Give Muslim Brotherhood F-16s and tanks? The Senate thinks so...

What the hell is this Senate, controlled by this President, doing?

theRightScoop: Rand Paul’s amendment “To prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or delivery of F-16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or certain other defense articles or services to the Government of Egypt” failed in the Senate today by a vote of 79-19.

Here's Rand's reaction:



Just to clarify, the vote was to ‘table’ the amendment which is why there are more YEAs than NAYs. Here’s the roll call vote:

This vote actually gives you a stark illustration of the hurdles this country faces...one side composed of statist Democrats and establishment Republicans who are running business as usual into oblivion, throwing our money and arms around, arming our enemies in this case...the other side composed of those trying to preserve our nation and protect both it and our allies.

Joke of the day: Senator Geraldo!

Even funnier, this clown thinks he'd be a great fit for the GOP!

HotAir: If there’s one thing the GOP needs now, it’s another senator who’s famously soft on immigration. Imagine these words ringing off the walls in the Senate chamber: “[A]ny Latino who votes for a Republican or a Democrat who opposes rational immigration reform is an Uncle Tom.” He’ll make a fine third in the McCain/Graham alliance.

This is as much of a joke as if Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren were Senators...oh wait.

Texas seeks to reward companies that balk ObamaCare contraception mandate

There's something special about Texas. Perhaps it's the desire to still remain a free people, insuring the liberty of life for all...

WashingtonTimes: A Texas lawmaker has introduced legislation that would provide state-level tax breaks to companies that flout a provision in President Obama’s health care law that requires employers to cover contraception.

Republican State Rep. Jonathan Stickland’s bill is designed to protect companies that view the contraception mandate as an attack on their religious beliefs. Many of them say forms of contraception, particularly “morning-after” pills, amount to abortion-inducing drugs.

Numerous religious nonprofits and corporations have sued over the mandate. So far, federal courts have provided temporary relief from the mandate’s penalties to nine out of 14 corporations, although the merits of their claims may be headed to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma-based company Hobby Lobby became the public face of the dispute, after the arts-and-crafts behemoth found a way to delay its insurance year and avoid up to $1.3 million in fines per day when the mandate kicked in at the start of the year.

Mr. Stickland’s legislation, House Bill 649, encourages companies that balk at “Obamacare” by exempting them from “all taxes levied by the state if they are forced to pay punitive fines related to the Obamacare contraception mandate,” according to a press release from his office.

“It is simply appalling that any business owner should have to choose between violating their religious convictions and watching their business be strangled by the strong arm of Federal mandates and taxation,” the lawmaker said. “I intend to do everything I can to help save Hobby Lobby and protect them from our out-of-control federal government.”

We will RESIST!

McRINO theatre at Hagel train wreck

Besides Hagel being just as much of an utter joke as Lurch, it's peculiar how fervently McRINO can seemingly put up a 'fight' when it comes down to upholding or defending one of his personal ideals...



...to bad he can't genuinely FIGHT with, at the very least, equal fervor for the principles of conservatism.

ADDENDUM: And here's more Chuck Hagel "I didn't mean to say that" laughs...



Actually, let's substitute 'laughs' for 'facepalms'. Sheesh. Unfortunately, this train wreck will be confirmed as our next Secretary of Defense.

Obama's 'jobs council' shuts down

Laser-like focus, huh? Another reelection tool left by the wayside...

AP: President Barack Obama will let his jobs council expire this week without renewing its charter, winding down one source of input from the business community even as unemployment remains stubbornly high.

When Obama in January 2011 formed his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, unemployment was hovering above 9 percent. Two years president later, more than 12 million people in the U.S. are out of work. The unemployment rate has improved to 7.8 percent, but both parties agree that’s still too high.

A provision in Obama’s executive order establishing the council says it sunsets on Thursday. A White House official said the president does not plan to extend it.

Officials said the president always intended for the council to fulfill its mission and then wind down, and said that Obama would continue to actively engage and seek input from business leaders about ways to accelerate job-creation and economic growth. Among the steps Obama plans to pursue are expedited permits for infrastructure projects, the White House said.

