Is there a "silver lining" hidden in the Supreme Court ruling?...

I don't think so and neither do lots of other people.

Mark America:   The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives

Libertas et Memoria:  No solace for conservatives and libertarians in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the Obamacare case

Ann Barnhardt:  Surprised? Nope. Solution? Junta. Likely? Nope. (post of June 28.2012)

The other side:

And now, representing the "is the glass half full or half empty?" contingent, we have Fuzzy Slippers with a round-up of both sides with her comments - and we thank her.

Fuzzy Shorthand: The Supremes’ Decision


In case you missed it:

Please take the time this weekend to listen to Mark's entire broadcast. 


Mark Levin analyzes SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare

Blogoversary alert...

Doug, over at The Daley Gator, is celebrating 4 years of blogging.

I'm not quite sure how he does it, but the quantity and quality of posts Doug puts out is inspiring.

Take a moment to head over and say thanks for all his hardwork.

What to say after four years of blogging? How about thanks! Updated through the weekend 

 

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) Delivers Weekly GOP Address On The Need To Repeal Obamacare

“Hi. I’m Dr. John Barrasso, United States Senator for Wyoming.

“The President and his allies in Congress are going to try to convince the public that the Supreme Court just gave the health care law a seal of approval.

“The fact is that this is the same failed policy that won’t lower the cost of health care in America.

“On Thursday, I was in the courtroom as the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s health care law is what the President claimed it was not: a new tax.

“President Obama has repeatedly promised, and I quote, ‘if you’re a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan,’ he said, ‘won’t raise your taxes one penny.’

“Now, all of America knows the truth.

“The President’s health care law hires more IRS agents to investigate you and to make sure you buy insurance—but it fails to deal with the shortage of nurses and doctors to actually take care of you.

“The President’s health care tax is only one of his many broken promises related to this law.

“He promised lower health care costs, but they keep going up.

“He promised lower insurance premiums, but they’ve increased $2,400 a family over the past three years.

“He promised the law would create jobs, but the Congressional Budget Office projects that 800,000 fewer people will have jobs because of this law.

“He promised it wouldn’t add a dime to the deficit, but the law calls for trillions of dollars in new spending that Americans don’t want.

“The President said he would protect Medicare—but instead he raided $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare—not to strengthen Medicare—but to start a whole new government program for someone else.

“Even after the Supreme Court ruling was announced, the President said that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.

“Mr. President, because of your law, many Americans have already lost the health insurance that they had and they liked.

“Each broken promise proves that the Supreme Court’s ruling did absolutely nothing to improve the President’s failed health care law.

“It remains unworkable, unaffordable, and very unpopular.

“Americans deserve better.

“As a doctor who’s practiced medicine for 25 years, I know that the health care system in this country is far from perfect. It’s one of the reasons I ran for the Senate in the first place.

“The goal of health care reform all along should have been to ensure that people get the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

“Under President Obama’s health care law, they got the exact opposite—tax increases and government control.

“Now we have another chance to reform our health care system and in a way that does not result in higher costs, in fewer choices, and less personal control.

“There should be no doubt: Republicans in Congress will fight to repeal the President’s failed health care law.

“It is a law that is bad for patients, it is bad for the nurses and the doctors who care for those patients, and it’s terrible for taxpayers.

“In the middle of a tough economy, President Obama passed a health care law that has made our economy even worse.

“By forcing expensive new health care mandates through Congress, he’s made it harder for Americans to find good jobs and provide for their families.

“With unemployment at over 8 percent for over 40 straight months, we cannot afford for this tax to stay in place any longer.

“Once we have repealed the law, we will tackle the serious problems that plagued our health care system and are now getting worse.

“We will replace this law with real reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care.

“We will not make the same mistakes the Democrats made.

“We will not raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

“We will not push through a 2,700 page bill the American people can’t afford and don’t want.

“Unlike President Obama, we will not cut deals behind closed doors to protect special interest groups, or include political carve outs for some states at the expense of others.
“What we will do is make sure that our health care system is truly patient-centered, not government-centered.

“Republicans in Congress are committed to a step-by-step approach that’s focused on lowering the cost of car.

