Legally Insane, or just Cynical as Hell?

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee was trying to influence the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare the other day. Remember, this is the Chairman of the Committee that is charged to give advise and consent to the President's nominees for the federal bench, the so called Article III judges. He has been joined in this opinion that the SCOTUS should rule that the ObamaCare mandate is Constitutional by no less a learned law professor than our own President and the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (otherwise known as the decision maker on which way to vote for our very own Jon Tester).
As Leahy said:

I trust that he will be a chief justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch," said Leahy. "The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the court. Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce

In a way, I am appalled that a lawyer would try to use ex parte influence on a court to influence its decision. That is just one of those basic "Thou Shall Nots" of being a lawyer. But in another way, it's kind of hilarious. Let's see now, Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life and can only be removed by impeachment. Is going against Sen. Leahy impeachable? No, in fact going the way that idiot wants would be though. To ignore the Constitution because the SCOTUS should defer to the popular will as expressed by Congress is easily refutable by the opinion polls which show the Act to be very much disliked.
But, won't the court be perceived as partisan if they don't do what the Democrats want? I am always amazed that only the conservatives are partisan. The Left is worse, with my favorite example being their ruling in Bush v. Gore, where by 7-2 they found the recount methods to violate due process and equal protection, but two who said it was a violation flipped to try and let Florida keep counting the flawed ballots.
I am sure though, that Roberts is smart enough, in fact I think he is smarter than Scalia, that he could find a way to mildly rebuke the Democrats for their unseemly behavior. My thinking is that he could point out that the Senate Finance Chairman said he never read the whole bill, so by ruling it unconstitutional, it would give them another try at it.
The real audience in all of this though is not the court, but the Left base. When ObamaCare goes down in flames, Leahy, Reid and Obama are prepping the battlefield for the outrage that is going to be artificially generated. They will stoke that anger for the sole purpose of getting the base out to vote. The trouble with this tactic is that the base was always going to vote for Obama anyway, and the outrage, venting, and yes, the inevitable violence of the Left's temper tantrum are just going to further alienate the middle.
The problem for the Left is that they live in a sheltered cocoon, immune from any dissident thoughts or voices. Leahy thinks that this will help. I think that ship has already left and he is still standing on the dock.

Message Failure

I have been thinking about a list of Lefties I admire. Sure, it would be a pretty short list, but among them would have to be Newark Mayor Corey Booker. On Meet the Press, he plainly stated that the attacks by Obama using Bain Capital as a the vehicle are unfair and nauseating. The DNC and David Axelrod quickly brought him to heel forcing him to make a YourTube video that contradicted his earlier statement. But the cats out of the bag and he is not alone.

Another Massive Obama Fail

For the second year in a row, Obama's budget received zero votes in the Senate. Coupled with the 414-0 vote against his budget in the House of Representatives, you can say that he is a unifier. You can't say that he is serious about his budgets when not even Dingy Harry Reid or Jon Tester will vote for it. (Of course, I was just pointing out that Jon is just another vote for Reid).

Why on earth does anyone say that the Democrats are serious about budgeting? Another lie.

Massive Obama Fail

I had predicted before that Obama was in trouble for reelection. I just didn't think that it would get to be this bad. Just look at what has been going on the last few weeks and see if you can't smell the desperate flop sweat that is coming from Chicago. As an example, remember when Obama was playing the class envy card about removing deductions for corporate jets? Well, he seems to have gotten over that problem now. In fact, one of his aides is promising $1 Billion in subsidies for corporate jets. Remember how "fat cat bankers were all the reasons for the collapse of the economic system? Heck, the administration was even deciding how much pay the CEOs should get. The administration is willing to put aside their seriously expressed outrage so long as the bankers are willing to subsidize his campaign.
Remember the big evolution in his thinking about gay marriage? First, he was for it before he was against it, but now, with lost of money being withheld by the Gay Community, Obama has had a change of heart and is once again in favor of gay marriage. Just in time for the George Clooney fund raiser.

Are you noticing a pattern here?

Add to the list everyone of his '08 campaign promises. Gitmo, tribunals, Afghanistan was the "correct war" no red state, no blue state, just the United States, and oh so many others.

