Saturday, June 30

More on Roberts' opinion on Obozocare

A contributor to the blog "View From the Right" read Justice Roberts' opinion on Obozocare, and was struck by what he considered to be its obviously flawed reasoning. Here's Roberts at p. 32:
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. [cite omitted] That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS.

Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like...gasoline or...income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. [cite omitted]. As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

Justice Roberts seems to have fallen in love with his own cleverness: It's certainly true that courts are encouraged to strive to find a way to interpret a statute that will be constitutional if possible. For example, if some state legislature passed a law that, though constitutional, cited an improper provision or precedent, the courts have been known to look to the intent, as expressed in the overall language.

But seizing on this clever truism doesn't mean that a law that clearly violates one provision of the Constitution can be saved because it fails to violate a second, unrelated provision. Yet this is clearly what Roberts did.

It's easy to see why Roberts viewed the penalty for violating the mandate as a tax. See the first boldface phrase above: The statute provided that a person who failed to buy health insurance would pay the penalty to the IRS. Moreover, the U.S. Solicitor-General argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax (after arguing just the previous day that is was NOT, since arguing that it wasn't was necessary to let the case be heard this year instead of four years from now).

But now listen to Obozo and the Dems join in the rising chorus: "It's NOT a tax!"


Is it a tax or not? Depends...

Obama and Dem spokesclowns before the razor-close congressional vote on Obozocare: "This 'mandate' thing is NOT a tax. Not. NOT! Absolutely not! No way is this a tax! Really! Reeeeallly! You can trust us on this--it is *absolutely* not a tax!

Supreme Court, 2012: "You claim the 'mandate' part of this law is permitted under the Constitution's commerce clause. Um...it's not. But don't worry, we'll rewrite it for you so it'll pass, by calling the individual mandate a 'tax'. There ya go! No charge."

Obama and Dems: "Yay!! We're number one! We're great! Da People have spoken! But...uh...that part where the court said it was a tax? IT'S NOT A TAX! We have no idea where he got that idea! What a nutcase! Didn't you hear us, Roberts? It was NOT a tax! God, what a moron! Hey, c'mon, have we ever lied to you?"


On the same topic: I'm seeing lots of comments about the decision like this one:
What's the point of caring about this shit?

The Right never wins when it matters.

When the right side does win it makes no difference.

The crucial vote--and the crucial theory saving Obamacare--came from a justice appointed by a Republican.

Republicans strive to appoint sound "jurists" who will uphold the Constitution. Democrats appoint reliable ideologues. One of our "jurists" almost always flips to join their ideologues and we end up with crazy shit like a constitutional right to bugger, a blessing for liberals to practice "good" racial discrimination, and a penalty that the court rules could have been a tax and thus is Constitutional, or some similar gibberish.

In ten years this whole country is going to look like the worst parts of Detroit, Greece and Nuevo Laredo.
Or this one:
Who cares whether they call it a penalty or a tax? Say you're a low-income, low-information voter who doesn't have health insurance now because you don't want it. Not your choice anymore, but you love it because you don't see that losing the option to choose is a problem.

But even a product of public-school education quickly realizes that the premium for the insurance the gov't wants you to buy is more expensive than the tax or penalty or whatever the hell it is.

So you pay the tax (or penalty or whatever) because the media have told you you can just wait until your latest tongue piercing turns into a life-threatening staph infection before you buy insurance--because Dear Leader and the Dems have decreed that you can't be denied coverage. (Cue heavenly music!)

And even better, thanks to the morons who crafted this bill, you then get to pay the same premium as all the healthy people in the plan. So if the insurance company ends up paying $500,000 for your treatment and you've only paid a tiny fraction of that in premium, it's your lucky day, and tough luck for them, right?

What could possibly go wrong with such a brilliant plan? How could this not be sustainable forever? Besides, insurance companies are eeeevil, so they shouldn't make a profit anyway.
Wow.

And this one:
Obama's lawyers argued that the federal government's powers were unlimited, because of the Commerce Clause. Justice Roberts sharply disagreed: He ruled the federal government's powers were unlimited because of the taxing power.
I really love blog comments!

This commenter had a good take, but naive:
Barky and the Dems keep saying "It's not a Tax." But this contradicts Justice Roberts, who says the only way ObamaCare is constitutional is....as a tax.

So when Barky and the Dems keep saying "It's NOT a tax," in effect they're saying that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

They can't have it both ways.
Ah, young Grasshopper, of course they can. They're liberals, which means they routinely hold contradictory beliefs without a scintilla of discomfort. In fact you can see the New Talking Point forming now: That Roberts didn't literally say it was a tax, but merely that IF it were to be considered a tax it would be constitutional.

Relax, your betters are in charge

Whenever I get worried about some problem we have, I'm reassured by the knowledge that our super-smart Eeelites in gummint and media are on the job, using the vast resources of the gummint and their astonishingly expensive Ivy League educations to carefully evaluate all the factors and make sound decisions to commit our resources to solve the problem.

See, ordinary people simply aren't smart enough--or well educated enough--to make smart decisions. That's why we need to always defer to our betters.

Yeah, right. If you believe any of that I've got a tax to disguise for ya.

And to neatly tie those points together, here's a clip of King Barack two years ago, touting the gummint's latest half-billion-dollar "investment" in yet another company trying to make solar cells. Notice how assured he sounds.

That company filed for bankruptcy last week.

Now I'll admit, it's hard to predict the future. Given enough time, lots of unexpected things happen that can make ideas that would have been good go bad. But to invest half a billion in a company that goes belly-up barely two years later seems...let's just say it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

But you citizens should keep listening to him, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Oh yeah. Particularly when they tell you that the tax enacted to fund Obamacare isn't really a tax at all. It's just that stupid chief justice of the Supreme Court who thinks it's a tax, and what the hell does he know?

Thursday, June 28

SC says Obamacare mandate is a tax. But in that case...

A commenter at Ace's place saw an interesting angle on the ruling about Obozocare:
The waivers that Obama granted--If [Obamacare] is a tax, those waivers aren't worth the paper they were written on, [because that] would mean that the Executive could GRANT Bills of Attainder, which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.... So Obama's waivers are shit.
I like the approach. However, the only way to make this little gotcha bite Obozo's supporters if you could get Obama's waivers declared illegal. And to do that, someone must sue the government.

No beneficiary of the waivers would do that. And (are you sitting down?) I'll bet you anything that the courts would rule that no conservative or other person who *didn't* benefit has the legal standing to sue, either.

I sense you're skeptical. But after the courts got away with ruling that not a single American citizen had the standing to sue Obozo for not meeting the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of president, what makes you think they'd be any more willing to grant standing to a suit against Obozocare?

On the other hand, a President Romney could use the Court's finding that the mandate is actually a tax (and thus can't be applied selectively) to issue an executive order rescinding the Obozo waivers. Faced with being screwed like the rest of us, it's likely that many union members would be more willing to support repealing the whole thing.

MSM doing a fine job--of supporting Dems

Results of a poll just published by NBC and the Wall Street Journal have some fascinating implications for the future of this nation. (Scroll down in the link to find a link to the actual poll results.)

