Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Republican Senate candidates Cotton, Brown and Land moving up by attacking amnesty


By Kevin “Coach” Collins

For many conservatives this election is an odd mixture of joy and foreboding.  On the one hand we are happy that the indications point to an end of the tyrannical reign of Harry Reid; but on the other we are faced with the prospect of more of the same old same old from Republicans.

While there are many issues to be weighed as we decide what to do on November 4th, few would argue that amnesty is not our top concern. If the Republicans join Barack Obama in granting amnesty to illegal aliens our country will collapse and eventually cease to be.

We know this and Republicans know this but many don’t seem to care. Nevertheless, we have to be mindful of the Senate’s confirmation powers and the likelihood of Supreme Court positions and other very important appointments being brought before a Reid controlled Senate in the near future. This presents the dilemma many conservatives are dealing with.

Those who agree that amnesty is the transcendent issue of this election and have been waiting for a way to get into this fight, without feeling like a sellout, have a few candidates to support.

Among the candidates amnesty concerned conservatives have to back in Senate elections are Tom Cotton in Arkansas, Scott Brown in New Hampshire and Terri Lynn Land in Michigan.

Brown, we know, is not a true conservative. Nevertheless, he has made up some twenty points on his Democrat opponent since mid-summer by attacking her on her support of amnesty. Tom Cotton has jumped to a lead in his race in Arkansas by doing the same.

We’ve heard about these races but we have not heard much about Terri Lynn Land’s campaign in Michigan. This was supposed to be a “laugher” for the Democrats who have owned the seat for a while. Land, however, is also a fierce opponent of amnesty and to the surprise of many on both sides she has pulled to within two points of her opponent 41/39.

Rasmussen is calling this a statistical tie; but given the problems Democrats are having across the country and the “late hour,” Land is moving in the right direction against a popular Democrat who is in the low 40s. With a huge undecided cohort in Michigan, Land certainly can win.

Donations to these candidates will be a blow against amnesty:







Learn the truth about Democrats.

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com



California’s teachers union hears the footsteps of workers’ freedom

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

The California Teachers Association (CTA) has quietly started to prepare its members for life after extortion.  It has put together a report titled “Not if, but when: Living in a world without Fair Share,” in which it acknowledges that the days of being able to extort teachers to bribe Democrats may be fast coming to an end. Automatic, compulsory union membership for teachers is being challenged in court and the thugs that run the state’s biggest teachers union can see the outcome will lead to an end of their cushy lives.

They have prepared a slideshow outlining the “terrible consequences” of their racket being curtailed. They warn the union will lose members, have to reduce staff (Oh no!) will lose the ability to influence pension and benefits decisions and see smaller chapters close down. They realize that teachers will flee their clutches the minute they are given the opportunity. When they see the plantation gate has been opened the stampede will be on as has happened elsewhere across the country when union slaves have been set free.  

The CTA is well aware that the recent Supreme Court case Harris V. Quinn has declared union shake-downs unconstitutional. In “Harris” the Court heard the case of Illinois forcing home care workers to pay their “fair share,” to the SEIU although they never had any intention of joining a union.  As the CTA see it, the union greed and overreach of the SEIU has provided the grounds for the “death knell for fair share.”    

CTA fears of extinction are well founded. When Republican Scott Walker broke the stranglehold of unions on state workers, union membership dropped dramatically, to a point where they are no longer political players in the state.  

The case that is currently being argued at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could be the end of the CTA’s power if it hits the Supreme Court. Given the mood of the Court toward union overreaches it could very well bring down the curtain on the CTA’s extortion scheme.  

Source:  http://freebeacon.com/issues/not-if-but-when/

The Left reveal their colossal fear of religion in the Hobby Lobby case

By Doug Book, editor

In spite of having mastered the frequently demanding practice of deceit, once in a while genuine motivation breaks through the left’s façade of compassion and caring. Though not widely recognized, it happened in the Hobby Lobby case decided by the Supreme Court on Monday.

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, Congress provided the option of going to court to anyone who sought religious based exemption from a federal law. In providing this statutory right to religious objectors, Congress wrote that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…”

Among other things, Hobby Lobby attorneys argued that imposing massive fines against their client for not providing “abortion drugs” to employees must obviously represent the sort of substantial burden addressed by Congress in the statute. The Supreme Court agreed.

Concerned that the substantial burden language in the RFRA might at least in part derail Barack Obama’s efforts to subordinate religious freedom to the commands of the state, a number of the Government’s amici—friends of the Court arguing on behalf of the government case—advised justices that there would be no “burden” if Hobby Lobby “…simply terminated health insurance for all of its employees.” That is, “…terminating health insurance and compensating employees with additional wages would be no burden.” Hobby Lobby would no longer face the threat–that is the BURDEN–of government fines for the company’s Christian refusal to supply abortion drugs to its employees.