“That means commonsense solutions, like allowing premium breaks to encourage healthy behavior.

“It means letting consumers buy insurance across state lines, and letting small businesses pool together to offer affordable health insurance to their workers.

“It means finally ending the lawsuit abuse that leads doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering expensive and unnecessary tests.

“Now that the Supreme Court has acted, the American people cannot afford for Congress to wait any longer.

“It is time for Washington to repeal the President’s health care law and replace it with real health care reform.

“Thank you for joining me today.”

Real political motivation...

brought to us by Randy.

Please empty your mouth of all liquids before proceeding. 

Political Motivation

Wild Bill on the Supreme Court decision...

it's up to us to fix this.



H/T Theo Spark

Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling...w/Update

well worth a listen.

"This decision I would go as far to say is lawless. Absolutely lawless!"

"John Roberts - incoherent."

 Listen to his First Segment from June 28's Show


The rest of the show is now at Right Scoop - and we thank them!

Romney's statement...

repeal!

Mandate survives as a "tax"...

Romney will win in a landslide.

SCOTUSblog...

 live blogging the decision.

Welcome to the liveblog.  Thursday is the day.  Here is our schedule, all times EDT.  8:45a – liveblog begins with introductory explanation.  9a-10a – answers to your questions.  10a-1045a (appx) – decision announcements.  We expect the health care decision to be announced at roughly 10:15a.  1045a-1p – live coverage and analysis.

Live blog of orders and opinions

ObamaCare countdown...w/ Update

I'll be up at 5am (PDT)

Possible decisions and outcomes:

• Individual mandate goes down in flames - I go shopping
• Entire bill hits the trashcan - I go shopping
• Entire bill is upheld - I go shopping

From Keith Koffler:

Monitoring the Obamacare Decision

by Keith Koffler on June 27, 2012, 11:41 pm

The Supreme Court will announce the term’s remaining rulings at 10:00 am ET.
The website Scotusblog will immediately convey all the decisions, including the Obamacare ruling, during its Live Blog of the announcements. The live blog will start discussing the cases at 8:45 am and Scotusblog expects the Obamacare decision to come up at about 10:15 am, though I wouldn’t wait that late to tune in.

 Update:

From Creative Minority Report:

Today Is The Day

Today is the day. Just hours away now.

Does liberty die, smothered by a government without limit?

Or do we get a reprieve, even if only momentary? Do we get another chance?

Our fate may rest in the hands rests in the hands of of a single man in black robes. Just like the founders intended it, no?

Keep Praying!!

CMR will be covering it live, no matter what happens. In the meantime, buy canned goods and bullets. You may need them either way.

ABC disses Obama's "It's the right thing to do" catch phrase...

I think the right thing to do would be impeachment for treason and fast track his ass to prison,  but hey - that's just me.

What do you think is the "right thing to do?"



Obama: (Insert Issue Here) 'It's the Right Thing to Do'

Doing the right thing seems to be hard for everyone, except President Obama. He always seems to know the "right thing to do." Indeed, he uses his presidential remarks to instruct the American people on the right thing to do over and over again.   read the rest

Dinner for the dog eater in the White House...

Betty Buckley owns this song...

hands down!

No rain today...

we may not need that ark after all.  

An evening stroll.

A couple of apple trees in the orchard...

Getting ready to give us...

Sage in bloom in the herb garden...

Herb garden...

The "mound" in deep shadow...

Time to meditate in the meditation garden...

I love my weeping willows...

The east lawn...

Important information from Doug Ross...

and we thank him.

Don't click on this!

After all, it could be a social-engineering attack.

McAfee and Guardian Analytics have revealed the results of a months-long study that uncovered a global financial services cyber-crime operation. "Operation High Roller" targeted the online banking accounts used by high-net worth individuals and companies.

The attacks ranged from the EU, to Latin America, and most recently to the U.S. All sizes of banks were targeted, from global institutions to local credit unions. As for the size of the thefts: "the total attempted fraud could be as high as €2 billion."  read the rest

Federal judge stands with Florida...

 it's okay to stop illegal invaders from voting.  Holder's head just exploded.

Tell me why this was even an issue?  We just closed on a house refi and guess what we had to show at the title office?  Our photo ID. 