Let me quickly note that I take poll results with a huge grain of salt because it's been pretty conclusively shown that one can produce about any desired result by wording questions... artfully. But with that disclaimer:

A full year after the Solyndra debacle went public--showing that Obama's Department of Energy had given taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of a Billion dollars to a company that never made a profit and indeed quickly went bankrupt--a whopping 59 percent of those polled answered "don't know" when asked for their opinion of Solyndra.

Unless you're a liberal, you probably wonder how that percentage of respondents could be unaware of Solyndra and whether it was a disaster, when there seemed to be lots of stories about it in both print and network news programs.

I think the likely answer is that the roughly 40% of the electorate that identifies as liberal and/or Democrat automatically tuned out any mention of Solyndra, since it could be seen as making their president look bad.

In addition, I suspect at least a third of conservatives (and 3/4ths of liberals/Democrats) are "low-information" voters, meaning they're not particularly interested in the details of arcane national economic stories like Solyndra.

Contrast the Solyndra results with those for another question: "Do you know Mitt Romney's religion?" Over two-thirds of respondents knew he was Mormon.

The response on Solyndra suggests that the MSM is doing its usual job of minimizing stories favorable to Republicans. But reporters and editors--overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat-supporting--have kept up a steady barrage of stories on Romney's religion--and in particular the weird or scary aspects thereof.

Hmmm. Why do you suppose they'd do that?

Wednesday, June 27

Muslims stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

Imagine that at a local Baptist convention a dozen Muslims silently held signs saying "Islam is the Way." Imagine that several hundred Baptists began taunting the Muslims, then started throwing rocks, eggs, bottles of water and milk cartons at them.

Think you'd have seen that on the nightly news?

Think that would have made the headlines of every local paper?

Well a few days ago, at a "Muslim Arab festival" in Dearborn, Michigan, a group of Christians silently held up signs quoting bible verses. The muslim crowd went nuts, and started throwing rocks, eggs, bottles of water and milk cartons at them. You really, really need to watch the video at the link, because you'd never believe this could happen here in the U.S. without provoking a huge police reaction against the assailants.

Can you guess what happened in this case? The police did nothing--no arrests, not even any bullhorn warnings.

The barrage of eggs and rocks continues for twenty-two minutes.

Pay particular attention to the reaction of the kids in the crowd who are under 16 or so. They're clearly thrilled by the aggression, and their body language suggests that they'd be even happier to escalate it.

Now, liberals/Democrats will complain that the Christians were stupid to hold pro-Christian signs at a "Muslim Arab" festival, and I won't argue that point. But one of the founding principles of this country was free speech, and the Muslims clearly want no part of it--unless it's them doing the protesting.

And if you don't believe this exact behavior is coming to your city--sooner than you think--then you haven't been paying attention.

If you're a liberal and are willing to meekly submit and either convert to Islam or pay the infidel tax to them, that's obviously your call--but you need to know that you're condemning your kids to the same existence. Is that what you wanted for them?

Tuesday, June 26

Drunk illegal kills young man, part gazillion

In South Carolina a drunk illegal alien driver hit and killed a young man.

The alien had been in the U.S. illegally for 12 years and had no driver's license. She'd also previously been stopped, so you'd think that being an illegal immigrant with no driver's license she'd have been deported. But per normal federal policy she was simply released.

Now to add insult to injury, the state has sent the dead man's mother a bill for cleaning her son's blood off the street at the site of the accident.

Whoever failed to deport the alien when she was first apprehended should be given an early ticket to experience the afterlife.

Same for whoever sent the bill to the dead man's mother.

Then something should be done to ensure our immigration laws are rigorously enforced. All illegals should be deported if detected by any branch of law enforcement.

The victim in this case could have been your son or daughter, husband or wife. Need to stop this insanity NOW.

Company with no experience gets $80 million of your money courtesy of Obozo

If you run your own business, you know how hard it can be to get a loan for a few tens of thousands of dollars.

So how easy is it for a startup business to get a million-dollar loan?

Chump change, y'say? Well how about $80 million? And how about, 'guaranteed by the taxpayers' so you'll get a low rate?

One so-called "green" company in New Hampshire got such a deal from Obozo's Department of Energy (and another $20 million from the state. But ya see, it's a "green" company, so it offered the promise of creating "green" jobs. And green is reeeally "in" now with the Elites, bein' as how it's all Gaia-friendly n' shit.

In fact, this company "promised" to create 70 new jobs with the taxpayer cash it already got.

So how did it do, you ask?

It...um...created a grand total of THREE jobs in 3 years.

Further, in its SEC filing the company admits it had no experience in the markets in which it sought to operate.

Hmmm...how many banks to you think would lend $80 mill to a company that had zero experience in its selected field, if the loan wasn't guaranteed by taxpayers?

But hey, what does a track record or experience matter if you're a "green" company promising to create green jobs?

I've lost count: How many Billions in taxpayer money has the Obama DOE shoveled out the door to goofy, flighty, zero-experience companies that promised green jobs?

Oh, wait, I found the secret: The company wanted to make "cellulosic ethanol." Which another branch of gummint has decreed gasoline refiners must add to their product...for some reason. To the tune of a few billion gallons per year.

Three jobs in three years, for a bargain-basement price of just $80 million of your money. Amazing. Sure glad gummint is choosing companies to back, instead of the private sector deciding. So much smarter and fairer.

Any bets on whether the company's founders turn out to be big Obama bundlers?

Muzzies sentence 2 to die for drinking

Hey liberals and Democrats: Like a glass of wine or a beer from time to time?

Are you willing to die for it? Because that's the punishment for consuming alcohol under Sharia law.

Yep, those pillars of moderate Islam, the Iranian mullahs, have sentenced two Iranian citizens to be executed for their third offense of drinking alcohol.

Not for drunk driving, or committing murder while intoxicated. Just for drinking.

This is the reality of Sharia law.

In my home state the citizens signed an initiative petition to pass a law saying our state courts could not enforce any provision of Sharia law here. It passed by a two-to-one margin. Because two-thirds of our state's citizens knew what Sharia meant.

Can you guess what happened? Yep, a federal court overturned that law.

Sharia: coming to your state sooner than you'd think

That's okay--you really didn't like drinking that much anyway, right?

By the way, do you like music?

Saturday, June 23

Who has raised more money for the election?

Have you read or seen any stories that Romney has raised more money than Obama?

No? Well here's the headline from a Bloomberg story from June 20th:
Romney Reaps Donations From Backers of Primary Opponents
Yes, I know it doesn't literally say that Romney has outraised Obozo, but then look at this line:
Several donors gave $5,000 to Romney, who became the first Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972 to raise private money for the general election.
See? With Romney's connections and ultra-rich friends he can raise dat eeeebil private money--and we all know what that does to elections, don't we?

You have to read more to learn that
Following the Watergate break-in scandal that led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Congress offered public financing to candidates who agreed to forgo raising private money, and every major-party nominee except Obama in 2008 took the federal funds. This year both campaigns will be funded entirely with private money.
But placed as it is after the damning graf about "first Republican since Nixon to raise private money for the general election," how many readers would come away with the wrong impression?

Then there's this:
casino executive Sheldon Adelson and his family, who had contributed $21.5 million to a political action committee supporting Gingrich, gave $10 million in June to a pro-Romney super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Texas businessman Robert Brockman...gave $1 million through three other companies to the super-PAC supporting Romney.
Gettin' the picture yet? The MSM wants you to know Romney's got the connections and is raking in bucks hand over fist. It's not til many grafs down in the article that you finally see the truth:
Obama has now raised $261.4 million for his re-election and Romney $123.6 million.
But you sure wouldn't get that impression without a very thorough read. And apparently newspaper folks know that the average reader rarely reads past the first couple of 'grafs.

