Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Sedition & Treason: DNC Undermining Voter ID Laws

by xuberalles
Nothing is more constitutionally offensive than Democrats fighting our states' sworn duty of enforcing Voter Id laws. The fact that these politicians – who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution – are OK with allowing non-citizens to vote, to participate in decisions that affect our families and futures, is both disgusting and insulting. So the government willingly spends millions of dollars to ensure that minors are carded for cigarettes and booze – decisions of supreme national importance - but they refuse to demand that voters show proper identification when performing their most vital duty as citizens? This is so appalling, a breach of the most basic tenets of logic, that it should be splashed on billboards in every city across this nation.
If our so called representatives care only about winning an election and not the sovereignty of our nation, the rights of actual citizens, then they are incapable of properly serving this nation, let alone defending this republic that countless men and women died to protect. If illegal immigrants want to vote, then they should have filled out the paperwork and respected the process. It’s not rocket science. I cannot enter a car dealership and demand a vehicle without money, insurance, or a driver’s license. They’d laugh in my face; and rightfully so. Why is voting, the pinnacle of our democracy, any different? Conservatives aren’t against immigration – the promise that is America – they are simply against ILLEGAL immigration.

Defend the Constitution, for in the end, it is all we have in the face of such blatant treason and ignorance!

Americans Are Worrying About the Constitution Again

Rasmussen ^ | 4-4-12 | Michael Barone

"I don't worry about the Constitution," said Rep. Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, at a town hall meeting where voters questioned his support of the legislation that became Obamacare. You can find the clip on, where it has 462,084 hits.
That was before the 2010 election, in which Hare, running for a third term in a district designed by Democrats to elect a Democrat, was defeated 53 to 43 percent by Bobby Schilling, proprietor of a pizza parlor in East Moline.
A lot of politicians are worrying about the Constitution these days. Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices -- a majority -- asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional.
And so the Constitution -- and the limits it places on Congress' powers -- is once again part of our politics. And will continue to be, whichever way the Court rules.
For 70 years, since the court in 1942 said the government could limit the amount of wheat farmer Roscoe Filburn could grow on his own land to feed his own animals, it has been generally assumed that the federal government's power to regulate the economy had no limits.
That assumption survived in liberal precincts even though the court in 1995 overturned a law banning guns in schools and in 2000 ruled unconstitutional parts of the Violence Against Women Act.
But the arguments, developed by Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett and others, that it is beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution for Congress to mandate the purchase of a commercial product -- health insurance in Obamacare -- were certainly taken seriously by a majority of Supreme Court justices last week.
And the government's lawyers were unable to answer the questions of both liberal and conservative justices: If Congress can do this, what can't it do?
That question is likely to linger even if the court upholds Obamcare.
For the justices are not the only federal officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So do the president and vice president, Cabinet members and other appointees, and every member of Congress. Phil Hare may not have been worried about the Constitution, but his constituents evidently thought he should be.
That means that every federal official has an obligation to act in line with the Constitution as he or she understands it. And that doesn't necessarily mean obeying Supreme Court decisions.
Many constitutional issues never come before the Supreme Court, which only rules on lawsuits. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issues rulings based on the Constitution, which are generally regarded as binding precedents by administrations of different parties, even though cases never go to court.
Presidents of different parties regularly issue signing statements, saying that they will not carry out provisions of laws they sign that they regard as unconstitutional. Barack Obama decried signing statements when he was campaigning, but as president he has issued them himself.
Members of Congress may reasonably regard themselves as bound to vote against measures they conscientiously believe unconstitutional. Barry Goldwater did this when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though he had integrated his own business many years before, on constitutional grounds.
Goldwater's constitutional argument, predictably, wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court. And his vote gave the Republican Party an unfair reputation for being anti-civil rights. But I think he was entitled to think his oath required him to vote that way.
Clearly the two parties are divided on the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Polls have shown large majorities of voters think the provision is unconstitutional, though one can wonder whether many have given the matter much thought.
But they're certainly giving it more thought after this week and will likely give it more when the decision comes down.
Voters can reasonably ask candidates for Congress their views on this and other constitutional issues and call on them to vote against measures they consider beyond Congress' constitutional powers.
If the Court overturns Obamacare, Obama may be tempted to attack the court. He should beware. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, a few months after landslide re-election, proposed to pack the Supreme Court with new appointees.
Gallup polls showed majorities opposed, and in the next election, proponents of FDR's New Deal lost their congressional majorities. Lesson: Most American voters worry about the Constitution.

Obama Alienates Canada And Mexico At Three Amigos!

