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.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
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?
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?
Friday, May 11, 2012
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:
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.
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."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?
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."
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.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, May 07, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Thursday, May 03, 2012
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:
Smokey the Bear - The last best line of defense.
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.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
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:
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.
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:(links omitted highlight added)
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.
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.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Obama got Osama, 1 Year On
The Obama administration is making such a big deal about Obama ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden as part of their re-election campaign. Just between us, I am getting tired of it because Obama keeps acting like he led the raid and double tapped the target himself. Why don't we all agree that we are glad that Obama ordered the raid and that the SEALS were able to pull it off so effectively.
But let's also think about the "courage" of Obama to order the raid. Yes, things could have gone wrong and we could have had a replay of Desert One to finalize the comparison with Jimmy Carter. But if he hadn't ordered it, what do you think public opinion would have been when it was found out that he passed? That's right, Obama had no choice. He didn't fast rope into the compound, nor did he kick the door down or anything else. Instead, he was a voyeur as the real decision makers made their way.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the animal is dead. But what is the long term effect of the death of Osama? Outside of being used as campaign fodder, is Al Quaeda gone? Nope. Is the War on Terror really over as some administration idiot supposedly has pronounced? Nope. The fight will go on without the benefit of a figurehead. Kind of reminds me of the Democrat Party after November.
But let's also think about the "courage" of Obama to order the raid. Yes, things could have gone wrong and we could have had a replay of Desert One to finalize the comparison with Jimmy Carter. But if he hadn't ordered it, what do you think public opinion would have been when it was found out that he passed? That's right, Obama had no choice. He didn't fast rope into the compound, nor did he kick the door down or anything else. Instead, he was a voyeur as the real decision makers made their way.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the animal is dead. But what is the long term effect of the death of Osama? Outside of being used as campaign fodder, is Al Quaeda gone? Nope. Is the War on Terror really over as some administration idiot supposedly has pronounced? Nope. The fight will go on without the benefit of a figurehead. Kind of reminds me of the Democrat Party after November.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Schweitzer on Letterman
So our good governor goes on the Late Show with David Letterman, and since I usually don't bother watching Letterman anymore, I decided to record it to watch it later. Overall, the Gov did a great job of looking like a hick. Unbelievable that this man was supposedly being considered at one time for a Cabinet post.
Watch and decide for yourself.
Watch and decide for yourself.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Obama's New Campaign Theme
Thought it up all by himself, he did, and it's "We Can't Wait!" I think it's great as far as it goes, but they forgot the rest of the line: "Until this Bozo is gone!"
Monday, April 23, 2012
Another Fine Example
Apropos my earlier posting about the Left not being morally consistent, we have Pogie of Intelligent Discontent who is following up on the meme of the "Republican War on Women" with his latest posting. It seems that Pogie is outraged that the Republican gubernatorial candidates want to eliminate gender discrimination in insurance, especially health insurance. In Pogie's mind, the Eeevill insurance companies want to base the rates on actual use instead of treating each of us just exactly the same, and he is upset that anyone would actually consider such a thing.
Of course without looking, I could just about guarantee that Pogie has complained about the costs of health insurance, so his complaint just further verifies my posting about the immoral reasoning that is used by the Left. How about instead of this being a war on women, we recognize if for what it really is: Using men to subsidize women's health insurance. Women as a population, tend to use health care more than men, ergo greater costs are incurred for the benefit of the fairer sex. Rather than have them pay their share, we have made discrimination based on reality illegal. Now, one of the problems is that because of the higher health care costs, men can and do make a rational assessment and decide that it is not in their financial interests to buy insurance, thereby removing their support. This results in higher insurance coverages to pay for the population using the service, which then incurs more men to decide not to participate, repeating the cycle.
If the costs were based on actuarial data, we would charge each according to their risk so that healthy lifestyles are rewarded and risky behavior is required to subsidize the risk to the less healthy. This could mean that women's insurance premiums would go up, but there would now be a larger pool of men who demand less services that could more equitably spread the risk to all. Of course, Pogie also forgets that the problem with gender neutrality is that women subsidize men when it comes to drivers insurance.
