Saturday, June 30, 2012

A motivated army

Right on, Jim...

TheFoundry: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) was determined to repeal Obamacare before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling yesterday. Now he’s confident he will have a motivated army working alongside him.

The Court's decision just reaffirms that the Ruling Class in this country will never make it easier for We the People to maintain our liberties. And in that defamation of the Constitution that we witnessed on Thursday, we are reminded that the key to how free a nation will ever be, lies solely in its people. So while our society is still a civil one, our part is at the ballot box, installing not simply whoever has an 'R' by their name, but rather constitutional the halls of Congress, in the White House, and in turn, receiving originalists on the bench!

Now, I realize that we may not win every battle, we may not always get the best representation we desire, but those battles we do win and the representation we do get, we must hold to the will of the people, we must remain vigilant, and we must advance the cause of Liberty! Our future depends on it.

Friday, June 29, 2012

The message: ‘stop cooperating with the enemy’ (UPDATE)

Precisely. Know your enemy...and defy them!

theRightScoop: Well this ought to get the ire of the left in a fluff. Michele Bachmann says that the Republican Study Group is working with the Republican Governors association to send out letters to governors and encourage them to ‘stop cooperating with the enemy’ and wasting money implementing Obamacare exchanges because Republicans are going to repeal it after they win in November.

And even before the letters make their way to the states, two governors are already leading the call of non-implementation. WI Gov. Scott Walker released a statement shortly after the ruling with the following excerpt:

"Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare. I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level."

And LA Gov. Bobby Jindal joined him shortly after...

The urgency to oust this imperial president is reaching a fever pitch...which must endure through November. If we want a recognizable America, we must resist this lawless upholding, and hold a new administration to full repeal!

UPDATE: Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has joined the opposition to implimentation...

HuffPo: Branstad's decision not to expand the program puts him at the vanguard of Republican governors who have moved quickly after the ruling to say they would do the same. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker all said last week they would reject the expansion and that they would not set up the health care exchanges required under Obama's health care law.

Roberts says he had to 'save the act'

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” ~ Chief Justice John Roberts       

So, Roberts determined he had to save it. Unreal...

NewYorkTimes: Chief Justice Roberts suggested that even he did not find the tax argument especially plausible. But he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid,” Justice Holmes wrote, “our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”

Did he go out of his way to find the AZ immigration law that enforced federal law constitutional? No, his duty to save the act only applies to certain laws. As Rush stated this morning, this mentality is akin to a Police Chief holding a press conference to say it's his duty to assist criminals!

So, thanks to Justice Roberts' constitutional betrayal (not genius as some would like to convince themselves of) in upholding this act by simply rewriting it (which is precisely what he did), we now face what Rachel Alexander of Townhall succinctly summarized:Using the majority's reasoning, Congress could put in place all kinds of draconian requirements. The possibilities are endless as to what kinds of things could be forced on people by threatening them with an onerous “tax.” This decision essentially authorizes Congress to do almost anything as long as it is labeled a “tax.”

Mark Levin's book, Ameritopia, was timely indeed. The only hope of not having this liberty-inhibitive legislation kick in -- that is, the requirement to forcably purchase a government-approved healthcare plan in 2014 (btw, after his projected second-term election) -- is for Congress to return from recess, not play games with a repeal vote that will never be signed, but to immediately treat this legislation as the 'tax' that Roberts has deemed it. That may hault its implementation via funding; however, the framework of the law still looms over us. Repeal in its entirety won't be a remote possibility until we replace this administration, period. But even then, a dangerous precedent has been set: The Supreme Court has given Congress constitutional approval to create virtually any condition at any point in the future forced upon the American people as long as it may be considered  a 'tax', even after passage (i.e., it's constitutionally permissible to deceive the citizenry with legislative language). In other words, the Supreme Court, per Roberts deciding vote, says taxation by Congress is now limitless.

This decision was lawlessly the antithesis of constitutional rule. Liberty was not upheld or advanced yesterday. And by his own hand, John Roberts joined Barack Obama in remaking America.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Levin's analysis of the SCOTUS decision

I could already hear him when the ruling was handed down this morning. Welcome to Ameritopia! Once Levin's radio program began, the Great One exploded with analysis on this 'ludicrous' ruling...

"Eric Holder was held in contempt a few hours ago, and the majority on the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Roberts held you in contempt this morning."

"We had Anthony Kennedy voting to throw out the entire statute, and John Roberts, with this Mickey Mouse decision, and that's what it is...'saving Obamacare', as a constitutional matter. We'll deal with the politics later. We now have constitutional precedent! That's the problem! There's nothing good about this decision. Ignore the spin. Ignore the people who think they're so damn smart. They're not! 'Well, at least we were able to limit the confines of the commerce clause.' We would have done that anyway if he'd have voted with the four dissenters!"