What if BUSH had refused to enforce a constitutional law?

If you're a liberal/Democrat you're probably completely fine with Obozo's "directive" that federal employees stop deporting children of illegals (if they weren't born here or naturalized). After all, it's just *sad* to deport them, because they didn't have any say in the matter when their parents brought them here, et cetera.

If that's how you feel, try this thought experiment: Back when W was president, suppose Repubs in congress introduced a bill to cut taxes for ONLY the top two percent of wage earners. Then suppose this bill was defeated by Dems in congress, because they controlled both houses.

Now suppose Bush simply issued a "directive" saying that from that point on, the tax rate for people making over $750,000 a year would be--oh, say five percent.

Would you have had a problem with such a directive, which clearly violated existing law? If you're honest...never mind. No sense in trying to make that hypothetical work.

Friday, June 22

Syria, solved

Evidently there's some hand-wringing going on in the U.S. gummint regarding what we should do in Syria: Lots of blood being shed there, and little prospect for a good resolution. Even the U.N. is folding their laughably mis-named "peacekeeping" op.

Drew at Ace's has a good post on this, worth reading. And be sure to read the comments too.

Short answer is that we shouldn't do *anything.* Reason: It won't save any lives, and both sides will end up hating us more than they do now. Cold but spot-on.

Let me offer a variation: Get Obama on TV and have him very loudly agonize about how *awful* the killing is (said with really sad face), and how we jus' wish *so much* that the shooting would stop. Then say that because He is preezy now, the U.S. has given up on that military intervention stuff. I mean, we tried it in Iraq, got 4000 of our troops killed, spent a couple of trillion bucks and everyone hates us.

On Obie's watch we flew bombing missions in support of the rebels in Libya. No U.S. troops killed but the new rebel gummint hates us just the same. SO...no more of that, thank you.

Of course since this is King Barack, winner of the Nobel peace prize (like, a week after he was crowned), everyone will believe him. And then to put a thumb in America's eye, they'll keep fighting until one side runs out of fighters or weapons.

Such a tragedy.

Uptick in unemployment? Trivial, if prez is a Dem

Browsing thru old saved files on my computer, found this from a year ago. It's an Associated Press story about the U.S. economy--and it's...odd. See if you can spot the clunker:
American companies are on a hiring spree. [Did I miss that?]

Businesses delivered a jolt of strength to the economy by creating 268,000 jobs in April, the biggest monthly total since 2006. The gains were solid across an array of industries, even beleagured construction.

It was the third month in a row of at least 200,000 new jobs. The private sector has added jobs for 14 straight months.
And then at the end of the third 'graf is this little by-the-way:
Even a slight rise in the unemployment rate to 9 percent appears to be a quirk.
Did ya get that? Unemployment UP two-tenths, to a brutal 9 percent, and the AP propagandists call it "a quirk." A trivial footnote, and you are to pay it no heed whatsoever.

Yes, all is rosy here in the land of King Barack.

All. Is. Rosy.

One would sure as hell hope the economy was wunnerful, after Obama and the Democrats spent $800 Billion that we didn't have--so they borrowed from China--on "stimulus" programs.

And that mere two-tenths rise in unemployment? That little blip that the AP calls a mere "quirk?" When George Bush or any other Republican was president, can you recall ever seeing even one article where a two-tenths increase in unemployment was not only buried at the end of the 3rd paragraph, but touted as a *good thing*?

But with a Democrat at the helm--let alone one as fabulous as Obama--suddenly a jump in the nation's already-high unemployment rate is just "a quirk," thus presumably almost trivial?

In case you didn't translate "quirk" as "trivial," the AP propagandist makes it clearer:
The rise in the unemployment rate...the first increase since November...appeared to be due to a temporary disparity in two surveys the government uses to track jobs.
A side-bar with the article explains how the unemployment figure is derived, and says the problem was a sharp drop in the number of *farm workers,* adding "Economists suspect that may have been because bad weather delayed planting."

Who knew that bad weather could cause unemployment to rise by two-tenths of a percent? Must have been really bad, and over the entire U.S. Probably caused by global warming or something.

The sad thing is, 52 percent of American voters who read the article just quoted didn't see a thing unusual about it. They bought it, lock, stock and barrel.

The AP sure knows its target audience.


[Sorry I can't give you a link because I saw it in print form.]

Gummint requires non-existent additive in gasoline

Liberals and Democrats love for da gummint to regulate everything. Which means lotsa government regulations. Conservatives think many regulations are either pointless or impose punitive penalties for harmless violations.

In other words, they end up raising prices to consumers. (Even liberals know that companies eventually need to recover the fines at some point.)

Some regs are the fault of agencies like the EPA, but some are actually specific requirements inserted into laws by corrupt congresswhores to benefit one company. So there's lots of blame to go around.

Back in 2005--which I cheerfully acknowledge was before the coronation of King Barack--the gummint (I don't know the specific branch or agency) invented a requirement that gasoline refiners blend into their gas a certain amount of a fuel called "cellulosic ethanol." The rule (or law) required that the amount of this stuff that refiners would be forced to add would rise with time: 500 million gallons this year, 3 billion in 2015 and 16 billion in 2022.

At an arbitrary two bucks a gallon, we're talking a really huge income stream for whoever was planning to sell the stuff. And remember, since its use is required by gummint, the income is guaranteed regardless of the price of the stuff.

One tiny problem: Cellulosic ethanol has never been produced on a commercial scale. That was true and known when the rule was published back in '05 and it's still true today. And the Congressional Research Service estimates that the stuff won't be available in the needed amounts "until at least 2015."

So...if the stuff doesn't exist in commercial amounts, a rational person would assume the rule or reg requiring it would contain a provision that would waive the requirement in such a case.

Hahahahahahaha! You haven't been in this country long, I see. Because the reg or law apparently has no such provision. And as a result, the gummint is reportedly levying the equivalent of a fine or penalty on refiners for failing to use half a billion gallons of a fuel additive that doesn't exist outside the lab.

And again, the refiners will eventually recover these penalties or fines in the form of higher gas prices at the pump. At which point liberals will be delighted, and most of the rest of the populace will be unaware that this stupid, stupid regulation is to blame for at least that part of the price increase.

With efficiency and logic like that shown in the cellulosic ethanol rule, I can hardly wait for the gummint to start managing my health care.

Pelosi: "Repubs going after Holder because he's trying to overturn voter suppression"

Brent Baier reports that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has a novel spin on the confrontation between congressional Republicans and Eric Holder over his refusal to turn over documents requested by the House Government Oversight Committee:

According to Pelosi, the real reason Republicans are going after Holder is because he's "trying to overturn voter suppression in the states."

Of course liberals will quickly point out that Baier works for Fox News, so everything he reports must be a lie !! So to demolish this "defense," here's video of Nancy making exactly that claim. The charge is at 1:15.

For anyone who's been paying attention, Nancy's charge is clearly a load of crap, only believable by Democrats. But just for fun, let's explore her claim. What "voter suppression" is she referring to?

