If you are concerned about illegal aliens, please read this article and you will see why then-senator Taqiyya the Liar attacked:
Janice Rogers Brown
Taqiyya the Liar first caught my attention back in 2005 when he objected to Janice Rogers Brown going to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown was finally confirmed after being stalled for two years by senate Democrats. Taqiyya voted against her confirmation. I posted my first message about the sewer rat before he became the Left’s messenger of hope. Since 2005 Taqiyya has managed to turn glib malarkey into superficial inspiration.
Then-Senator Taqiyya’s remarks on the Senate floor about Janice Rogers Brown before she was confirmed caught my attention. The Democrat party’s apprentice guru gushed the party line on the usual Socialist positions. The Left’s positions have been sliced and diced so many times by others more qualified than I there is no point in going over them again. Two of sewer rat’s critiques of Justice Brown are still worth examining.
As you’ll see in the excerpts, Taqiyya employed the technique of Mix & Match in his floor speech. In the first excerpts, I am only interested in separating his views on private property from his mix of social engineering and Justice Brown’s judicial view of property Rights. Here are excerpts about private property mixed in with the usual litany of Socialism’s window dressings:
Let me first deal with the Dred Scott decision. Where would American Communists be without it? To American Socialists/Communists Dred Scott is justification for abolishing all private property as Communism demands. Were Taqiyya intellectually honest he would have admitted that the on-going destruction of real property Rights should have ended after the Civil War ended.
I feel confident in saying that those who effectively overturned Dred Scott by freeing the slaves never intended to abolish all property Rights. Instead of the Dred Scott decision’s ultimate irrelevance conveying finality, Communists later seized upon that decision as a wedge they could use in bringing Communism to a free people. Socialists hellbent on abolishing private property never miss an opportunity to bring up Dred Scott. Taqiyya did not show any originality in trotting out that old chestnut.
More importantly, the sewer rat played the Left’s class envy card. He denounced corporations and private property. I took him to mean commercial property. The way he plays the envy card more than implies that he either doesn’t understand, or that he doesn’t recognize, the property Rights of tens of millions of homeowners. The Democrat party’s leaders do not recognize the real property Rights of homeowners. Taqiyya’s policies as president showed that he is a true believer on that score.
Taqiyya said that Justice Brown will use any tool in her arsenal on behalf of powerful property owners. He doesn’t say if Ms. Brown will also rule in favor of typical property owners —— homeowners. I can’t speak for Justice Brown. I expect that she holds everyone’s real property Rights in the same high esteem.
The second topic I want to address is classic Communist misdirection:
Taqiyya falsely claimed altruism on behalf of New Deal Socialists while distancing Communism from the Left’s self-proclaimed altruism. That’s one hell of a neat trick. I think he was annoyed by Justice Brown because she dared connect Communism to social engineering. Taqiyya does tentatively agree that Socialism and Communism are the same.
Leading Democrats have always called tax dollar altruism “leveling the playing field” whenever they took away a private sector Right, or transferred resources from one group to another. Either of the two takings most certainly inhibits the liberty of some —— usually the majority. The question is: Who does “our liberty” protect in Taqiyya’s sewer?
If nothing else confirms the Communist beliefs espoused by the Chicago sewer rat, you have only to compare Janice Rogers Brown to his Supreme Court appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. If a racist, and a lying political hack is not enough for, I challenge you to find just one person the sewer rat put in high office who holds this country higher than Communism’s worldwide agenda.
Finally, why is it that an average bumpkin like me saw what the sewer rat is long before he began tearing the country apart, yet media pundits never saw it? Media Communists are going full bore trying to shred Donald Trump, but they never said a bad word about the sewer rat when he first crawled out from under his rock. The favored treatment a community organizer got, and still gets, from the MSM proves everything I said in this thread:
Janice Rogers Brown
Judge blasts court rule forcing her to dismiss Arpaio case
Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/14/2015 @ 9:15 pm
Judge blasts court rule forcing her to dismiss Arpaio case
Posted By Bob Unruh On 08/14/2015 @ 9:15 pm
Judge blasts court rule forcing her to dismiss Arpaio case
Taqiyya the Liar first caught my attention back in 2005 when he objected to Janice Rogers Brown going to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown was finally confirmed after being stalled for two years by senate Democrats. Taqiyya voted against her confirmation. I posted my first message about the sewer rat before he became the Left’s messenger of hope. Since 2005 Taqiyya has managed to turn glib malarkey into superficial inspiration.