He continued by debunking George Will's article...

...and then got into the politics of the Court's decision, the Obamacare legislation itself, and the necessity of electing a new president, as well as winning supermajorities in both houses of Congress.

"The problem is if it's instituted a certain way, it won't be possible to pull it up by the roots, because the roots will be infinite!"

Source: the obvious...

AG Holder held in contempt

This morning's SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare somewhat took the sting out of this predictable outcome, but nonetheless...well deserved.

theRightScoop: Eric Holder has officially been held in contempt of Congress with 17 Democrats joining Republicans for a total of 255 votes in support of the resolution. Of course a bunch of Dems walked out but they could only do that because they lost so bad in 2010 that they didn’t have the votes to stop it. So fine, keep walking.

And the best speech of the day inarguably came from SC Rep. Trey Gowdy on the floor of the House, wrapping up closing arguments before the vote was taken...

Romney's reaction to SCOTUS decision

Here's what Romney had to say about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Obamacare...

"What the Court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States; and that is, I will act to repeal Obamacare."

We're gonna hold you to that, Mitt.

Rush's reaction to SCOTUS decision

"Our freedom of choice just met its death panel" ~ Rush

As can be imagined, Rush had plenty to say about the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Obamacare: "This is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. ... What has been upheld here is a fraud...and the IRS has become Obama's domestic army."

Remember, Obama said it was NOT a tax...

As Rush said, "We have been betrayed and deceived by Congress; we have been betrayed and deceived by the Supreme Court." And I would add, at the center of the deception, lies our lying President.

So, while I can't get Pelosi's words out of my mind, Hastings' words ring truer for both Congress and the Court...

Rush concludes, "What's abundantly clear is that we can't count on anyone except ourselves." So, are you up for the challenge, America? November's coming...

ADDENDUM: Rush also gave more insight on what happened to Chief Justice Roberts, beyond all the speculation and excuses:

I believe I mentioned earlier this week (it might have been yesterday or the day before) that I had been warned years ago. I was in a conversation about justices on the court and how they respond to public pressure in the Washington Post Style Section. You know, the usual obligatory way you go and discuss the way that the media tries to influence outcome of votes on the Supreme Court. And all those conversations centered around Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. And I was warned, "It's not Kennedy you have to look out for. It's Justice Roberts." I can't tell you who told me. No, no! I know who it is. It's not that I've forgotten. It's that I can't mention it. I think really what happened here is not a cave. I don't think there was a cave, folks.

I think Chief Justice Roberts is establishing his legacy. I think it's what he wanted to do. I think this is his imprimatur. This is The Roberts Court, like we had The Warren Court and we had The Rehnquist Court. This is The Roberts Court. This is his stamp on it...

This decision, this ruling originally was found to be unconstitutional. According to the Commerce Clause, it was unconstitutional. And what happened was the chief judge found a way, going activist, to make sure this bill survived. And it was the chief justice who accepted a very little used administration argument that, "Hey, it's tax," even though we played the tape where Obama said it wasn't a tax. He went to the mat telling George Stephanopoulos in 2009, "It's not a tax increase, George."

They knew that if this bill were sold as a tax increase, it'd fail.

Obama was out there saying, "Nobody who makes under $200,000 a year will see their taxes go up as long as I'm president." Everybody's taxes go up and sometimes monstrously high here. Obama went to the end of the world trying to convince people this is not a tax increase. And when the mandate was running into trouble, then they tried to say, "Well, maybe it is a tax." They sent their little Verrilli up to the court to argue, "It could be a tax." They weren't excited about it. They didn't want to sell it that way.

It turns out they didn't have to. The chief judge found it! He said (summarized), "You know what? I'm just gonna call it a tax. The government can do that. They can't make everybody buy health insurance with the mandate, but they can with the tax code." That's what happened today. It's an appalling, disgraceful decision.

Welcome to tyranny, America

"As government expands, liberty contracts." ~ Ronald Reagan

...and from an unanticipated source for most of us. This morning, June 28, 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts (a supposed 'constitutionalist'...apparently in activist robing) joined the four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court and stripped more liberty from this nation. Twisting the reading of the legislation and buying into the federal government's defense, these five unelected individuals ruled that the mandate, although NOT constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be allowed to stand as a tax! A tax? This was never presented to the American people as a tax, yet the government can argue for that, and the Supreme Court can rule outside of the language of the law? This is another case of judicial activism.

