Turncoats, losers, useful idiots are played

As far as I’m concerned, the Hillary campaign might as well be recruiting for the KGB if they are flipping people for Clinton.

From NYT “Hillary’s Summer of Love”

” Dozens of prominent Republicans have come out and said that they’ll vote for her or consider it, including, just last week, the Silicon Valley titan Meg Whitman, the Jeb Bush confidante Sally Bradshaw, and Maria Comella, a former spokeswoman for two of Trump’s most pugnacious promoters, Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani.

You can expect that list to grow. The Clinton campaign clearly does. As Bloomberg Politics and The Washington Post reported last week, Clinton’s aides have gone so far as to set up something of a special operation — a defection watch — to monitor news accounts and any other public hints that a Republican leader is thinking of renouncing Trump, so that someone on Team Clinton can reach out and ask him or her to take the next step. The Times’s Jonathan Martin revealed that Clinton herself called Whitman a month ago. “

The breadth of G.O.P. affection for Clinton shouldn’t be overstated.” — More>

Sorry, but I think you just did overstate it and that is your whole point.

First of all, always beware of the hype especially when the left has a political objective. They paint a popular picture. We’ve all seen the video using statements of well-known Republicans through the primaries. I hope all those Republicans are proud to be used in this, her campaign.

With the Supreme Court at stake, national security, a swiss cheese border with sanctuary cities, establishment corruption woes and a 20 trillion dollar debt bomb at stake, they make it sound like “what’s the big deal?” That’s some powerful deception. So Hillary disinformation pros can talk them through the process. (brainwashing) What’s not to like? How can a rational person support that candidate from hell?

“She’s gone from Republican voodoo doll to Post-Partisan Barbie.” — Ouch

Really, PPB? I got a better Hillary doll in mind, right here.

On the Oath of Litmus Tests

April 16, 2016

Something happened on the way to 2016. It became a lesson in contradictions.

For years the Democrats have turned Roe into a litmus test for nominees, particularly for the Supreme Court. By now that is just a sigh to Americans. So they force people to swear on the ‘altar of abortion,’ or Roe v Wade. There are no exceptions for Leftists.

Then the Republicans have allowed and went along with the absurd Roe litmus test, and accepted it as the way it is. The new inhumane “normal.” Over the years, it has been the central tenant in Liberals’ nomination orthodoxy. Roe is “settled law” – litmus that.

Now there is a new litmus test. In Democrats’ NY debate, Hillary announced that she would only consider a SCOTUS nominee if he/she supported abortion as settled law, and that he/she believes in overturning Citizens United. Note the contradiction in those. At any rate, they have yet another litmus test — debate is over, opposition is irrelevant.

So now, reading between the lines, they have set up another mythical litmus test.(the authority on litmus) But now one must swear that Citizens United is not “settled law.” Another sacred altar has been errected. Ignore the contradiction. On one hand, the settled law is what SCOTUS said. On the other, how wrong the High Court’s decision is. We now have a litmus test against the Court’s decision, rendering it anything but “settled law.”

I have to hand it to Hillary for making this all crystal clear. She once declared, even on the anniversary of Roe, which liberals celebrate as sacred tradition, that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Gasp, it was the last part that caused tremors through liberaldom. How could she dare say something so offensively outrageous as “rare”?

Now we find out how unsettled law really is in Liberaldom. It must depend on the meaning of is. Even worse is how unsettled liberals seem to be on a SCOTUS decision, when it doesn’t suit their agenda. Many have become squeamish about Citizens United, but the alternative is limiting free speech. Some are more comfortable with the latter.

Hypersensitivities are reserved for Citizens United, not Roe. Liberals have the same visceral reaction to the Heller decision. Roe remains sacred orthodoxy — the golden calf, worshiped in perpetuity and sacrificed to nothing – while others are expendable.

RightRing | Bullright

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

George Takei vs Clarence Thomas

Here is a real lesson in showmanship — a real bad one. And it comes from a professional actor mega-social activist, in other words a “Professional.”

George Takei: Clarence Thomas Is a ‘Clown in Blackface,’ Doesn’t Belong on Supreme Court

BY: Emma-Jo Morris | Washington Free Beacon |
July 2, 2015

Takei’s rage came in light of the Justice’s contrary stance on the recent equal marriage decision, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Thomas released a statement saying that the government does not grant human dignity, and as such cannot take it away. Thomas argued that human dignity is inherent, and that the Supreme Court cannot issue it.

