The West’s Confederacy of Dunces

“They created a system where it was virtually impossible to ever catch anyone cheating, removed all verification processes, automatically registered all drivers license holders—whether they like it or not, and then launched that program immediately after granting every one of the untold millions of illegal aliens in California a driver's license.” – Tim Donnelly, former California State Assemblyman

Per the highly respected and nonpartisan Pew Center, 11.1 (or is it 30?) million illegal aliens live within America's porous borders. Of this human tsunami, one in five illegal aliens reside in two metropolitan areas, either Los Angeles or New York City. Per their latest data, that translates into 2.2 million people.

Using simple math, we'll assume half of them reside in LA. To flush out the political landscape there, per a 2015 California Political Review poll, 13% admit to illegal voting. Also shown in that study is that 80 percent—or four of five illegal voters—cast ballots for Democrats. (As California is home to one-third of all welfare recipients, Democrats pushing cradle-to-grave dependence is unfortunately a natural fit.) Therefore, just in California, that means 114,400 fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. (Hypothetically, double that result to include NYC.) Still, how ever it was achieved, with 60 percent of the popular vote, it's no surprise Crooked Hillary won there!

With 55 electoral votes—of the vital 270 needed—California remains a major player in choosing a new U.S. president. Is the Golden State—America's largest by population—actually a tarnished and seedy microcosm of voting corruption? Specifically, I refer to population dense, Democrat-controlled urban centers that delivered Hillary victories. For example, the regular cycle of dead people voting in Chicago readily comes to mind. Of this wrongdoing, expert J. Christian Adams—a former election attorney for the Department of Justice—told Fox and Friends last October:

“Dead people are voting and it’s something this [Obama's] administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million Steve, ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust.”

This is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our democracy. An ever-present iceberg to the Titanic that is the good ship America. Let's be clear: election fraud is election stealing. Yet, on both sides of the aisle, obtuse establishment politicians blithely pretend this systemic problem is nonexistent. No wonder this finite reality so difficult to gauge! Finding accurate information is as tedious as counting grains of sand on one of California's beaches.

To go down Alice's rabbit hole further, obstructionist Democrats now call for “Calexit” due to the election of Donald Trump. Apparently, one in three Californians polled support the split. (Are they same one-third receiving those welfare payments?) In any case, California is making belligerent noises like South Carolina of 1860 (when it seceded from the Union over the election of Abraham Lincoln). In that rebellious spirit, officials grumble about not remitting legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. Likewise, they insanely contemplate mutating sanctuary cities into one lawless state. Does Jerry Brown (a.k.a. “Governor Moonbeam”) envision Westworld debauchery as a real-life template?

Still, the most immediate “California problem” actually emanates from Washington State's Ninth Circuit of Appeals. Helmed by three loony lefties, their decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time. Essentially, this activist triumvirate ruled that foreigners' travel plans should not be inconvenienced by Trump's executive order (read: a 90-day moratorium regarding seven terrorist-infested countries with no trustworthy government to vouch for them). It doesn't matters to them that the President's action is expressly supported by federal law, 1952's Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(f), which specifies:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Thus, this kangaroo court radically overstepped its bounds; thumbing its nose at all concerned.

Three Ninth Circuit judges means three major legal errors. As described above, they encroached on the co-equal executive branch of government (read: Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution). Second, they granted non-citizens—with no constitutional right to live here—legal standing where none exists. Then, they compounded that mistake by gifting foreigners preferential treatment over the legitimate safety concerns of American citizens.

The President's duty is preserve our country's sovereignty. That means enforcing law to ensure the American people are protected. Therefore, in practice, Trump determines the conditions by which non-citizens can enter, leave or otherwise reside within our borders. After all, lives are at stake!