Obama is either a sociopath or an inveterate liar who cannot tell the truth. The only conviction that I believe he holds dear is that he has to maintain power. And everyone of his supporters will take their turn at being demonized and disrespected so long as he can keep on filling his campaign coffers.

Suckers!

UPDATE: When you have lost Noam Chomsky, who is left?

Manufactured Outrage

The Democrats and the MSM have been having a hard time trying to convince us all that we need to be so outraged at those wascally Republicans.  Why, did you know that Romney once had a dog that he put in a kennel on the car roof?  The shamelessness of it all.  Then the other side pointed out that at least he didn't eat the dog.  This caused that line of attack to fall flat. 
Recently, we have learned that Romney led a gang of prep school thugs who may, or may not have given a kid an impromptu haircut.  Five thousand words on this deeply interesting subject, and yet, so little about Obama, even now that we have learned.  The fact that the WaPo's story started running into refutation almost from the minute it hit the online posting has served to further reduce any pretense they might have had to being something other than just another shill for the Democrats.
Let's face it, the Left has lost their credibility.  Their influence is gone because everyone know that they are no longer honest brokers.  It's a shame that they did this to themselves, but tautologically speaking, they did this to themselves.  "Nice soul you got there son, pity if you sold it too cheap."  And cheap it is.
But the highlight of futility has to be the new program to properly teach Democrats how to play the race card.  Sure, you thought that they would have that down pat now, since they fail at basic logic, reasoning or facts.  But no, they are doubling down on it because it has always worked so well in the past. Don't believe me? Here is an example:

As samples of race-coded rhetoric, Wiley reminded the Democrats of statements by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Of Gingrich's famous comment about President Obama, her distributed remarks note, "Calling a Black man 'the food stamp president' is not a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism."

But the threshold for what constitutes racially charged messaging is not always so high. One of Santorum's cited comments was: "Give them more food stamps, give them more Medicaid is the administration's approach, rather than creating jobs." She also cited this comment from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., about raising taxes to fund government programs: "I've never believed that you go raise taxes on those that are paying in, taking from them, so that you just hand out and give them to someone else."

Do you notice that it's only racist to call a black man the "Food Stamp President?" Oh, man, we have come so far in our progress to equality haven't we?
A pure statement of fact is suddenly racist because of the color of the skin of the President? Kind of reminds me of that old "You can't win, you can't lose, you can't tie, you can't even leave the game."
But I think the Democrats are not realizing how ineffective that they are seeming when that is the best argument that they have.
Not that that will stop them from trying.

Cool Drive up Ravalli Hill

The Spineless Obama

After years of evolving his position on gay marriage, (read holding his finger to the wind) President Obama has made the decision that he is personally in favor of gay marriage. While much may be made of this daring pronouncement, let's go back to the words that he used. He is personally in favor of it. Not that he is going to push it as part of the Administration's policies, but just that now, you can be gay and get married in his opinion.

As long as your state doesn't ban it of course. Then, he would be opposed. Wouldn't want to offend those who are opposed to gay marriage, and wouldn't want to offend some of his biggest contributors.

What, oh what is a person to do?

How about have a spine and the courage of your convictions?

Not that that is ever going to happen.

How Romney Should Deal with Ron Paul

Paul picked up a bunch of delegates to the Republican convention over the weekend. What's that you say, I thought Romney had it sewn up? Well he does, but the Paulies are still out there and a force to be reckoned with.

My solution - Promise to appoint Ron Paul to be chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Of course the consternation to financial markets will be damaging, but it sure would be a lot of fun.

It's Midnight in America

Reagan's re-election campaign kicked off in 1984 used the phrase "It's Morning in America" proclaiming that the country is "prouder, stronger and better" than it was four years ago. Enter Obama, who really can't say the same thing. Sure, the spin has been there is a great improvement from the horrible Bush years. Why remember when it was a crisis to have unemployment at 6%? Now, we are supposed to be thrilled that enough people have stopped looking for work that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1%.
Obama is now arguing that we need to imagine an America four years from now that will be better than it is. I agree with him, so long as he is defeated in November.