Could it be the efforts being made by a dozen states to purge voter registration rolls of illegal aliens and dead people? Does Nancy really think that's "voter suppression"? Guess that doesn't matter much--other than the hypocrisy--because her statement shows that regardless of whether she really believes it, she's trying to get you to believe it.

Why do you think a state would want to ensure that illegal aliens and the dead are removed from registration rolls? Could it be to ensure that no one illegally votes by claiming to be someone who's registered but dead? Or to ensure that only citizens are voting?

Wait, that couldn't be the reason, because that could easily be solved by just requiring everyone wanting to vote to have authenticatable photo ID. Oh, wait, that's right: Eric Holder's DOJ has sued to *prohibit* states from requiring photo ID to vote!

Seeing a pattern here? Top Democrat officeholders don't want states to clean up registration rolls, and are suing to block voter ID--both of which allow an unknown number of people to cast illegal votes.

Who would benefit from such a scheme?

Thursday, June 21

Cause of the Euro financial crisis?

While many factors have contributed to the Euro financial problem, seems t’ me the main cause is pretty simple: Ignorant, innumerate politicians kept voting for their governments to spend increasing amounts on social welfare…although it really doesn’t much matter on what, because the ultimate outcome is the same regardless.

For decades western European nations got away with this because the protection of U.S. military (i.e. paid by us taxpayers) enabled them to offset higher social spending by cutting military spending. But obviously one could only cut so much, and today there isn't a western European military worth noting. Not that that's necessarily bad, but...no more room to offset.

But of course the pols either didn’t realize they were, in effect, spending a one-time inheritance, or possibly didn't care that they'd exhausted the offset for their huge social spending. Thus they didn't see any need to modify their financially disastrous policies, and now they're all in a huge deficit situation.

Much like the U.S.

Wednesday, June 20

Holder letter "requesting" assertion of privilege

I've been reading the letter from attorney-general Holder to Obama in which Holder allegedly asked Obama to assert executive privilege to allow him to continue to withhold certain specific documents from congress, related to the coverup of the gun-running op called Fast and Furious.

It is a masterpiece of propaganda. Example:
I am very concerned that the compelled production of documents to congress would...significantly impair the Executive Branch's ability to respond to congressional oversight. (page 2 para. II)
If you think Holder is really concerned that turning over documents requested by congress would impair the "ability to respond to congressional oversight" I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. This is purest hogwash, designed to be turned into a script for evening network-news-readers.

Holder is (allegedly) asking for the shield to avoid incriminating himself and his boss.

I say "allegedly" because there's no way in hell that Holder would have sent this letter to Obama without prior consultation. The attorneys at DOJ and the White House got together and ginned up the strategy most likely to win the confrontation with congress, then crafted the exact verbage most likely to win sympathy from the roughly half the voters who would vote Obama if he was caught on video destroying evidence of his own wrongdoing.

These are the folks who didn't bat an eyelash when Slick Willy--testifying under oath-- said "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

This is starting to get interesting.

Ace has an interesting summary:

Most of Issa's requests are about how a patently false, and now "inoperable," memo was drafted, and who authorized it, and sent the perjurious document to Congress.

Are they claiming Executive Privilege shields them from disclosing how they contrived to lie?

That dog won't hunt.

Leftist blog Politico had this:

Holder said in a statement that the Department of Justice had already given the House...committee ample cooperation in their investigation.

“In recent months the Justice Department has made unprecedented accommodations to respond to information requests by Chairman Issa about misguided law enforcement tactics that began in the previous administration and allowed illegal guns to be taken into Mexico,” Holder said.

“Simply put, any claims that the Justice Department has been unresponsive to requests for information are untrue."

"Ample cooperation," you say? "Unprecedented accommodations?" Uh, at last count the committee had requested 70,000 documents and Holder had provided 7400. But of course the 10-point-five percent he turned over were all the really crucial, incriminating stuff, so that's why he didn't bother turning over the other 90 percent.

Just kidding, of course. But it makes a great script for wire-service writers and network newsreaders. Jus' rolls off the tongue, don't it? "Ample cooperation." "Unprecedented accommodations."


Oh, and for all of you who will assert that because the link to Holder's letter is at Fox News and therefore can't be a true copy, please feel free to find your own copy and show us where the Fox version differs from your version. We'd love to see it.

Why would Holder stonewall if docs would clear him and Obama?

Like mysteries, detective stories? Then consider two alternative hypotheses re attorney-general Eric Holder's "Justice" department and his refusal to turn over specific documents about the gun-running operation "Fast and Furious" as requested by a house committee:

1. "Fast and Furious" was a rogue op not approved by any high officer of the DOJ; Holder knows this and has emails and other communications to prove it; OR

2. The operation was approved by Holder or his boss, and the documents show that.

Now: If the first hypothesis is correct, do you think Holder would refuse to turn over the exculpatory documents and instead get into an argument with congress about what docs he was willing to give them, or would he instead promptly turn over every single piece of paper he had that would exonerate him and DOJ higherups in the matter?

Sure. It's obvious that Holder's actions in refusing to comply with the legitimate request by Issa's committee suggest he's trying to hide something--most likely that he knew about F&F early on, and more likely approved it.

The only thing that doesn't fit with this is, Why would Holder take the risk of lying about his knowledge or involvement with a stupidly-executed operation that resulted in the deaths of one U.S. border agent and more than 300 Mexican citizens? After all, dumb government programs are *everywhere.* You'd think it would be far better to admit knowledge or approval and say "Hey, sometimes things don't go the way you plan them."

The fact that Holder didn't take that tack suggests there's some other factor in the mix that made that admission unacceptable.

There's another, more disturbing alternative: It may be that Holder and company chose to stonewall because they're simply contemptuous of the law and the investigative function of congress.

Man, that doesn't sound promising.

Harry Reid is fine with Obama "directive" ignoring immigration law

The top Democrat in the senate is fine with violating the Constitution, as long as that's done by Obama.

In a speech on the senate floor Tuesday, senate majority leader Harry Reid called Republican outrage over Obama's new decree ending deportation of young illegal immigrants "phony."

Reid mocked Republican complaints, saying they "cried about the way the directive was issued. They prefer a long-term solution — of course we all do. They don't like the timing. They should've been consulted on an issue this important. It should've been left to Congress. Being left to Congress — we've tried to do that for years and we can't because they won't let us."

Couple of quick points: Republicans weren't upset by "the way the directive was issued," you stupid son of a bitch. Rather, the outrage was that Obama issued a directive ordering federal employees to stop enforcing a law he didn't like. There was no issue about timing, or lack of consultation. You're trying to blow smoke to camouflage the raw, naked violation of the Constitution by your president.

Senator, it's clear that your lust for power has clearly caused you to forget anything you once might have known of the Constitution, so let's review: That document charges the president with enforcing the laws of the land. One of those laws is that foreigners can't just waltz in and stay here.

Your president just announced a "directive"--your exact words, senator--ordering federal employees to cease enforcing a particular law. And your mocking rant above shows that you completely support this.

Senator, when a citizen of the U.S. supports a policy that clearly violates the Constitution, what would you call that?

And to Democrats: Your party's top two leaders support a policy that violates the Constitution. Are you fine with that? They rationalize this on the ground that it's compassionate--"for the chillun'"--but if it's such a good idea, shouldn't it have been easy to amend the immigration laws to have the desired effect?