Then-Senator Taqiyya’s remarks on the Senate floor about Janice Rogers Brown before she was confirmed caught my attention. The Democrat party’s apprentice guru gushed the party line on the usual Socialist positions. The Left’s positions have been sliced and diced so many times by others more qualified than I there is no point in going over them again. Two of sewer rat’s critiques of Justice Brown are still worth examining.
As you’ll see in the excerpts, Taqiyya employed the technique of Mix & Match in his floor speech. In the first excerpts, I am only interested in separating his views on private property from his mix of social engineering and Justice Brown’s judicial view of property Rights. Here are excerpts about private property mixed in with the usual litany of Socialism’s window dressings:
So when it comes to laws protecting a woman's right to choose or a worker's right to organize, she will claim that the laws that the legislature passed should be interpreted narrowly. Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly.
If the claimant is powerful -- if they are a property owner, for example -- then she is willing to use any tool in her judicial arsenal to make sure the outcome is one they like. If it is a worker or a minority claiming discrimination, then she is nowhere to be found.
Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law.
In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.
It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
XXXXX
If the claimant is powerful -- if they are a property owner, for example -- then she is willing to use any tool in her judicial arsenal to make sure the outcome is one they like. If it is a worker or a minority claiming discrimination, then she is nowhere to be found.
XXXXX
Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law.
In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.
XXXXX
It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
Let me first deal with the Dred Scott decision. Where would American Communists be without it? To American Socialists/Communists Dred Scott is justification for abolishing all private property as Communism demands. Were Taqiyya intellectually honest he would have admitted that the on-going destruction of real property Rights should have ended after the Civil War ended.
I feel confident in saying that those who effectively overturned Dred Scott by freeing the slaves never intended to abolish all property Rights. Instead of the Dred Scott decision’s ultimate irrelevance conveying finality, Communists later seized upon that decision as a wedge they could use in bringing Communism to a free people. Socialists hellbent on abolishing private property never miss an opportunity to bring up Dred Scott. Taqiyya did not show any originality in trotting out that old chestnut.
More importantly, the sewer rat played the Left’s class envy card. He denounced corporations and private property. I took him to mean commercial property. The way he plays the envy card more than implies that he either doesn’t understand, or that he doesn’t recognize, the property Rights of tens of millions of homeowners. The Democrat party’s leaders do not recognize the real property Rights of homeowners. Taqiyya’s policies as president showed that he is a true believer on that score.
Taqiyya said that Justice Brown will use any tool in her arsenal on behalf of powerful property owners. He doesn’t say if Ms. Brown will also rule in favor of typical property owners —— homeowners. I can’t speak for Justice Brown. I expect that she holds everyone’s real property Rights in the same high esteem.
The second topic I want to address is classic Communist misdirection:
Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own "Socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
Taqiyya falsely claimed altruism on behalf of New Deal Socialists while distancing Communism from the Left’s self-proclaimed altruism. That’s one hell of a neat trick. I think he was annoyed by Justice Brown because she dared connect Communism to social engineering. Taqiyya does tentatively agree that Socialism and Communism are the same.
Leading Democrats have always called tax dollar altruism “leveling the playing field” whenever they took away a private sector Right, or transferred resources from one group to another. Either of the two takings most certainly inhibits the liberty of some —— usually the majority. The question is: Who does “our liberty” protect in Taqiyya’s sewer?
If nothing else confirms the Communist beliefs espoused by the Chicago sewer rat, you have only to compare Janice Rogers Brown to his Supreme Court appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. If a racist, and a lying political hack is not enough for, I challenge you to find just one person the sewer rat put in high office who holds this country higher than Communism’s worldwide agenda.
Finally, why is it that an average bumpkin like me saw what the sewer rat is long before he began tearing the country apart, yet media pundits never saw it? Media Communists are going full bore trying to shred Donald Trump, but they never said a bad word about the sewer rat when he first crawled out from under his rock. The favored treatment a community organizer got, and still gets, from the MSM proves everything I said in this thread:
