On Northwest Liberty News

On Northwest Liberty News Talking Anti-Women Judges

Find the links below.

1)  https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/28/trump-nominated-judge-allegations-anti-woman/ 

2) https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/03/chicago-police-courts-dcfs-warnings-son-dead/

3) https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/06/judge-illinois-family-services-children-danger/

4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCulTBdqHQ&t=318s

5) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2019/07/reitman-claims-court-bias-against.html

6) https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/23/police-raids-custody-orders-reunification-camps/ 

On We Hold These Truths

On Steel Truth Talking Diegel Case, Rucki, and More

Find the article on Melissa Diegel here.

Missouri Invalidates Health Care Mandate

Yet another state sent Obamacare a message.

Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law.

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The legalities of all this are murky. The politics couldn't be clearer. The administration is on a collision course with dozens of states on this mandate and it will end up in the Supreme Court. It will pit individual states against the federal government. While this is happening, the Obama administration is on a separate collision course with Arizona and other states vis a vis illegal immigration.

The Ghettoization of Obama

That's a term that Dick Morris used on the O'Reilly Factor last night. First, a recent Bloomberg survey has found that Obama and the Democrats are on the losing end of nearly every issue.

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.
Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.
“They don’t see any solutions in sight,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “They have been hammered by the economy and there is a disconnect between the lives Americans are living and Washington. They seem to have lost hope.”

There are all sorts of theories as to why the Obama administration is so forcefully attacking Arizona over its anti immigration law, not prosecuting the New Black Panthers, and why the NAACP has recently called the Tea Parties a racist organization.
One theory is that all of this is part of a strategy of energizing minorities. With the country headed in the wrong direction, and the people generally unhappy, the administration may be looking to gin up racial tensions for the cynical notion of energizing their base. Now, that's only the theory but the perception is that the "post racial" President is now deep in the middle of race.
Not 24 hours before the NAACP censured the Tea Parties as racists, Michelle Obama spoke in front of the group.




Now, Michelle Obama's speech was about child obesity and had nothing to do with the Tea Parties, but the optics couldn't be worse.

Michelle Obama’s participation as keynote speaker could prove toxic to the Democrats in the run-up to the November elections—even though she confined her remarks to obesity and the like, and steered clear of references to the Tea Party. Many in America already believe that she is a black militant in mufti, and her headlining of a gathering which cast the Tea Party as racist will have been noted by a good many ordinary, non-radical, middle-of-the-road Americans—not to mention Tea Party activists, who will be sure (and who can blame them?) to put together little YouTube packages from the NAACP shindig, cutting from Michelle O to Ben Jealous, the NAACP president who was the resolution’s prime mover.

As if the optics of naked racial tensions weren't bad enough, there's the Black Panthers case. The idea that these guys aren't being prosecuted despite there being video evidence is simply head scratching. No one has been able to explain it. What it has done is put these guys in the spotlight and we've learned that the New Black Panthers traffic in racism.



Finally, there's the Obama administration's full frontal assault on the Arizona law. How else can you explain the administration going against public opinion, against any logical policy sense, but that this is a naked play to gin up the Hispanics? It's all part of the Ghettoization of Obama.

JUstice Department Responds Vis a Vis Sanctuary Cities

When the Justice Department first brought a suit against Arizona over its new anti illegal immigration law, Governor Jan Brewer said this.

The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

This became a common criticism of the suit. If the government believes that immigration is strictly a federal issue what are we to make of so called sanctuary cities, like Chicago, that refuse to enforce federal law. In fact, sanctuary cities openly flaunt their refusal to follow federal immigration laws. On the other hand, Arizona passed a law that would help the federal government enforce its law.

The administration stalled in responding. Robert Gibbs was asked once during his normal daily White House briefing and he said he get back on it. Now, the Justice Department has issued this statement.

There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case.

That statement will be hyperanalyzed as it is totally without logic. In fact, it is sanctuary cities that actively interfere with federal law. Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes. On another note, fifteen states lead by Michigan have joined in the suit in support of Arizona against the feds.