'Seek input'...who, this narcissist? See, I think we just misunderstood him...I think he actual said 'lazy-like focus'. I know, I know...'that's racist!' But, hey...the guy, along with Immelt, illustrated that this jobs council was never serious...remember?

Cruz schools Senate: 'assault weapons' ban is about ‘scary looking guns’

My Senator! Breaking through the fact-free zone in Washington and sweeping the floor on the gun control hearing today...

BeltwayConfidential: During the Senate Judiciary hearing on gun violence, Sen. Ted Cruz publicly ridiculed Democrats for their proposed ban on “assault weapons.”

Cruz pointed out that the phrases such as “assault weapons” and “military style weapons,” was a misleading tactic used by gun control advocates to scare American citizens unfamiliar with firearms.

“If it doesn’t ban machine guns, what does it ban?” asked Cruz. “What it bans, what I would suggest to you, are scary looking guns.”

Displaying a photo of a Remington 750, a popular hunting rifle, Cruz explained that it would be a legal firearm under the ‘assault weapons ban’ as long as it didn’t have cosmetic attachments.

Displaying a plastic pistol grip, Cruz explained that if he attached it to his rifle it would become a “banned assault rifle”

“Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that attaching a piece of plastic to this rifle would make it any way whatsoever slightly more dangerous?” asked Cruz.

Nope.



theRightScoop: Sen. Ted Cruz took his time today in the gun violence hearing to explain the fallacy of proposed Senate legislation going after so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘gun show loophole’, using charts and statistics and props. He even told the Senate that many times it seems their policy is based on emotion and that decisions are made in a ‘fact-free-zone’.

Thank you for sending this articulate statesman to Washington, Texans.

Also of note, Cruz was one of only three who voted against John 'D-Student' Kerry's confirmation as the new Secretary of State. Just sayin'.

Sex, lies and...Bob Menendez? Eww... (UPDATE)

Uh-oh. Looks like the Dem's point man on so-called immigration reform finds himself in a bit of a sticky situation...

Last week, theDailyCaller reported on an FBI inquiry into New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, focusing on his repeated trips to the Dominican Republic with longtime campaign contributor and Miami eye doctor Salomon Melgen, in which Menendez purchased the service of prostitutes in that Caribbean nation at a series of alcohol-fueled sex parties. Well, today it gets hairier...

TheMiamiHerald: FBI agents seized evidence from the West Palm Beach office of the eye doctor who is suspected of providing underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic to Sen. Bob Menendez.

Late Tuesday night, agents raided the business of Dr. Salomon Melgen, collecting evidence for an investigation into the finances of the well-connected doctor.

The FBI is believed to be focusing its investigation on the senator's contact with Dominican prostitutes and whether the doctor played any role in the matter, The Miami Herald is reporting.

This is of course just the latest in a string of bad behavior by Menendez.

New Jersey, you can do better...can't you?

UPDATE: Sen. Menendez just reimbursed almost $60k to doctor now under investigation by the feds.

Economy shrinks as GDP declines -0.1%

Looking rather European...and not in a good way.

Breitbart: Yesterday, Breitbart News reported that consumer confidence had dropped to its lowest level in almost two years. Much of the media spun the number as the result of a payroll tax increase that hit millions who were repeatedly told by Obama that only the rich would see their taxes increase. Surprise! But the spin didn't explain why consumer confidence had steadily dropped during the months prior. Well, now we know: The American economy has taken a nosedive.

For the first time in over three years, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product shrank. Between October and December of 2012, the GDP had a negative growth of 0.1. And let's remember that this is the same quarter where we saw the media go into hyper-drive to spin Obama's anemic job and GDP growth into a repeat of the Roaring Twenties.

The problem with the American economy is that Obama and his media can't fool it. Happy talk and spin and distractions about contraception don’t create jobs or growth. You might be able to fool legions of people into voting a certain way, but you can't fool them into spending and hiring and investing.

But believe you me...they're trying!

TheWeeklyStandard: In response to the news today that the economy contracted -.1 percent in the final quarter of last year, Democrats are touting the claim that this is "the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you'll ever see." The claim was originally made by chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics Paul Ashworth.

"The drag from defense spending and inventories is a one-off. The rest of the report is all encouraging," Ashworth also claimed.

The claim was quickly seized upon by Democrats, looking to share good news about a contracting economy.