I'd say "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," but Reid's mocking says they know exactly what they're doing.

And a majority of Democrat voters seem to be absolutely fine with it.

Amazing.

Tuesday, June 19

Greek/EU financial crisis--the short version

I've been reading endless "expert" analysis of the financial situation in Greece/EU for a couple of years now, and have been uniformly aghast at what appears to be the resolute stupidity of the "experts." As I see it they've essentially closed their eyes to the concrete wall the EU is driving into at 100 mph.

One almost thinks the "experts" have been paid to keep publishing soothing, happy thoughts. Why would they do that, you ask? Two reasons, both revolting to non-elite taxpayers: First is to keep the sucker lenders ponying up boatloads of cash.

Second is that U.S. "elite opinion-shapers" have uniformly held the EU in ultra-high regard. All those nit-picky, detailed trade and behavior rules, all that social welfare spending, no military forces worth mentioning, are all things American elites prize. So they don't want to see such a grand enterprise implode.

Blogger Ace of Spades agrees that there's a lot of denial, and summarized the situation well:
Greece owes 161 Billion (billion, with a B) Euros to other Eurozone governments (mostly Germany), and 50 Billion (still with a B) to the European Central Bank.

They cannot possibly repay it. Not only can't they repay-- it's pretty clear they don't want to. They ran up a titanic bill on someone else's credit card, and are simply not going to pay it. Ever.

And it gets worse. Because even [if Germany takes] a 70 billion write-down [on previous loans to Greece] the Germans would then have to extend new credit to the Greeks, and hope the Greeks would pay that back.

[But the Greeks won't repay what they owe now. So why would anyone think they'd repay new loans?]

So the Germans don't want to do that, for obvious reasons.

The recent election in Greece doesn't change the basic fact: Regardless of who won, Greece cannot repay its borrowings, and will not. Spain can't pay either.

I don't see any way out. The EuroZone project is doomed, and no one seems willing to confront this.

Monday, June 18

Occupy Oakland attacks conference against child trafficking??

Remember "Occupy Wall Street"? While most of the groups fizzled out, the protest in the Peoples' Republic of Oakland is still alive. And their most recent protest...ah, sheds an interesting light on their "thought processes" (quotes intentional).

Five days ago (June 13th) a conference--the National Human Exploitation And Trafficking Watch Conference--was held in Oakland. It seems to be a bunch of organizations dedicated to ending child sex exploitation and trafficking--a pretty unopposable goal, IMO.

But to the brain-trusts of Occupy, this group represented eeevil Kapitalism at its worst. The reasoning behind this conclusion was hard to follow. In fact, it was so convoluted and paranoid as to be almost irrational. But then, you sort of expected that, didn't you?

Click on the link for pics and narrative from Zombie--who singlehandedly gathers more news on West Coast crazy leftists than all the MSM combined.

Update: Finally found the bitching point for Occupy: In the view of the militant feminist activists, the anti-child-trafficking movement "is primarily a Christian fundamentalist movement." Ah, now it makes sense, because all good anti-Americans know that Christianity is nothing but a form of Patriarchy, and thus must be opposed by good little revolutionaries everywhere.

More on their logic from an Occupy flyer:
Conference organizers claim their intention is to combat the sex trafficking of children and find "solutions" to "respond" to children coerced into sex work. We are here to expose the blatant lie in this claim.

The official, police-sanctioned campaign to combat the sex trafficking of children is nothing more than a patronizing, patriarchal guise that is used to support intensified supression of sex workers and the further empowerment of police agencies at their expense.

This is yet another instance of police and the criminal justice system colluding for increased policing in places where sex work takes place, using the false pretense of "concern" for the most exploited people in society as a cover.
So if I'm reading them right, all the supposed concern for children forced into sex work is really just a "false pretense" that's simply a "cover" for...what, increased policing? This is so paranoid as to warrant institutionalization.

I have this inkling that if Christians advocated breathing oxygen, the Occupy crowd would be marching with signs demanding we revolt against oxygen.

Saturday, June 16

What's Holder thinking?

Blogger Wretchard (Richard Fernandez) is a veteran of communist insurgencies in the Filipines, and a very keen analyst. He's as fascinated as the rest of us by the current dustup between Holder and congress. Here's his take:
Two possibilities. 1) [Holder's] confidence is based on stupidity; or 2) his confidence is based on insurance.

If it is the first then Eric Holder is putting his trust in the unshakeable integrity, loyalty and fidelity of his boss, who would never, ever throw him under the bus.

With all due respect, I think there's a third possibility: Holder confidence is based on his inspired belief in the infallibility of his boss, Obozo.

So yes, that does mean Eric Holder is trusting in the integrity, loyalty and fidelity of his boss. To someone who's not a true believer this seems pretty stupid, but to a True Believer there's simply no debate: The believer does not question--indeed, is emotionally incapable of questioning--the divinity of the one being worshipped. And to suffer 'political death' in the service of the Chosen One is not a bad or sad thing, but something to be cheerfully offered, like martyrdom.

True Believers will dive under the wheels of the bus with a clear conscience, knowing that they have served The Chosen One and The Cause with all their hearts.

In some ways it's eerily like the mindset of suicide bombers.

The Holder standoff...with a twist.

A congressional committee has demanded that Attorney=General Eric Holder turn over certain specified documents that would shed light on when said A-G knew about a certain operation that was running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Said A-G intially responded with the diplomatic equivalent of "fuck you," but a day or two later has mysteriously become far more magnanimous: "I'm willing to sit down with you and tell you what documents I'm willing to turn over, and that is far more generous than you--as a mere congresswhore of the Eeevil party--deserve. So you must now negotiate with me, or we will have our allies in the media depict you and your eeevil party as Obstructionist, Raaacist and anti-American."

In response to this curious stance, a commenter at Wretchard's place wrote a mock news story:
Late yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder was abducted and flown to Mexico. He was tried in the morning and executed this afternoon.

The Senator from Texas said he knew nothing about it and claimed to be shocked about the whole affair.
I have to admit I find this...instructive. I suggest that if some invisible body existed that would see to it that any pol or appointee who violated the Constitution was abducted, duly tried--and if found guilty of high crimes, promptly executed--the number of others either overtly or clumsily deciding to do the same thing would drop to a vanishingly small number.

It's sorta like waterboarding: It offends our sensibilities but it sure as hell seems to work, virtually every time.

Interesting.

Friday, June 15

An amendment inserted in 2010 is suddenly very useful

Well this just gets more and more interesting.

Obama held a presser in the Rose Garden today in which he defended his order to halt deportation of children of illegal aliens. According to Napolitano the order will also automatically award such persons a "green card" allowing them to work in the U.S.

Now, if you're going to let them stay in the U.S. I don't think many people would object to their being allowed to work here. After all, better to work than to be on welfare, right? So I doubt this part of the directive got the attention of many conservatives or Republicans.

However, at Ace of Spades blog, commenter "f2000" found something curious:

On November 23rd of 2010 the lame-duck Democrat-controlled congress modified the law regarding employment rules for non-citizens. In that amendment is a phrase that at the time didn't seem to have any effect:
Sec. 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
(a) Aliens authorized employment incident to status. Pursuant to the
statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens
are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions
as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission
or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. [a lot of references omitted]

And now the amended para (11):
"An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been
deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United
States to the Secretary.
Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions
established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive;
(Revised effective 11/23/10; 75 FR 58962)
Again, back in November of 2010 this would have had no discernible effect. In fact I suspect not more than three members of each chamber of congress knew what this paragraph said before it was amended, nor why it was amended, nor who inserted the specific language, nor what effect this would have.

