Remember this come November: A vote for any democrat running for a seat in the House of Representatives is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain speaker of the house. Why is that a problem? Example:
‘There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,’ she said. ‘How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.’
Looking into who’s making this a political issue? How could this not be a political issue? You have a group of muslims trying to build a mosque down the street from Ground Zero, when the majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, don’t want it. Hey Nancy, instead of calling for an investigation into how the opposition is being funded, why don’t you try calling for an investigation into the group that is funding the building of a 13 story “community center” on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the world.
I’m sorry, but the mosque isn’t about religious freedom or consitutional rights; it’s about common sense. And yes, I know that the left in this country lacks common sense, which is why they think the building of a mosque near Ground Zero should be celebrated, but investigating those that oppose it? Well I oppose it, so you can feel free to investigate me. I’m not being funded by anyone, but I’m more than happy to give five dollars to someone else to oppose it. Idiot.
Bigger picture: The Speaker of the House is calling for an investigation by the government into American citizens who oppose the building of a mosque. This should frighten you even more than the fact that she is second in line for the presidency.
Yes, I know there haven’t been many posts lately. I’ve been busy. And until someone wants to pay me for this blog, then my job security will need to be priority number 1. No mom, no one has complained.
With all of that being said, can anyone explain to me why we need a mosque near Ground Zero? I know I’ve asked before, but with the recent acceleration of the issue, I’m asking again. And no, I’m not questioning whether one can be built there, obviously it can be. But why should it be built there? What’s the point? Is this really the best place to prove that we, as Americans, are tolerant of everyone?
And what are the motives of the muslims building the mosque? Peace and understanding? B.S. You could have the same peace and understanding if you built it somewhere else. And no, your right to practice your religion is not being inhibited in any way by making you build the mosque elsewhere. Moreover, if your real motivation was truly a thing of butterflies and kittens and pretty rainbows and dew-drops, why give it a name that basically means muslim conquest? I’m not sure that forcing a mosque down the throat of a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, that don’t want it speaks of tolerance.
And what does this have to do with our esteemed president, you ask? Well, on Friday, he said this:
In his speech on Friday, Mr Obama said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.
‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
As one could expect, that went over like a ton of bricks. If the Republicans win back the House (and possibly Senate) this fall, a thank-you letter should be sent to the president.
House minority leader John Boehner’s response,
‘The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding….’
Say what you want about Boehner (I tend to like him), but he’s absolutely right (except that I don’t think they have the “right” to do it). If the muslims attempting to get this thing built want to show how much they love everybody, then they should share their love elsewhere. The people don’t want it, period; and with good reason. Lest we forget that it was muslims who brought the twin-towers down, in the name of their religion. I don’t care if they were “radicalized.” They weren’t Christians, or Catholics, or Quakers.
Simply put, there’s no justifiable reason for the mosque to go there. In fact, the mere fact that the builders want to put it there reveals their own insensitivity. Of course, I’m not dumb enough to think those building the mosque are doing so with good intentions.
Question: what would happen if, after a small group of Christian Americans set off a bomb in the middle of Mecca because they wanted to start another Crusade, another group of moderate Christians wanted to build a church near the site of the bombing to send a message of peace and love? Well, it’s actually a trick question because non-muslims aren’t allowed in Mecca. That fact notwithstanding, even if the moderate Christians were granted the opportunity to build the church, I would give it about a week before some “radicalized” muslims bombed it into oblivion. And how would the American left respond? Likely how many responded to 9/11: it’s our fault and we should work to understand their grievances. We’re destroying ourselves, and our esteemed president is leading the way.
Ah checks and balances. Like many states throughout this nation, Virginia filed an action challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. Specifically, the action challenged whether the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance was appropriate. The federal government recently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, basically arguing that the mandate constituted a tax, and therefore, could be levied by Congress. This argument made sense…if you’re either retarded or a lawyer. Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a fifth grade grasp of the english language recognizes the difference between a tax and a mandate to purchase a product on the private market. Well, I’m glad to say that a Virginia judge proved he’s neither retarded nor a lawyer.