FYI, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was expected to be the swing vote, ruled that the entire law was unconstitutional, along with Scalia, Thomas and Alito! But Roberts thought it his role to legislate on some future interpretation, instead of the legislation at hand. It's so frustrating that we can't achieve a constitutional majority on the High Court...

Bottom line, if the mandate stands, then the entire law stands. So on top of this being a disastrous decision for our nation, the Chief Justice of the United States has signed off on the biggest tax increase in world history!

Regardless of future outcomes, the precedent has been set. There are no limitations to what the federal government can compel you to do now. Today marks dependence day...welcome to tyranny, America.

ADDENDUM I: Here's a link to the Court's special attention to page 4, where after considering the mandate unconstitutional throughout page 2-3, Roberts says it can be allowed to stand (i.e., constitutional) once "disregarding the designation of the exaction," or rather the language of the legislation, in which he changes 'penalty' to 'tax', just by judicial fiat. Nevermind that the legislation doesn't say 'tax', nor was it sold to the American public as a tax. Unbelievable.

ADDENDUM II: Here's an excerpt from a Human Events piece expressing Republican reactions to the Court's terrible decision...

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a key figure in the legal challenges against Obamacare, called today “a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.”

Cuccinelli continued, “This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government. This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines - a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn't have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.

ADDENDUM III: Regardless of Erick Erickson's excuses, which don't recognize the precedent now set, Rush just stated what should be the obvious this morning: "We know now that the Chief Justice is a creature of the Washington establishment...that says government is the center of the universe."

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Levin on the SCOTUS and tomorrow's decision

Mark makes no predictions. However, whether on Cavuto's show or on his radio program, the Great One had much to say throughout the day over the much anticipated Supreme Court decision handed down tomorrow morning on Obamacare, Obama's likely subversion if things don't go his way, and how the fate of our nation is being held in the hands of nine individuals...

"I don't need some no-name a-hole telling me what to do with a procedure, a test, or whatever. I'll decide!"

"You pray to God somebody's gonna comes to their senses!"

Judge refuses to block Florida voter purge

The States fight back! Starting with Florida...

AssociatedPress: A federal judge has refused to stop Florida from removing potentially non-U.S. citizens from its rolls.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state to halt the purge, arguing it was going on too close to a federal election.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said Wednesday that there was nothing in federal voting laws that prevent the state from identifying non-U.S. citizens even if it comes less than 90 days before the Aug. 14 election.

Hinkle ruled that federal laws are designed to block states from removing eligible voters close to an election. He said they are not designed to stop states from blocking voters who should have never been allowed to cast ballots in the first place.

Gov. Rick Scott praised Hinkle's decision, saying "irreparable harm will result if non-citizens are allowed to vote."

A federal judge following the rule of law...what a concept! But to the point of the matter, if this imperial president can thwart the rule of law via executive fiat whenever he so chooses, then the states MUST exercise and maintain their sovereignty. This is how we take our country back, one state at a time.

DC Circuit Court says EPA can regulate 'greenhouse gases'

Since no one discussed it yesterday, Mark took it upon himself during last night's program to discuss another terrible ruling, this time involving an EPA decision handed down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals...

TheHill: A federal appeals court has upheld Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas regulations, a victory for the Obama administration that’s also sure to inflame election-year political battles over the White House green agenda.

Environmentalists heralded the three-judge panel’s unanimous 82-page ruling that leaves intact EPA’s first-time regulations and authority to craft future rules to help combat global warming.

“Today’s ruling by the court confirms that EPA’s common sense solutions to address climate pollution are firmly anchored in science and law,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “This landmark decision will help secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all Americans.”

Top Secret: food stamp purchases

Top secret, huh? Well, no leaks here...

TheWashingtonTimes: Americans spend $80 billion each year financing food stamps for the poor, but the country has no idea where or how the money is spent.

Food stamps can be spent on goods ranging from candy to steak and are accepted at retailers from gas stations that primarily sell potato chips to fried-chicken restaurants. And as the amount spent on food stamps has more than doubled in recent years, the amount of food stamps laundered into cash has increased dramatically, government statistics show.

But the government won’t say which stores are doing the most business in food stamps, and even it doesn’t know what kinds of food those taxpayer dollars buy.

Coinciding with lobbying by convenience stores, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program in conjunction with states, contends that disclosing how much each store authorized to accept benefits, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), receives in taxpayer funds would amount to revealing trade secrets.

Trade secrets? Uh 'bout the federal government just does't want the taxpayers funding this fraudulence to know just how much the program is being abused by the supposed unfortunate using food stamps to purchase anything from non-nutritional fast food or sodas to the luxuries of filet mignon & other choice cuts, and anything in between (including stocking up on the holidays!). In some cases, although illegal, numerous convenient stores have been cited for accepting food stamps towards the purchase of cigarettes, booze and even gas! How does the allowance of this kind of abuse assist those who actually need it?