Progressive ideologues—whether politicians or judges—should not be playing chicken with our collective fate. Specifically, Trump's constitutional authority should not be usurped by this rogues' gallery extending from Washington's Ninth Circuit to California's state house. In this situation, the former pretends to be “beyond reproach.” Yet, unlike King Solomon, they cut the baby in half with their mangled misinterpretation of the equal protection clause. The fact remains: citizens' rights can't be countermanded by non-citizens' needs. (Likewise, one state's rambunctious desire for independence cannot prevail over the national interest in unity.) Therefore, Washington State's reckless ban block—like California's antebellum fantasy—demonstrate how badly out of step they are with the rest of us.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Justice Sotomayor: laws, not wages for the 'little people'

After almost 7 years of the often equally diabolical and hapless Obama Administration, it is easy to detect the overpowering scent of far-left hypocrisy emanating from progressives in Washington. First, a lawless, ultra-Constitutional president who consistently issues overreaching proclamations by executive fiat. Now, a rogue Supreme Court has likewise overstepped its bounds by imposing law from the bench.  In so doing, the high court has completely usurped Congress' constitutionally-defined role as legislator instead of confining itself to its proprietary domain of “interpreting” already written law.  Naturally, I coyly refer to the recently determined gay marriage debate between the thousands of years-old traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage (based upon First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religious expression) versus the gerrymandered manipulation of the equal protection clause (intended only to prevent discrimination not proactively mandate “new” law).  Apparently, one of the justices in particular, Sonia Sotomayor—perhaps based upon Mr. Obama's longstanding nihilistic example—feels especially entitled to also “make up the rules” as she goes along.

Specifically, Ms. Sotomayor has parlayed her lofty position on the Supreme Court to attract a collection of serfs at her whim as maids, servants, cooks, butlers and chauffeurs in technical violation, this time, of long established U.S. minimum wage labor laws.  Based upon her actions, perhaps Ms. Sotomayor should be rightly viewed as the Leona Helmsey of the court.  Just insert the word “laws” for “taxes” and all of the rest of us 'little people' know exactly where we stand.  In this regard, one wonders if her judicial robes conceal not a gavel, but a queen's scepter.  Hopefully, the unpaid lady's maid who likely dresses Ms. Sotomayor will someday make some bucks with a tell-all book.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

To the Supreme Court: ‘Mother, May I’? (re: gay marriage/equal rights debate)

Equal protection under the law does not equate to equal results in American society.  Liberal progressives have co-opted and perverted the intentions of the Founding Fathers in order to promote their divisive anti-American agenda: pitting one group against another; in the case of the marriage issue, the gay community against conservative Christians. 
 
The concept of marriage between one woman and one man has informed societies throughout history for thousands of years.  Despite its religious connotations and inherently stabilizing influence on society, its primary purpose has been to legitimize and protect the economic interests of otherwise vulnerable children, something gay unions do not biologically produce.  As America is a Judeo-Christian country, it falls easily in line with this sensible tradition.  Furthermore, as the vast majority of people are heterosexual, it follows that the traditional definition of marriage remain the prevailing one—up and until there is a groundswell of local support by the majority from the state level that this standard be changed.  This is still America—power to shape society and freedom to “pursue Happiness”—are supposed to reside with “we the people” to determine her course, not a centralized, overstepping, facelessly bureaucratic, progressive federal government.  Indeed, a belligerently vocal minority that uses the law and the levers of big government as a weapon to impose its specialized agenda upon the larger group is as repressive as any overbearing majority.  That, unfortunately, is what is happening here. 
 
This is the work both of progressive Democrats (a lá the economically “converted” Obama) and the politically militant ‘gay gestapo’ aided at every turn by an abetting MSM who exploits and magnifies any minor fracas into a major scandal for high viewership and equivalent advertising dollars.  Who cares that one mom-and-pop Indiana bakery owned by Christians should on legitimate religious grounds decline to make a cake for a same-sex couple?  Is it right that 111 Cakery should be driven out of business due to the stress of hate filled protests by homosexual activists clueless of the First Amendment (no law shall “imped[e] the free exercise of religion”) and the rights of others when they conflict with their own?   
 
Under a tortured, gerrymandered interpretation of the “equal protection clause” (intended only defensively to curtail mistreatment), homosexual activists actually want “special” treatment: a one-size-fits-all solution mandated on high by the powers-that-be in Washington.  We need no more “Mother, May I?” government pronouncements of this sort.  As with the federal government, this decision should not ultimately reside with the Supreme Court either, but with the states, 37  of which (and the District of Columbia) currently allow gay marriage based upon community standards.  At any rate, from a legal perspective the unambiguous dictates of the First Amendment trumps everything.  The government and the Court should stay out of our bedrooms, our churches and especially our bakeries.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976