Barack Obama Has A Memory Problem

Actually, his memory is fine.

However, just as most liberals choose to due, they tend to “forget” things that are not helpful when it comes to promoting their agenda.

President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is a case in point.

Listen to Obama’s statements during this podcast on the nomination of Harriet Myers, then let’s see what happens if those “Party of NO” Republicans dare to attempt to subject Kagan to the sort of scrutiny that the President recommended.

Democrats Respond: The Supreme Court? Pfft, Forget About Them

As a rule, Democrats tend to ignore the U.S. Constitution when some piddling provison or another is out of synch with their ideology.
The Second Amendment immediately comes to mind.
They would love to see the Supreme Court revoke it.
However, now that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling overturning limits on campaign spending as un-Constitutional, they are having a hissy fit.

Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.

President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for “special interests and their lobbyists.” He cited “one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt,” who “warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending” on elections.

Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.

Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring “the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, ‘I’m the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,’ ” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats’ campaign committee.

On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.

Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.

Friday, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen met to discuss options with aides to Mr. Van Hollen and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), as well as Justice Department staff and Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist on campaign-finance issues, officials said.

Mr. Van Hollen said Democrats also are weighing an effort to bar companies that received federal bailouts and big government contractors from electioneering, similar to rules affecting federal employees.

Read the rest of this entry

Activists See Threat To Roe Precedent

Could this be an early signal of the overturning of Roe v Wade?

Supreme Court Hands Obama Another Defeat

As if the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election wasn’t bad enough mews for the Obama administration, now the United States Supreme Court has just handed down some more bad news for the President.
Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.

The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.

The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year’s congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.

“We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

Continue reading

Gay Sex Is Morally Good

Those are the words of Chai Felblum, Barack Obama’s nominee to serve as a director the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Talk about taking affirmative action to a whole new level.

You may ask what qualifes Feldblum for this position.

Glad you asked.

She is a professor of law at Georgetown University.

She is an advocate for polygamy.

She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, a homosexual rights group that, again in her words, aims to “Revolutionize the American workplace and the country’s social mores.”

She formerly worked for the ACLU.

As well as the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund.

She served as a law clerk for former supreme Court Justice Harry Blackburn, the author of the Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion.

She is an advocate for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) rights.

And I’m sure that she holds many other fine qualifications.

You may be asking why I have a problem with her.

Again, glad you asked.

Alright, let’s take a look at a few things.

President Obama, who is constantly praised by the mainstream media, has nominated a person who supports polygamy.

Hmm.

Is that the same mainstream media that launched a vicious smear campaign against Mitt Romney just last year, falsely accusing him of being an advocate for the same thing?

Yet in the miniscule amount of coverage the press has given to Feldblum’s nomination, that issue has yet to be raised.

No, there’s no double standard there.

As far as Roe v Wade, don’t even get me started.

How could I not have a have a problem with someone who once served as a legal council for the ACLU, an organization that, among dozens of other despicable actions, filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America for their refusal to allow gay scoutmasters?

As the father of an Eagle Scout, that is pushing the gay rights agenda just a bit too far.

She wants to “revolutionize the country’s social mores.”

I always thought that the job of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was to prohibit workplace discrimination.

Not to change the religious and moral beliefs of America.

Let’s continue to take a look at this workplace discrimination issue.

Feldblum feels that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered override other considerations:

“As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“Must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination…”

OK.

So if I own a bookstore that sells religious materials, I have to hire a a woman with piercings, tattoos and a crewcut to be a clerk.

If I own a bar where the primary patrons are truck drivers and construction workers, do I have to employ an openly-gay man who has had the operation Rush Limbaugh calls a “Take a dick from me” to tend bar?

According to Obama’s nominee I would.

Oh well.

New President, new way of doing things.

After all, Barack Obama did promise us that he would “fundamentally change America.”

And by supporting such out of touch with the rest of America people as Feldblum,Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings ect., at least that is one campaign promise he is trying to keep.

Obama Shows More Integrity Than Republican Senator

Yesterday we did an article regarding how Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may be stepping down at the end of the court’s current term.

We mentioned how the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had simply caved in and voted for the conformation of Sonia Sotomayor.

That prompted one of our readers to comment that he was disappointed when his Senator, Lamar Alexander voted in favor of her appointment, because in the Senator’s words, that “to have voted against her simply because he disagreed with her would have been wrong.”

Senator Alexander, you are not a newcomer to politics, when are you going to learn how things are done?

Allow me to remind you of a few quotes taken from your website:

“Even though Judge Sotomayor’s political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

“In 2005, I said on this Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the Democratic Senators to vote against John Roberts – a superbly qualified nominee – solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts’ “overarching political philosophy” and “his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s office” that “consistently sided” with “the strong in opposition to the weak.” Today, it would be equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not “on my side” on some issues. ”

Senator,Senator, Senator.

When did you lose your sense of direction?

My differences with his philosophy aside, President Obama, who at the time was Senator Obama, showed something that you and your fellow Republicans lacked.

The courage of his convictions.

He knew that Roberts was eminently qualified for the position, but he also knew that Roberts believed in almost everything that he opposed.

And knowing that his appointment to the Supreme Court could prove to be an impediment to the agenda of himself and his fellow liberals, he voted against him.

You and many of your fellow Republicans, on the other hand, by voting in favor of Sotomayor, ignored your own system of values, as well as the values of all conservatives, simply as a matter of political expediency.