As the House debates the once-every-five-years farm bill, the majority of which goes to food stamps, there is a renewed and fervent call from a broad spectrum of camps that the information — some of the most high-dollar, frequently requested and closely held secrets of the government — be set free.

Yep...public disclosure. The taxpayers should at least be able to know, especially when it can't even count on Congress to reform the program anytime soon.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Kyl says 'the primary remedy is political'

You're on the right track, Senator Kyl...

Examiner: On Tuesday, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) suggested that President Obama could be impeached over his immigration policies.

Bennett asked: "How do you make the feds cooperate [with state immigration efforts]?"

"Well, that’s the executive’s job and there are only a couple of ways to do it," the Senator said. "If the president insists on continuing to ignore parts of the law that he doesn’t like, and simply not enforce that law, the primary remedy for that is political. And you have it two ways: one is oversight through the Congress to demonstrate what they’re doing wrong and there are some potential criminal charges there for dereliction of duty. Although, I haven’t looked that up yet. And the other part of it is people need to react through the ballot box to turn out of office those people who are not doing their duty. Now if it’s bad enough and if there are shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I don’t think at this point anybody is talking about that," he added.

Oh, yes they are, Senator, yes they are. Now Congress has to grow a spine!

Here's the soundbyte from Bill Bennett's radio program...

As WeaselZippers simply stated, "Giddy up!"

Levin says 'bad decision' from the Court

The heart of the law upheld? Victory? Not so fast, says Levin. Don't buy the spin.

Some excellent observations from Mark Levin on Monday's program following a day's worth of analysis and deciphering exactly what the Supreme Court's decision means for not only Arizona, but the nation on whole and the rule of law. (hat tip to theRightScoop for getting them all!)

Throughout the first hour, Levin meticulously dissected the Arizona immigration law ruling, discussing how it was a bad decision, and further elaborating on how the Supreme Court has now allowed for de facto amnesty via executive fiat, because we have an executive branch led by a president that will not allow federal immigration laws to be enforced...

This next segment contains some integral internal Q&A. This a MUST LISTEN in understanding this imperial well as the weak response from our guy...

Then Mark was lit up even more when word came that the DoJ has now set up a hotline for illegals in Arizona to file complaints against state and local law enforcement in an effort to challenge their ability to check immigration status, and ultimately attempt to overturn the one remaining provision upheld by the Court. Levin says emphatically that Obama is now at war with state and local law enforcement...

Monday, June 25, 2012

Egypt: another one Obama got wrong

The majority of Monday's focus has been on the Arizona immigration ruling handed down from the Supreme Court, but I don't want to forget about another important world development that occurred on Sunday. Ed Morrissey comments on the outcome of the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, Mohammed Mursi, winning Egypt's first free presidential election in history. And I should note that all of the following sarcasm is well deserved, because this is yet another one that Obama and liberals here and abroad got so wrong...

Well, this should make the Middle East a calmer, more rational place … right? Hey, not to worry, though. Who says we can’t work with the Muslim Brotherhood? Why, here’s one of their clerics on the campaign trail earlier, complimenting Israel about Jerusalem and telling the crowd he’d like to visit there soon … joined by a few million “martyrs.”

It’s a catchy tune and you can dance to it, but somehow I don’t see it playing well on American Bandstand. Note well how the cleric tells the crowd to forget about the world and “conferences,” and that Jerusalem (al-Quds) will be their capital.

And don't forget about that Caliphate talk too! But to put this in its righteous context, the above instigator is Safwat Hijazi, Morsi's friend and campaign manager, doing most of the spouting off. However, Mursi can be visably seen in a gray suit seated to the right of the podium.

On a more serious note, Morrissey commented on the Egyptian military's role in this election:

The Egyptian military is not likely to take orders from Morsi that risks its funding or its status in the nation. If the Muslim Brotherhood tries to march on Jerusalem in anything but the figurative, spiritual sense, the military won’t hesitate to depose Morsi and impose its own rule on Egypt — putting the country right back to the Mubarak status quo. They have already defanged the Egyptian parliament in anticipation of this outcome. They don’t want a war with Israel, and certainly not with the US, which is what an attack on Israel will bring. I’d expect Morsi to either play along and be a good little puppet to mollify the Muslim Brotherhood, or suddenly disappear if he doesn’t.

Nonetheless, leave it to the Obama administration to voice their 'congratulations' to the Islamist president.