So, the question presented has to be - is Pogie just another puppet of the Democrat-media conglomeration ruthlessly seeking power, or is he just dumb?
Of course without looking, I could just about guarantee that Pogie has complained about the costs of health insurance, so his complaint just further verifies my posting about the immoral reasoning that is used by the Left. How about instead of this being a war on women, we recognize if for what it really is: Using men to subsidize women's health insurance. Women as a population, tend to use health care more than men, ergo greater costs are incurred for the benefit of the fairer sex. Rather than have them pay their share, we have made discrimination based on reality illegal. Now, one of the problems is that because of the higher health care costs, men can and do make a rational assessment and decide that it is not in their financial interests to buy insurance, thereby removing their support. This results in higher insurance coverages to pay for the population using the service, which then incurs more men to decide not to participate, repeating the cycle.
If the costs were based on actuarial data, we would charge each according to their risk so that healthy lifestyles are rewarded and risky behavior is required to subsidize the risk to the less healthy. This could mean that women's insurance premiums would go up, but there would now be a larger pool of men who demand less services that could more equitably spread the risk to all. Of course, Pogie also forgets that the problem with gender neutrality is that women subsidize men when it comes to drivers insurance.
So, the question presented has to be - is Pogie just another puppet of the Democrat-media conglomeration ruthlessly seeking power, or is he just dumb?
The Love of Power
Victor David Hanson has an excellent piece out that says what I have been thinking for quite awhile. I have foolishly given the Left the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe their arguments, no matter how wrong or misguided they might be. This puts everyone who is not an avid Democrat at a distinct disadvantage. For instance as noted in the article, where are all the anti-war Cindy Sheehans, etc. that pummeled Bush and the "neoocons"? Is everything just milk and honey now, or is it just that their guy is in control so it's okay?
The bottom line is that there may be a few on the Left who actually have deeply felt moral convictions and are consistent. I can admire them for that.
If I could find them.
The bottom line is that there may be a few on the Left who actually have deeply felt moral convictions and are consistent. I can admire them for that.
If I could find them.
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Problem with Unmedicated Mental Illness
Is visibly demonstrated by Nancy Pelosi:
No, really, she said this. As well as:
There is more, and if you need an April Fools joke that is available every damn day of the year, go read the rest of the article.
President Barack Obama "has been so respectful of the Republicans in Congress.
No, really, she said this. As well as:
"He has given them every opportunity for the executive and the legislative branch to work together, to have a solution that has bi-partisan support. He’s been criticized by some for taking the time that it takes to find out that they’re never going to give him a break, which is a compromise.”
There is more, and if you need an April Fools joke that is available every damn day of the year, go read the rest of the article.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
More Drudge Juxtaposition Fun
From the looks of it, the Secret Service is looking to talk to Nugent about how to really party.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Presidential Predictions
According to my wife (the Good Democrat) and others of her ilk, Obama is going to take his re-election in a walk. They base this primarily on how poorly "Malleable Mitt" has been doing in head to head match ups in the polls. But in the spirit of not counting chickens too early, I think that Obama doesn't stand a chance at being continued in office.
Sure, it is counterfactual to all of the current conventional wisdom, but here is why I think Obama is in trouble. First - All of the press so far this season has been on the food fight among the Republican nominees. Assuming that the MSM is relishing this low level WWE contest and reporting on every false step, accusation or other peccadillo, they have managed to drive down Romney's favorables to more than half. But what happens when Romney secures the nomination?
At that time there will be the inevitable one on one that campaigns are meant to be about. And Obama cannot run on his record. Yes, yes, I know that the Democrats are still going to be using the mantra "It's Bush's fault" but that is tiresome to those not drinking the Kool-Aid. And the Kool-Aid drinkers are already firmly in Obama's column.