Governor's Press Office

Tallahassee, Fla. – Today a federal judge rejected a Department of Justice request to issue a temporary restraining order blocking Florida from removing non-citizens from the voter rolls and rejected DOJ’s argument that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits removal of non-citizens from the voter rolls.

The court also said that permitting known non-citizens to vote would result in “irreparable harm” to eligible voters.

Florida Governor Rick Scott was pleased with the decision, which is consistent with his position that Florida has an obligation to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls.

“The court made a common-sense decision consistent with what I’ve been saying all along: that irreparable harm will result if non-citizens are allowed to vote. Today’s ruling puts the burden on the federal government to provide Florida with access to the Department of Homeland Security’s citizenship database. We know from just a small sample that an alarming number of non-citizens are on the voter rolls and many of them have illegally voted in past elections. The federal government has the power to prevent such irreparable harm from continuing, and Florida once again implores them to grant access to the SAVE database.”

Nearly a year ago, the state requested access to a citizenship database, maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, that would allow Florida to more accurately identify non-citizens who are registered to vote. To date, the federal government continues to block access, thereby preventing Florida’s efforts to ensure fair elections.  source

Golden Grill hash browns...

best on the market.

We get ours at Costco.


No Costco?


Amazon has them:

Issa's full letter to the Preezy...

grab a cup of coffee - it long, but well worth a read.

Tomorrow is not going to be a good day for the SCoaMF.

June 25, 2012

The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

On June 19, 2012, shortly after leaving a meeting in the U.S. Capitol, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to Operation Fast and Furious documents he is withholding from this Committee. The next day, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified me in a letter that you had invoked executive privilege. The Committee received both letters minutes before the scheduled start of a vote to recommend that the full House hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena. 

 

Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege - the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from a congressional committee by the Executive Branch - is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the President's decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors. Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committee's need for the documents. The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no case law to the contrary.

 

Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things. Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee, or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation. To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case. 

 

As you know, the Committee voted to recommend that the full House hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. Last week's proceeding would not have occurred had the Attorney General actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the contempt resolution this week. I remain hopeful that the Attorney General will produce the specified documents so that we can work towards resolving this matter short of a contempt citation. Furthermore, I am hopeful that, consistent with assertions of executive privilege by previous Administrations, you will define the universe of documents over which you asserted executive privilege and provide the Committee with the legal justification from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). 

 

Background
 

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a firefight with a group of armed Mexican bandits who preyed on illegal immigrants in a canyon west of Rio Rico, Arizona on December 14, 2010. Two guns traced to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene. The Terry family appeared before the Committee on June 15, 2011, to ask for answers about the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother. Having been stonewalled for months by the Attorney General and his senior staff, the Committee issued a subpoena for documents that would provide the Terry family the answers they seek. The subpoena was served on October 12, 2011. 

 

Internally, over the course of the next eight months, the Justice Department identified 140,000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the Committee's subpoena. Yet, the Department handed over only 7,600 of these pages. Through a series of accommodations and in recognition of certain Executive Branch and law enforcement prerogatives, the Committee prioritized key documents the Department needed to produce to avoid contempt proceedings. These key documents would help the Committee understand how and why the Justice Department moved from denying whistleblower allegations to understanding they were true; the identities of officials who attempted to retaliate against whistleblowers; the reactions of senior Department officials when confronted with evidence of gunwalking during Fast and Furious, including whether they were surprised or already aware of the use of this reckless tactic, and; whether senior Department officials are being held to the same standard as lower-level employees who have been blamed for Fast and Furious by their politically-appointed bosses in Washington. 

 

I met with Attorney General Holder on June 19, 2012, to attempt to resolve this matter in advance of the Committee's scheduled contempt vote. We were joined by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Department had previously identified a small subset of documents created after February 4, 2011 - the date of its letter containing the false claim that no gunwalking had occurred - that it would make available to the Committee. The Justice Department described this small subset as a "fair compilation" of the full universe of post-February 4th documents responsive to the subpoena.