Investors Business Daily ^ | Apr 3, 2012 | Staff
Obama's neglect of our nearest neighbors and biggest trade partners has created deteriorating relations, a sign of a president who's out of touch with reality. Problems are emerging that aren't being reported.
Fortunately, the Canadian and Mexican press told the real story. Canada's National Post quoted former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson as saying the North American Free Trade Agreement and the three-nation alliance it has fostered since 1994 have been so neglected they're "on life support."
Energy has become a searing rift between the U.S. and Canada and threatens to leave the U.S. without its top energy supplier.
The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama's de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.
Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That's about to change.
Excelsior of Mexico City reported that President Felipe Calderon bitterly brought up Operation Fast and Furious, a U.S. government operation that permitted Mexican drug cartels to smuggle thousands of weapons into drug-war-torn Mexico. This blunder has wrought mayhem on Mexico and cost thousands of lives.
The mainstream U.S. press has kept those questions out of the official press conferences, while Obama has feigned ignorance to the Mexicans and hasn't even apologized.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Government plans to sue Arizona sheriff for enforcing immigration laws against Latinos!

Reuters ^ | 03 April 2012 | Jeremy Pelofsky
The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.
The sheriff's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.
The administration's Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.
Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department's demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.
The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio's force.
The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.
In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.
"To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!" Arpaio said in the statement.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Transcript

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Look Around

Posted Image

More Photos Found

Posted Image


Posted Image

The Millennials

Posted Image

Makes Me Sick

Posted Image

Lawmaker demands hearing following report of lavish conference footed by taxpayers!

Fox News ^ | April 3, 2012 |
The chairman of the House transportation committee is calling for a hearing following a report that an obscure federal agency blew $820,000 on a conference near Las Vegas.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called the expenses "outrageous" but said it's "just the tip of the iceberg."
"We have been trying to get the administrative costs from the agency and now we see why they have been stonewalling," he said in a statement.
Mica's official said the committee has questions about increases in the agency's budget in recent years. He's planning to hold a hearing as early as mid-April.
In the wake of the report, the White House accepted the resignation of General Services Administration chief Martha Johnson. Johnson also dismissed two deputies and suspended other career employees over the affair.
The employees at the conference dropped thousands of dollars on luxury items and convention giveaways -- including more than $6,000 on commemorative coins, $8,000 on a "yearbook" and $3,200 for an in-house mind reader.
"It's unbelievable that red flags didn't immediately go up well before this junket," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.
The 300-person event at the M Resort Spa and Casino in Henderson, Nev., included a $95-per-person dinner and reception, as well as several violations of federal laws and policies.
We'll soon see if Rep. John Mica (R-FL), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has enough brass to follow through with it to its logical and legal conclusion. But as with 99% of all US Congressional investigations, I'm not holding my breath.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law!

