TRUMP & da-Judge

(OR: Liberals appoint political activists.)

Rooster wants to discuss Judge Gonzalo Curiel and Donald Trump.  You know Trump is taking a lot of heat from many corners about his calling Judge Curiel a Mexican.  First, we know he meant to say that Curiel was a bias judge in favor of liberal causes especially in favor of Mexicans and against gringos like Trump.   That is what he should have said.  Just saying Mexican implies that the Judge is a citizen of Mexico and that was clearly not what he meant.

After 54 years of being in the legal profession, in many capacities, Rooster has some ability to make intelligent decisions about its goings on.  Rooster has always been a Constitutionalist which means he is labeled a conservative.  Liberals are not so aligned.  During his many years before the legal Bar he has observed the difference between conservative and liberal appointees.  The general rule is that liberals appoint political activists.  Conservatives appoint some political activists, but mostly Judges who are deeply committed to supporting the concept of the law, which includes the Constitution.  That is a fact of life.   

Judge Curiel, educated in Indiana, went into private practice for 10 years.  After that extensive time on his own he took up Governmental employment.  This is a first indicator of his political bent.  The private sector was not his love.  Public employment is so much easier for the liberal.  In time he was appointed to the U.S. District Court by very left leaning President Obama.  Another strong indicator of his true beliefs.  Not once has Obama appointed a conservative.  Most have always obtained Obamas favor when they have a history of political activism.  Another strong indication.  While he was in Southern California Curiel either joined or assisted the Hispanic National Bar Association, La Raza (The Race) lawyers, Latino Judge Association, and the National Hispanic Prosecutors Association.   More than just being liberal, he clearly shows that he separated himself from the normal, and accepted the Mexican heritage as being different.  This is not blending in.  This is stranding out and standing out for a fight of Mexican heritage vs everybody else.  In his defense he was appointed by Gov. Swartznegger.  Although this actor was a GOP in name only.  He surrounded himself with liberals, and most of his appointees were that as well.

Looking at the case you need to understand, Trump had nothing to do with its beginning. Now Trump University was not headquartered in California, yet the plaintiff sued in California, and received from Judge Curiel the right to make the case a Class Action. This is not easy.   Way too often a class action is not brought for the issue, but brought as a sledgehammer to extort something from the Defendant.  Finally Trump University, a separate Corporation, is put on the defensive.  Now Trump is a candidate and makes statements against illegal Mexican invaders.  The University lawyers try to force the cases issue to the service, by a variety of internal motions, and the Judge blocks their efforts.  The accumulated evidence, both for and against the University, is probably more neutral than negative, but someone tells the Washington Post (a very liberal paper) to make a motion to have it all released.  To do so is very unusual during a pending case, because a good judges will not want to prejudice the case with uncontrolled publications.  Curiel sees no problem and does release all the evidence of the pending case.  The lawyers who brought the case have a long track record of working for the Clintons.  

All in all this is so typical of liberal Judges.  They refuse to follow the rules of conduct and they refuse to just be a good fair judge protective of the cases before them and protective of the litigant’s rights.  They want to make a statement.

Trump walked into this one thinking the ground rules were on a level playing field and they were and are not.  He then attacked and misstated his real complaint.  It is not Mexicans, it is  liberal common sense deficient people. In this case it just happened to be both.   PROTEST: Fly the Betsy Ross flag. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.  Wc: 679: Rooster Bradford gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use.  May 2016


(OR: The master salesman’s magical tongue in cheek.)
It is just marvelous to watch Trump manipulate the manipulative media. What is more interesting is to watch the other candidates just sit there dumbfounded. What he simply said was that “we” had to stop immigration of Muslims until “we” figure out how to cope with their hatred of us. Wow, of wows, everyone screams that he is in violation of the 1st Amendment. Wrong. He is not. Very clever how he slips in between the issue.
The first Amendment says;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… “
What Trump said is “We” which includes Congress. If they do not act then what he says goes no place. Also only the last part of the Amendment is applicable to this debate. That is, is he advocating stopping the free exercise thereof? No, he is talking about immigration thereof. That’s one part. Our country has always barred or otherwise stopped undesirables. If you carry a contagious disease you stay out. Hatred of us can qualify as being undesirable, and is worthy of being considered a contagious disease. He really never got close to the issue of religious persecution.
Moreover, even if we all agreed he was talking about persecution of “Religion”, the definition of that word is most important. It is unthinkable that the founders included in the word “Religion” a belief system which is anti- constitution, anti- President, anti- free enterprise, anti- congress, anti- freedom of speech, anti- jazz, anti-other religions, anti- anti. Islam is all these things. In fact it can be well argued that the Constitutional word “Religion” does not apply to Islam at all, because Islam is a Religament. A Religament is a combination of religion and government.
Most importantly, Islam is exactly what the first part of the 1st Amendment says we cannot have, that is the establishment of a government run religion. Islam’s Allah demands the destruction of all non- believers and the establishment of a governmental religion. In my new book, which will be out in a couple of weeks, I discuss how the Quran, declared war, a long time ago, on all other belief systems, religious or secular. This means they want to destroy all ways of life that are not Islam, and establish their own Sharia law. This is exactly why my distant relative, Governor Bradford left England with the pilgrims. He and his folks were trying to avoid Government run religions. Islam is the mirror of that thought. It is a Religious run Government, and that is not the word” Religion” as used by our Founders. Definition is everything and words have meanings.