And the Associated dePress talks about more stimulus as if it's a good thing...

AP: The U.S. economy posted a stunning drop of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, defying expectations for slow growth and possibly providing incentive for more Federal Reserve stimulus.

The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.

The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.

'Raise fears'? Ya think? Santelli's right..."We have become Europe."



So, wasn't Obama's reelection supposed to send us soaring? Oh wait, we're not supposed to pay attention to the economic demise. Here, look at this.

Abandon ship.

US debt headed toward 200% of GDP...even after 'fiscal cliff' deal

Upside down. Going hand-in-hand with the news that Obama's already blown through every penny of that fiscal cliff deal (yes, in less than a month!), there's another indicator that the deal was a dud. US debt is still headed into the abyss...

TheHill: The nation’s long-term fiscal outlook hasn’t significantly improved following the recent agreement between Congress and the White House over tax and spending issues, according to a new analysis.

The “fiscal cliff” deal combined with the debt-limit agreement of August 2011 only slightly delays the United States reaching debt-to-gross domestic product levels that would damage the economy and risk another fiscal crisis, according to the a report from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation released on Tuesday.

The agreement “may have prevented the immediate threats that the fiscal cliff posed to our fragile economic recovery, but we haven’t remotely fixed the nation’s debt problem,” said Michael A. Peterson, president and COO of the Peterson Foundation.

“The primary goal of any sustainable fiscal policy is to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy and put it on a downward path, and yet our nation is still heading toward debt levels of 200 percent of GDP and beyond,” he said.

The report concludes that the recent round of deficit-reduction measures won’t make major improvements because it fails to address most of the major contributors to the debt and deficit, including rapidly rising healthcare costs.

The analysis suggests that lawmakers take action quickly to ensure that the nation is on a sustainable fiscal path.

HA! That last sentence is a riot. We all know lawmakers, particularly those of the statist persuasion, actually take action quickly to ensure they get whatever's on their wish list (or his) passed! They could give a damn about a sustainable fiscal path.

FYI...in the time it took me to crop out and add that graphic to this post, the million mark has nearly doubled. That's how fast this government spends.

TX Gov Perry calls for unused tax revenue to be returned 'to the people who paid it'

In an act that's certain to send most politicians, particularly of the liberal persuasion, into anaphylactic shock, Texas Governor Rick Perry called for unused tax revenue to be returned to the state's taxpayers!

TheBlaze/AP: Gov. Rick Perry presented a glowing assessment of the Texas economy Tuesday and said there was more than enough money in the state’s Rainy Day fund for a one-time, $3.7 billion-investment in water and transportation upgrades while also cutting taxes.

The Republican governor, who for weeks has called on the Legislature to hold down government spending even with the state’s economy booming, used his biennial State of the State speech Tuesday in the House chamber to call for a one-time investment in infrastructure he said is needed to ensure a high quality of life. The Texas constitution calls for a percentage of oil and gas revenues to go into the Rainy Day Fund, which is nearing its constitutional cap.

“Our bank balance is healthy, our economy is growing, our future is limitless,” Perry said.

Perry also called on lawmakers to amend the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return tax money it collects but doesn’t spend to its citizens.

“Today, I’m calling for a mechanism to be put in place so when we do bring in more than we need, we’ll have the option of returning tax money directly to the people who paid it,” the governor said. “Currently, that’s not something our constitution allows. We need to fix that.”

Something you'd never hear proposed out of Washington. God Bless Texas!

'Tax the rich' hikes already spent in less than a month!

Yeah, remember Obama's tax hikes on those evil rich? The fiscal cliff, the fiscal cliff. Tax the rich to help pay for debt, right? Wrong. In less than one month, Obama's already blown through every penny of it.

IBD: The top 2% wealthiest already pay 45% of the taxes. But Democrat Obama felt they needed to pay their "fair share," despite the risks that new taxation presents to creating real jobs for the rest of us, Obama already being employed for the next 1,452 days. But who's counting?

The Real Big Spender is off to Las Vegas this morning for a $1.5 million-plus photo op day-trip to sell his immigration reform ideas to a select audience that already likes it.

