI agent. When he tried to detonate the bomb with a cell phone, the phone rang an FBI number and he was arrested.

AP reported that Smadi came to the U.S. in 2007 and overstayed his visa. The FBI said they started tracking him after his name showed up on an extremist website.

It’s worth noting that if Smadi had been living in Arizona instead of Texas he might have been caught any time after his visa expired. Fortunately, this was one of those rare cases when the Federal authorities acted.

At the same time that the Federal government is refusing to enforce the border, and demonizing Arizona for trying, Fox News reports that Feds are warning Texas to be on the lookout for a suspected member of a Somalia-based terrorist group who might try to enter the U.S. through Mexico. This warning comes after a Somali man was indicted in Federal court in Texas for bringing hundreds of Somalis from South America and across the Mexican border. Many of these illegal immigrants have ties to other Somalian terror organizations, Fox reports. These groups are a danger to Americaans and to Texans in particular.

But that doesn’t bother the Mexican government so it doesn’t bother President Obama.

If Americans turn out in massive numbers and transform the Congress into a body that will defend our nations against all enemies – foreign and domestic – maybe that will pull Obama’s chain and persuade him to do the job he took an oath to do.