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 3, 2012 | JUAN A. LOZANO
....During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S.5thCircuitCourt of Appeals JudgeJerrySmith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.
"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.
.... Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said.
The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Broken Promise That Can Beat Obama ^ | April 4, 2012 | Michael Medved
Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:06:28 AM by Kaslin
In the last 100 years, every U.S. president who lost his bid for a second term did so because he abandoned his principal promise to the American people. If Republicans can persuade the public that Barack Obama similarly shattered the pledge at the very core of his presidency, they will succeed in denying him the new lease on the White House he insists he deserves.
Four elected chief executives in this century failed in their reelection campaigns—and each of them flopped by landslide margins. For William Howard Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1992, broken promises doomed their chances for another four-year term.
Taft, Theodore Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, based his first presidential campaign on guarantees that he would continue the popular policies of his ebullient predecessor, but voters in 1912 knew they’d been betrayed because TR himself came out of retirement to tell them so! Roosevelt not only challenged Taft for re-nomination but ultimately conducted his third-party “Bull Moose” campaign, handing victory to Democrat Woodrow Wilson and pushing the incumbent to a paltry 23 percent of the popular vote.
In 1928, Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover ran as the prosperity candidate, deploying the sonorous slogan, “A Chicken in Every Pot, a Car in Every Garage.” The Great Depression smashed his optimistic assurances and helped FDR carry 42 of 48 states.
After the sleaze and polarization of the Nixon administration, a nation weary of Watergate turned to a youthful, deeply religious Georgia governor who titled his campaign autobiography “Why Not the Best?” As a former officer on nuclear submarines, Jimmy Carter ran as a sure-handed technocrat who offered the explicit promise of “a government as good as its people.” After three years of economic meltdown, a seemingly endless hostage crisis, and self-defeating talk of malaise, that cheerful vow sounded laughably quaint, and Carter fell by 8.4 million votes to Ronald Reagan.
Finally, in 1988 Vice President George H.W. Bush escaped the nagging “wimp” factor and electrified the GOP convention with an unequivocal declaration meant to evoke the steely resolve of Clint Eastwood. “Read my lips,” he snarled. “No new taxes!” Violating that well-publicized oath with a sharp increase in marginal tax rates literally wrecked his presidency: producing a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan, a formidable third-party candidacy by Ross Perot, and a lopsided November win for the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton.
If Republicans want to see history repeat itself in 2012, with a once-popular incumbent turned out of office by a deeply disillusioned electorate, they must persuade the public that Barack Obama has continued the big-loser pattern of broken promises. That means reminding voters of the most important theme associated with his rise to power: the pledge to unify the nation and put aside petty, partisan differences. Whatever happens with the unemployment rate or gas prices, the president’s failure to live up to these assurances remains both painful and apparent.
In the speech that made him a national figure overnight, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama gave the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. “Alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people,” he intoned. “The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them…. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
In his Inaugural Address four-and-a-half years later, the newly elected president sounded strikingly similar themes. “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Can even the most devoted Obama admirer plausibly claim that this new day of harmony and cooperation actually dawned in Washington?
Low approval ratings for all federal officials suggest that Americans recognize that the “conflict and discord” have become more bitter than ever before and that the president, despite his soaring rhetoric, plays a prominent part in the squabbling. He may attempt to blame conservatives exclusively for the small-minded gamesmanship, but he’s compiled his own long record of below-the-belt, straw-man attacks, sliming his opponents as greedy and corrupt, claiming that they place plutocrats and corporate power above the public welfare.
Instead of the fresh era of “unity of purpose,” President Obama must acknowledge that his signature legislative achievement, health-care reform, passed both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote, and led elected officials in the majority of states to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
Yet even more tragically than his crushed hope of overcoming partisanship, Barack Obama has disappointed the public in the historic mission of transcending racial divisions. It may have been unrealistic to expect that election of the first black president would heal four centuries of racial strife, but that didn’t stop millions from rallying to banners of hope and to the intoxicating chant of “Yes We Can!”
In that context, no matter how eloquently the president speaks about the Trayvon Martin tragedy, the incident still serves to undermine the notion of his transformative leadership: racism remains a powerful, even paralyzing, presence in American life. To an embarrassing extent, Obama himself remains a racially divisive rather than unifying figure. According to March tracking polls by the Gallup organization, 85 percent of blacks approve of Obama’s job performance, but only 39 percent of whites do—an unprecedented difference of more than two-to-one.
When challenging Barack Obama’s claim on a second term, the Republicans should remind the American people why we entrusted him with the presidency in the first place. Beyond any specific expectations about jobs, taxes, and health care, the public welcomed the prospect of an end to the bickering with a new politics of common-sense reform.
The GOP candidate can expose the president’s spoiled promise by renewing the same pledge more credibly, and demonstrating in the campaign itself the coalition-building, pragmatism, and bipartisanship the people expected from the incumbent. Reinvigorated hope for unity and cooperation provides the best chance to highlight this president’s most fatal failure and to add his name to the melancholy list of discredited one-termers who broke faith with the American people.

Big Oil Profits Aren’t Excessive — The Left's Rhetoric Is

IBD ^ | 04/04/2012
One of the most effective arguments used against the oil industry is that it earns "excessive" profits that must be taxed away. But as with the rest of the left's failed energy agenda, it's based on pure falsehoods.
With prices for crude above $100 a barrel, it's no surprise the news media are fixated on oil companies' "record profits."
Predictably, Democrats and others on the left use rising profits to bludgeon "Big Oil" and push more subsidies for money-losing "green energy" schemes while working to raise taxes and kill subsidies for oil.
"When the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies' profits," President Obama explained last week, calling for higher taxes on oil companies.
"Meanwhile," he added, "these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments — partly because we're giving them billions in tax giveaways every year."
A new attack ad for an Obama-linked political group excoriates the oil industry for its "record profits and ... billions in special tax breaks."
On closer inspection, those profits turn out to be nothing special. Government policies have driven up the price of oil, which has boosted oil companies' total profits. But their profit margins — the best measure of industry profitability — remain modest.
As of the third quarter of last year, the oil industry earned just 6.7 cents per dollar of revenue, less than the average for all manufacturing of 9.2 cents (see chart).
(Excerpt) Read more at ...