For weeks Obama traveled the country telling anyone who would listen and some who'd rather not that he's so absolutely positively determined to cut America's $16.4 trillion national debt that he did so much to grow. And he was insistent on milking money from the rich to do just that.

Well, guess what? That $50.4 billion spending bill for, among other things Hurricane Sandy aid, just ate up every single penny of that tax hike for this year, plus another $10 billion. That will go on the debt tab that the $40 billion in new taxes were supposed to start trimming slightly this fiscal year.

So Obama whined about a deal on the fiscal cliff taking too long, the Democrat governors of Jersey, New York and Connecticut complained that Washington legislators were hesitant about spending more of China's money, never mind the pathetic response of Obama's FEMA, and now, the nation's chief executive couldn't sacrifice a cross-country junket/photo op costing $1.6 million to tell a bunch of people that already think the same as him about an unwritten immigration policy? Talk about out of touch.

"Washington just doesn't get the severity of our fiscal condition," the Heritage Foundation's Matt Mayer told the Washington Times.

Americans realize the financial hole these D.C. pols got us in scratching each other's backs. But when will anyone stop bemoaning that hole and start filling it in? Somebody's got to be first to sacrifice their "fair share."

Of course, that would take leadership, not photo ops.

$1.6M for Obama's Vegas amnesty speech

Obama spent how much?

FoxNation: President Barack Obama will fly over 9 hours tomorrow, round-trip from Washington, D.C. to Las Vegas, Nevada, just to deliver a speech on immigration, according to the president's White House schedule. With Air Force One estimated to cost $182,000 per hour in flight, Obama's trip--that is, only his travel to and from Vegas--will cost taxpayers over $1.6 million.

Obama has no other public events scheduled in Las Vegas but his immigration speech.

...to say this?



Oh, so now their middle class is our responsibility too. Thanks for clarifying that additional burden, Mr. President...and thanks for wasting $1.6 million of the taxpayers' dollars to do it as well.

What a waste (in all regards).

Kerry confirmed as new Secretary of State

And just like that, HillRod is off the hook, and Lurch is confirmed...

I'm sure this makes maverick McRINO gleeful. The cabal pushes forward...

Cruz opposes Rubio’s immigration proposal

Both young, of Cuban heritage, and backed by tea-party vigor...Newly elected Texas Senator Ted Cruz has come out in strong opposition to the Gang of Eight's immigration proposal yesterday, putting him at odds with fellow Senator Marco Rubio...

theSharkTank: Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has come out against the new immigration proposal set forth by Senator Marco Rubio and liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate, a proposal that all but offer amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States. Cruz joins his colleague Senator Mike Lee in expressing concerns over Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty-lite proposal. Many noteworthy conservatives have criticized Rubio for his immigration ideas including Fox News Contributor Michelle Malkin who had major reservations about the proposal. While many have been praising Rubio of late for his immigration ideas, no one expected Rubio to blind-side them all and jump on board Senator John McCain’s amnesty bandwagon, and this measure is not likely to win Rubio any praise among conservatives.

"I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally." ~ Sen. Ted Cruz

Perhaps well intentioned, Rubio is nonetheless getting sucked into a realization that Cruz understands: any amnesty, no matter what you call it (i.e., path to citizenship) is just plain wrong. Standing up for American citizens of all color and creed is what needs to happen, instead of Obama's attempt to meld another foreign entity into the middle class of his making.

The proponents of the 1986 amnesty bill claimed that workplace verification would be instituted as a result of the bill. The American people bought this promise and were absolutely hoodwinked. The 1996 immigration reform bill required an entry/exit system to be put in place...we’re still waiting for that system. Nothing should happen in regards to a 'pathway to citizenship' until E-Verify is mandated, there is an entry/exit system in place, and the border is truly secure. Until that time, there should be no amnesty.

Though understanding where Rubio is coming from, it is naive to think that Democrats will honor provisions that they've never honored. This shouldn't amount to a replay of the con-job that was sold to Reagan in the late '80's, no more so than a replay of 2007's failure...

The never-ending Ted Kennedy lie

Perhaps I should have said 'another', because there were many. Regardless, Ted Kennedy's name, the so-called 'Lion of the Senate', keeps coming up in this amnesty push...er, I mean, immigration reform. Well, all you have to do to get a good idea of how this will all work out is to take a look at the Lion's statements over the years (via theTownCrier)...