Go to the video tape. Here’s a first class example of a Leftist activist

“He gets me that angry,” which is liberal code for justified in calling him that. And he’ll get plenty of applause from his gay community comrades.

Then says: “This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America. I’ll say it on camera.” Proud and loud…exhibit “A”.

The problem in his case is that Thomas’s dissent was a minority opinion. Try that 3-cushion bank shot from the right and watch what happens.

I’m reminded of the dignity the court awarded abolished from the 55 million and counting aborted babies since Roe.

According to his bio script: “George Takei is an actor, social justice activist, and social media mega-power.”

Supreme decision marks the territory

The Supreme Court Ratifies a New Civic Religion That Is Incompatible with Christianity

by David French June 26, 2015 | National Review Online

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.
Consider the already much-quoted closing:
” As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
[…/]/
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love?

Love substitutes for logic and the Constitution. They needed a trump card and they found one with love. Love is also kind, and you don’t see much of that from the LGBT lobby. But then what does love have to do with a lawsuit? When emotion is the basis for decisions, then how much further do we have to go?

Well, it sounds a lot more like the Woodstock decision

    Right behind you, I see the millions
    On you, I see the glory
    From you, I get opinion
    From you, I get the story

Ode to the rainbow

I used to like rainbows, way back, and I really have nothing against them. But now I suppose there will be another new term soon, rainbowphobia. Note to Websters’.

As of yesterday with the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, I saw the rainbow on everything, everywhere in support of that agenda. Of course it was already bad enough that the LGBT community had co-opted the rainbow years ago. Suddenly it was everywhere as if planned yesterday. Anywhere they could stick it.

These days I guess everything is about associations or symbolic interpretations. Triggering is the buzzword for something that inflames one. It’s about common perceptions, new and evolving meanings. It’s about the meaning of something at a given time.

Since they attach the symbol to anything related to same-sex or LGBT, they lay claim to areas that used to mean something else, just like the rainbow. Meanings of words change and society is suppose to adapt. But one thing I will sadly miss is the rainbow – or the non-sexualized, time honored rainbow. We’ll probably be called phobic over it.

So I thought in honor of that a few special mentions and helpful reminders would be appropriate.(all quotes in NIV)

Gen 9:12-16

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Ezek 1:25-28

Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.

Rev 4:3

And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow , resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Rev 10:1-2

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand.

Funny how the rainbow is now symbolic for gay issues or same-sex marriage. Normally, there are limits to symbols but there seems to be no limit to the ways they can use this one. I never understood the connection between this symbol and their cause.

They have reinterpreted the meaning of yet another time-honored historical thing. Or are we now somewhere over the rainbow? Perhaps we need a psychological term for their obsession with using the rainbow? The term could be rainbow-philia.

RightRing | Bullright

SCOTUS, Obamacare and quicksand

In honor of today’s Supreme Court decision (bowel movement) on Obamacare,
I’d like to dedicate this song especially to Roberts.

    Swimming in Quicksand by Black Oak Arkansas

It seems Bill Clinton might have been right years ago, it depends on the meaning of is.

I must have missed the announcement where Chief Justice Roberts went into politics.

Holes in Olson’s case

Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?

He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?

Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.

And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.

What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?

So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama smackdown 9-0

Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments

By Robert Barnes June 26 | Wa Post

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.

“The Senate is in session when it says it is,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, stressing that if the Senate is able to conduct business, that is enough to keep the president from making recess appointments.

But the court stepped back from handing Obama — and those who will follow him in the Oval Office — a more substantial loss. A bare majority of the justices upheld, in theory at least, the president’s ability to make recess appointments when the Senate is indeed on extended break, saying history weighs in favor of a broad power.

Obama wanted to have a legacy, and instead he is leaving a giant stain.

Obama actually showed he could unify SCOTUS in a unanimous decision that he over-stepped his power and authority. That’s something.

Although Breyer said the court hesitated to “upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of government themselves have reached,” it is the lack of such cooperation that brought the dispute to the court for the first time in the more than 200-year history of the Constitution.

Court “hesitates to upset”…. SCOTUS has a function. . What “working arrangement”? Neither word applies to POTUS. Lack of cooperation is a huge understatement. They heard the same State of Union speech we heard. It was they who handed him a victory in ObamaCare using verbal gymnastics. Now Breyer and SCOTUS take exception !?!

RightRing | Bullright

The Hobby Lobby take away

This is one of the best takes I’ve seen on the Hobby Lobby case.

