pOTUS -- a truly bad man.

pOTUS (small p) will appear on the View tomorrow. I have already written about the slap to millions and millions of Americans who have been Scouts -- Brownies, Daisies, Cubs and of course, Boy and Girl Scouts. Obama has clearly made a decision to abandon the families for which these organizations represent traditional values. Instead, he is hoping to appeal to suburban soccer moms, aided and abetted by a crew of Hollywood Liberals.

Obama is going to make a pitch "to try and recapture the magic." HOPE. CHANGE. Being bent over a barrel and rammed up the sphincter without the so-much fare-thee-well of "sorry." I am simply disgusted and appalled that anyone would watch this charade. This Weasel-in-Chief won't even appear in front of the White House press corps anymore for Q&A (all-time low numbers of press conferences for a modern president) -- afraid that the leftist press corps will give him a hard time. What kind of renegade do you have to be that even your sycophants are tired of you. Your only refuge Hollywood morons.

ARIZONA

A federal district court judge today shot down the Arizona law. Prohibiting the part that requires a cop to determine the immigration status of persons legally stopped pursuant to violations or reasonable suspicion / probable cause.  This judge was a Clinton appointee. No surprise then.

BUT what really riles me is that this restraining order effectively makes Arizona a free territory for illegal immigrants by Federal sanction. Obama is saying, you cannot enforce the laws of the land and I won't do it either.  He is sacrificing Arizona on the altar of leftist politics and the liberal agenda. "It means justice will truly prevail," said Lydia Guzman, president of Somos America, or We Are America. Lydia ... don't come near me, or you either Judge Susan Bolton. Whatever I ate recently won't sit well.

Do I really think that Arizona should be enforcing Federal Immigration Laws? Of course not. DO I think that Arizona has a right -- a State's Right -- to protect its citizens? Yes. And where through malice and sheer political opportunism the Federal Government declines to protect its citizens, and operate in opposition to over 80% of the affected State and over 55% of its citizens nationally -- a State may have to do what it has to do. In turn, we need to remember this in November.

Right now the appeal is to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ... the most liberal and insane group of jurists ever assembled. The chances of success on appeal is close to zero. Which brings us to the Supreme Court. 5-4 will be the vote. Let's hope this can be expedited, although the 9th Circuit will stall as long as possible to assist Obama in November. Yes, I mean that -- a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals will act as a adjunct to the Executive Branch. Believe it. I remember reading a case related to something that I was working on in the Second Circuit. When the decision came down: "notwithstanding the interesting and creative opinions of our brethren in the Ninth Circuit, we chose to hold otherwise." Essentially calling them flakes and judicial activists in violation of their duty to interpret the laws pursuant to the intent of the legislative branch. So even the most respect Court in the land (the 2nd Cir. is the most respected ... probably more so than the Supremes) regards the 9th as a lost cause.

Which sort of bring me to Kagan. "Clear and present danger." 'Nuff said.

Kerry Antoinette

John Kerry, Senior Senator for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: tax cheat. That is what the newspapers should have as the headline.

So Kerry the Brahmin orders a boat from New Zealand, designed by a guy in Newport RI. Ok ... fine so far. So the boat arrives and is commissioned in RI, uh, ok. It is currently at the docks of the firm that arranged the transaction -- having warranty work done. Hmmm. Its homeport? Newport.

This has the Massachusetts press inflamed and crazed: as a Massachusetts resident, if he were to homeport his new boat in Massachusetts, he would have pay about $430,000 in sales tax and another $70,000 or so in excise tax. Rhode Island ditched those taxes in the late '90's and as a consequence it has become a rich man's boating Mecca. By contrast, there was no way the lefties on Beacon Hill could keep their mitts off of direct taxation when the results are immediate, unlike Rhode Island which manages to understand that the money thrown off to the local economy by being a safe haven / port far exceeds the paltry sales and excise taxes. It costs about 10% of the new purchase price to maintain a mega-yacht. Or put another way, Kerry will sink $700,000 a year in his toy. And by Newport standards, Kerry's boat is a dinghy.