TheRightScoop: The White House, as you might expect, looks forward to working with the newly elected Islamist president of Egypt. Even Obama called him directly to affirm our support and to congratulate him. [video included]

As I said when Obama first encouraged Mubarak's removal, this is no democratic movement, and folks are fooling themselves if they wish to continue believing that.

DHS directive to ignore Arizona enforcement

Shocking...not. In another case of 'I-don't-agree-so-I'm-not-going-to-comply', Obama, via Big Sis Napolitano, has issued a directive to ignore Arizona enforcement following the SCOTUS ruling this morning...

TheWashingtonTimes: The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

This is not only a slap at the singular decision upheld by the Court, but an arrogant thwarting of Arizona's sovereignty and the rule of our nation's law, as well as displaying blatant contempt for the Court's dissenters, in particular, Scalia's comments that I mentioned in the addendum of the previous post.

ADDENDUM: Jeffrey Lord hit the nail on the head as well...

"Progressives need to play the politics of race or they are out of business. So Secretary Janet Napolitano has just played the race card -- effectively telling the Court to drop dead. Who cares about the Constitution when the Latino vote is so critical? Shades of George Wallace."

Mixed bag on Arizona immigration law

Somewhat of a mixed bag handed down from the Supreme Court this morning on Arizona's immigration law. They struck down three of the provisions that conflicted with what federal enforcement is supposed to already do, but upheld what Gov. Jan Brewer referred to as the "heart of the law." This excerpt from CNSNews:

...the court said Monday that one much-debated part of the law could go forward -- the portion requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally, as long as they have another reason to stop that person. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

Although there is some open-endedness towards possible litigation in the future when reading the full SCOTUS opinion, Gov. Brewer released a statement in which she considered the overall decision a "victory for the rule of law" since the main provision of the law was upheld.

However, James Antle of the American Spectator says that even though the heart of SB1070 stands, the Obama administration has nonetheless scored two big victories: 1.) a state law can be preempted even when it has the "same aim as federal law and adopts its substantive standards" and 2.) the federal government has wide discretion in how to enforce immigration law. This will pose challenges for other states who'd wish to establish similar laws.

As for other decisions to be handed down, particularly the one on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the Court will unveil its ruling on Thursday. And with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberals on this Arizona decision, it's back to a coin toss as to how the healthcare ruling with end up. Mark your calendars!

ADDENDUM: Noteworthy was Justice Scalia's lengthy dissent read aloud from the bench (pages 30 - 51). Scalia very poignantly stated:

"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants.The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Friday, June 22, 2012

Jeb's 'ideology' misses the mark

"Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right—those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives." ~ Ronald Reagan (1977 CPAC speech)

Yesterday, which coincided with the 224th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification (yeah, you didn't hear anyone in the media mention it), Levin took an opportunity to analyze a particular National Review article written by Jeb Bush that really cuts to the heart of the different perspectives between those of the establishment and those who are proud conservatives, as well as the divergence in understanding what conservatism is. It is not 'ideology'; it is the antithesis of ideology; it is experience...

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Jeb Bush wrote an article and tried to explain what conservatism is, and misses the mark completely. He doesn't understand that government exists to create a platform so that the individual can thrive and succeed, not for the government to. Mark compares Jeb Bush's view to that of Ronald Reagan - a true conservative.

Mark particularly seizes on Jeb Bush's perception of conservatism's fundamental principles and beliefs as "thick black lines of ideology" that "are good at keeping people in, but...are also good at keeping people out," and views those who attempt to adhere to conservative principles as "a small army of purists." This is tired, timid establishment rhetoric which Levin surmises sounds a lot like a rewriting, or rather twisting, of Reagan's 1977 speech. 

I'd advise folks to at least listen to the first half-hour of the program (here), and there's also an interesting and somewhat lengthy discussion with a caller into the second hour, but the following gives you a taste of Levin's lesson...

As Levin makes clear, "We are constitutionalists, they are abstractionists."

Here's that discussion with the caller explaining why conservatism is not an ideology...

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Hypocrisy on demand

"Many of us believe that wrongs aren't wrong if it's done by nice people like ourselves." ~ Author Unknown

I posted this flashback yesterday in a separate post about Obama's exertion of executive privilege...

Just words? Well, Levin dug up a few other jewels from yesteryear during Wednesday evening's program:

RCP: "I think the issue of executive power and executive privilege is one that is subject to abuse and in an Obama presidency what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and the co-equal branches of government that I hope we don't find ourselves in a situation in which we would have aides being subpoenaed for what I think everything acknowledges is some troublesome information out there," then-Senator Barack Obama told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2007 interview.