By Judie Brown

Lent is about halfway through, and we draw nearer to the day when Our Lord gave His life to save us from our sins. Yet our society daily tempts us to draw closer and embrace those sins. In fact, it is doing almost everything in its power to discard morality and God, as evidenced in today’s commentary.

Many analyses have been published following the oral arguments delivered last Tuesday to the United States Supreme Court on the two cases Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.The cases revolve around the fundamental question of whether or not a Christian company/business may or may not reflect Christian principles in its employment and other business practices. The particular subject of debate in this matter is the provision of contraceptive/abortion insurance coverage for employees when such coverage is a violation of the corporate principles of the company in question.

Can the government bully the Christian employer or not?

Apparently Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse got the answer when she was in the Supreme Court gallery during the oral arguments. She tells of an exchange between Justice Anthony Kennedy and Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “When Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes.”

The government’s position may be downright diabolical to many of us, but Jeffrey Mirus, Ph.D. explains it handily: “The old natural law tradition of the West-in which rational consistency and fairness were perhaps the most easily-grasped components-has given way to the sovereignty of the human will to remake reality according to whatever happens to be desired by those who have political, social, and cultural power.”

And that’s the rub, isn’t it? The coalescing of such man-made power united behind the common goal of tossing God out and bringing the evils of sexual promiscuity in was bound to have results similar to the Obama contraceptive mandate. It’s been building to this for years, after all.

During the same week as the oral arguments were heard, other signs of this political, social, and cultural power grab were evident in another part of the country. The University of Michigan’s Women’s Studies Department and the Institute for Research on Women and Gender are sponsoring a spring exhibit entitled “4,000 Years of Choice: A Graphic Guide to Reproductive Justice.” Among messages the exhibit imparts to visiting students is that the act of aborting a child is “a life-sustaining act.” Or to put it another way, the expectant mother who kills her child is enhancing and sustaining her own life, even if that goal costs another’s life in the process.

This twisted perspective represents reinvented reality.

It would seem that the world has gone mad. And still the list of horrors grows. For instance, we read that in Great Britain bodies of aborted babies are burned with the trash to heat modern hospitals. And in America Planned Parenthood is poised to call abortion “miscarriage management” if and when abortion itself is ever outlawed.

But in the midst of the carnage we can be buoyed by understanding the power of the human will to choose that which is rational and true rather than that which is self-serving and deceitful. Dr. Mirus puts it this way:

    “The will darkens the intellect by ordering it to cease its independent explorations in order to serve what the will desires. This is not something that we can expect to counteract naturally; it is in fact the mechanism which human nature uses to refuse cooperation with grace. Yet paradoxically the pandemic loss of the recognition of reason, and even of nature itself, must be remedied by grace. And so, in the midst of growing suffering and sacrifice for Catholics, it is not only arguments and creativity that we need, but prayer.”

The use of political power to deconstruct Christianity does have an antidote. Let us use it.

© Judie Brown

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/140401

Profiling Fauxfiling

 
Well, one of the things you can count on is that progressives will ride a word or slogan into the ground, and that they reduce issues to a word or soundbite. Take profiling, for example, when so often profiling is not the whole issue at hand. It just replaces an entire argument. Presently “profiling” is used as a sword, and it’s a popular one.

Naturally, to hear the progressives use the term everywhere is sort of ironic, considering their stance on issues. When it comes to many of their programs, profiling is not only involved it is often the direct intention. They are all for profiling when it comes to affirmative action. But all they ever do is bemoan the evils of profiling.

When someone captures a criminal based on a description that is a good thing, or so you would think. But if it is a white guy they’re after, I sort of doubt they screen or profile every black guy they can find.

Just for one example, then Senator Obama in Illinois actually called for profiling to deal with crime. He brought along the law enforcement community, at their resistance, to the idea. Probably one of the only things he did push by himself. So he called for profiling to deal with profiling. He wanted to document and keep records on race in law enforcement. Only Liberals can interpret more profiling as leading the fight against profiling.

So the problem is not profiling, as the libs suggest, it is about the way it is used. If used the right way, their way, like affirmative action, it is celebrated as noble. When used in law enforcement it is condemned.

Just like with language, there is one standard for blacks and one for whites. There are words whites cannot use regardless of circumstance, while blacks can freely use them and even encourage their use — even as a compliment — but are condemned if used by someone else. Similar rules apply for profiling.

Profiling, very bad and not acceptable say the progressive police. But the same ‘social police’ will rail against any attempt to deny affirmative action.