The economy was worse than they thought? Well then why in the heck were they messing with it if they didn't understand the severity of the problem? Do we want to return to the failed policies of the Bush Administration? Let's see, 4% unemployment, lower SSI and SSDI claims because even the disabled could find a job. Deficits? Sure Bush spent a Trillion dollars on the wars, but that is small change compared to what Obama has done every year. Wealth being accumulated by the 1% at the expense of the 99? So yesterday, and the Occupy Movement is but a parody of the Tea Party in spite of their best efforts by the MSM. Improved comity and race relations? Our post racial President lives and dies by white guilt and the need to energize his base. War on Women? That has been underway since Obama managed to destroy the economy with his failed Keynesian policies. In every aspect of his 2008 campaign, Obama lied to us. Closing Gitmo, doing away with military tribunals, stopping drone warfare, all of which were Bush policies carried out even further by the man who promised to end them all.
How about the future? Unfortunately, Chairman Putin pf Russia and the Premier of China have a better idea of what Obama's future policies are than the American people do. More of the same, or make it even worse than now is the question the rest of we Americans are facing.
Just as Obama won as much by not being Bush, Romney is going to win by not being Obama.
Sure, it is counterfactual to all of the current conventional wisdom, but here is why I think Obama is in trouble. First - All of the press so far this season has been on the food fight among the Republican nominees. Assuming that the MSM is relishing this low level WWE contest and reporting on every false step, accusation or other peccadillo, they have managed to drive down Romney's favorables to more than half. But what happens when Romney secures the nomination?
At that time there will be the inevitable one on one that campaigns are meant to be about. And Obama cannot run on his record. Yes, yes, I know that the Democrats are still going to be using the mantra "It's Bush's fault" but that is tiresome to those not drinking the Kool-Aid. And the Kool-Aid drinkers are already firmly in Obama's column.
The economy was worse than they thought? Well then why in the heck were they messing with it if they didn't understand the severity of the problem? Do we want to return to the failed policies of the Bush Administration? Let's see, 4% unemployment, lower SSI and SSDI claims because even the disabled could find a job. Deficits? Sure Bush spent a Trillion dollars on the wars, but that is small change compared to what Obama has done every year. Wealth being accumulated by the 1% at the expense of the 99? So yesterday, and the Occupy Movement is but a parody of the Tea Party in spite of their best efforts by the MSM. Improved comity and race relations? Our post racial President lives and dies by white guilt and the need to energize his base. War on Women? That has been underway since Obama managed to destroy the economy with his failed Keynesian policies. In every aspect of his 2008 campaign, Obama lied to us. Closing Gitmo, doing away with military tribunals, stopping drone warfare, all of which were Bush policies carried out even further by the man who promised to end them all.
How about the future? Unfortunately, Chairman Putin pf Russia and the Premier of China have a better idea of what Obama's future policies are than the American people do. More of the same, or make it even worse than now is the question the rest of we Americans are facing.
Just as Obama won as much by not being Bush, Romney is going to win by not being Obama.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Here is Racism
The Left loves throwing out false accusations of racism as a tactic to stifle debate. It's starting to fail as a tactic because it has been so overdone. But if you want a real example of just plain old racism, check this out.
Shameful, and it will be ignored by our usual cadre of race baiters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that is par for the course when it comes to the complaints of the Left.
Ward 8 D.C. Councilman Marion Barry is on the hot seat again.
Celebrating his victory in the Democratic primary on Tuesday night, Barry spoke up about the prominence of businesses owned by Asians in the District.
“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops,” Barry said in remarks first reported by WRC-TV. “They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.
Shameful, and it will be ignored by our usual cadre of race baiters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that is par for the course when it comes to the complaints of the Left.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
An Old Adage
Never get in a fight with a pig. The pig loves it, and you just get dirty. Such is the Obama fight that he just picked with the Supreme Court over their review of Obamacare. Well, some people can't wait, and the 5th Circuit just ordered the Justice Department to explain to them why Marbury v. Madison is no longer in effect. From the article:
So much for the Constitutional professor. Boy, and people said Bush was dumb.
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.
So much for the Constitutional professor. Boy, and people said Bush was dumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)