 

During the June 19th meeting, the Attorney General stated he wanted to "buy peace." He indicated a willingness to produce the "fair compilation" of post-February 4th documents. He told me that he would provide the "fair compilation" of documents on three conditions: (1) that I permanently cancel the contempt vote; (2) that I agree the Department was in full compliance with the Committee's subpoenas, and; (3) that I accept the "fair compilation," sight unseen. 
 

As Chairman of the primary investigative Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, I considered the Attorney General's conditions unacceptable, as would have my predecessors from both sides of the aisle. I simply requested that the Department produce the "fair compilation" in advance of the contempt vote, with the understanding that I would postpone the vote to allow the Committee to review the documents. 

 

The short meeting in the Capitol lasted about twenty minutes. The Attorney General left the meeting and, shortly thereafter, sent an eight-page letter containing more than forty citations requesting that you assert executive privilege. The following morning, the Deputy Attorney General informed me that you had taken the extraordinary step of asserting the privilege that is designed to protect presidential decision making. 
 

In his letter, the Attorney General stated that releasing the documents covered by the subpoena, some of which he offered to the Committee hours earlier, would have "significant, damaging consequences." [1] It remains unclear how - in a matter of hours - the Attorney General moved from offering those documents in exchange for canceling the contempt vote and ending the congressional investigation to claiming that they are covered by executive privilege and that releasing them - which the Attorney General was prepared to do hours earlier - would now result in "significant, damaging consequences."

 

The Scope of Executive Privilege
 

Deputy Attorney General Cole's representation that "the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents" raised concerns that there was greater White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious than previously thought. [2] The courts have never considered executive privilege to extend to internal Executive Branch deliberative documents.

Absent from the Attorney General's eight-page letter were the controlling authorities from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As the court held in the seminal case of In re Sealed Case (Espy):

 

The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies. Instead, the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser's staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate. [3]

 

The D.C. Circuit established the "operational proximity test" to determine which communications are subject to privilege. Espy made clear that it is "operational proximity to the President that matters in determining whether the president's confidentiality interest is implicated." [4]
 
In addition, even if the presidential communications privilege did apply to some of these subpoenaed documents, Espy made clear that "the presidential communications privilege is, at all times, a qualified one," and that a showing of need could overcome it. [5] Such a need - indeed a compelling one - plainly exists in this case.
 

The Justice Department has steadfastly maintained that the documents sought by the Committee do not implicate the White House whatsoever. If true, they are at best deliberative documents between and among Department personnel who lack the requisite "operational proximity" to the President. As such, they cannot be withheld pursuant to the constitutionally-based executive privilege. Courts distinguish between the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Both, the Espy court observed, are executive privileges designed to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch decision-making. The deliberative-process privilege, however, which applies to executive branch officials generally, is a common law privilege that requires a lower threshold of need to be overcome, and "disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred." [6]

 

The Committee must assume that the White House Counsel's Office is fully aware of the prevailing authorities of Espy, discussed above, and Judicial Watch v. Dep't of Justice. [7] If the invocation of executive privilege was proper, it calls into question a number of public statements about the involvement of the White House made by you, your staff, and the Attorney General.

Finally, the Attorney General's letter to you cited numerous authorities from prior Administrations of both parties. It is important to note that the OLC opinions provided as authorities to justify expansive views of executive privilege are inconsistent with existing case law. 

 

Remarks about White House Involvement in Fast and Furious
 
For the past sixteen months, Senator Grassley and I have been investigating Operation Fast and Furious. In response to a question about the operation during an interview with Univision on March 22, 2011, you stated that, "Well first of all, I did not authorize it. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it." [8] You also stated that you were "absolutely not" informed about Operation Fast and Furious. [9] Later in the interview, you said that "there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable." [10]
 
From the early stages of the investigation, the White House has maintained that no White House personnel knew anything about Operation Fast and Furious. Your assertion of executive privilege, however, renews questions about White House involvement.
 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized your denial that you knew about Fast and Furious. Mr. Carney stated, "I can tell you that, as the president has already said, he did not know about or authorize this operation." [11] A few weeks later, Mr. Carney reiterated the point, stating, "I think he made clear . . . during the Mexican state visit and the press conference he had then that he found out about this through news reports. And he takes it very seriously." [12]

 