Today, though, the odd and heretofore useless language suddenly has a very beneficial use, if you're Obama.

I'd sure love to know if there's a history behind this specific amendment. Because depending on who inserted the language, and whether any record exists as to the reason, it's just barely possible that someone in the Democrat leadership had this whole plan in mind--to legalize children of illegals if they couldn't pass the Dream Act-- as long ago as 2010.

Interesting.

Obama orders DHS to halt deportation of kids of illegals

You surely heard of a bill called the "DREAM Act." For a margarita, what does "Dream" stand for?

For another margarita, what group of people were exclusively named in the bill to receive huge benefits if it passed?

If you said "children of illegal immigrants who arrived here before age 16," you win.

Next question: Which party was pushing this bill (i.e. virtually all their congresswhores supported it, with only two or three members of the other party)?

If you said Democrats, you're right.

The bill was first introduced in 2001 but has never passed. In the lame duck session after the 2010 election, Dems flexed their soon-to-vanish majority in the House to pass the thing, and it went to the senate, but failed there by a whisker because the Repubs filibustered. Dems needed 60 votes for cloture but could only muster 52.

Now, flash forward to present: Obozo is doing everything he can to win Hispanic votes, and he promised to pass the Dream Act. But since it failed in the lame-duck session, and the Dems no longer have a majority in the House, it's not gonna pass this session either. So Obama's Hispanic support is less than enthusiastic.

What to do, what to do?? Aha! Simply tell the head of the Dept of Homeland Insecurity to stop deportations and deportation procedures against children of illegals. Fabulous! Order was quietly given, problem is solved and Obama regains strong support among Hispanics.

Except conservatives heard about the order and complained that it was a) a violation of existing law; and b) a de facto amnesty.

Since conservatives and independents are already upset with Barky for ramming "laws" down our throats via congressional bribery and executive orders, his strategists saw that this could easily wind up being another debacle for Dems. So an hour ago Janet Napolitano summoned reporters and said the order was neither immunity nor amnesty, but simply a "grant of deferred action." Napolitano also called it "an exercise of discretion."

What it really is is an exercise in breaking the law, by Obama and his underlings. Let me explain.

The laws of a country can't reasonably cover every particular topic, so there are many areas in which there's neither prohibition nor explicit approval of an act by the president. These are the areas where the president typically issues executive orders that spell out the policy of his administration (and the U.S. government).

But immigration policy isn't this type of gray area: Laws duly passed by congress provide that no one may enter the U.S. unless he or she meets one of several conditions--green card, tourist visa, student visa and so on. Historically we don't imprison violators but merely send them back home.

Failure to enforce U.S. law is one of the duties imposed on the president by the Constitution itself, and would seem clearly to be an impeachable offense.

Ah, say left/libs, but by ordering that deportations be halted, Obama isn't literally refusing to enforce immigration law, but merely slowing enforcement. He could obviously reverse the order at any time. So...neener neener neener!

Fortunately this tactic has been extensively litigated, and an indefinite delay in enforcing a law is considered failure to enforce it. And no, I'm not going to provide a cite for that. If you want to argue the point, feel free to cite a case you believe supports your position.

Now, there's no disagreement that kids who were brought to the U.S. by illegal- immigrant parents had no say in the matter. I'll also agree that the case can be made that because they had no say in the matter, "it's not fair" to deport them. However, this strikes me as a flawed reasoning, because I don't know of any other area in which a minor would be permitted to benefit from the illegal acts of his parents, whether legally here or not.

Example: Suppose my parents defrauded a bank and ended up with a fancy car. They're charged and flee the country. Do I get to keep the car simply because I didn't actually participate in their fraud? Of course not. Yet liberals make this argument for the kids of illegal immigrants and no one knocks it down, because "the victims" are poor innocent kids, right?

Anyway, I think failure to enforce the laws of the U.S. should top the list of impeachable offenses committed by Barky. This isn't "just lying about sex, which everyone does, so it's not very wrong," as the Dems characterized Clinton's perjury.

UPDATE: Conservative bloggers quickly tracked down Obama speaking in September of last year about the fact that his party couldn't manage to get the Dream Act passed:
This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively, but the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.
Then, having lulled conservatives and independents into thinking he meant what he said about not unilaterally acting to nullify immigration laws that displeased a crucial group of Dem supporters, he waited...what, nine months or so, and then unilaterally ordered his minions to stop enforcing immigration laws. While also ensuring that they would provide cover by saying this was NOT failing to enforce duly-passed law.

Amazing, brazen. Socialist/demagogue/thug through and through. "Constitution, what's that?"


(Oh, DREAM stands for "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.")

Thursday, June 14

Holder offers to "compromise" with congress

For those of you who aren't political junkies, a fascinating power struggle is taking place right now on Capitol Hill, between attorney-general Eric Holder and congress, regarding whether congress can require an office of the government to produce documents that could show gross malfeasance in office.

Specifically, the notoriously goofy BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; old name; it has a new name now) a branch of the Justice Department, was running a harebrained scheme under which gun stores in Arizona were ordered to sell high-powered weapons to straw buyers, in violation of federal law. These guns were then re-sold to Mexican drug cartels and were subsequently used in numerous murders. At last estimate, 300 Mexican citizens and one U.S. agent had been killed by these guns.

A few good members of the BATF were stunned that their agency was doing this, and went public. The agency responded with firings, demotions and slanders.

With the newly-elected House having a Republican majority (thank you Lord!), a House committee began investigating. They asked Holder directly, "Did you approve of this program or know about it, and if so, when did you know?" Holder denied approving it or even knowing about it until mid-2011. As he told it, no one in his department had anything to do with the program--and no one authorized it.

However, the whistleblowers inside DOJ and BATF gave the committee copies of emails and letters showing this was a flat-out lie. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with the representatives.

Now, government--like all human enterprises--is filled with stupid ideas and programs, and that alone is obviously not a criminal offense. But since the program did in fact violate federal law, the representatives had a hard time believing some underling would take it on himself to do something like that without approval from the top. So either Holder was lying when he denied earlier knowledge of the program, or he was grossly incompetent to head the "justice" department.


Accordingly, congressman Darrell Issa--in his official capacity as head of a House committee--asked Holder to produce specific documents that the whistleblowers at Justice had told him implicated Holder and cronies.

Holder told Issa to pound sand.

Issa responded by telling Holder he would be charged with contempt of congress (is that really a big deal today?) if he refused the committee's request to do its job of monitoring government.

Finally yesterday Holder wrote Issa offering to "compromise" on the documents requested. The Democrat-loving media are characterizing his reply as a compromise, but it strikes me more as another GFY memo. His letter is here, and you need to read it to see how much of a "compromise" you think it is.

Moreover, in the letter Holder reiterates his earlier denials of any approval or knowledge before the matter was reported in the press. Thus it seems highly unlikely that he would turn over anything that would show this to be false.

Interesting. Like Watergate, except in Watergate no one was killed.

Think tank: "Energy independence is folly" ??