Here is Ted Kennedy commenting on the 1965 immigration bill: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission.”

Ted Kennedy on the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Bill: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

Ted Kennedy(2007) on the McCain/Kennedy immigration proposal: “The plan will strengthen our borders and our national security while providing a tough but fair path to citizenship for millions of people.”

Have our borders and national security been strengthened or secured from any of these bills/proposals? Have our cities not been flooded? Has American culture and society not been disrupted by such balkanizing, multi-culti phenomenon? And lastly, what happened to "We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."...?!?! Lies and damn lies...

Ted Kennedy pushed SEVEN amnesties into law. None was followed by a reduction in illegal immigration.

1. In 1986, Ted Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration.

2. In 1994, Ted Kennedy's Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.

3. In 1997, Ted Kennedy's extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.

4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.

5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy's 1986 amnesty.

7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.

See, it's never-ending...no matter how much they say "never again."

Krauthammer: this proposal is 'instant legalization'

Wow. Wouldn't have guessed he'd come down on the right side of this, but Krauthammer is absolutely correct!

"...if you do legalization after you get enforcement of the border, Americans would accept that. And that's what...the proposal here appears to do. ...but that is highly misleading, because under this proposal, the day the bill is signed, you get instant legalization for 11 million illegal immigrants. It's called 'provisional', but that's nonsense. No one is ever goning to revoke this legalization. If there's trouble with enforcement of the border, you are not going to get the government revoking legalization after...so what we're getting is instant legalization, which is the functional equivalent of a green card. ...this is what happened with Reagan, who believed in this... He signed the amnesty in the late 1980's. And it turned out amnesty was achieved, there was no enforcement, we now have 11 million illegal immigrants, and Reagan said it was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency."

Save for the few dissenters

Under normal circumstances, a president presiding over the number of failures and scandals on par (or surpassing) the Carter and Nixon administrations combined, as well as the power-grabs of an FDR or LBJ, would in no way be capable of escaping the scrutiny of a free and fair press. Unfortunately, we are living in anything but normal circumstances these days with daily attacks on the Rule of Law; nor does the press remain free or fair. On the contrary, ever since Obama's collective immaculation by the current cast of misfit politicians that form today's Democratic Party and the dominant media sources, composed of the same calibre of liberally statist-minded comrades, they now serve conjunctively as Obama's propaganda machine. But for these sycophants, such a so-called leader would be finished. However, as we've bore witness to through Obama's first term, and as we're certain to experience over the next four, the mainstream media forces have not only shielded their president from scrutiny, but evermore fervently serve alongside the party and president to attack those who might dare to criticize. One by one fall in line, except for a few mentioned by the President over the weekend: FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh.

"I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. ... One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it. ... The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself—and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this—are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done."

The bully attacks any opposition, while defending his team. I can't begin to go over how many preposterous statements are included in just these few quotes...for every finger pointing, there are three pointing back. But it's extraordinary how far Obama will go to eliminate any and all dissenting voices, utilizing the rest of the bought-and-paid-for media to carry out his directives...and far too many, rather than provide their due diligence as journalists, reciprocate with loyalty to a single man...save for the few dissenters...

I've had serious problems with FoxNews' fair and balanced internal struggles; but out of all the broadcast media, they seem to be the only one attempting to live up to any notion of the motto. And among the respectable reporters from that group, Greta Van Susteren was the first to quickly come to the network's defense...

Mediaite: “President Obama names Fox? And what does President Obama think happens when Democrat works with Republicans? What happens to that Democrat in the left leaning press?” Van Susteren named the post.

In his TNR interview, Obama blamed Fox and Limbaugh for Republican reluctance to work with Democrats; but, conversely, he said that “left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”

Van Susteren called the president out for what she sees as a one-sided analysis. “Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues but they get heat from their Leadership for appearing on Fox. Does President Obama know that? So which Party is intimidating its members?” she wrote.

The On the Record host continued: “And to say Senator Harry Reid is willing to compromise is just wrong. He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate Floor for years to even begin a discussion. The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started.”

“Apparently President Obama wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies – which happens to be the media’s job,” she added.