In an October 6, 2011 news conference, you maintained that Attorney General Holder "indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious." [13] Regarding your own awareness, you went on to state, "Certainly I was not. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America." [14]

 

On March 28, 2012, Senator Grassley and I wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler, who serves as your Counsel, to request that she grant our numerous requests to interview Kevin O'Reilly, a member of the White House National Security Staff. We needed Mr. O'Reilly's testimony to ascertain the extent of White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious. In her response, Ms. Ruemmler advised us that the e-mail communications between Mr. O'Reilly and William Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Phoenix Field Division, did not reveal "the existence of any of the inappropriate investigative tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to 'walk.'" [15] She further emphasized "the absence of any evidence that suggests that Mr. O'Reilly had any involvement in 'Operation Fast and Furious' or was aware of the existence of any inappropriate investigative tactics." [16] Your assertion of executive privilege renews concerns about these denials.

 

Earlier this month, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asked the Attorney General when the Justice Department first informed the White House about the questionable tactics used in Fast and Furious, he responded, "I don't know." [17] He informed Chairman Smith that his focus was on "dealing with the problems associated with Fast and Furious," and that he was "not awfully concerned about what the knowledge was in the White House." [18]
 

Attorney General Holder has assured the public that he takes this matter very seriously, stating that "to the extent we find that mistakes occurred, people will be held accountable." [19] Yet, he has described the Committee's vote as "an election-year tactic." [20] Nothing could be further from the truth. This statement not only betrays a total lack of understanding of our investigation, it exemplifies the stonewalling we have consistently faced in attempting to work with the Justice Department. If the Attorney General had produced the responsive documents more than eight months ago when they were due, or at any time since then, we would not be where we are today.

 

Moving Forward 
 

At the heart of the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious are disastrous consequences: a murdered Border Patrol Agent, his grieving family, countless deaths in Mexico, and the souring effect on our relationship with Mexico. Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle agree that the Terry family deserves answers. So, too, do Agent Terry's brothers-in-arms in the border patrol, the Mexican government, and the American people. Unfortunately, your assertion of executive privilege raises more questions than it answers. The Attorney General's conditional offer of a "fair compilation" of a subset of documents covered by the subpoena, and your assertion of executive privilege, in no way substitute for the fact that the Justice Department is still grossly deficient in its compliance with the Committee's subpoena. By the Department's own admission, it has withheld more than 130,000 pages of responsive documents. 

 

I still believe that a settlement, rendering further contempt of Congress proceedings unnecessary, is in the best interests of the Justice Department, Congress, and those most directly affected by Operation Fast and Furious. In light of the settled law that confines the constitutionally-based executive privilege to high-level White House communications, I urge you to reconsider the decision to withhold documents that would allow Congress to complete its investigation. 
 

In the meantime, so that the Committee and the public can better understand your role, and the role of your most senior advisors, in connection with Operation Fast and Furious, please clarify the question raised by your assertion of executive privilege: To what extent were you or your most senior advisors involved in Operation Fast and Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee? Please also identify any communications, meetings, and teleconferences between the White House and the Justice Department between February 4, 2011 and June 18, 2012, the day before the Attorney General requested that you assert executive privilege. 

 

I appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
 
Darrell Issa Chairman
 
cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate

The Honorable Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President

[1] Letter from U.S. Att'y Gen. Eric H. Holder, Jr. to the President (June 19, 2012), at 2. [2] Letter from Deputy U.S. Att'y Gen. James Cole to Chairman Issa (June 20, 2012). [3] In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997). [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] Congressional Research Service, Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice, and Recent Developments (Aug. 21, 2008). [7] 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that presidential communications privilege only applied to documents "solicited and received" by the President or his immediate advisers). [8] Interview by Jorge Ramos, Univision, with President Barack Obama, San Salvador, El Salvador (Mar. 22, 2011). [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney (June 17, 2011). [12] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney (July 5, 2011). [13] Richard Serrano, Obama Defends Attorney General: Holder Faces Scrutiny over ATF's Fast and Furious Gun Operation, Charlotte Observer, Oct. 7, 2011. [14] Id. [15] Letter from Hon. Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, & Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Apr. 5, 2012). [16] Id. [17] Oversight of the U.S. Dep't of Justice: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 7, 2012) (Test. of U.S. Att'y Gen. Eric H. Holder, Jr.). [18] Id. [19] Mike Levine, Guns Groups To Sue over New Obama Regulations, DOJ Vows To "Vigorously Oppose," FoxNews.com, Aug. 3, 2011, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/guns-groups-to-sue-over-new-obama-regulations-doj-vows-to-vigorously-oppose/#ixzz1yRMujaLY. [20] Congress Contempt Charge for U.S. Attorney General Holder, BBC News, June 21, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18528798.