‘The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark,’ [Judge] Hudson said in a 32-page ruling.
I’m not going to lie; I feel a little vindicated here. I know, I know, it’s just one judge and the matter still needs to go to trial, but at least Judge Hudson agrees with me that Obamacare’s mandate is unprecedented. I’ve heard from some people for months that it’s just another tax or it’s clearly within Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. Well, it appears as though I’m not the only one who thinks Congress has ventured into uncharted waters here.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the ruling rejecting the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case was a procedural step and that the passage of the healthcare reform law has ‘full constitutional backing.’
“Full constitutional backing?” Well that’s a relief. And no Ms. Sebelius, the denial wasn’t simply a procedural step. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say it means the Virginia court will deem the law unconstitutional. That’s just my gut talking though, so we’ll see. In any event, I’ll be shocked if this issue is not ultimately taken up by the Supreme Court at some point.
Now, why does this matter? It’s only one provision you say? Well, it matters because without the mandate, Obamacare is dead. Without everyone being required to purchase insurance, Obamacare will be even more expensive than it is now (yes it is possible), which wouldn’t fly with a Congress that was barely able to pass the monstrosity in its current form and is looking likely to move a lot more to the right come November.
It’s been a long, hot week, and I’m a bit testy. With that in mind, let’s discuss where we are.
Saying that our president is doing a bad job is like saying the citizens of Pompei experienced traffic congestion the morning Mount Vesuvius blew. It’s true, but it’s also an incredible understatement. 100% of Barry’s presidency has resided somewhere between doing nothing or making things worse. Honestly, I’ll have a major award for anyone that can point to one good thing this man has done since he’s gotten into office. We’re still sitting just shy of 10% national unemployment…and that doesn’t count the people who are no longer even looking for work. Our debt and deficits literally make history ever single day, and all B.O. thinks we should do is spend more. In fact, his own freakin’ debt commission stated the debt will destroy this country. Not possible? Look at Greece, or Spain, or Portugal.
His Department of Justice is choosing to sue Arizona for enforcing federal law, while refusing to prosecute sanctuary cities for explicitly violating federal law. How about a lawsuit against Chicago for its new gun restrictions? Don’t understand my point Mr. President? How about we put the restrictions in terms you can understand. It would be similar to Illinois telling a young pregnant girl she can have an abortion, but only after she pays $1,000.00 cash to watch a video of an abortion procedure, with her parents and grandparents, after which she takes a test consisting entirely of identifying still images from the video, and then, after the abortion, being forced to keep the dead baby in a jar under her pillow for nine months after the abortion. Oh, and she’d need to go to Wisconsin to get the abortion. Now, I bet a law like that would receive a lawsuit. Guns and abortion are both “fundamental rights” that are protected by the constitution, right?
How ’bout that financial overhaul bill that everyone on the left is so damn excited about? While it doesn’t do anything about fixing what actually went wrong with the economy in the first place, Fannie Mae is out there offering first time home-buyers loans with a little as $1,000.00 down. And now I get to go sit in traffic on the highway because the idiots hired by the state of Illinois, with federal funds I’m sure, decided to strike after tearing up the damn road. They apparently didn’t get the memo that the economy sucks while health care costs and premiums are still going up, as a result of despite Obamacare. And on January 1, 2011, those of us who actually pay income tax can look forward to it skyrocketing.
And what is our esteemed president’s response:
The president said in the interview he believes voters “are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can’t go back to.” He also said Washington “has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who’s up and who’s down — and not enough on what we’re doing for the American people.”
