On 'Standing' - Or Not

I see where a Court of Appeals - with some Obama appointees on it - has ruled against a county Sheriff, suing the federal government, specifically the Obama administration, for being faced with massive costs to his department from all the illegal aliens allowed into the country by El Bozo’s executive-order ‘amnesty’ policy, on the grounds that he does not have ‘standing’ in the matter.

If someone like him does not have standing in the matter - i.e., can demonstrate a personal ‘injury’ from a policy or situation (his budget, in this case, for one thing; for all the rapists and drug dealers and lawbreakers in general, of people who are in this country illegally, that he has to deal with; plus the responsibility he carries for the safety of the people in his county) - who does??  

Ah - I see.

Only Congress would have standing in the matter, apparently: from their legislation not being enforced - “executed” - properly by the Executive.  And therein lies a blog.  For, if Congress fails to act on such a matter -  because it has been bought off - nobody has been injured - can demonstrate legalese ‘injury’ - by such a highhanded act on the part of the Executive.

Catch-22. 

I submit a) an argument against such nonsensical decision-making on the part of the judicial branch of our government, and b) a conclusion; as to which:

Untruth, corruption, and deceit cannot exist in the realm that we are about to enter into.  All of that lower sort of consciousness energy is to be left behind, in our proper progression.1  It is clearly time for something new. 

But, first things first:

the argument.

First, a word about the plaintiff himself.  Who, it turns out, just so happens to be Ol’ Thorn-in-the-side of the Usurper hisself: Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona.  Right on the frontline of this battle.  (In more ways than one.)  Not to belabor the point; just to say, that ‘the law’ should be above petty politics, and the abuse of power.  

This is shoddy stuff, folks of the Appeals Courts in this country.  Get with the true law.  Or get off the pot.2

Second, still on ‘the argument’ point.  The corruption in this country, and on this particular issue, of ‘standing’ before the law, has even extended to the point where a person who very clearly has demonstrated personal injury on the part of an action - in this case, the nomination of a candidate for the presidency of the nation who is not eligible for that office3 and who won the popular vote for it, against the plaintiff’s own candidacy - has been denied his ‘day in court’.  

Been denied justice to be served.

And justice deferred is justice denied.

And is grounds for, at the least, revolution.

The rot in this country, really, stinks.

Is a stench reaching to high heaven.

I’s time for a change, alright.

Real change.

I rest my case.

For now.

P.S. And just to mention a salient point.  You see, we have entered into a situation where highhandedness is becoming the norm, in every aspect of our governance, by powerful interests.  We are, e.g., very close to the corporate world declaring, through their minions in Congress, and the Oval Office,4 that ’you’ can’t speak against GMOs (already passed into law, that one), or for organically-grown fruits & veggies being more nutritious and/or safer than Big Ag products, or hormones in milk rendering the product less safe than otherwise, or so forth and so on.  See, you may be ‘right’.  But Truth is not the issue, in this Brave New World that we inhabit at this time, and which is busy consolidating its power over us (think TPP, and TTIP, e.g.).  You can’t speak such things, because such things tend to be detrimental to the profits of those kinds of producers.  And that ’bottom line’ is what really matters, in this world, that we are in. At this time.

And just so, has the corporate-government complex staked its claim for hegemony in the fertile fields of this new world.  And has gotten the ‘progressives’ to go along with it, by throwing them sops, in the form of such laws as against ‘hate speech’ and such5 - how the populace can no longer exercise free speech.  Because TPTB don’t want them to have the basic right to.  Because that may well threaten their hold on power.  

And so, this may be the last time that someone like me - i.e., like the little boy in the crowd of onlookers ooh-ing and ah-ing over the emperor’s new clothes - can ‘get away’ with calling our Dear Leader:

El Bozo.  

Just thought I’d throw this last area of concern in there. For consumption, by 

the sheeple.

While I - and others like me - still can.

‘Like me’: 

lovers of free speech.

And Truth.

—

footnotes:

1 ‘Progressive’ is simply a code word for socialism, or even outright communism.  The far Left still has to be careful about how they refer to themselves; the sheeple still don’t seem to have figured out what, precisely, is going on: their being corralled for their shearing.

   No sense in spooking the herd.

2 Unlawful immigration causes consequences, that must be actionable - acknowledged, and dealt with/acted upon.  PERIOD.  And if the Executive won't do it, he is guilty of a DERELICTION OF DUTY, and must be dealt with appropriately himself.  PERIOD.

3 with said injured plaintiff demonstrating, in detail, his case for that conclusion - i.e., that he was running against an ineligible candidate

4 I think even Obama’s staunchest supporters on the far Left are beginning to realize that he is the creature, not so much of Marx.  But of Mammon.

5 coming up with facts debunking the so-called Holocaust; and speaking against the LGBT mafia maneuvers; and Climate Change 'deniers'; and ‘9/11 truthers;’ and ‘birthers,’ and so on and on.  All, to be outlawed, by the New World Order of things.

   To which I say: Bah.  Not ba-a ba-a.