Wild Bill on Hitler ignorance...

H/T Theo Spark

Sooper Mexican tells it like it is...

and we thank him.

Here's how it works


Department of Justice Arizona Immigration Hotline Phone Call  

Drinking with Bob on Fast and Furious...

It's Tuesday...

what's going on.

Arizona: 


Maggie's Notebook:   Jan Brewer Response Video Transcript: Obama Recinds Arizona Access to Federal Database

Political Realities:   Obama Administration Rescinds Arizona Immigration Enforcement Partnership

The Digital Hairshirt:   The Wisdom of Scalia on SB 1070 - and why Obama is the new Lincoln

Sentry Journal:   Why federalism is failing us…see Arizona ruling

Fast and Furious

Maggie's Notebook:   Brian Terry – Jaime Zapata: The Strange Truth of a Government Cover-Up


Campaign 2012

Jammie Wearing Fool:   “The most troubling part for the president is that he’s become so unpopular that donors don’t want their names to be associated with his events”


Economy


Bruce McQuain:   No progress in the War on Poverty and none expected

Conservatives on Fire:   How Bad Would Euro Zone Collapse Be? Is The US Prepared? 

Potpourri 


Fuzzy Logic:   Open Letter to Mitt Romney and (Other) Establishment GOP

How do you like your new Facebook email address...

 oh, wait - you didn't know about this change?

I'm not a big fan of Facebook and can't remember the last time I updated my status.  However, I was there yesterday and noticed a friend of mine had a Facebook email address.  I thought that was weird as I wanted to email her, not leave a message on Facebook which is where all Facebook emails wind up.

Lo and behold...

From LifeHacker:

Facebook Changed Everyone’s Email to @Facebook.com; Here’s How to Fix Yours

I just popped over and fixed mine.  Thanks Lifehacker...

Just because it's funny...

and we need that right now.

Confused about the difference between Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious?...

fear not.

I found the quintessential article explaining it all at Guns and Ammo - and we thank them.

The Rundown on “Fast and Furious”

Let's squish some police officers...

for sh*ts and giggles.


 He has16 felony convictions and he's running around free?  What's up with that???

Prolific offender tries to run over Spokane officers 

SPOKANE-- Police tracked down a violent repeat offender Saturday who then tried to run over two police officers in a crowded Browne’s Addition parking lot.

On Saturday afternoon members of the Spokane Police Department’s Patrol Anti Crime Team were actively searching for repeat offender Nicholas Gillam. They were aware that Gillam had an active arrest warrant issued by the Department of Corrections. Among other things he had failed to attend his ordered drug treatment. The department had also identified him as a prolific criminal through its Repeat Offender Program. read the rest

Buh-rock and Moochelle on their first date...

in a video the UKMail calls "toe curling."

Is there anything left for these loons to do to embarrass us on the world stage? 






Aren't they just the cutest couple, evah? 

Notable comment from previous post on Mayor Bloomberg's retreat from reality......

in which I asked the question, "Is Mayor Bloomberg certifiable?"

 Mayor Bloomberg marches in "gay pride" parade - has message for Americans...

"New York is a place where you can do whatever you want to do," Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared before he joined the Fifth Avenue parade at noon.

He said he had a message for the rest of America: "The government should get out of your personal life."  source

You can do wherever you want to do unless it includes salting your food or buying a 32oz soda.  