The Court rejected this argument in its 5-4 finding for Hobby Lobby.

But hold on. Wasn’t the overarching purpose of ObamaCare to provide health insurance–affordable, quality health insurance that is—to the uninsured? Weren’t these the premier talking points of the left? So why are government amici suggesting that a closely held corporation   providing insurance coverage to some 15,000 employees suddenly deny those people coverage? Shouldn’t Obama’s forces congratulate employers of this sort?

Could there be a better example of the contempt in which the practice of religion—especially Christianity—is held by the far left? Contempt and fear that is. For the left believe it must be their exclusive right—the right of government–to teach people the difference between right and wrong; that is, teach and demand that the behavior mandated by those “teachings” be executed without question or refusal!

But the lessons provided by 2000 years of Christianity put a big hole in government’s dreams of being the owners and purveyors of absolute moral authority. The Hobby Lobby case made it clear that the left is far more interested in curtailing—preferably destroying—the practice of religious freedom than in making sure everyone has health insurance.

Once again the left allows the mask to slip, showing us who and what they are.





Affirmative Action takes another hit in Supreme Court

by Doug Book,  editor

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the nations Colleges and Universities must be prepared to demonstrate that all non-race based attempts to achieve student diversity have failed before the tightly controlled use of racial preference may even be considered.

And on April 22nd, in a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled in Schuette v BAMN that Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters which “…end[s] racial preferences in many aspects of state government,” including university admissions, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by denying any person the “equal protection of the law.”

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided that the practice of racial preference could continue in the admissions department at the University of Michigan. The rulings came in 2 cases which saw Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote.

It was the fact of these decisions permitting reverse discrimination which prompted the people of Michigan to end racial preference by passing Proposal 2.

Writing the lead opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the case did not so much involve the question of race as “…whether and in what manner voters…may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preference in governmental decisions.”

And it was in approving Proposal 2 that “…Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.”

During the 60′s and 70′s, the Court developed the “political process doctrine” which “allowed courts to act where a state’s action pose[d] a risk of causing specific injuries on account of race.” Whether on not discriminatory intent was involved in a state policy, the court had given itself absolute authority, not to make certain that legislation was race neutral, but that it literally favored the interests and agenda of minorities. It was reverse racism, not simply permitted but mandated by the court.

Today, however, a Supreme Court far more likely to ground its decisions in the Constitution has ruled that affirmative action preferences are unconstitutional if used, among other things, to “promote racial balancing,” compensatory justice,” or redress “statistical inequalities. As Justice Scalia noted in Schuette, “…if any policy was deliberately designed to benefit minorities, we would hold the policy unconstitutional.”

At last, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause has become just that. And it has once again become the right of American citizens to determine the manner in which racial preference and other controversial issues will be resolved.”






The Kelo Decision and Barack Obama’s BLM land grabs

by Kevin “Coach” Collins

What stops the federal government from merely deeding private lands to foreign governments “because we can?” Actually nothing stops the government from doing anything, certainly not the Kelo Decision.

Without a doubt the Supreme Court’s Kelo Decision is one of the most potentially destructive weapons a tyrant like Barack Obama has at his disposal. 

We’ve heard that Dirty Harry Reid, Nevada’s real life Senator Geary, was possibly preparing to steal some of the Bundy ranch land to give it to a Chinese company to run another fake “green scam.”

This begs the question: Why couldn’t the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) merely re-deed the land in question and cite the Kelo Decision as its legal grounds?

The Kelo Decision was a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the honest use of the eminent domain doctrine, which had previously allowed confiscation of private land only for purposes of direct government use, and allowed for such confiscations to be used to transfer ownership of land from one private citizen to another. The 5 to 4 vote saw Justice Anthony Kennedy join the majority and help shred the Constitution.

Now nine years later the lawless Barack Obama stands in a position to use Kelo as a way to act like he is our Sovereign and arbitrarily strip Cliven Bundy or anyone else of property he wants to use in his next scheme.   

The Bundy ranch showdown is not over. The fight might move to Texas or another Western State, but the issue remains essentially the same. Both the government and private land owners have to ask themselves whether Kelo can be used as a way for Barack Obama to declare victory and move on. If he does he can get all those nasty videos to stop and use a show trial to crush the Tenth Amendment and the security of private land ownership forever.

After Kelo what does your name on a deed mean besides the fact that you get to pay taxes on the land until the government decides to steal it and give it to a crony?  This has never been so true as it is today.