When a Supreme jurist steps down, they have to replace her with a woman or a Latina. Profile for the right replacement. And, having found the right one for the seat, anyone arguing against that is promptly branded a woman-hater or a racist bigot. The same people skewered Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork.(creating a new term) They borked Bork by labeling him a bigot. That’s how profiling works for the left, justifiably.

How many whites are in the black caucus? I think its still zero. Speaking of profiling, this administration seems to be big on profiling for radicals. Obama fit the profile nicely, as does Hillary now. And they are constantly profiling for any conservatives.

 
Here’s what the ACLU says:

“Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.”

” Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action now more than ever.”

So they want to use profiling — i.e. affirmative action — as a means of social justice, just not as a means of law enforcement. They see the former as very good and necessary; the latter as very bad and should be eliminated everywhere.

Majority of Americans Oppose Affirmative Action in College Admissions

    Overall, respondents favored affirmative action more generally, but college admissions should be based on merit

    A clear majority of Americans, 67 percent, are opposed to considering race and ethnicity in college admissions, instead saying that students should be admitted solely based on merit, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Yet don’t anyone even talk about touching it, according to the social police on the Left.

Clarence Thomas compared affirmative action to Jim Crow: (US News)

“Clarence Thomas suggested affirmative action was comparable to the Jim Crow segregation laws enacted in the American South in the 1880s and in place until the 1960s.”
/…
While the court did not strike down affirmative action at the university, it punted the case back to a lower court, saying the admissions policy needed to be more strictly scrutinized.”

In his opinion, Thomas said that the “worst forms” of racism have “always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” he said. “Segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.”

 
SCOTUS failed to address it head on only that the policy needs more strict scrutiny. Compare that to the public scrutiny profiling gets, at every opportunity to do so.

Leftists claim they want equality while they clearly want deliberate, conscious preferences made for college admissions. Does that make sense?

Would Obama Stoop To Blackmail ?

This possibility is no surprise considering Obama’s operational tactics. With his campaign now operating as Organize for Action, the same methods must be alive and well, and popular. (from the same cast that brought us Obama 1.0 and 2.0)

YouViewed/Editorial

Was Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed Into Supporting Obamacare?

 

 

 

 

” In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote for the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare was a legal tax. Conservatives were beyond stunned. Roberts’ decision was a narrow, weaving, legal mess, unlike the clear, assured opinions he usually wrote. What the heck happened?

There were also some subterranean murmurings that the Obama administration was blackmailing Chief Justice Roberts. This was a bit far-fetched. We all knew that Obama habitually practiced a Chicago-approach to politics, one that saw him digging up secret dirt on his opponents, releasing it, and forcing them out of the election. For example, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent was the popular Jack Ryan. As the campaign progressed badly for Obama, secret court filings from Ryan’s divorce “miraculously” appeared with unproven allegations from his former wife about…

View original post 45 more words

It’s a structural problem

It pays to go back to founding ideas, and my favorite is the Declaration of Independence.

The words flow like milk and honey.
Skip to the often quoted passage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Houston, we have a problem! It is no longer the “consent of the governed” but the unjust power of the elite ruling class that dictates. That’s what we got with ObamaCare. It was obvious that was not consent of the governed. They stood against the will of the people.

Deals and bribes by the consent of the ruling class using its unjust power to dictate. We were told this is the way things are done. Our founding philosophy was breached and the elite ruling class gave us what they wanted.

Then we saw it again in the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff.

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

It is not even by sleight of hand, the elite ruling class arrogantly and defiantly decides our government as well as our fate. And it derives its unjust power from itself. No one saw this coming or thinks it is absurd? It is not only Democrats who are guilty either.

Is it any wonder that things are going the way they are?  Liberal-progressives and their tyrant in the White House have declared war on the economy, war on energy, war on business owners,  war on Catholics and Christians, war on religious freedom, war on values, war on the rich, war on babies, war on women and war on the Constitution. Now they declared war on gun owners.

They’ll use every bit of the unjust power they created for themselves to rule. If they can’t legislate it, they’ll use executive power, and use executive power to thwart our efforts. If they can’t get the legislative results they want, they’ll use the courts and their unjust power to create fiat law through regulation. It is all derived from their unjust power.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. – [DOI]

SCOTUS gets Slow-Jammed

Remember the scene of Obama “slow-jamming the news” on Jimmy Fallon? It was really nothing but glorified campaigning. But that is what they called it.