TheWashingtonExaminer: In 2005, then-Senator Obama had some pretty strong ideas about what the Attorney General’s duties were. Speaking on the Senate floor during the nomination confirmation of President George W. Bush’s Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, Obama explained why he opposed the nomination.

“The Attorney General’s job is not just to enforce the President’s laws it is to tell the President what the law is. The job is not simply to facilitate the President’s power, it is to speak truth to that power as well,” Obama stated during the hearing.

“The President is not the Attorney General’s client; the people are,” Obama added. “And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President.”

The tunes have vastly changed since we've seen where the Fast & Furious cover-up has descended. But while we're reviewing hypocritical walkbacks and other assorted not-so-wise tales, let's not forget the other guy at the center of the scandal. Here's a reminder of something AG Eric Holder testified to back in February (I'll provide video/audio as soon as I can locate it)...

FoxNews: Attorney General Eric Holder vigorously denied a "cover-up" by the Justice Department over "Operation Fast and Furious," telling a House panel investigating the botched gun-running program that he has nothing to hide and suggesting the probe is a "political" effort to embarrass the administration.

"There's no attempt at any kind of cover-up," Holder told lawmakers well into a hearing about whether he had been forthright in responding to requests of the House Oversight and Government Relations Committee led by Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

"We're not going to be hiding behind any kind of privileges or anything," he said.

He meant to add, "until we have to hide behind those privileges."

Oh, what a tangled web that's woven when they're preferred modus operandi is hypocrisy on demand.

Pelosi's stretchin'

"We need a new planet. We need a new planet called Stupider, and I need to put Nancy Pelosi on it as the mayor of the whole planet, as the governor, as the evil emperor, whatever." ~ El Rushbo

Nance is stretchin'. At her weekly press conference this morning, Pelosi moved right past the standard witch-hunt speak in the contempt charge against Holder, and made the connection to another Democrat scheme, err, excuse me, Republican, per Pelosi...

RUSH: We now have the official... it took a while, about 24 hours, the official Democrat Party response to the contempt citation voted by the committee yesterday against Eric Holder. It comes from Nancy Pelosi. This morning in Washington, this is what the former Speaker said this is all about.

Voter suppression! (or for normal people: 'reducing voter fraud')

As an aside, why do so many of these politicians sound drugged or drunk? Oh well...

ADDENDUM: I'm liking Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC) more and more each day!

"It's really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous and the fact that she was once the Speaker is mind numbing. I honestly, and I've heard a lot in my 16 years as a prosecutor, I couldn't believe the words coming out of her mouth. But keep in mind, Greta, this is the same woman who said she could have arrested Karl Rove any day she wanted. So I don't know what was wrong with her yesterday or today or whenever she said that, but I would schedule an appointment with my doctor if she thinks that we are doing this to suppress votes this fall. That is mind-numbingly stupid."

Indeed. Sounds like he might be a Levin fan...

Supreme Court rulings against FCC and SEIU

A couple of rulings were handed down from the High Court this morning. The first decision was against the overreaching federal bureaucracy of the FCC...

FoxNews: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the FCC's policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.

In an 8-0 decision, the high court threw out fines and sanctions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission. The case involved some uncensored curse words and brief nudity on various networks, including Fox.

"Because the FCC failed to give FOX or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commissions' standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague," the Supreme Court said in its opinion.

The court said the FCC is "free to modify its current indecency policy" in light of the ruling.

The second came in a ruling against the SEIU, providing another blow to Big Labor after Scott Walker's Wisconsin win...

FoxNews: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.

With both decisions, the Supreme Court followed the rule of law (over fiat) and rightfully clipped these wings of Big Government. Could this be a preview to a few more anticipated decisions to be handed down? I'm of course referring to the fate of both the Arizona illegal immigration law and the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Obamacare. Whose to say, but it looks like the Court will wait until next week to hand down those rulings.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Contempt order PASSED!

Today, after a lengthy amount of testimony among committee members and numerous attempts at Democrat amendments & other delaying tactics, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa has finally accomplished sending a contempt of Congress order to the U.S. House of Representatives for Attorney General Eric Holder's continued obstruction of justice in withholding thousands of vital documents pertaining to the Fast and Furious gunrunning investigation. The vote passed 23-17.

Contempt proceedings have been accessible at the House Oversight Committee's website throughout the day.

Now this order goes to the House for a vote. Don't you dare screw it up, John Boehner!

ADDENDUM: Hard line? Boehner says the House contempt vote will take place next week, unless...

TheMiamiHerald: House Speaker john Boehner says Americans deserve the truth about a failed gunsmuggling investigation, and insists the House will hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress unless additional documents are turned over.