PROTEST: Fly the Betsy Ross flag. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.
Wc: 451
Rooster Bradford gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. 2015


(OR: Where & how you are born matters.)
Several Candidates for President are beginning to talk about the citizenship of babys born in the USA of parents who are here illegally. Those who argue such a baby must be citizens are the same ones who tell us the minute before a baby is born it is not human. This is just a hint that their logic may be flawed.
To understand the issue, we must know it is not solved by the Constitution. Second, we must know and understand significant court comment on it. The main body of the Constitution is silent on anchor babies. In fact it left citizenship to the States. Citizenship becomes a part of the Constitution only in its amendments. The birthright issue comes to pass only because of the existence of the 14th Amendment. Its language, which some argue says children of illegals are citizens, is as follows:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Obviously the above language does not mention children of illegal trespassers. At best it’s language is ambiguous when it says “ born or naturalized… and subject to….” What does “… subject to jurisdiction…” mean? If being born and naturalized was all that was meant then why condition that event, by “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”. Why was this condition added? Logic tells us that if we have no jurisdiction of an illegal, then we also have no jurisdiction of its baby seconds before it is born and right after. Illegals make illegals so to speak. The word jurisdiction must have meant something other than the power to arrest and deport. Let’s step back in time to learn the reasons the 14th Amendment was created in the first place. Certainly knowing what the writers had in mind should help logic and common sense.
Winning the Civil War was its cause. With the end of slavery three Constitutional Amendments were passed to hopefully clear up the citizenship issue of slaves. They are the 13, 14, and 15th.
Amendment 13: This simply removed Slavery and Involuntary Servitude and gave Congress (Not the States.) power to enforce it.
Amendment 14: This attempted to define Citizenship (see above) and specifically said no State could deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process and equal protection of the law. This reinforced the power granted Congress in the 13th. It went on to talk about apportionment and election of members of Congress. While at it the writers added that the US Gov. could not assume any debts of the Confederate States. Clearly the intent was the slavery issue.
Amendment 15: This was the final wrap up of the slavery issue by declaring a State could not deny votes based on race, color, or servitude.
Using common sense these three focused on slavery, its destruction, and feared resurrection. The issue of birth rights of illegal trespassers was not in the intent and was not in the mind of those who approved the amendments.
How did the Anchor Babe concept get pulled out of this ambiguous language? Well the Liberal members of our Supreme Court did the deed. The case most used as the source is “United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898”. The issue here was the citizenship of children born to people here legally, but not citizens. By the rules of interpretation this ruling should never have been applied beyond its facts. The Court did not have before it the issue of the parent’s illegality. Another case used as the fountain head is Plyler vs Doe (1982) where a footnote seemed to say that presence here legally was not relevant. Again it was an aside. It was not an issue clearly framed by the pleadings or otherwise before the court. This being so it should not be a ruling of the court.
The result is that there is no clear Court Case, interpreting the Constitution directly on the issue. At best, if the issue had been before the Supreme Court its ruling should have said the Constitution is silent on the matter. It is akin to Presiding Justice Roberts calling Obama’s Health Care, a tax. Justices sometimes pull issues out of thin air.
This means that Congress has the power to pass a law saying birth right means both parents, or one (If it wants.) must be legal citizens. Of course the pro-aggressives will appeal it, and finally, for once, the issue will be directly put to the Court.
Oh, yes finally the stock market is acting like a real market. Good luck.

PROTEST: FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.
Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. Aug. 2015