I was scanning over older articles about the coming ObamaCare decision. Well, freshening my memory, then it was thought and asserted by Obama that basically the SCOTUS was being activist and the Right was running the court. It was the Left’s preemptive strike on the Court. Warnings were all over. First, there was the formal critique of the High Court at Obama’s SOTUS. Then Obama recently issued a public warning to the Court. Sen. Patrick Leahy gave a long diatribe on the floor singling out Roberts. It so entered the records.

Then, remember all Obama’s trash talking caused a Fifth Circuit judge to ask DOJ for a clarification on the administration’s view toward judicial review. That prompted a term paper from Holder’s DOJ to satisfy the inquiry. Have we ever witnessed anything like this drive-by administration shaking down anyone who gets in their way? Thumbing their noses as they “move forward”. But sadly, for most of us, it looks like they’ve succeeded way too often. What gives? And all this coming from a Prez who supposedly instructed law at a university, and who supposedly was editor of Harvard Review.

Now that the ruling finally came out, it seems Roberts did some maneuvering and activism to reach their decision. But liberals are fine with the decision, even if it did not broaden their beloved commerce clause and instead based it on “tax”. Yet liberals are content and their ‘activism’ fearmongering at least for now dissipated. In reality, show them an activist court and they’re satisfied…even while arguing against an “activist Court”.

But they ranted and campaigned against an activist SCOTUS for months, driving Obama out to the Rose Garden to comment and Leahy to spew on the Senate Floor. We had fear and scare tactics from the left and verbal sparring with a silent Supreme Court. Now that the Court actively found a way to grant them a win, their arguments and fears seem moot — to them not for others. They got what they really wanted.

The worst part is the success may have validated their behavior. Should the Left now believe this is the way to get what they want: chastise and attack the High Court into submission, and browbeat the Court into agreement? Scotus may have set more than one terrible precedent here, not just on their creative decision but also on capitulating to the leftist attack dogs. You might say the “Occupiers” won against the Supremes. It looks like the Supremes got slow-jammed by the left.

Now the left is not only claiming victory but broadcasting how support has stengthened for ObamaCare since the decision. However, they don’t like to admit “most”, a majority, are still against it. But a closer look shows they are not so agreeable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/01/support-obama-healthcare-supreme-court?newsfeed=true

Snippets: July 1

In the new poll, 53% of registered voters said they would be more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he or she ran on a platform of repealing the law, up from 46% before the ruling. — [up7%]

There have been early signs that the appeal is working. On Friday, Romney’s campaign said he had raised $4.6m in the 24 hours after the supreme court’s decision.

Most Americans still oppose the requirement that US residents own health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate” that the supreme court found was constitutional under the government’s right to impose taxes.

Despite the court labelling the mandate a tax – which Republicans have seized on – the survey found support for it unchanged. The mandate was backed by 39% of all Americans and opposed by 61%.

 

The “T” word is out of the closet


I’m a little glad that the “tax” word is finally out in the open, but disagree with it being used as the excuse for unconstitutional ObamaCare, or any other scheme of government.

But since it is out and just happens to come before the 4th of July, maybe Obama should come out again and tell us straight out:

To call for renaming July 4th “National DEPENDENCE Day“.
Why not? Its what they’ve they’ve given us.

That would be much more fitting and honest. (not that I’d expect his honesty)

When the government knows, and is given clear signal from the High Court, that it can force anything on us and demand we do anything it wants, as long as they call it a tax; shouldn’t he formerly declare and celebrate our unlimited Dependence?

Prior post: The Supreme Shakedown

The Supreme Shakedown

Pot calls the kettle black

Everyone knows about Obama’s intimidation of the Supreme Court during the case of ObamaCare. But few heard about one Senator railing at  the SCOTUS. That Senator happens to chair the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.

 (In his diatribe on the floor link)

 The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  

 Leahy charged the “[Court’s] action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

Now he is concerned about the “confidence” in the Court? You don’t even have to go back to Roe v. Wade to see controversial rulings. For long, the high Court has earned suspicion in the minds of many conservatives. But the problem is the court still enjoys some confidence, and dare I say respect, for the most part.

On the other hand, the body that Leahy speaks from is extremely suspect and fraught with blame in the minds of voters and the public. For good reason. Is this exhibit-A in the pot calling the kettle black?  In times when the Congress hits low double digits, SCOTUS at least has more respect from the people than that.  The Senate will not even bring items like a budget up for vote.

Apparently Leahy is living in a political bubble where he thinks he can lampoon anything that disagrees with his agenda – or lack of as the case may be.

Reference: http://www.westernjournalism.com/senator-threatens-supreme-court/