Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (131628)	4/4/2012 8:33:50 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Is Justice Sotomayor a White Hispanic? Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook One of the many controversies coming out of the horrible mainstream media coverage of the Trayvon Martin tragedy is the invention of a new term, The White Hispanic to describe the shooter, George Zimmerman. The media invented the term as a way to point out...well I don't really know what they are trying to point out. It can't be because only one of his parents is Hispanic, if that was the case they would be calling Barack Obama the first White Black President. Maybe they are trying to indicate that Zimmerman does not deserve the right for his claim of self defense to be confirmed or disproved, he is only a White Hispanic therefore he must be an oppressor. In a special report from Newsbusted anchor Jodi Miller we learn that if Sotomayor votes against Obamacare the media will begin to call her a White Hispanic. Additionally if Ginsberg, Breyer or Kagan votes against the President's signature bill they will be labeled "Jewish One-Percenters" Along with that story other news items covered in the latest installment of Newsbusted the twice-weekly faux news feature from Newsbusters.org, include how the Obama-supported green companies celebrated earth hour, why house Democrats are being labeled as racist, Spike Lee's latest tweet inciting violence, and much, much, more. This episode of Newsbusted is the the funniest two and a half minutes seen President Obama described Obamacare as being passed by a wide margin. This episode of Newsbusted is extremely important. In fact if you don't watch it your children will be forced to use Joe Biden as their SAT tutor, and you don't want that to happen. So avoid hurting your kids and watch the video below--and if you cannot see video below click here

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (131628)	4/4/2012 12:23:07 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 132070

Obama's lying, again Thomas Sowell sets BHO straight on history of Supreme Court decisions by Thomas Sowell Wednesday, April 04, 2012 wnd.com One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold Obamacare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional. He replied: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years! Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history – Marbury v. Madison in 1803 – Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution. They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents. In short, he is simply lying. Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying presidents of the United States, I prefer they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying. But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are. He is also counting on something else – namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies. One of the many ways of lying smoothly is simply to redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well. In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind “conservative commentators” that they have complained about “judicial activism” – which he redefines as the idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” First of all, every law the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was “a duly constituted and passed law.” Second, the “judicial activism” conservatives have complained about was judges making rulings based on how they felt personally about the issue at hand, rather than about what the Constitution of the United States said. In recent years, great efforts have been made to redefine “judicial activism” in terms of judges declaring laws unconstitutional, instead of “deferring” to Congress or other government institutions. But what is the Constitution’s Bill of Rights supposed to protect the ordinary citizen from? Government institutions! If judges are to defer to the very institutions the Bill of Rights tries to protect the citizen from, what is the point of having a Bill of Rights? As for Supreme Court justices being unelected, that has been true since the Constitution was created. That was done deliberately, so that they could render their judgments without fear of political repercussions. If unelected Supreme Court justices are to automatically defer to elected officials, that again raises the question of why they are there at all. Why are the taxpayers paying their salaries and housing them in an expensive marble building – just so that they can go along to get along? It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama’s lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.