Brewer V Obama

Talk about a visual. The sign says "Travel not recommended". That's the border that the Obama administration says it's done more than any administration to secure. It's so secure that parts are a literal war zone.

Yet, the president is determined to sue Arizona because that state dares to take on illegal immigration head on. This is a loser politically, electorally, and on a policy level. Governor Brewer has become the face of tough immigration enforcement and she challenges every half measure that the Obama administration makes as simply not good enough.

The Texas and Arizona governors criticized the Obama administration's border security plans Monday, saying not enough National Guard troops are being deployed to their states.

"What we heard wasn't anything what we hoped to hear," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told reporters after a 90-minute briefing by federal officials sent by President Obama.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican like Brewer, said the deployment to his state was "insufficient to meet the needs of securing the Texas-Mexico border."

There's no politicking that will relieve Obama here. Until and unless Obama takes definitive steps to secure the border Jan Brewer will be there to point out just how badly the federal government is failing at it.

That will also keep this issue on the front pages. This might be the biggest loser for Obama of all his policy losers. He loses by at least 60-40 in all polling. He loses because he's wrong. Texas, California, and Arizona are under seige and the president is trying to figure out how to use this as an opportunity to legalize millions of illegals. That's the narrative and the more he confronts Brewer the more that's crystallized.

The Worst Week of the President's Term?

How many times have you heard a pundit make that proclamation about the president in the last year? I can think of at least five times in the last year when someone has made that proclamation. That doesn't say much for the president, but I also expect someone to make that proclamation again.

The nuclear bomb, pardon the pun, left by General McChrystal today has left the president with few options. If he doesn't fire McChrystal, he looks weak. Meanwhile, if he does, Afghanistan goes into even greater chaos. No matter what he does, McChrystal's words have left the impression that the Obama administration is in complete chaos.

Then, today a U.S. District judge ruled that the Obama administration's six month moratorium is illegal.

In a victory for drilling proponents, a federal judge struck down President Obama's six-month moratorium on

deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday, saying the administration rashly concluded that because one rig failed, the others are in immediate danger, too.

The White House promised an immediate appeal. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president believes strongly that drilling at such depths does not make sense and puts the safety of workers "at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."

The Interior Department had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling of 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

The policy is already unpopular and now a judge has ruled it illegal. Just think about that. General McChrystal claims that Obama knows nothing about war policy and a judge says he knows about as much about the law.

The announcement by the administration that they'll sue Arizona, which went over about as well as all their policies, was immediately followed by Jon Kyl's shocking accusation that Obama is holding the border hostage to comprehensive immigration reform which is about as popular as Obamacare.

This all happened this week. It's yet another bad week in what is quickly turning into a disastrous Presidency.

Representative Sanchez: Az Law Written by White Supremacists

That's not exactly what she said, but it's close.

A California congresswoman is pointing the finger at white supremacist groups, who she says have inspired Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., told a Democratic Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups are influencing lawmakers to adopt laws that will lead to discrimination.

"There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups," said the lawmaker, who is of Mexican descent. "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics."

Sanchez made this claim based on the theory of Andrea Nill of Think Progress. Meanwhile, Nill made her claim because an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) helped to write the bill and the Southern Poverty Law Center once labeled FAIR a hate group. Sanchez has since backed away from her comments and now claims that she was taken out of context.

This continues the trend, however, of the Arizona law being used as the centerpiece of a debate on culture rather than immigration. With such outlandish and provocative statements, there is blowback. This was no different. Here's how George Miller responded.

It's trying to find somebody somewhere you can accuse of something, It's red herring. (She's) trying to change the debate from what the law says.

Sanchez will likely take a hit for this but once again we're not talking about fixing our borders and instead getting into side issues.

Obama to Meet With Brewer

To be a fly on the wall...

