Connect with us

Everything

When will activist judges be satisfied? Never

Published

on

Federal Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos, in a stunning display of naked judicial activism, has again struck down a Texas law requiring proper identification to vote, even though this law had addressed the concerns expressed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals toward its predecessor. Ramos wrote that the law “imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.”

Wow. What a load of horse manure.

How is anything ever more difficult for blacks and Latinos than it is for white people or anyone else? Well, the only answer for that is, of course, that Judge Ramos sees these people as less capable than whites or Asians. If a requirement that is uniformly applied is somehow seen as discriminatory against one group or another, it is because those seeing the discrimination see those being “discriminated” against as less capable.

They aren’t. Blacks and Latinos are just as capable as anyone else of raising families, having a job, paying their bills, voting, and getting an ID. Leftists constantly tell us they are not, and that voter ID is therefore racist. Seems to me the fact that the Leftists see blacks and Latinos as less capable of getting an ID is racist.

The Democratic National Convention was held last year. Guess what you needed to get in? An ID. You have to have proper ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, get a job, or fly on an airplane. Are all these activities racist? The stupid people of the world will immediately try to argue these are not rights, but privileges.

Ok smart people: You have to have an ID to buy a gun, which is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution. Are we going to start selling guns to people without ID now? No, because Leftists don’t want that done at all, much less without ID. By Leftist logic though, requiring ID to buy a gun is racist.

A few years ago I was working as a process server and private investigator. I was delivering court documents to the courthouse and there was a black man in the clerk’s office, trying to get some paperwork done. He needed a notary and couldn’t afford a lawyer. I happened to be a notary so I had him follow me down to my truck after I filed my paperwork, just so I could help him out free of charge.

He was obviously disabled and blind in one eye. I found out he was on disability. He was black, poor, disabled. The guy had nothing. He was a perfect example of what the Left claims Voter ID laws discriminate against. Guess what he DID have? If you said “an ID” you’d be correct. I wouldn’t be able to notarize anything for him without one. He wouldn’t be able to DO anything without an ID. That’s life in America today. The idea that he wouldn’t be able to get an ID is complete fantasy.

There’s only one logical reason liberals in general and the Democratic Party in particular make these bogus claims of racism when it comes to voter ID: they want to be able to commit voter fraud.

They want illegals to vote. They want volunteers to go vote claiming to be people they know are dead. They want to be able to go and vote on behalf of people they don’t think will show up.

When I worked at a polling station a few years ago before Texas had voter ID, a number of people were not able to vote because they “had already voted.” They were understandably angry. They showed us ID voluntarily, proving they were who they said they were. Unfortunately, since it wasn’t required, other people had come before them, claiming to be them and voting in their stead.

How do I know they were voting for Democrats? Who is doing the complaining about voter ID? Sure, plenty of Republicans would be against voter ID if they thought they could benefit from it, but so far they haven’t.

It’s funny to me how the American Left is constantly railing about “the integrity of our democracy” etc when it comes to talking about the electoral college verses the popular vote, but they aren’t the least bit interested in making sure that popular vote has integrity through a simple thing like making sure voters are who they say they are, and that they are American citizens who have the right to vote in our elections. No, illegal aliens, and even legal immigrant non-citizens do NOT have a right to vote in our elections.

The argument over Voter ID really is one of the silliest we’ve seen, and that is saying something in this day in age. Blacks and Latinos are just as capable as anyone else of getting an ID. To say otherwise is racist. So is the American Left racist or are they simply interested in committing the crime of voter fraud on a massive scale? Those are the only two options.

I almost feel silly writing this article, since this is all so obvious. I should have written this under the pen name “Captain Obvious.” And yet, the Left will make their ridiculous arguments, and you and I, dear reader, can just sit back, shake our heads, and mock the transparency of their fraud.

Judge Ramos is continuing the work of the 9th and 4th Circuits, as well as the lunatic judge in Hawaii who struck down President Trump’s travel ban even after it was upheld by the Supreme Court, in completely destroying what’s left of the credibility American judiciary. A lawyer I have close ties to once told me that all judges rule based on the law, not personal ideology. My eyes nearly rolled out of my head. This is a prime example of judicial activism and it has to stop.

Congress needs to start impeaching these out of control judges and get us back to the rule of law. I fear that will never happen though, as the current congress can’t even get a repeal of Obamacare done with both houses of Congress under their control as well as a Republican in the White House. This would be an obvious place to start, since the integrity of our elections should be important to everyone… except for those who don’t want integrity in our elections, of course.

 

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?

Published

on

The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.

While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.

For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.

I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.

The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.

Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.

Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.

Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?

Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.

Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kentucky Primary

Published

on

Kentucky is the state that gave us Rand Paul. He is the biggest highlight, however he is not alone like Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Thomas Massie is also a strong Conservative. This primary has a chance to unseat a major swamp creature. Aside from this one race, there wasn’t much action to be had. Mitch McConnell shows that Kentucky does not have a rich history in holding bad politicians accountable. So if there are any Conservative victories in Kentucky, they should be celebrated vocally.

Best Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Worst Picks: Harold Rogers, Chuck Eddy, Andy Barr
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 6

District 1

James Comer is more fiscally responsible than most RINOs, but he still voted for Omnibus. He is unopposed.

District 2

Bill Gutherie is an unopposed RINO.

District 3

Three Republicans look to win Louisville. The first is Vicky Glisson. She is running a limited issues campaign focused on drugs, healthcare, and a hint of fiscal responsibility. Next is Rhonda Palazzo, the most upfront Conservative in the race. She is a real estate agent and devout Christian. Her stance is overly simplistic, to a fault. Lastly is Mike Craven. His platform is also too simplistic. This race is a three way crapshoot in terms of determining the best candidate.