Then on Monday, the great-and-all-knowing Maha Rushie, who I agree with 99.7% of the time, expanded on the ridiculousness of it all...

"So in an interview with TheNewRepublic, rather than be focused on the employment situation or the debt circumstance or whatever other problem...the big problems that Obama has are FoxNews and me."



Say, didn't he begin his first term with similar attacks? The timing here is interesting: It mimics the way he started his first term, which provided a constructive tool to ram through key components of his legislative agenda...first it was stimulus spending and ObamaCare through an overwhelming Democratic vote; now it's gun control and amnesty through overwhelming pressure for a defeated Republican Party that still holds some power to fall in line.

"The rest of the media's in the tank. Everybody else has fallen in line. There is no opposition other than Fox News and Limbaugh."



"I look at Barack Obama as attempting to eliminate any viable opposition."



That's exactly what he's trying to do. Sounds like any number of tinhorn dictators, doesn't it? Except in Obama's case, rather than a more direct means of tyranny, he employs tactics of empathy, manipulation and subversion to garner support from a low-informed constituency. On the one hand, Obama whines that Republicans won't cave to his every endeavor, although they unfortunately are to much of it; while on the other, blaming his dictatorial behavior on the same opposition simply because they don't agree with his every whim. He desires total authoritarian control by fiat, and the multitude of subordinates want to give it to him...save for the few dissenters.

CBS News trashes the Constitution

On Sunday morning, CBSNews ran a startling segment called 'Let's Give Up On The Constitution'. Could you imagine if this media-driven dribble ran one Sunday morning under a Republican presidency? Only under the Great Obama do these fools openly promote mob rule in the streets and imperial rule in Washington...



And if this is not frightening enough, this guy is a supposed constitutional law professor. Rush responded this morning...

RUSH: CBS News Sunday morning, a law professor, constitutional law professor, Georgetown University. That is chilling. Comparing the Founding Fathers to a foreign power. A bunch of old dead white guys. We shouldn't allow people who died over two centuries ago who knew nothing of our country as it exists today to rule us. And then if we are to take back our country -- what is that take back our country? From who? You know, the liberals are constantly talking about taking back our country. And this is what they mean. Taking it back from the founding, taking it back from the founders. They didn't like it to begin with, and now they want to abolish the Constitution. The people that had anything to do with it are nothing special. They're dead. They had no idea what life would be like today. Totally missing the miracle of the document. Totally missing the beauty and miracle that is the Constitution.

I'm sure Levin, an authentic constitutional lawyer, will have an earful to say about this at some point tonight...

ADDENDUM: Yep, Levin's second hour...Mark says this just once again shows how the media and the Lefitsts hate the Constitution and they will use any and every opportunity they can to subvert it.

The new amnesty con

“As a rule of thumb, Congressional legislation that is bipartisan is usually twice as bad as legislation that is partisan.” ~ Thomas Sowell

What do you get when RINOs Grahamnesty and McLame sign on with the likes of Schmuck Schumer, Turbin Durbin, Menendez and other Dems to resurrect a Bush-era amnesty proposal (i.e., 'comprehensive immigration reform'), spiced up with the Marco Rubio so-called 'push to the right'? Another rues, another con, ultimately resulting in another amnesty (i.e., more Democratic voters).

HotAir: A bipartisan group of Senators have already released the conceptual structure of an immigration reform compromise, if not the legislative language. This is getting plenty of press today, and it will probably take most of the attention in politics this week for both its own substance and how it plays in both parties and among voters. The compromise provides normalization for most of the illegal immigrants in the US, but puts certification of border security and a visa-program overhaul first — as well as all of those applying legally for immigration as of the bill’s passage:

Four Basic Legislative Pillars:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

And we're supposed to believe that this normalization will come only after the border is secured and the visa-program is overhauled? What a load. And Democrats have already informed their supporters as much. We're also evidently supposed to be happy that so-called 'conservatives' are in the room with Democrats running the show and pushing this through. Comforting.

The one question that continues to be avoided: "Why, decade after decade, haven't existing laws been enforced?" Guess the rule of law is just too tough to confront.