President Obama intends to meet with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday, a White House official told FoxNews.com, after criticism mounted over reports the president wouldn't be able to meet her while she is in Washington this week.

Brewer had requested a face-to-face meeting with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor, as tensions rise between his administration and the Grand Canyon State over its controversial law clamping down on illegal immigrants.

Every time the president misspeaks and demonizes on this bill I wonder if someone will ever be in a position to challenge him. Now, Governor Brewer will be that person. No more can President Obama hide behind rhetoric and half truths on this bill.

The president has called it misguided, unconstitutional, and will lead to racial profiling. Now, he'll have to back up each and every piece of rhetoric.

Governor Brewer will be on Greta tonight. That seems to be the wrong day to have her on but I'm sure a full debrief will happen soon enough. This will be some meeting and all should watch.

AZ Lawmaker Appeals New Law to the UN

Arizona state Sen. Amanda Aguirre has appealed the new Arizona anti illegal immigration law to the United Nations?

Aguirre attributes her stands on immigration – a departure from how partisans in Washington tend to line up on the issue – to her “very interesting background.”

“I have a Mexican background,” she says, “I also have a great great father with a last name Hamilton who was here fighting against Mexico in the Mexican American war. I have a Hamilton blood and I have Mexican blood, too.”

Her take on the border fence – tarred as unwelcoming or even racist by many Democrats – may underscore the severity of the immigration crisis for states like Arizona, given the rampant drug war murders south of the state’s borders.

Ironically enough, the committee this would be referred to, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, include such stalwarts on human rights as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Furthermore, in order for the commission to issue a challenge there needs to be a specific case in which someone's human rights have been violated. Since the law hasn't taken effect, that's impossible.

Discriminatory Authority: The Arizona Immigration Law and Financial Reform

President Obama has recently attempted to thread the needle in his criticism of the Arizona anti illegal immigration law. Now, he says it has the potential for discrimination and abuse.

I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

At the same time, Obama is pushing financial reform and in that reform is the ability for the federal government to take over any financial institution that they deem on the verge of failure and a "systemic risk".

Under the new law, the government would be able seize the wobbly firm, fire its executives, and fund its operations until it could sell them off in pieces. The proceeds from these sales would pay the government back; whatever was left would go to bondholders, who would presumably suffer some losses. The shareholders—the people who own common stock—would get wiped out entirely. (If the proceeds weren’t enough to repay the government, it would recoup the rest by levying a fee on the industry.) This is basically a scaled up (and stretched out) version of the way the FDIC handles smaller-bank failures.

First, every law has the potential for abuse and discrimination. Second, the standard "reasonable suspicion" has been part of case law for years. Meanwhile, systemic risk is a relatively new concept and it will be applied entirely by the federal government. So, isn't this law open to just as much abuse and discrimination as the Arizona law?

After all, what's to stop the Obama administration from liquidating a financial firm simply because that firm contributed to Republicans? There's little since "systemic risk" is a vague term to be applied by the Treasury Department. Here's how Dick Morris described the potential for abuse.

The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury — a political appointee — to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency.

This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive. It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

Yet, Obama has used every opportunity possible to sound the alarm about the potential abuse of the Arizona law. Meanwhile, not once has Obama even considered the possibility that the sweeping financial reform bill will lead to the same kind of abuse.

Highland Park Administration Runs Scared

As the whole world knows by now, Highland Park High School in suburban Chicago canceled an appearance in a basketball tournament in Arizona this coming winter. This set off a firestorm but the administration, mostly Suzan Hebron who made the decision, have been unwilling to explain themselves. The decision was going to be part of a school board meeting at Deerfield High School, the school in the town next door, at which this trip cancellation would be discussed. That has since been removed from the agenda.

Big crowds were expected at a North Shore school board meeting Monday over a proposal to replace grass football fields with artificial turf at Highland Park High School. But that was before former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin weighed in over the latest district controversy.

The district gained national notoriety last week for not allowing the high school's girls basketball team to play in an Arizona tournament.

