Re: Santorum speaks at Supreme Court about Obamacare

Santorum made a strong case yesterday at the steps of the Supreme Court that Romney cannot make the case against Obamacare in the general election since Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. What a great move by Santorum on the first day that Obamacare is in the Supreme Court. I think for the first time his message that Romney is uniquely disqualified on this issue is getting heard by a much larger audience. Even with the bulls–t comment a couple of days ago, that was the argument he was making.

This one issue has now become his central issue, and it couldn’t be at a better time. Let’s hope people in Wisconsin are listening:

View the original article here

Morning Briefing for April 4, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing
For April 4, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

Barack Obama spoke to the American press yesterday to demagogue Republicans, Paul Ryan’s budget, cite Ronald Reagan as proof that raising taxes is okay, and damn with faint praise American exceptionalism.

The President called Paul Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse.” Given the President’s predilection for forcing all Americans, through regulatory fiat, to adhere to his view of contraception, I suspect that had Paul Ryan preemptively called his budget a ‘trojan condom,” the President of the United States would be campaigning trying to make us all adhere to it.

One thing that really stuck out at me in his speech yesterday was his statement that his very life and career were made possible because of American exceptionalism. He’s right. It’s also what makes his public policy choices so maddening.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The storm that erupted yesterday when Barack Obama woke up and discovered the Supreme Court of the United States was not only not elected but it could overturn “duly passed” laws, even those passed in the dead of the night by the barest of purchased majorities, has been more than adequately covered on these pages and others by actual lawyers and those who think they are.

I’m pretty sure Obama knows what Marbury v. Madison is, even though yesterday he gave a darned good impression of being a total goober in regards to our Constitution. The simplest explanation is that he knows how the vote went on Friday and is working to change that vote, failing that he is setting the predicate for running against the Supreme Court in November.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Last year while governors across the Midwest worked to reform broken public union laws, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) slandered them in a speech that could have easily been written by one of the millionaire “leaders” at SEIU, NEA, or AFSCME.

During one of his stemwinders about the wondrous things unions do, Sherrod dropped a reductio ad Hitlerum on Governor Kasich (OH), Governor Walker (WI), and Governor Christie (NJ).

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Republican-controlled House is currently operating under a moratorium on earmarking. But if several GOP earmarxists have their say, this will change in the near future.

Throughout the past decade, most of the arguments against earmarks have been focused on wasteful spending, corruption, cronyism, and self-ingratiating monuments. Robert Byrd’s monuments and the Bridge to Nowhere became symbols for such bad behavior. To that end, even some conservative advocates of earmarks have lodged a counterargument. They contend that earmarks are only “pocket change,” and that by declining to earmark specific funding bills, we are ceding more power to the Obama administration. In order to preclude any extravagant earmarks and cronyism, they are proposing reforms and limitations to the process that will supposedly put an end to things like the Bridge to Nowhere.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

View the original article here

Testing the Media testicular fortitude

According to America's top constitutional law Professor turned President of the United States, the Supreme Court overturning "a law that by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress was adopted."

What about the people, acting through the democratic process, to change their own Constitution?

I ask because in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional for the people of California to ban of gay marriage to their Constitution. Most damning, the Ninth Circuit opinion pretty clear says that when judges Act and the people choose to change their Constitution in response, such an amendment is unconstitutional.

Will someone in the media ask the President if, based on its logic on the Supreme Court, he supports the voters in California who wanted to pass Proposition 8?

"No, no," he would try to pull back. "I'm talking about when the Supreme Court is trying to curb rights."

Wherefore, believes President Government-funded health care is a right?

It also supports President the legislatures of the several States voter ID laws by a democratically elected legislature enacting?

But wait ... There are more questions the media must keep if we go the President everyone responsible for their words and not just the Republicans.

Believes the President should overturn Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court when the law a law adopted by a large majority in a democratically elected state legislature declared unconstitutional?

Hey, what about the immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama?

"I said ' Congress '," could the President answer.

Okay. Well in the United States the partial birth abortion ban 2003 Congress law of 2003 by a greater margin that the previous Congress Obamacare and that the majority was bipartisan.

Does the President now that the Supreme Court was right to maintain the constitutionality of "a law which has been adopted by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress"? If so, the President withdraw his statement of 2007 now where he attacked the Supreme Court for enforcement of "a law that was passed by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Some Member States of the media certainly has the testicular fortitude to ask only the latter.