Conservative Pick: Rhonda Palazzo

District 4

Since 2012, Thomas Massie has been a solid Conservative. He is unopposed.

District 5

Harold Rogers is a decades experienced swamp creature, 33 years in the making. Gerardo Serrano is his challenger. Serrano has Rand Paul potential in both foreign and domestic policy, such as FISA. His website features a unique story of him and a county sheriff, where he held a sheriff accountable when the 2nd amendment was in danger. (The sheriff wasn’t a villain in the story).

I especially like his twitter handle. Geraldo Serrano is a strong candidate, and we desperately as a nation need to unseat swamp monsters such as Harold Rogers.

Conservative Pick: Geraldo Serrano

District 6

Andy Barr is another RINO with a horrendous spending record. He is being challenged by Chuck Eddy. This was a huge disappointment.

I don’t believe he realizes how much a massive walking contradiction he is.

Conservative Pick: None, Barr will undoubtedly win

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Georgia Primary

Published

on

Georgia is another state in the deep South that does very little to advance Conservatism in the country. Conservative Picks has thus far shown that the South is not as Conservative as stereotyped. Arkansas sends a bunch of RINOs and so too does Georgia. However, what is remarkable about Georgia is that none of the Republicans except for the awful Senator Iksakson are career politicians. He’s the only one exceeding 12 years other than Democrats, of which, he might as well be. Still, that is something to say about Georgia. The state has a lot of newer faces and most are sycophantic to Trump’s reckless spending agenda. Georgia has some strong Conservatives running to unseat incumbents. The Governor’s race was an additional focus of the Georgia addition because of previous coverage of the candidates involved.

Best Picks: Jody Hice, Shane Hazel, Philip Singelton, Hunter Hill
Worst Picks: Drew Ferguson, Rob Woodall, Rick Allen
Best Race: District 10
Worst Race: District 12

Governor

In the past NOQ Report has interviewed Hunter Hill. He is a strong candidate, with a goal to eliminate the income tax of the state, after fixing the budget. While Casey Cagle, the Lt. Governor is a favorite, forcing a runoff election is best for Conservatism in the state.

Conservative Pick: Hunter Hill

District 1

Earl “Buddy” Carter has been in the seat for three years and has proven to be a RINO with a Liberty Score of 48. He is unopposed.

District 2

This is a blue district. Herman West Jr. is unopposed in this primary.

District 3

After one year in office, Drew Ferguson has proven to be sycophantic to Trump’s reckless spending. The incumbent RINO has shown itself. However, he is being challenged by Philip Singleton. Singleton is campaigning on the exact shortcomings of Ferguson previously described. Fiscal responsibility is a pillar of his campaign as is not funding Planned Parenthood, something the incumbent has failed miserably at. The decorated veteran is also strong on immigration and for free trade.

Conservative Pick: Philip Singleton

District 4

This is another blue district and Joe Profit is unopposed.

District 5

There is no GOP contender.

District 6

Karen Handel is cut from the same cloth as Ferguson. She is unopposed.

District 7

Rob Woodall is yet another RINO. Challenging him is Shane HazelNOQ Report has actually been covering this primary for a while now. You can read his interview with editor Benjamin Wilhelm. Hazel is a strong Conservative and picked up a key endorsement from the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Conservative Pick: Shane Hazel

District 8

Adam Scott is another sycophantic RINO. He is unopposed.

District 9

Doug Collins has been in the game for seven years and is mediocre at best. He’s a spender. He is unopposed.

District 10

Jody Hice is a Freedom Caucus member and has only held the seat since 2014. His Liberty Score of 91 is the highest in Georgia. He has two opponents looking to force him into the runoff election. Bradley Griffin is the first opponent. He has one of the worst websites I’ve seen, functionally speaking. His platform is strong. In fact, it doesn’t seem as though he opposes Hice on any issue. The second opponent is Joe Hunt. The probably RINO warning is sounded at his campaign motto “Traditional Values and Sensible Politics.” It’s far too easy to find a social conservative but a real Conservative is more difficult. All signs point to Hunt running from the left such as his support for Net Neutrality.

Hice and Griffin are strong Conservatives, but Griffin lacks a record of action, of which Jody Hice is exceptionally strong. Because of that, voting for him is too great a risk. It would have been ideal for Griffin to have been in another District.

Conservative Pick: Jody Hice

District 11

Barry Loudermilk is like milk. He will only get worse over time. (This pun was unplanned.) He is unopposed.

District 12

Omnibus was one of a few times where Rick Allen remained fiscally Conservative. Eugene Yu looks to unseat him for the third time. Unsurprisingly, as a legal immigrant, his stance is strong. He also running as a fiscal hawk. We’ve seen this plenty of times before, but he doesn’t have any contradicting campaign talk on these matters. Rick Allen may have voted against Omnibus, but his record isn’t strong enough.

Conservative Pick: Eugene Yu

District 13

There is a race to turn the district red between Femi Akinkugbe and David Callahan. This was relatively easy to decide. Akinkugbe is for raising gun rights from 18 to 21. Callahan is a much stronger pick, having been involved with CPAC and a stronger stance on other issues. Interestingly enough, neither voted for Trump in the primaries. Akinkugbe voted for Rubio and Callahan for Fiorina. Either way, Akinkugbe isn’t a Conservative.

 Conservative Pick: David Callahan

District 14

Tom Graves is an incumbent RINO. He is unopposed.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.