Township High School District 113 officials cited student safety concerns because of Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration, initially stating the trip "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values."

Monday's school board meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Deerfield High School auditorium. A school official said the meeting had been scheduled for weeks at the auditorium because of the turf issue.

The basketball team controversy will not be on the board agenda, Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent, confirmed.

The school has said that the team will play in a tournament in Florida instead though details haven't been set yet. The administration has a duty to explain themselves and every day they don't the story grows bigger.

First Health Care Now Immigration?

Does anyone remember when the public trusted Democrats over Republicans overwhelmingly on health care? It's true. Go back to 2000-2008 and you'll find a near two to one polling number on which party was favored on health care.

Then, we had a substantive health care debate and those numbers are just about mirror images. The public inherently believed that the president was promising everything to every body and he was promising everyone that no one would have to pay for it. The public believed this was simply impossible.

We are in the beginning stages of a national debate that will likely be as consuming on illegal immigration as the one we had on health care. This happened once before. That was in the summer of 2007. Then, the Republicans didn't just lose but were slaughtered. They came off as weak and wobbly to their base and racist to Hispanics. It played a not so insignificant role in their upcoming losses.

Republicans still seem like racists to Hispanics but things are turning around with their base. Take a look at this advertisement by John McCain.





















I have some electoral advice for President Obama. If he wants to improve his job approval by five points minimum, he needs to hold a simple five minute speech. In that speech, he needs to announce that he's calling up fifty thousand national guard troops to back up the border patrol on the Southern border and their initial task would be to fast track the building of the fence passed in 2007. That would immediately improve his standing.

Of course, that's not the tack that Obama is taking. Instead, he's criticizing the Arizona law as misguided, unconstitutional, and a violation of basic civil rights. Unless President Obama takes tangible steps to secure the border, that tack will cause the Democratic party to lose their advantage on immigration like they already lost it on health care.

Everyone from President Obama, the Los Angeles City Council, to an Assistant Superintendent in Highland Park, Il. have given the liberal perspective in illegal immigration. That perspective has been routinely rejected by polling in Arizona and nationwide. Every time this inconvenient fact is pointed out, liberals compare their stance to Jim Crow laws, Nazism, and even slavery. Thus, they've compared the majority of Americans to those that supported those acts.

Now, if John McCain can go from teaming up with Ted Kennedy on immigration to going way right, that's where the party is going as well. It's very simple. Back building the fence asap, putting the guard behind the border patrol, a national id card for immigrants, and serious sanctions against employers that hire illegals, and you win this issue. That's where Republicans are going and Democrats are calling them racists as they get there. As such, illegal immigration will flip to Republicans much like health care already has.

Demonization and the Arizona Immigration Bill

Here's one thing I am absolutely certain of regarding the new Arizona anti illegal immigration bill. No one's civil rights have been violated yet. I know this because the law doesn't go into effect until August and so it would be impossible.

That's an important statement of fact because opponents of the bill are certain that this bill will trample on civil liberties. Furthermore, when pressed to back up these assertions, they make claims that aren't in the law. For instance, they claim police officers will be able to stop anyone of Hispanic descent and "ask for their papers". Of course, the law only allows for police to ask for identification during the course of another stop for another violation of the law. It's also alleged that this allows racial profiling. In fact, the law specifically prohibits racial profiling.

In fact, this law does nothing that federal laws don't already do. I know this because the authors of the law were careful not to violate the "Supremacy clause". That's the portion of the constitution that states that any federal statute overrides a state statute and thus makes said state statute unconstitutional. So, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional, then what does that make federal law?

In fact, opponents have gone so far as to suggest that this will give Arizona police license to abuse the law. Of course, not only is that a totally uncalled for indictment of the police in Arizona, but wouldn't any law be open to abuse by those that are corrupt.