To taxes: if he could keep the boat out of Massachusetts waters for the first 6 months of ownership, he would not be liable for Mass taxes -- the presumption being the boat is held in foreign waters and not subject to excise or sales tax. But Kerry couldn't resist parading his new boat to the citizens of Nantucket over the 4th weekend: and as a Massachusetts resident, that means that the excise and sales taxes have become due.  So no point in the Newport charade, bucko. You owe.

Which leads us to the greater question: why is a person worth $160 million (and whose wife is probably worth over a billion) try to cheat on his taxes? Or more importantly, why is a liberal political figure, who never saw a tax he didn't like, trying to evade them himself? It smells an awful lot like Leona Helmsley who thought that taxes were for the little people. How can Kerry represent the Commonwealth in Washington D.C. when he clearly doesn't want to play by the rules of his own state?

Simple: he can't and shouldn't represent Massachusetts. Hopefully, he will be voted out for this.

And for the yobos who claim that the boat should have been built in the Commonwealth ... where exactly? As best I can tell, the Commonwealth does not have a yard that could have built this vessel, or at least not to the standards of the Kiwis.  You see the tax and regulate atmosphere of Massachusetts have driven away the boat builders. Small yards still exist ... but not for vessels such as Isabelle. The Democrat-controlled business climate and unions snuffed out that business long ago.

Chief Weasel

Unsurprisingly, Obama chose to attend a taping of "The View" with his friend Whoopie Goldberg rather than speak at the Boy Scout Jamboree. So instead of talking to 40,000 young, civic-minded Americans, he would rather go on a daytime women's pseudo-news talk show to try and salvage some of his rapidly sinking poll numbers by courting the nation's women.

Someone in the White House did the numbers and determined that on the balance, he'd get better effect for November by going on TV -- on a show whose audience by definition does not work. Screw the Scouts, who were depending on the President to talk to them ... even though Scouts from around the world are attending and this happens only every 4 years. They are not important to Obama. Mostly likely they will not grow up to vote for him or his type of policies, either. Scouts work, respect their elders, value honesty and decency and willing to pitch in -- values clearly missing from the Obama agenda. Obama and cronies would rather have someone else do that.

I am making a prediction here: Obama's snub of the Scouts will have a longer-lasting ill-effect than any brief visit to Whoopie and socialist friends: they are already in the tank for him. But by snubbing the Scout, Obama removes any trace of support of American tradition and values and outs him for what he is. Anti-American, anti-family, anti-values, anti-self-responsibility ... a Liberal who sees Scouts as some form of fascist youth organization.

America will remember this. I will remember this.

Massachusetts Lunacy

The Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") of the Commonwealth outdid itself yesterday. 125 years of precedent out the window: essentially, a property owner is now responsible for any and all snow/ice conditions that may develop on their property -- and as a consequence the injuries suffered by persons legally on their property as a result of the owner's failure to remediate those conditions.

Let me put that another way: it is open season for tort lawyers. Essentially, no matter how reckless or stupid the action of the idiot "legally on your property,"where such action results in injury proximately caused by snow or ice ... you are on the hook.  Worse, it does not matter how the hazardous condition came to be on your property ... the city plow could hammer your driveway or sidewalk with 6 feet of frozen slush (which hardens overnight) and you are responsible, whether you are at home or not.

Even stranger, the municipalities have always been immune -- so it is not some form of officially sanctioned risk shifting. Rather, it appears to be consistent with continuing class warfare: screw those who have (even something as modest as a walk-up 2 family in Dorchester) for the benefit of those poor wights who are proximately damaged by the failure to cope with Mother Nature and the evil intent of the property owner to inflict injury.

We will be able to make the argument of assumption of risk ... but only when the owner has taken all reasonable measures to ensure snow and ice-free passage.  How great should the measures be? Who knows ... ? What is reasonable? I'll tell you one thing, the greedy plaintiff and his attorney will have a vastly different view on what is reasonable than you do. I guarantee it.

Essentially, Massachusetts once again wants to remove responsibility from the individual best able to shoulder it and transfer it someone else. In Massachusetts, there is always someone else to blame.

Treason

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

More commonly, we consider treason to be conspiring against the United States to hurt or destroy it for the advantage of other, foreign powers. Note how the Constitution refers to the United States as "them," meaning and referring to the plural of the States.

What form can this act take? Let's look at "aid and comfort." What might that consist of? Clearly Jane Fonda should have been arrested, tried (and if found guilty) shot upon arrival back in the U.S. for her stunts in the '60's. Various propaganda props met that fate for activities in WWII (perhaps the last war that we actually fought as such).  Today, would knowingly harboring a Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist in your house qualify? I would think so, but my guess is that many Liberal Americans would argue that it was some form of duty they owed in the struggle against the military-industrial combine. Various of the U.S. national spies against the U.S. should qualify, but when was the last time we shot a spy? The Rosenbergs? 

So treason really has to be more spectacular to qualify in this day and age. So how about the destruction of the U.S. economy -- putting millions out of work, causing the forfeit of millions of homes, destitution and the ruin of families? Few might directly die of this sort of action, but on a sheer scale gig, that would work? Particularly, if it was done to assist enemies of the nation ... but would such acts not also qualify as "levying war" against the United States? Does war have to entail soldiers and occupation of territory? Clearly the definition of "war" does not require that .... War might consist of a strategy to beggar a country for political goals ... or personal goals. War implies a certain scale too, you can't have an island state in micronesia legitimately declare war on the United States and be taken seriously -- or even for that nation to commit a war-like act.

NOW, to the point:

The CBO predicts an increase in our public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if Obama's fiscal 2011 budget is implemented. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt will rise to 90% from 53%.

This is treason. The economic destruction of the United States and the possible fracturing of the nation for political goals of the few must at least be considered levying war on the citizens of this nation. And if the nationality of the tort-feasor is in question, possibly the actions of someone adhering to our nation's enemies.

That our President would publicly give aid and comfort to our enemies -- no longer even shocks the national conscience. His continual ass-kissing of parties wholly hostile to our country is a matter of record. His failure to act to protect our national interests abroad tantamount to aid. His furthering of the goals of despots and dictators world-wide -- against our interests and the interests of democracy -- documented by the New York Times.

But it is in his actions domestically that we can truly see treason in its purest form: it is war against the American people. Nothing less.  His economic policies form the ammunition, and the legions of illegal aliens and their idiotic liberal supporters -- his troops.  When a President lets stand open rebellion against our flag by foreigners on our soil ... it is clear.

We can effect a cure to this treason in November without resort to arms: vote every one of these traitors out.

Earth to NASA

Obama's poodles in NASA have out done themselves: NASA's main mission -- according to NASA -- is to improve NASA's ties with the Muslim world.

Mr. Obama: you are clearly in orbit. Charles Bolden, your appointee at NASA, told Al Jazeera in an interview recently "[w]hen I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- [Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.

SINCE WHEN IS NASA A DIPLOMATIC TOOL? I don't mean meeting the Russians in orbit, I mean since when has NASA taken on the diplomacy that is the purview of the State Department? Why should NASA spend a dime to help Muslim nations "feel good" about their historic contribution to science? And what and when were those contributions, anyway?

NASA is tasked with America's Space development. NASA is NOT tasked with making Muslim nations feel good about anything.  When I hear that Obama wants to cut NASA's budget and consign the United States to the also-ran heap of history of space exploration because it is too expensive -- and then we spend money on making a culture that values genocide, oppression of women, death to apostates, suppression of news and science that is inconsistent with their beliefs .... Well, it beggars belief to think that this ... this ... thing is President of what was once the pre-eminent space faring nation on Earth.

"Feel good?" We are talking about places that will put you to death for practicing your own religion, where women are treated as chattels. Places whose sole contribution to the science of space development or exploration is to develop missiles to rain death upon others, places whose other scientific goals are to develop weapons of mass destruction -- largely to kill the Jews, who in the expression of Israel, actually revere science and push the boundaries of mankind's knowledge. Irony, anyone?

Is anyone paying any attention out there to the psycho in the White House?