Comment from Mark at Libertas et Memoria:

A classic example of the puritanical strain within modern liberalism. Certain lifestyle choices (mostly sexual) are to be honored and respected, but other lifestyle choices (like having a Big Gulp) are not. The idea that the Left wants people to be free in their personal decisions is, of course, complete balderdash. They are as moralistic as any southern evangelical preacher. The difference is what they consider to be acceptable within the sphere of proper conduct. Eat too much fried food? That's bad. Have multiple sexual partners and/or lots of illegitimate children? Who am I to judge...Of course, what this is all really about is class paternalism. The elites approve of sexual license, so that is no longer a vice. What they don't approve of anymore is Big Gulps. So, the Big Gulps get banned, and gay marriage gets enshrined as a constitutional right. You like fried food and Big Gulps? You are obviously from some backwater place like Idaho or Queens, NY and should be put in your place. Now, go put on your rainbow pride sticker and vote for Obama like you are supposed to.

 Bravo, Mark!

Mayor Bloomberg marches in "gay pride" parade - has message for Americans...

"New York is a place where you can do whatever you want to do," Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared before he joined the Fifth Avenue parade at noon.

He said he had a message for the rest of America: "The government should get out of your personal life."  source

You can do wherever you want to do unless it includes salting your food or buying a 32oz soda.  

Is that man certifiable?

More Trey Gowdy to brighten your Sunday...

"if Nancy Pelosi believes Fast and Furious is about racism she needs to schedule an appointment with a  mental health professional!"

Boo ya!

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions...

from Yahoo front page news (emphasis mine):

[...]Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees. source

Really?

Allow me to sum up the stupidity of this:

Lose your job, lose your insurance.

Does that make sense?

Insurance should be purchased by and belong to the insured, not the business where they are employed. 

Three things to do immediately to get real health insurance reform started:

1. Immediately open the market to real competition by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines.
2. Remove all federal mandates and state mandates.
3. Start work on tort reform

Those three steps will alleviate 90% of the problem.   The first two can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. The third will take a bit longer. 

We keep drifting further and further from the real issue.  The federal government has no business poking their nose into the health insurance business, education, or allowing the EPA to monitor a ditch on your property.  What is so hard to understand about this?

Bill Whittle: Follow the Ideology...

More:

Bill Whittle: Commodities vs Rights... 

Bill Whittle on unions...

Bill Whittle and Yuri Bezmenov...

Sunday with Bill Whittle... Obama is petty and mean spirited

Bill Whittle: The greatest sentence ever written...

 

 

 

I thought my capacity to be shocked had about reached it's limits...

until I saw a story over at Dan Riehl's blog.

It was bad enough when Obama had a reception for homosexuals in the White House.  Really?  The White House hosts a reception for people who identify themselves by the manner in which they have sex?  When do the rest of us get a reception?

But it's what was allowed to take place in the White House that shocked me.  Photos of homosexuals giving the portrait of Ronald Reagan the finger were allowed to be taken.   Allowed is the only word I can use since it is up to the White House to monitor these things.  

From:  Riehl World View:

Picture And Video: Gay Activist Invited To White House Gives Reagan Portrait The Finger

Allow Michael Voris to back up what I've been saying all along:  There is something really odd (really odd is my way of saying bat-sh*t crazy) about people who self-identify by the manner in which they engage in sex.  It's perverse...


This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Breakfast is served...

Greek yogurt with a healthy dose of fresh picked strawberries from the garden which (trust me) are  nothing at all like those things you buy in the grocery store.  Life is good!

Angry White Dude...video

tells it like it is.

Thanks to Bad Blue for this link to Angry White Dude.

 Have you been to Bad Blue today?

This man being interviewed is not Angry White Dude, but I think AWD agrees with him.  Notice how the interviewer is hemming and hawing over what this guy is saying.  Notice also that the man is very dispassionately stating facts that can't be disputed.   He's not spewing hate or frothing at the mouth.

After watching the video, pop over to AWD and read what he has to say.