Call your Representatives and Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them "NO AMNESTY!" starting with the 'Gang of 8':

Republicans Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake

Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Michael Bennet

h/t: CofCC

Court rules EPA can’t mandate what doesn't exist

Who'd a thunk it? Ordering businesses to use what doesn’t exist...but then again, this is Obama’s EPA...

TheDC: A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn’t commercially available.

The court sided with the country’s chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

“[W]e agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority,” reads the court decision.

API said refiners were forced to purchase biofuel credits for nonexistent gallons of cellulosic biofuel to meet the EPA’s mandate, reports theHill.

“We are glad the court has put a stop to EPA’s pattern of setting impossible mandates for a biofuel that does not even exist,” API Group Downstream Director Bob Greco said in a statement. “This absurd mandate acts as a stealth tax on gasoline with no environmental benefit that could have ultimately burdened consumers

Another small victory against the statist way.

Marching for Life

"Respect for the sanctity of human life has not died in America. Far from it. With every passing year it shines ever more brightly in the hearts of more and more of our citizens as they come to see the issue with greater clarity in all of its dimensions. As we carry this message to our courts, our legislatures, and our fellow citizens, let us never be discouraged. … May we soon rejoice in the day when reverence for human life is enshrined as surely in our laws as in our hearts." ~ Ronald Reagan

THIS is the singular human and civil rights issue of our time, period.

(Link to march here)

MorningBell: The official theme of this year’s march is “40 = 55M.” It’s an equation meant to reflect the enormous cost of 40 years under the ethic of Roe: Since the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973, an estimated 55 million abortions have been performed.

Like many annual March for Life events before it, there will likely also be smaller groups of counter-protests by abortion advocates holding signs and chanting slogans championing the ethic of Roe that pledges unwavering allegiance to a right of abortion-on-demand, for any reason. But those now-tired slogans are no longer able to convince a new generation that denying life to some will lead to a more just society and freedom for others.

It is a simple witness by a tireless pro-life movement over the past 40 years that has reoriented the hearts and minds of an entire generation toward the dignity and worth of every individual—born or yet to be. Despite obstacles, the pro-life movement has achieved notable victories in public opinion, law, and culture.

Despite the media's stance, despite the bogus polls, and in spite of either, the Pro-Life movement is trending UP, particularly among young people...



As the March for Life draws to a close and Americans look to yet another year under the waning, yet still deadly ethic of Roe, there remains hope that government will one day soon return to a deeper respect of the principles that founded and sustain America by ensuring the basic rights of liberty and life to everyone—including those yet to be born.

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." ~ Genesis 50:20

Past, Present and Future: the 44th President's 'utopian' record

Such a paradise, no? Out of all the Marxist clap-trap that was uttered from the mouth of our 44th President in his Orwellian second inaugural address, here's the stark reality of his record that he doesn't want discussed...

Along the lines of the data cited by Mark Levin on Tuesday's program, K. E. Campbell of AmericanThinker prepared the table below. The statistics shown comport with the ones referenced by Levin, though Campbell added some others of a similar nature.

And here's where we are now...the Fed's holding of U.S. government debt has hit a record $1,696,691,000,000...that's UP 257% under Obama!

CNSNews: In data released Thursday afternoon, the Federal Reserve revealed that its holdings of U.S. government debt had increased to an all-time record of $1,696,691,000,000 as of the close of business on Wednesday.

The Fed's holdings of U.S. government debt have increased by 257 percent since President Barack Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, and the Fed is currently the single largest holder of U.S. government debt.

As of the end of November, according to the U.S. Treasury, entities in Mainland China owned about $1,170,100,000,000 in U.S. government debt, making China the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.

When Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the Fed owned $475.322 billion in U.S. government debt. As of the close of business on Wednesday, Jan. 23, the Fed owned $1.696691 trillion in U.S. government debt, up $1.221369 trillion during Obama's first term.

Since Obama has been president, the publicly held portion of the U.S. government debt (as opposed to the "intragovernmental" deb the government has borrowed from federal trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund) has increased by $5,264,245,866,257.40. The $1.221369 in additional U.S. government debt the Fed has purchased during Obama's presidency equals 23 percent of all the new publicly held debt the Treasury has issued during that time.

And of our future? A collapsing path that we're unfortunately spiraling down with statists presiding over a massively growing welfare utopia...