Very Punny

Today is Star Wars Day! May the Fourth be With You!

Montana on the Front Lines of the War on Terror.

In spite of "spiking the football" Al Qaeda continues to put out their online magazine. In the latest issue, they urge their followers to set firebombs off in our forests. From the article:

The magazines have also lost some of the snark and American colloquialisms favored by the U.S.-raised Samir Khan, who memorably titled one of his articles urging Western Muslims to wage lone wolf attacks "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom." But issue nine carries equally lethal advice, with "It Is of Your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb," which gives detailed instructions on how to ignite an "ember bomb" in a U.S. forest, recommending Montana because of the rapid population growth in wooded areas.

"In America, there are more houses built in the [countryside] than in the cities," says the writer, who uses the pseudonym The AQ Chef. "It is difficult to choose a better place [than] in the valleys of Montana."

Issue eight has an eight-page article on how to construct remote-controlled explosives, with a laundry list of parts and ingredients and photos showing proper assembly.

Smokey the Bear - The last best line of defense.

Another Fine Example Pt. II

I know that I am weak, but having just noticed Pogie's reply to the first Fine Example, I had to go take a look at his site one more time, and lo and behold, he has another fine piece of fuzzy headed thinking. It's especially amusing since he is taking Fred Van Valkenburg to task, and if you remember, Fred is a leading Democrat who used to be a state senator. Are the Demos turning to cannibalism?
But the real point of the post is to address the many misstatements that Pogie and like him, the rest of the Left seem so willing to accept at face value. From the article:

Rather than welcoming the additional resources and opportunity to improve Missoula’s legal response to a culture that has enabled rape, County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg decided to attack the Department of Justice, in a rant that would not have been out of place during the 2011 Montana Legislature:

Fred Van Valkenburg denounced that action as an overreach by “the heavy hand of the federal government,” and insisted that his office has done nothing wrong.

That last line would be entirely correct, if only the word “wrong” were removed. The response to the series of sexual assaults in Missoula has been entirely inadequate and even damaging to women, as perpetrators have been allowed to flee the jurisdiction, charges have not been filed, and women have been told that their claims could very well be false.

(links omitted highlight added)

Apparently, believing the feds are overreaching is now considered to be subversive and not worthy of the efforts of good people (so stop complaining about the TSA molesting 4 year old girls, or blowing all your tax money on lavish trips to Vegas). But the other interesting thing is the highlighted portion. Apparently, Pogie has bought into the politically correct version that no woman ever makes a false rape claim. Therefore, all accusations are proof sufficient for a conviction. (Why the heck are we even having a trial? She said it happened).
So, the Feds have decided, and Pogie agrees that all the women in Missoula are having their civil rights violated by failing to prosecute obviously weak cases. Not, "hey, do you mind if we can sit down and talk about this" but a full blown civil rights investigation. Must have run out of real cases to investigate I guess.
Nonetheless, in this election year, and what with the ongoing "War on Women" now being furthered by that right wing fanatic Van Valkenburg, (and the casualties have been enormous, you can't walk around the UM campus without stepping on women who were victimized, or about to be anyhow) the Feds are not going to let this opportunity to show that they care get away. Interestingly, they could have turned to the FBI for statistics that showed rape as the second most often (after arson) proved false accusation at 41%. Now, when I say proved, I don't mean that the defendant was just acquitted, but that the victim herself recanted. Unfortunately, the women's caucus has found that statistic to be hurtful, so they had it changed.
As someone who defends people wrongly accused it is not at all improbable that when it comes down to a "he said/she said" or, whether or not consent was given, juries don't go for just an accusation. Throw in a victim who has been out drinking while her kids are at home, and then takes awhile to report the crime, and there is even less there for the jury to like. That is why prosecutors hate prosecuting rape cases where the two involved knew each other, alcohol was involved and it is strictly a question of whether or not the victim actually said no at any time prior to the next day. Those types of cases are pursued, but they really hate them since it detracts from their high percentages of convictions.
But just for fun, every time someone brings up the current meme of "Women wouldn't lie about such a horrible thing" remember something about the Duke lacrosse team. And remember that Van Valkenburg is not Nifong.

Thank God.