The one thing that this law has done is opened up a much needed debate on illegal immigration. On the other hand, there has been so much demonization of the law and its supporters that the debate has been entirely rudimentary. We aren't debating the best way to seal the border, stop companies from hiring illegals and what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. Instead, one side accuses the other of being racist. The other responds in kind and the debate is about culture and not illegal immigration.

Get Ready for the Immigration Debate

The new Arizona immigration bill is likely to be the first serving for a much larger national debate on immigration. Already, the first casualty is likely to be the climate change bill.

Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in a sharply worded letter on Saturday that he would no longer participate in negotiations on the energy bill, throwing its already cloudy prospects deeper into doubt. He had been working for months with Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, on the a legislation, which they were scheduled to announce with considerable fanfare on Monday morning. That announcement has been indefinitely postponed.

In his letter to his two colleagues, Mr. Graham said that he was troubled by reports that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up an immigration measure before the energy bill. Mr. Graham has worked with Democrats in the past on immigration matters and was expected to be an important bridge to Republicans on that issue, as well as on energy.

Mr. Graham said that any Senate debate on the highly charged subject of illegal immigration would make it impossible to deal with the difficult issues involved in national energy and global warming policy.

The new Arizona bill has laid down the markers for a national debate not seen since health care reform. On one side are those that believe that most tough immigration techniques are inherently racist and violate civil rights.

It is nothing short of astonishing that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Friday signed a bill that could make it dangerous just to look Hispanic. That's not the purpose of the new law, of course. As The Post reported, the law "requires authorities in Arizona to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally." The Arizona Republic notes that it "would require anyone whom police suspect of being in the country illegally to produce "an alien registration document,' such as a green card or other proof of citizenship, such as a passport or Arizona driver's license."

On the other side, it is those that are fed up with a situation that is out of control.

Mr. President, are you listening? Secretary Napolitano, remember us?

If you or your predecessors had done something to close the nation's back door, we wouldn't be in this fix, where U.S. citizens are left to wonder whether they'll be asked for their papers simply because of the color of their skin. Where our ranchers live in a war zone and our largest city is the kidnapping capital of the planet.

Where everybody is now dug in to whichever foxhole they've chosen in this fight – alien invader or noble immigrant -- with little room for middle ground or rational discussion.

The Democrats see an opportunity. That's why Harry Reid has shuffled his schedule and moved up immigration reform. They see an opportunity to cement the perception that Republicans are racists and anti Hispanic. Of course, the Democrats also thought that health care reform would be a good political move as well once.

The latest Rasmussen polls show that both in Arizona and in the U.S. at large this law is overwhelmingly favored. That should surprise no one. The border is out of control and most Americans, Hispanics included, think something drastic must be done. The problem for Republicans the last time this debate occurred was that they wound up backing a bill that wasn't tough enough. So, not only did they not appease their own base but their opponents painted them as racists anyway.

Any party that proposes tough immigration measures: putting the national guard behind the border patrol, building a fence that spans the entire border, an ID card to identify all citizens, and tough penalties for hiring illegals, will win this debate. Most people want the border under control. That's the next national debate.

Arizona to Sign Tough New Anti Immigration Law

This law will set off all sorts of controversy.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday neared a deadline to act on the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigration.

The sweeping measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

A Saturday deadline for Brewer, a Republican, to act on the bill was set on Monday when the legislation arrived on her desk. She can sign, veto or allow it to become law without her signature.

This law will also make sanctuary cities illegal. On the other hand, it will almost certainly lead to at least charges of racial profiling. The bill is currently overwhelmingly approved by the citizens of the state overrun with illegal immigration.

The president just weighed in on the bill.

He denounced as "misguided'' efforts around the nation to crack down on illegal immigrants -- pointing to Arizona, where protests and counter-protests are mounting amid local crackdowns and new state legislation allowing police to check the documents of people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

"If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country,'' the president said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.''' Efforts there, he said, "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.''

The president may or may not take up immigration reform later on in 2010. If he does, the only way to make it work is to combine tough border security and enforcement with a path to citizenship. This is a window into what Obama thinks is tough border security.