The American Thinker blog just ran an article on energy, by the "co-directors of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and senior advisers to the United States Energy Security Council." It's titled "The Folly of Energy Independence."

Let that sink in for a sec. Unless the title is really a disguised question, it's reasonable to conclude that the authors oppose any measures that would produce more energy here at home, since this would at least lead us in the direction of energy independence.

Which, the title tells us, is "folly."

The authors also wrote Turning Oil into Salt: Energy Independence through Fuel Choice (2009).

Wait, didn't they just say energy independence was folly?


Uh...I'm confused. Is it folly or not? We know they're not gonna contradict themselves because they're directors of an institute. Which means they must be really smart and stuff. Well, we'll figure it out eventually.

So let's see what they said in the article itself.

They claim the price of oil has increased five-fold since 2003; that 40 years ago the U.S. spent $4 billion per year on imported oil--amounting to 1.2 percent of the amount we spent on defense; but that by 2006 imported oil was costing
$296 billion a year, or half the defense budget; and that in 2008 we spent an amount equal to the entire defense budget on oil imports.

They also note that the fivefold increase in oil prices since 2003 has "contributed to the current economic dislocation."


Okay. So wouldn't you think the recommendation would be to produce more oil (and all other sources of energy) here at home?

Apparently not.

They go on to assert that "a new oil shock—whether caused by war in the Persian Gulf, instability in North Africa or Nigeria, or even anxious investors rushing to buy oil futures to hedge against falling currencies—would sink Western economies." And that "the rising cost of oil is hollowing out the U.S. economy, and no fuel economy standards or new oil discovery will stop this tide."

Sounds like they're leading up to the obvious, logical conclusion of...drill baby drill, right? Uh, no. "What is needed is a new energy paradigm."

Ah. And what might that be, exactly?

As best I can tell, it's to switch to electric cars.

Their reasoning, I gather, is that right now virtually all transportation is oil-powered, so there's no competition from other energy sectors. And for that reason, and the fact that oil is priced by world demand rather than just one nation's, rising oil prices anywhere in the world would result in increased prices here too.

Moreover, the OPEC cartel has had the goal of keeping the price of oil at what it calls a "fair" level.
In 2004, this price was $25 per barrel. Two years later it was $50. In 2010 OPEC’s secretary general argued for $90, and by the end of 2011 he adjusted the price to $100.

Wow, sounds like standard public-sector union tactics when the Democrats are running things. No competition and no alternative, so....

Here's their summary:
In light of [the above, trying to keep oil prices at current levels is] a game America can never win. The cartel...will...respond to [any/all] defensive behavior by [oil consumers].... Drill for more oil at home and the cartel can simply reduce production to return to a tight supply-demand relationship; increase fuel efficiency, same response; mandate a small volume of non-petroleum fuels in the market over an extended period, same response. So it doesn’t matter how well we follow the Republicans’ “drill baby, drill” or the Democrats’ conservation and efficiency; we’ll still be on the same treadmill we’ve been on for decades.
Ah, yes, I see: "Resistance is futile. You can't get there from here. Might as well give up now and avoid all the useless bother."

But electric cars...ah, there's the solution! The authors claim
they're "clean, cheap to operate, and in many respects outperform gasoline-powered cars."

Say what?

As someone with an engineering degree who's been studying energy consumption in surface transportation for three decades now, I'm curious as to the respects in which the authors believe battery-powered electric vehicles outperform gasoline-powered ones.

But wait, there's more: the authors aren't finished yet. Their real solution is to run cars on methanol made from natural gas. See, there's recently been a bump in natural gas discoveries in the U.S., so future supplies seem assured and prices seem to be stable. Wonderful!

Wait...isn't that really "drill baby drill" again? 'Cause unless I'm mistaken, natural gas doesn't just jump out of the ground by itself. You've gotta' drill for it. A lot.

Chicago teachers demand 29% pay raise, vote to strike

Chicago teachers earn an average of $65,000 per year for about 180 days of actual teaching plus ten days of pre-year "planning" each year. (If you work 50 weeks a year--2 weeks vacation--you'd work 250 days, or 31% more than Chicago teachers.)

Mayor Rahm Emanuel asked them to increase their teaching day from roughly six hours to 6:40 or so, and to teach ten more days each year. The union responded by demanding a 29 percent pay raise--24% the first year and 5% the next. The mayor offered two percent.

The teachers' response? They voted to strike.

Warning, link is to the communist cesspool Daily Kos, but it's worth going to see how goofy both the original post is AND the comments. For example, I love this one:
Where i'm from an educaton [sic] degree is a 5 year degree. It is literally harder to get than an engineering, mathematics or physics degree.
Uh, really? Guess than explains why so many more people get degrees in engineering and physics than in education, eh? Because, you know, it's easier than a teaching degree. /sarc

This to me just shows how clueless and delusionally self-important these people are. What rational, reasonably experienced person really believes a teaching degree is harder than engineering, physics or math? Either the commenter is lying, or just utterly deluded.

Oh, yeah, he or she is also teaching your kids to think just like he/she does.

I know there are many dedicated, good teachers out there. Unfortunately the ones who squawk the loudest are just like the commenter above. And the union reps are the worst.

One more thing: Can anyone tell me how much teachers'-union dues are per month in Chicago? Wonder if any teachers have calculated how much their take-home pay would increase if they quit the union?

Not that any of 'em would, of course.

Wednesday, June 13

Dem rep proposes bill outlawing using a gun to defend yourself

They say hard cases make bad law. And here's an example, from that liberal rag The Hill:

The Democratic representative from Trayvon Martin’s district says she will propose legislation "repealing the nation's 'stand your ground' laws," which liberals are attacking following the shooting death of the Florida teenager earlier this year.

Let that sink in for a moment. First, a federal law wouldn't "repeal" dozens of state laws--something the folks running The Hill either know or should have known. A fed law might *nullify* or override state law, but it most certainly doesn't "repeal" one. But "repeal" sounds so much nicer than "override," hence the use.

Second: Although the bill the Democrat is considering probably wouldn't pass, that's not the point. Rather, the point is that the fact that a U.S. congressperson would even *consider* such a bill should chill all of us. Because it would mean if you were attacked by a much stronger foe, or an armed one, by law you couldn't use a gun to defend yourself.

Again, I realize it's most unlikely that such a bill would ever become law, but that's not the point. And further, did any of you believe a law would pass requiring you to buy health insurance? Giving control of General Motors to the unions? Taking Chrysler dealership franchises away from Republican owners while leaving untouched franchises owned by Democrat contributors a few miles away?

You don't realize how far this administration and its Democrat supporters have progressed down the road to totalitarianism until you go back over the list of ghastly laws and executive orders they've ramrodded through.

Sobering stuff.

Oh, for those who may be interested, here's a pic of Democrat Frederica Wilson, the rep considering the bill noted above.

Holder dodges, stonewalls senate questioning on Kagan, gun-running

Do you believe one of the legitimate, constitutional functions of congress is to ensure that the executive branch obeys the law?

Today's Democrats in the senate clearly don't, as evidenced by their velvet-glove treatment of Attorney-General Eric Holder.

