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 : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (83296)	10/2/2016 4:46:59 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 124666

Michael Moore: 'People Don't Trust Democrats Anymore' ELECTIONS \| KAITLAN COLLINS

To: D. Long who wrote (83296)	10/2/2016 5:56:53 PM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 124666

A little information goes a long way. Liberals "think" with their feelings. They insist something is true because they feel it should be true. That reminded me of the Ronald Reagan speech, A Time for Choosing. A few snippets. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better. I think this sums up this election as well. Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses."than we can plan them ourselves. (Now we are the Deplorables - I think President Reagan would have chuckled at that , cocked ho head to the side and said, "There you go again!")

To: D. Long who wrote (83296)	10/3/2016 11:50:55 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By CF Rebel Respond to of 124666

*Breaking: Supreme Court denies Obama rehearing on US v Texas* immigration fight** POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON OCTOBER 3, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY hotair.com The White House lost on its fight over Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration when the Supreme Court had nine members, and it won’t get a second chance with the eight remaining. On its first day back in session, the high court denied a rehearing request in US et al v Texas et al, the biggest fight between Washington and the states on enforcement of immigration statutes (via SCOTUSblog): The Supreme Court refused Monday to reconsider President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s immigration system following a tie vote in June that blocked its implementation. The eight-member court’s order shut the door on a plan that already seemed all but dead a few months ago. The court declined to wait until a ninth justice is confirmed and seated in order to rehear the case — and possibly reverse its June decision. The high court seldom agrees to rehear cases a second time, but it has on occasion done so when a justice’s death or retirement leaves a vacancy that leads to a 4-4 tie. In those cases, the court merely leaves the decision of the lower court intact and sets no national precedent. Normally it takes four justices to agree on a certiorari request. If that’s the case with rehearing requests, then it appears that one or more of the justices who agreed with the Obama administration decided against a rehearing. The original 4-4 vote counted as a loss as it had the practical effect of upholding the 4th Circuit’s ruling that struck down the executive orders, although it carries no precedential weight otherwise. This decision leaves the loss in place, and also leaves Obama and his activism with no tools left to intrude on legislative jurisdiction.Had Obama worked in more good faith on this issue rather than leveraging it for cheap demagoguery, he might have found a compromise with Congress. For that matter, if Obama cared about this issue apart from cheap demagoguery, he would have prioritized immigration reform while his party controlled Congress, rather than backing a useless and expensive stimulus package and the disastrous ObamaCare legislation. He might have made himself and Democrats a lot more popular in midterm elections, too. This closes the books for Obama on immigration. He lost, mostly by forfeit.

To: D. Long who wrote (83296)	10/3/2016 1:14:08 PM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By CF Rebel Stan Tom Clarke Respond to of 124666

SCOTUS to WI prosecutors: John Doe probe is over and kaput POSTED AT 12:01 PM ON OCTOBER 3, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY hotair.com Thus ends one of the most abusive political witch hunts in decades. The Supreme Court shot down an attempt by Wisconsin prosecutors to revive its John Doe investigation into Governor Scott Walker and his aides, a years-long investigation marked by intimidation of witnesses and abuse of power by the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office. It upheld a previous state Supreme Court ruling ending the probe, and implicitly blessed a new law that prevents prosecutors from abusing their offices in the future: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand Wisconsin’s top court’s decision to halt a special prosecutor’s investigation into possible unlawful coordination between Republican Governor Scott Walker’s campaign and conservative advocacy groups. The justices declined a prosecution appeal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s July 2015 decision to end the probe into whether conservative groups and Walker’s campaign to survive a recall vote in 2012 had violated campaign finance laws. … A federal judge in May 2014 initially stopped the probe after the Wisconsin Club for Growth filed a lawsuit accusing investigators of sidelining the group from political activities and violating its rights to under the U.S. Constitution to free speech, association and equal protection under the law. A federal appeals court later said the investigation could continue. But in a parallel case in state court, Wisconsin’s high court ultimately stopped it. In October 2015, Walker signed a new state law that prohibits prosecutors from using the Wisconsin’s secret investigation statute, a measure that had been used to convict four of his aides and investigate his campaign, to probe political crimes. The Journal-Sentinel questions the timing: The order comes soon after documents were leaked that show the extent to which the Republican governor and his aides worked closely with a supposedly independent group on recall elections. The documents include details about large donations from those who benefitted from laws approved by Walker and GOP lawmakers. It’s worth recalling how the Wisconsin Supreme Court characterized the investigation and the claims of criminal activity. It castigated the prosectors for their “paramilitary-style home invasion,” accused them of fomenting a state of tyranny, and wrote that citizens of Wisconsin are fortunate that the prosecutors picked on people who could afford to fight back. The prosecution, the court stated, was “unsupported by reason or law”: To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation. … The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted). … Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation. Despite the Journal-Sentinel’s spin, the court specifically found the targets of the investigation “wholly innocent of wrongdoing.” Nor were the targets the only people who found their rights trampled by politically motivated prosecutors using arcane and unsupported legal theories about campaign-finance law. A later court action forced prosecutors to send 159 notices of secret surveillance this past January, conducted illegally by an improperly appointed “special prosecutor.” That was on top of the home invasions, property seizures, and explicit intimidation conducted on lawful citizens that characterized the entire John Doe probe. The Supreme Court has rightfully slammed the door on the masterminds of these tactics, more reminiscent of 20th-century dictatorships than of American self-government. These prosecutors will be lucky if they can continue to practice law — but they shouldn’t.