Boehner has scheduled a contempt-of-Congress vote next week. The Ohio Republican says the president's decision to assert executive privilege shows the administration covered up the truth.

Umm, Speaker, if you're acknowledging that they are covering something up, the AG should be held in contempt of Congress at this late date, regardless of whatever he does or doesn't produce. I repeat, John Boehner, don't screw this up!

Rep. Gowdy slams Democrat opposition at contempt hearing

All I can say is "HELL YEAH!" to this MUST SEE testimony:

TheRightScoop: This is what I’ve been waiting for. After hours of feigned outrage and different maneuvers from Democrats to try and stop the contempt hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy finally took his turn and passionately laid out the case for why there is no more time for AG Eric Holder, noting the proof that high level officials in the DOJ knew about gunwalking well before Brian Terry was murdered.

But then a few minutes later he spoke up again to address the calls to blame the Bush administration, saying that he’s for bringing anyone before the committee who knows about gunwalking because it’s wrong under any administration. But, he adds, none of that mitigates Holder’s responsibility to comply with a subpoena from Congress and to comply with the law.

Leaky WH's 'executive privilege' won't stop contempt hearing in F&F scandal

The hypocrisy is unending.

In 2007, Obama told CNN that executive privilege was not a good reason to withhold information from Congress...

But now, when it affects his AG & his backside, as well as being his administration's scandal, Obama feels the desperate need to exert executive privilege over Fast & Furious documents. As WeaselZippers notes, "Still won’t stop today’s contempt vote."

FoxNews: President Obama has granted an 11th-hour request by Attorney General Eric Holder to exert executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents, a last-minute maneuver that appears unlikely to head off a contempt vote against Holder by Republicans in the House.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to forge ahead with its meeting on the contempt resolution anyway.

And indeed it is currently. But it's pretty telling (and that's putting it mildly) that when it comes to leaking all kinds of information to puff up this president's reputation, it's all out there! And now this attempted blockade? Again, more hypocrisy.

The House Oversight Committee should find AG Holder in contempt TODAY and disregard Obama's exertion of executive privilege with more righteous assertiveness than Obama has granted the Nation, its People and the Rule of Law with his laundry list of unlawful executive orders (and leaks!). There must be checks & balances, and this kind of proceeding is essential in holding this corrupt administration in check, whether with this cover-up or any scandal.

ADDENDUM: Rush makes a great point this morning: How can Obama exert executive privilege over something he supposedly hasn't been involved in, nor has seen? Kinda helps put things in perspective, huh? (as if we didn't already suspect that accessory)

Also, if you're seeking more info on why we've arrived at this point, John Lott has put together a thorough piece explaining why this proceeding is occurring.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Pandering takes precedence

Just a quick point about priorities, utilizing a few current articles: Obama's failed polices hold us in a prolonged recessive limbo, especially the citizenry's younger households and employment seekers...

CNBC: Job openings fell to a five-month low in April and showed their sharpest percentage decline in about seven and a half years, according to a government report Tuesday that helped confirm a slowdown in the labor market.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS, indicated 3.4 million job openings at the end of April, an 8 percent decline from the previous month.

The pace of total hiring also slowed, with 160,000 fewer jobs filled during the month.

Moreover, the drop showed weakness across the employment spectrum, with manufacturing seeing 62,000 fewer job openings and construction dropping by 2,000.

NewYorkPost: Young US households — those aged 35-to-44 — lost a stunning 59 percent of their wealth during the recession, a government report released yesterday revealed.

That’s the stiffest hit of any age group, said the report from the US Census Bureau.

The age group — typically struggling with mortgages, tuition bills and rising tax bills — makes up the backbone of America’s middle class.

The losses were mainly due to the drop in the value of their homes during the 2005 through 2010 period, the report said.

“Lower- and middle-income households got especially creamed because their biggest asset is their home, and that got crushed,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Overall, the average family lost 35 percent of its household wealth, composed largely of home values and stock investments.

But remember, the private sector is doing fine... Obama's solution is to exacerbate the issue with another executive overreach, issuing an illegal alien amnesty on last week that will place more pressure on an already unstable job market and the overall bruised economy that still hasn't recovered? This is no solution.

TheWashingtonPost: Opponents of illegal immigration warned that the policy could create significant new competition for jobs and university slots at a time of nationwide recession and numerous states’ efforts to curb public spending.

“I see a tidal wave coming,” said Brad Botwin, president of Help Save Maryland, a group that opposes legalization for undocumented immigrants. “Half of our college graduates today can’t find jobs, and the unemployment rate for high-school-aged Americans is extremely high. This is unfair to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are out there struggling to get ahead.