It’s official. We didn’t elect a President. We didn’t even elect a petty dictator. We elected a buffoon. And by “we” I mean somebody else because I didn’t vote for him. The liberal policies that got us into this mess are still out there, alive and well. “What we’re doing for the American people?” Are you serious? How about what you’re doing to the American people? Here’s what Barry’s done to the American people since he’s become president: increased unemployment. increased deficits and debt. increased health care costs and premiums. increased economic uncertainty. increased claims of racism. increased divisiveness. increased entitlements. increased taxes. Here’s what he’s done for the people of America: been a really active (and bad) golfer.
Wow, busy day for the “every cracker is a racist” crowd. First, Jesse Jackson proves, once again, that he’ll do anything to try and remain relevant. In case anyone has forgotten, Lebron James doesn’t work in Cleveland anymore. Instead, he’s moved on to less taxing pastures in Miami (literally, no income tax in Florida). So, instead of acting like an adult, Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert decided to put on his “jilted lover” hat and boil Lebron’s bunny, figuratively of course. More precisely, Gilbert collected all of his pent-up anger and unloaded in a local newspaper. To everyone else, Gilbert’s soliloquy simply provided a good chuckle. Not to Jesse Jackson though, who, I believe, once accused Mr. Rogers of being a racist because he didn’t have more black puppets in his Neighborhood of Make-Believe. He said this about Gilbert’s tirade:
His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship — between business partners — and LeBron honored his contract.
Maybe this is just me, but I didn’t read slavery into Gilbert’s motivational speech to the people of Cleveland. I viewed it as more of a Midol moment (sorry ladies); or a “crap, now no one’s going to pay to see my sad excuse for a basketball team” experience. Of course, Jackson’s perspective brings up several questions: what if Gilbert didn’t have a meltdown? Would Jackson then argue that Gilbert was still the slave-master, but that he only considered Lebron to be a mediocre slave? How would Lebron feel about that? Also, does this relationship cross employment lines? Can the master-slave relationship be present in a middle-management kind of setting involving cubicles, or does one of the parties have to be the owner of the company? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Lebron was the master, and Gilbert the slave? While Lebron moves on, Gilbert remains chained to Cleveland? I don’t think Jesse really thought this one out.
At the same time, Michelle “you’re all fat” Obama gave a speech to the NAACP the night before it votes to condemn the evil tea parties for the totally factual and not at all made up racial epithets and mean posters. In a statement revealing her deep concern for making sure she’s in the newspaper, NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell said,
‘We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made…We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.’
Hey, I’m law-abiding. I hereby repudiate all of the non-existent racist elements of the tea-party. I also repudiate you annoying me with your nonsense.
And finally, apparently because he’s looking for work, Eric Holder announced yesterday that the Dept. of Justice would actually enforce existing federal law in the event racial profiling occurs in Arizona. Usually such a proclamation would be met with a “well duh…of course you’ll enforce federal law…you’re the DOJ.” Due to Holder’s novel, “i’ll enforce it if i feel like it” stance on crime, however, his proclamation was indeed news-worthy.
I’m going to watch WKRP in Cincinnati now. Why? Why not is the question.
Some call it an attempt to distract us from the economy…as if that’s possible. Others call it a noble attempt to stop racism…tell that to J. Christian Adams. I simply call it a monumental waste of my tax dollars. As many of you probably know by now, Obama’s DOJ filed suit against the State of Arizona yesterday for its immigration law. You know, the one that requires Arizona cops to make an effort to identify criminals and then arresting them…novel concept. According to our esteemed government attorneys, any and all aspects of immigration are within the exclusive purview of the federal government. Thus, in legal terms, Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution…or so the argument goes. I haven’t read the complaint, and I’m not sure I will, but the Wall Street Journal apparently has, so that’s got to count for something right?
The suit, filed in Phoenix, said that the state had ‘crossed a constitutional line’ that interferes with the federal authority over immigration. It alleges that the state law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from such higher priorities as tracking illegal immigrants implicated in terrorism cases, drug smuggling or other crimes.