But then again, what of Proposition 8? The President believes that the courts must listen to the will of the people?

View the original article here

Debbie Wasserman Schultz gets rid of the intestines by Doug McIntyre of KABC 790.

Hey, who wants to hear Debbie Wasserman Schultz do the rhetorical equivalent of stepping on a Betty bounce? Well, we all do, of course. The video below is theoretically 3 minutes and 26 seconds long – but you have to stop it at least twice so you can restore your laughing fit.

As I elsewhere I described earlier, the transcript here needed . It was practically a moral duty.  Fortunately, the Washington delivered a free Beacon.  A flavor is below: the rest of it is pretty much the same thing.  I.e.: Doug McIntyre of absolutely slamming Wasserman Schultz about LA La's 790 WABC Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa picking for being a keynote speaker for the Charlotte Democratic Convention; and Wasserman Schultz refuting via the use of stinky ink … No, wait, that is Octopuses.  Well, same difference, really:

MCINTYRE: the Mayor of Los Angeles [Antonio Villaraigosa] was hit with the biggest ethics violations in the 200 year history of the city, three of his campaign bundlers are doing the perp walk, and if it was not for millionaires and billionaires, there wouldn't have been a shovel stuck in the ground in Los Angeles in the past five years. Backroom deals he makes with great billionaire developers, while pretending to care about the 99 percent — please, we know the man's record, we've lived with it.

DWS: well, okay, Doug, is there anything else that you would like to talk about? Because I think we probably have exhausted that this part of the conversation.

Anyway, I do not know Doug McIntyre, don't know his politics, not really know its media market. But what I do know is that he will be avoided by the DNC in the future, if only because each democratic staffer who now within fifty feet gets from him will probably spontaneously burst into flames.

(A variant of this post is Crossposted to Moe Lane)

Moe Lane

View the original article here

Tom cotton for Congress in Arkansas District 4

Editor's Note: Tom cotton can count all the official Red State support.  Here's mine on behalf of the Madison Project PAC.

Our problem with elected Republicans in Washington is not only the lack of conservative idealism among their ranks.  There are many Republicans who intuitively understand what we need to do to reduce the size of Government.  The fundamental problem is that there is a lack of elected officials who use their political capital the courage and determination to implement transformational change possess.  That is exactly why we need more people like Tom cotton in Congress.

Tom grew up on a farm in rural Dardanelle, Arkansas, near the Ozark Mountains.  He worked his way into Harvard and graduated with a Bachelor's degree and a law degree, pave the way for a promising and lucrative career as a lawyer.  Instead, he was moved by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to turn in the army and serve his country.

As a student of Harvard Law, cotton was offered a senior job in the JAG Corps.  This tempting offer and signed up for cotton solid decreased Ranger school.  He served in several important combat zones in Iraq with the 101st Airborne, earning numerous medals for his service.  Shortly after his return from Iraq, voluntarily cotton for a tour of duty in a dangerous part of Afghanistan.  It is clear that Tom cotton will not the type to bow to the special interest groups or leadership in Washington, DC.

After receiving numerous requests to run for public office, cotton decided for the seat of Parliament is in the 4th district of Arkansas vacated by Democrat Mike Ross.  It is easy to prevent the primary for this conservative neighborhood with the assumption that the Republicans will win the seat anyway.  However, it is not enough to simply appoint a Republican.  We have learned the hard way by ignoring largely primaries in Arkansas, which leads to the unfortunate election of Republicans who grants and one that leads the charge for tax increases to support.

Tom cotton has demonstrated a deep understanding of the policies and politics behind every major issue, of energy subsidies to national security threats of Islamic terror, China and Russia.  Cotton has the intellectual prowess to articulate unvarnished free market policy and the courage to hold the line on them.  He fought from the bad guys in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq; He will not pardon in battle with Statists have in the swamps of DC.

The Madison Project is honored to support this American hero for the Congress.  Let's give him the extra momentum he needs to prevent a runoff after primary elections on 22 May.