Bottom line: For the statist, pandering for votes, from illegal sympathizers or illegals themselves (to hell with VoterID laws, this administration says), takes precedence over the immediate improvement of our nation's citizens and their finances. Anything to reshape the nation into a one party rule, even if it's to their own detriment. And some still wonder why so many have come to view Obama as an unAmerican or post-American president?

Monday, June 18, 2012

October surprise?

Ruh Roh, Rarry!

IBD: At the recent pace of debt growth, the U.S. will reach its statutory limit of $16.394 trillion some time in October — just before Americans go to the polls.

The government has ways to stay below that ceiling for a few months, giving lawmakers a grace period. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the deadline is early 2013.

But the recent slowdown in economic growth bodes poorly for federal tax receipts. Any pickup in the rate of debt accumulation could pull forward that deadline into the super-charged environment of a presidential election.

If the government is seen as dysfunctional in another debt standoff, the public will likely hold President Obama more liable than Republicans...

Let's just hope Boehner and the boys can avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

What 'moderate' means

I love these kind of moments...

Newsbusters: Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday gave CNN's Candy Crowley a much-needed education on what "moderate" and "willing to work with the other side" mean in Washington today.

Appearing on State of the Union, Santorum correctly informed his host that the kind of Republican she wants in office "means doing what the other side wants only doing it slower instead of doing what is necessary for this country."

Right on, Santo.

Great speeches from RightOnline 2012

As this is a 'blog', and a conservative one at that, just thought I'd compile some of the great speeches from the fifth annual AFP's RightOnline conference, which "has built a reputation as the premier conference for bloggers, social media gurus and online activists to network and learn new tactics." This isn't all of the speakers, but these are some of the more noteworthy speeches...enjoy!

Sarah Palin: 'from Limbaugh to Breitbart'

Michelle Malkin: 'just a blogger'
(and her Saturday morning speech.)

Hugh Hewitt: 'more Breitbarts are on the way!'
(Thanks to Hugh for that shoutout to Ted Cruz as well...he IS on the way!)

Roger Hedgecock: 'California is already living in Obama's second term'

Jonah Goldberg: 'restoring the media landscape'

S.E. Cupps: 'changing the way we consume news'

Friday, June 15, 2012

A media legend is born

Objectivity is something that our mainstream press seems devoid of these days, which is why this random act of journalism was such a treat. It started something like this: 

Twitchy: President Obama was scheduled to give a statement on his latest power grab involving deportation waivers. He was an hour late and was not going to take any questions. Transparency!

The President’s remarks finally proceeded as nonsense-as-usual, once he deigned to grace us all with his presence. But, The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro had other ideas.

While Obama was delivering his 'political pandering quasi amnesty' speech (h/t Legal Insurrection), Munro had the cojones to cut through the BS and dare to ask a question: "Is this the right thing to do for American workers?" You'd have thought he interrupted someone truly great...

And of course, the rest of the lamestream media responses have been typical with condemnation, but as Munro told White House reporters, he only shouted out "because you guys aren't." And as Obama scurried away without taking questions, Munro got one more in for the nation to hear: "What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?"

This man just made a legend of himself for daring to do the one thing the rest of the bobbling heads won't: challenge Obama.

An executive order to break the law

(Correction: I should have titled this '"another executive order to break the law", because most of them from this guy pretty much exceed his authority!) Who needs Congress? Well, Obama certainly doesn't think so. Our little wannabe dictator strikes again while Congress is in recess (on Friday no less), revealing another desperate move for votes and another opportunity to divert from his failed economic and jobs records.

CNSNews: The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives.

The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation.

It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Umm, if they’re here illegally, they ARE breaking the law, that IS criminal. But think about this: Usurp the rule of law through an executive order to break it, say it's for illegal so-called children (a.k.a. 'young adults'), and compounded with the DoJ's fight against states' VoterID laws, anybody care to wager what the obvious goal is here in this election year? Yes, illegal votes for sure (Rush tags this pretty accurately: "Catch, Release, Vote."), but I can't help thinking it might also be a last ditch effort to increase the jobs rolls under his failed policies. He's trying to kill two birds with one dirty stone.

ADDENDUM: Rush, among many, has been telling us for the past several years that "amnesty is heading our way, it is the largest voter registration drive in American history."

And of course, you remember that related document leak in 2010...the current policy change being the full fruition of that.

Ohhh, and how's this for a flashback...

With Friday’s policy shift, Obama contradicts his previous acknowledgment of being unable to actually do what he suddenly feels he can dictate without legislative passage (i.e., usurping the law).