If this is the best the federal government’s got, then I want my money back. Now, courts can do all kinds of strange things, like deny unopposed motions for example, so I guess anything’s possible. That being said, how the hell can enforcing federal law interfere with federal law? In fact, the feds are doing more interfering than Arizona, due to their refusal to enforce their own law. Oh, and when did the Supremacy Clause include a section about not diverting resources from higher priorities? That’s called the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” argument.
‘Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,’ Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. ‘Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.’
As an initial point, this is the equivalent of the Chicago police department sitting outside my front door and watching my family be attacked by an intruder, and then arresting me when I kill him. But Holder’s right. Setting immigration policy is within the exclusive purview of the federal government. I’m not so sure about enforcement though. After all, what constitutes “enforcement?” The State of Arizona certainly can’t deport the illegals. But can they arrest them for being here illegally and hold them until I.N.S. deports them? My gut tells me they can…but that may just be the Chipotle I ate last night…which was awesome by the way. The learned, ivory tower types have thrown in their two cents as well:
‘I think the federal government is going to win and the Arizona law is going to be shown to be unconstitutional,’ said Karl M. Manheim, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. ‘States don’t have any power to regulate immigration.’
This opinion begs the question though: does the Arizona law “regulate” immigration? I think the federal govt. would have a difficult time arguing that the law does any regulating. It’s simply a criminal statute piggy-backing on a federal statute which already defined who is here illegally. Arizona’s law hasn’t made being here illegally more illegal than it was before.
As usual though, Gov. Jan Brewer hits the nail on the head with respect to the practicalities of the lawsuit:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the federal lawsuit ‘a massive waste of taxpayer funds’ and said the money ‘could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.’
She said that the Obama administration, if worried about a patchwork of laws, could have chosen to sue local governments that adopted ‘sanctuary” policies instructing police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
She is absolutely correct. The Obama Administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a “patchwork of laws.” Controlling the border is right in the wheelhouse of the federal government, and its failure to do the controllin’ is the sole reason why states are being forced to pick up the slack. In fact, the DOJ’s complaint constitutes an admission of this.
Of course, as the article goes on to point out, this is all about politics. Obama doesn’t care about immigration. If he did, he would have pushed a bill through Congress before he lost his filibuster-proof majority. Instead, he has continued to dither on the issue, now hoping that the lawsuit will bring the democrats the hispanic vote in November. I personally doubt that the immigration law is going to bring the Dems any more votes then they already have…but we’ll see.
In the meantime, be sure to send a little love note to your Congressman, thanking him or her for the wise use of your tax dollars. After all, the only reason the Arizona law was enacted in the first place was because they have failed to do their jobs…again.
I read a good article this morning at ABC News’ website. It points out that the Boston Tea Party wasn’t about an increase in taxes, as many apparently believe. Instead, it was about anger. Anger at a government that was out of touch and out of reach. The same is true about the current Tea Party Movement. As someone who has attended a couple of Tea Parties, I can tell you that the people in attendance aren’t angry about taxes per se. They’re angry about a government that seems to feast on the workers while subsidizing the non-workers.
Ours is a government, despite what some believe, that has one job…do what the majority of the people want. That’s what a representative democracy does. The only real limit on the will of the people is the Constitution. In other words, the government can’t institute slavery again. The people of California voting to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is an example of their authority over their government’s.
We, and yes I’m saying we, are angry because our government is ignoring us. And not just the tea-partiers. It’s ignoring the majority of the people in favor of, well, I’m not real sure. The poor and/or unemployed certainly aren’t being helped by the current administration’s policies. Neither are those who are working, as they see their health insurance premiums and taxes rise while their salaries comparably fall.
Simply put, the current Administration either doesn’t know what it’s doing or absolutely knows what it’s doing. I’m not sure which one makes me feel worse. In any event, it doesn’t really matter because both options suck. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it appears unlikely that our president and democrat-dominated congress are going to pull their heads out of their collective-rears to listen to the will of the people, who are turning out to be smarter than them. November can’t get here soon enough. Party on Tea-Partiers.