Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Supremes Silence Whistle-Blowers

While Kennedy Sings Immigration Praises

The Bush-packed Supreme Court has painted a bulls-eye on the backs of brave, patriotic, citizen-protecting governmental "whistle blowers."

"The Supreme Court yesterday bolstered the government's power to discipline public employees who make charges of official misconduct, ruling that the First Amendment does not protect those who blow the whistle in the course of their official duties."

The vote was 5 to 4.... those ruling against the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech: Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

That vote should end the speculation on whether or not the new justices, Roberts and Alito, are upholders of the law, or groveling Bush administration toadies.

And....the Senate-passed Bush-mandated "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation will at the very least double legal immigration in the next twenty years from 20 million to 40 million.... and that's not counting the many tens of millions of illegal-alien lawbreakers receiving amnesty.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) loudly lauds the legislation, yet a recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows that only 17 percent of U.S. citizens want an increase in immigration levels.

Kennedy's brother, our martyred president John, made it clear to the voting public that he did not receive his political marching orders from the Vatican... that principled stance is being sullied by Teddy's rush to promote amnesty for the largely Catholic illegal alien invaders from south of the border, encouraged and abetted by the tax-exempt church.

The real impact of this immigration legislation isn't being told by the media..... because: "People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted."

What is stupid is giving our country and Constitutional protections away without a whimper.

In November hear our roar!

2 comments:

Hal said...

Gosh, you sound like me. I think of myself as a liberal, a progressive, but other liberals I know think of me as a conservative because I am opposed to much of the proposed new immigration "reform". There are two issues in particular that I don't think are getting enough consideration: employer penalties and citizenship by birth location. It seems to me that we could solve the ILLEGAL immigration problem overnight if we started levying huge penalties against employers of illegal immigrants (but we need to give the employers the tools they require to accurately identify who is legal and who is not; policing should not be their job). In conjunction with that we need to begin denying citizenship to babies born on US soil unless at least one of their biological parents is also a citizen. But it is amazing to me that there seem to be many people who consider these two proposals to be unfair. Sign me: caught between liberal land and conservative country.

Truth Hunter said...

Hal, Welcome to the new "no man's land" of former yellow-dog Dems.

I am FOR immigrants, but also for upholding the law and not giving away the store.

You are so right about starting with the employers, no gain for them, problem partly solved.

And, citizenship for anchor babies, not unless mom or dad are. You're right again.

Should be easy fixes, shouldn't they. And logical.

But let's face it, there's a bigger agenda here. And our "liberal" instincts are doing us in.

We are being led down the PC path by Trojan-horse Pied Pipers.

If you find a party or candidate to support, let me know.