There's a U.S. law that says judges must recuse themselves from cases involving any law that they were involved with as a government employee prior to becoming a judge. That law is intended to ensure the impartiality of the courts, because if someone who worked to pass a law is later asked to rule on its constitutionality, it would be reasonable to suspect they'd be biased to defend their earlier position.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutionality of the ridiculously overreaching law called Obamacare, conservatives noticed that while newly appointed Supreme Court judge Elena Kagan was Solicitor General for Obama's justice department, emails suggested she had worked to vet the bill and get it passed. If that was true, by law she was required recuse herself from all cases involving the constitutionality of that law.

No one will be surprised to learn that she has refused to do so.

When questioned by the senate during the hearings to confirm her nomination to the court, Kagan denied any involvement with the extensive, slimy political maneuvering involved in getting the law passed. However, email evidence appears to contradict her on this point.

Taking the law on recusal seriously, senator Jeff Sessions asked Holder to answer eight specific, written questions designed to learn the details of Kagan's involvement with passing Obamacare before Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Holder has refused to give a responsive answer, instead repeatedly "answering" by referring to a previous letter from a Holder assistant to Sessions stating that they were refusing to provide the information Sessions had asked for. Short version of the letter: "We don't think this is the proper forum to be debating this matter."

Now, for those of you old enough to remember Watergate: Congress held hearings lasting the better part of a year that eventually resulted in Nixon (a Republican, for you young'uns) being forced to resign the presidency. The hearings were designed to learn the truth, and Republicans didn't obstruct that search.

Contrast that with the hearings in the senate judiciary committee on Kagan.

Sad that today's Democratic congresswhores would rather protect Obama's appointee than discover the truth.

Sad that Dems are putting party loyalty before the rule of law.

But not surprising.

Tuesday, June 12

Electoral outlook for November

Everyone's entitled to support whatever party and candidate they wish. But with that said, if a president and/or the folks he appointed to staff his administration act in ways that seem to lead the country to destruction, we all have a right to know who to blame for his election.

In the 2008 election the following states went for Obama:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

These states are generally considered to be President Obama's base states, and in polling this year he's expected to hold all but two (Michigan and Iowa).

Because Obama's support is down in most of these states, conservatives are enthusiastic about this news. I'm not so optimistic, because if a candidate wins a state, the margin hardly matters.

Frankly, unless one of the many scandals Obama has triggered breaks through into the mainstream media, I don't see how Romney is going to win.

h/t CAC at Ace's

Source of White House intelligence leaks named

The New York Times has always supported Democrats, even if publishing a story would unquestionably harm U.S. interests as a whole. (For example, publishing needlessly inflammatory photos of a female Army soldier holding a leash tied to the neck of an Iraqi prisoner at the Abu Ghraib prison. Hardly "abuse" but the photos outraged Muslims around the world.)

In the last few months the Times has published stories revealing details of top-secret U.S. national security operations. A consistent theme of these stories was how Obama was a tough, gutsy commander-in-chief, willing to make tough decisions to safeguard the U.S. In other words, the articles were designed to help Obama win re-election in November.

The leaks involved details of Seal Team Six; the identity of a Pakistani doctor who was crucial in confirming the location of Osama bin Laden; and the origins of two astonishingly successful computer viruses that have sabotaged Iran's nuclear program.

The Pakistani doctor has now been sentenced by a Pakistani court to 33 years in prison for helping the U.S. Details of the viruses will make it far more difficult (if not impossible) to introduce similar software into opponents' computers in the future.

Because the stories contained information known only at the highest levels of government, conservatives charged that the leaks had to have come from someone in the White House. And because all high-level staffers in the White House presumably support Obama and most assuredly wouldn't want to hurt his re-election chances, the natural conclusion is that the leaks weren't sabotage, but were approved by Obama himself.

Of course leaking harmful national secrets to the press doesn't bother the top Democratic leaders and strategists a bit, since as far as they're concerned the U.S. shouldn't have a military or secrets or a strong defense. They consistently push policies that would weaken the U.S. So Team Obama knew the leaks wouldn't damage their standing with their Democrat base.

However, the White House knew that if the leaks could be pinned on them, it would alienate the crucial independent voter, so they denied that anyone in the White House was the source.

But now a long-time Democrat pollster, Pat Caddell, has said on national television that the source of the leaks is Obama's National Security Advisor (and long-time Democrat political operative) Thomas Donilon. Click here to read about Donilon's "qualifications" for this vital position. Short answer: he's politically connected. For example, from 1999-2005 he was "executive vice-president for law and policy" at Fannie Mae, the corrupt and mismanaged federally-chartered mortgage finance company.

Obama's selection of Donilon as NSA surprised most of the intel community since Donilon has virtually no experience in Intelligence and is reportedly widely regarded as a person who has always gotten posts by virtue of his political connections. To say he's unqualified for his current post would be a gross understatement.

Caddell's willingness to name Donilon as the source of the leaks on national television suggests Caddell is sure of his ground, since if he were wrong the legal liability could be substantial.

The crucial link here is to remember that Donilon is a political animal with years of experience in political maneuvering, so it's highly unlikely that he'd leak these details to the Times unless his boss directed him to do so. Thus these leaks lead right to Obama--and Jay Carney's denials are flat-out lies.

Of course, given the adoration for Obama by all members of the Lying Media we can expect this blockbuster revelation to get zero mention in the mainstream press.

Saturday, June 9

Funny video as witness dodges questions about 'green jobs'

Remember all the sound bites on the alphabet networks about how Obozo's mahvelous policies had created tens of thousands of "green jobs"? It was such a great buzz-phrase and got lots of airtime, but what exactly was a "green job"?

Congressman Issa was curious too, and here's a funny video of him asking some dip from the Obozo gang about how they defined the term.

I know you'll be shocked to learn that the Obamoids decided that just about any job that had the slightest connection to...well, anything...was "green." An antique dealer, fr'instance. Because he sells "recycled" goods, see?

A janitor is a 'green job.'

Okay, none of this is the least bit surprising. But you need to watch the video to see the smug expression on the face of the liberal asshole Issa is questioning, as the witness tries to duck, dodge and do everything possible to avoid answering the simple, direct question: "Did you categorize X as a 'green job'?"

The effort the witness puts into avoiding a simple, direct answer is amazing. And this is to avoid answering a non-threatening question. Imagine how much worse Holder is.

Friday, June 8

Spending on food stamp program doubles since 2008

Meanwhile in other news:

One of the big annual budget bills congress cranks out every year is the budget for the Department of Agriculture. This is often shortened to "the farm bill" or "the Ag bill," and the latest bill proposes to spend (drum roll)...just over $100 Billion.

But y'know, farming is hard, hard work, and my hat's off to every U.S. farmer for managing to produce such a huge bounty of food for relatively low prices. We all live SO well due to your hard work and ingenuity. So if congress wants to devote something under two percent of the total fed budget to helping farmers with price supports or whatever, I'm fine with that.

Oh, wait: Turns out $82 billion of that-- 80 percent of the total cost--is for food stamps. The amount spent on food stamps has doubled since 2008.

So let's review one more time:
  • Unemployed people (assuming they're not independently wealthy) need food stamps to keep from starving;
  • Fewer people would need food stamps if more people had jobs;
  • Most jobs are created by businesses;
  • Businessmen won't hire new people if the feel doing so will cost more than it makes; and finally
  • Harsh regulations--whether from EPA or the Labor Department or the EEOC or ObamaCare or any other government agency--make it far more likely that a business will fail. QED.
And liberals/Democrats please note that I'm not advocating eliminating food stamps.