Cross-posted from the Madison Project

View the original article here

Daily Links-2 April 2012

Today is April 2. On this date in 1513 Juan Ponce de Leon claimed Florida for Spain. He believed that an island. He called it "La Florida", both for the lushness of foliage, and because it was Easter week or Pascua Florida. Visit Disney World, he decided after a few days it had become "too commercial" and carried out looking for the fountain of youth, which it turned out was really just a night club. Also on this date, in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, stating that the world safe for democracy should be created. Wilson once said "we must not only use all the brains that we have, but everything we can lend," and immediately became the first zombie elected mandate. Glass ceiling: broken! And finally today is national peanut butter Jelly & day! If you do not find so exciting, we can to break. No, no, it's not you, it's me. Consider this an Open thread.

Media Matters Lackey admits there is a Liberal Media | The right atmosphere
@ RBPundit he has on a hilarious Exchange with a Media Matters employee on Twitter.

SF protestors occupy vacant inherit building | San Francisco Gate
"Occupy SF activists put the usually moribund movement back in the spotlight Sunday, acquisition of an unoccupied building which is owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco with plans for the establishment of a" permanent occupation ' "

Video: Boston's Northeastern University Holocaust Remembrance hijack | Jawa report
"Podravska professors and guest lecturers are invited their seen Israelis Nazis compare and denying Jewish peoplehood"

Taxpayers on the hook for anti-soda lobbying campaigns | Hot air
"Members of Congress are turning the heat on the Obama administration for millions of dollars in grant money that was used to attack soda and, in some cases, lobby for handing out higher taxes."

Contemporary Merriam-Webster Word of the day comes through.
toddy (GRAHK): verb to understand deep and intuitive

View the original article here

Morning Briefing for, 3 April 2012

RedState morning Briefing
For, 3 April 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the morning Briefing every morning for free.

According to America's top constitutional law Professor turned President of the United States, the Supreme Court overturning "a law that by a large majority of a democratically elected Congress was adopted."

What about the people, acting through the democratic process, to change their own Constitution?

I ask because in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional for the people of California to ban of gay marriage to their Constitution. Most damning, the Ninth Circuit opinion pretty clear says that when judges Act and the people choose to change their Constitution in response, such an amendment is unconstitutional.

Will someone in the media ask the President if, based on its logic on the Supreme Court, he supports the voters in California who wanted to pass Proposition 8?

"No, no," he would try to pull back. "I'm talking about when the Supreme Court is trying to curb rights."

Wherefore, believes President Government-funded health care is a right?

It also supports President the legislatures of the several States voter ID laws by a democratically elected legislature enacting?

But wait ... There are more questions the media must keep if we go the President everyone responsible for their words and not just the Republicans.

Click here for the rest of the post.

For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his right or his legal history. Today about the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare, Obama offered this beautiful and completely ahistorical nugget:

"Ultimately, I am convinced that the Supreme Court would not do what will take an unprecedented extraordinary step of a law that was passed by a large majority of a democratically elected Congressoverturning."

Look, I'm not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with everyone, but the fact remains that that more than 200 years ago, it's not exactly since the judgment rendered "unprecedented and extraordinary" for the Supreme Court to overturn the laws passed by Congress (regardless of the size of most). In fact, it happens all the time. That's the whole point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and confirmed without serious challenge since then.

I seriously would like to know, and I hope that the press Obama gets on the record on this – it is President Obama the assertion that the Supreme Court's only role in the revision of the legislation is to double-check the count on the roll-call vote to ensure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President's signature for possible falsification? Because, I mean, if that's what we're going to go back, I'm open to having that discussion, but we want to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions taken a decidedly different view.

Of course, in making these comments expose Obama is once again as a cynical hack that itself is devoid of anything resembling shame. The partial birth abortion In 2003 United States Congressional ban law of 2003 by the significantly greater margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to this law, which was adopted by a "democratically elected Congress", pitched then-Senator Obama a hissy fit over the fact that the absolute Supreme Court had argued that the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).

Click here for the rest of the post.

I don't really know what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. What I do know is that this story led at least one manslaughter – the murder of self-inflicted media the last shreds of credibility has to. And it's not just conservative blogs that brands-even straight news sources have started noticing the shame with which the media has showered during this whole sad saga. The Washington Post reported Friday that NBC's blatant editing Zimmerman the 911 call will be "reviewed internally," which is as close as you ever screw up an admission of a very serious of a major news organization will get.

The most stunning admission still came from something called a Touré, which apparently is a contributor MSNBC. Touré apparently got tired of being on a TV channel nobody watches so he went on to take last week Piers Morgan to task for the journalistic crime of getting both sides of the story Piers.

Click here for the rest of the post.

View the original article here