WSJ: In President Obama's second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shutting down debate about the social-welfare state and its impact on American life.

A growing body of empirical evidence points to increasing dependency on state largess. The evidence documents as well a number of perverse and disturbing changes that this entitlement state is imposing on society.

Consider:

• Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income. Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America—up from 6% in 1960.

• According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. Since those entitlements must be paid for—either through taxes or borrowing—the burden of entitlement spending now amounts to over $7,400 per American man, woman and child.

• In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine.

• According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s. The country has seen a long-term expansion in public reliance on "means-tested" programs—that is, benefits intended for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from "means-tested" government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans on entitlement programs are taking "means-tested" benefits. Only a third of all Americans receiving government entitlement transfers are seniors on Social Security and Medicare.

• As entitlement outlays have risen, there has been flight of men from the work force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proportion of adult men 20 and older working or seeking work dropped by 13 percentage points between 1948 and 2008. The American male flight from work is so acute that more than 7% of men in their late 30s (the prime working age-group) had totally checked out of the workforce, even before the recent recession. This workforce opt-out, incidentally, was more than twice that of contemporary Greece, the poster child for modern welfare-state dysfunction. The share of 30-somethings neither working nor looking for work appears to be higher in America than in practically any Western European economy.

• According to the Social Security Administration, the number of working-age Americans relying on Social Security's disability programs has increased dramatically over the past two generations. In December 2012, more than 8.8 million working-age men and women took such disability payments from the government—nearly three times as many as in December 1990. For every 17 people in the labor force, there is now one recipient of Social Security disability program payments. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that more than 12.4 million working-age Americans obtained disability income support from all government programs in 2011. That's more than the total number of employees in the manufacturing sector of the economy.

• In recent years, the biggest increases in disability claims have been for "musculoskeletal" problems and mental disorders (including mood disorders). But as a practical matter, it is impossible for a health professional to ascertain conclusively whether or not a patient is suffering from back pains or sad feelings. The government's disability-insurance programs were intended to address genuine need. On the current trajectory, the Social Security disability fund is projected to run out of money during Mr. Obama's second term.

• The president and others describe Social Security and Medicare as "social insurance" programs rather than transfer schemes. True, the eventual beneficiaries of these programs contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds during their working lives. But "insurance" programs are meant to pay for themselves; Social Security and Medicare cannot do so. According to the trustees for those two programs, Social Security and Medicare have already made tens of trillions of dollars in future promises that are not covered by their expected funding streams. If and when outside resources are required to honor their promises, these entitlements become transfer programs, not insurance programs.

This "something for nothing" or "taker" mentality that relentlessly grows year after year only weakens the civil society, while progressively placing heavier burdens on taxpayers. And if this doesn't end, it will ultimately lead to our collapse from within.

Generosity is a virtue, on that we can all agree with President Obama. But being generous with other people's money is not the same thing.

Court rules Obama recess appointments to NLRB were unconstitutional

What difference does it make? Well, there's this thing called the Constitution, Mr. President...

AP: President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

Another victory for Landmark Legal Foundation! (for those who may not recall, that's Mark Levin's group)

ADDENDUM: Here's a link to Landmark's official statement...with a particularly exceptional excerpt:

Landmark was the only organization in the case to advance the argument that the President could not use the Recess Appointments Clause because, according to the specific language in the Constitution, the Recess Appointments Clause could only be used by a President in between sessions of Congress, and not during brief recesses taken by the Senate during a session of Congress. The Court agreed with Landmark that to interpret the clause as the President had would be to effectively destroy the Senate’s constitutional authority to confirm presidential appointments.

"We’re very pleased that the Court agreed with our position that no President is above the law," explained Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark R. Levin. "The Senate was meeting in pro forma sessions every three days when President Obama announced his appointments. They even conducted business during those sessions. This President doesn’t get to tear up and toss aside the Constitution just because he disagrees with the limitations it imposes on him."

Boehner: Obama wants to 'annihilate' the GOP

“And given what we heard yesterday about the President’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this Administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal — to just shove us into the dustbin of history.”

Why, what ever gave you that impression, John?



After four years of Obama, and two years of dealing directly with the man, it took him this long to figure that out? And this is our Speaker, folks.

O mon Dieu.