Perhaps the reasoning put forth in your statement was an honest reflection of your thoughts at the time.

But myself and millions of other Republicans can’t help but suspect that you and your fellow Senators voted the way that you did for other reasons.

Possibly you were afraid of being seen as obstructionists.

Maybe (and this would be my guess) you were afraid of alienating  Hispanic voters.

Whatever the reason, the bottom line is that you and your fellow Senators treated your own political convictions, as well as those of millions of conservatives, like so much garbage.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have no such qualms when it comes to someone they oppose.

One only has to look at the near-rabid attacks against the nomination of Robert Bork to understand that.

And if you are suffering from the delusion tha taking the “moral high ground” makes you and your fellow Republicans somehow better than the Democrats, there is not much that I can do to change that mindset.

However, consider this.

Sonia Sotomayor, a woman who stands for almost everything conservatives oppose, is heading to the Supreme Court.

As if with the Democrats, in control of both the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency, needed another advantage.

Until the Republican Party stops worrying so much about being seen as the “nice guys”, and starts to adopt the same tactics as used by our opponents, we will always be playing into their hands

A Chance To Undo The Sotomayor Screwup

Those of us who had concerns about Sonia Sotmayor’s ability to be an impartial Supreme Court Justice were disgusted when the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee rolled over and played dead, and put forth nothing more than token opposition to her nomination.

These members of Congress who were more concerned with alienating Hispanic voters by voting against her than they were with the wishes of the rest of their constituents will have a chance to redeem themselves.

By all indications, this term of the Supreme Court may be the last for justice John Paul Stevens.

We base this belief on the fact that justice Stevens, who turns 90 next year, has hired only one law clerk, instead of the usual three or four for the fall 2010 court term.

This is the same action taken by David Souter, whom Sotomayor will replace, shortly before he announced he was stepping down.

So now is the time for us to take action, rather than waiting untill the last minute.

Now is the time to start to turn up the heat, and let the committee members know, especially Lindsey Graham, that we will not tolerate their support of another activist Supreme Court nominee.

Contact the Republican committee members listed below, and let them know that if they once again fail to follow the wishes of the people who voted them into office, it’s a simple matter to vote them out of office.

Jeff Sessions-Alabama
Orrin Hatch-Utah
Charles Grassley-Iowa
Jon Kyl-Arizona
Lindsey Graham-South Carolina
John Cornyn-Texas
Tom Coburn-Oklahoma

From ‘Yes, We Can’ to ‘No! Don’t!’

You really thought that Obama meant everything he said on the campaign trail?

Come on now!

Even the people in ACORN aren’t that gullible.

 

Don’t strain the system. Don’t add to the national stress level. Don’t pierce when you can envelop. Don’t show even understandable indignation when you can show legitimate regard. Realize that the ties that bind still bind but have grown dryer and more worn with time. They need to be strengthened, not strained.

Govern knowing we are a big, strong, mighty nation, a colossus that is, however, like all highly complex, highly wired organisms, fragile, even at places quite delicate. Don’t overburden or overexcite the system. America used to have fringes, one over here and the other over there. The fringes are growing. The fringes have their own networks. All sorts of forces exist to divide us. Try always to unite.

These are things one always wants people currently rising in government to know deep in their heads and hearts. They are the things the young, fierce staffers in any new White House, and the self-proclaimed ruthless pragmatists in this one, need to hear, be told or be reminded of.

The big, complicated, obscure, abstruse, unsettling and ultimately unhelpful health-care plans, proposals and ideas keep rolling out of Washington. Five bills, thousands of pages, “as it says on page 346, paragraph 3, subsection D.” No one knows what will be passed, what will make its way through House-Senate “conference.” They don’t even know what the president wants, what his true agenda is. He never seems to be leveling, only talking. Everything’s open to misdirection and exaggeration, and everything, people fear, will come down to some future bureaucrat’s interpretation of paragraph 3, subsection D, part 22.

What a disaster this health-care debate is. It strains…Read the rest of this entry

The Etiquette Czar’s Rules for Patriotic Protest

Don’t be impolite.

Don’t raise your voice.

And whatever you do, don’t ask legitimate questions.

The White House press office is now Miss Manners’ office. President Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for “yelling.” Gibbs’ underling, Bill Barton, chastised voters not to “disrupt” and “scream.” Instead, he advised America to engage in a “spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it.”

What constitutes “spirited?” How do they define “vigorous?” When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar’s Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democrat politeness monitors.

*No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper (30dB or less) and only…Read the rest of this entry

Grandma and Grandpa Aren’t The Only Ones Scheduled For Death

Why does Barack Obama insist on hiring people that have so little regard for human life?

The latest is health care advisory appointee Ezekiel Emanuel. brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

In previous articles, we have pointed out that Dr. Emanuel feels that medical care should be withheld from the disabled.

Turns out, it’s worse than we thought.

Check out this quote:

“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.|
A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”

It’s bad enough that if Grandpa is struck with diabetes or Grandma is diagnosed with breast cancer, Emanuel will figure that they will not be participating citizens, therefore health care resources should not be wasted on them.

If that isn’t bad enough, if you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs Syndrome or some other disorder, the government will turn it’s back on you and your child also.

Although I suppose you have to be willing to make some concessions if you want to offer everyone (well, almost everyone) free health care.

Next Page »