Every day brings a new low to America. Everything is upside down and nothing seems to be about truth, justice and the American way anymore. And we’re really sucking as a country. Almost as bad as Europe. But Europe has always had a long history of sucking and hasn’t had anything worth bragging about since Margaret Thatcher. AWD must say, I’m sick to death of politics because of the daily ration of sh*t I have to read coming from corruptocrats. Whoever said we’re led by the party of evil and the party of stupid wins the gold medal for accuracy. But even outside of politics, America is now just plain embarrassing. The truth cannot be spoken anymore. While the enemies of truth spew insulting idiocies that are widely covered in the propaganda news, conservatives who speak reasoned truth are riduled. The true enemies of America are now inside our borders. Hell, it appears after three and a half years they are in the White House!  read the rest

VIDEO: Extreme race views spur controversy: wivb.com

Mandatory voting?...

well, why not since we conservatives are trying to suppress voting.  Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory

Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News:

The U.S. prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.

It’s our own fault -- because voter participation rates are running below 60 percent, a candidate would have to win 85 percent or more of the vote to be elected by a majority.

Compulsory voting, as exists in Australia and more than two dozen other countries, would fix that problem. As William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, “Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting?”  read the rest

More Trey Gowdy to start off your weekend on an up note...

Nancy Pelosi - "mind-numbingly stupid"

Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps...

someday I'll tell you about my friendship with Gene...

Bill Whittle: Commodities vs Rights...

is this simple enough for the commies in our midst to understand?

Silly question!

2012 DNC Convention Schedule Is Out . . .

and it's jammed packed with great presenters and super-dooper activities.

Reaganite Republican was nice enough to bring it to us - and we thank him.

2012 DNC Convention Schedule Is Out . . .

Krauthammer On Eric Holder Contempt: "Mainstream Media Can No Longer Ignore Fast And Furious"...

Will SCOTUS hand down the opinion on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) tomorrow...

 not sure how you feel about this, but I'm ready for it to be over with.  Let's roll!

From:  The SCOTUSblog:

 Remaining merits cases: In Plain English

On Monday the Court issued four opinions in argued cases.  Between tomorrow and the end of next week, we expect the Court to issue ten more opinions in argued cases.  (That number is based on the assumption that the Court will issue only one opinion covering all of the health care cases and issues; whether the Court will in fact do so remains to be seen.) read the rest

Committee votes to hold Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious

well, okay then!

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress despite a last-minute intervention by President Obama.

By a vote of 23 to 17 after nearly six hours of tense discussion, the bipartisan committee voted for contempt over the Justice Department's decision to withhold documents related to Operation Fast and Furious that were subpoenaed by the committee in their investigation of the failed gunwalking operation.

The votes were sharply divided along partisan lines with all Republicans voting for and all Democrats voting against contempt.

The measure now moves to the full House for a vote, which Republicans say will be scheduled for next week. read the rest

Here it is: Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) blasting Obama at the hearings today (a 'must see" video)...

thanks to the Blaze.

Wow!! Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is my new hero...

really!

I can't wait for the Youtube video of his speech at the contempt hearings.

More of my thoughts:  These people in congress who are protecting Eric Holder should be in cells next to Mr. Holder and the SCoaMF.  

Previous posts:

Listening to the Eric Holder hearing live at Fox news...

Eric Holder faces contempt charges today at 10 am EDT...

 

Listening to the Eric Holder hearing live at Fox news...

gives us a another glimpse into the leftist mind.

Watch live at Fox.  Click on live link at top of page


Allow me to sum up the arguments.

Lefties:  We need more gun control on the citizens.

Our side:  Brian Terry's family needs answers and so does the American public.

Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't American citizens that gave guns to the Mexicans. 

Conclusion?  Eric Holder needs more than a contempt charge. He should be in prison and the president should be occupying the cell right next to him.

More:

The Blaze:   What is executive privilege and what does it mean for F&F investigation?

Red State:   The Facade of Transparency has Crumbled: Executive Privilege Seals Fast & Furious Documents [UPDATE]

American Spectator:   Obama's Fast and Furious Blunder

Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr attacks Ann Romny because she likes to ride horses...

fool.

Let's see now.  Ann Romney rides horses and participates in dressage to help her symptoms of multiple sclerosis.  She spends her own money to do this.  Lefties think this is a problem.  Michelle Obama uses taxpayer money as her private stash to vacation.  Lefties see no problem.  See the problem?

Camp of the Saints:

The Naked Face Of Leftism: The Depraved Indifference Of Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr.

Over at Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard has the full story on the disgusting and ignorant remarks made by Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr. regarding Ann Romney and the horse therapy she practices in her battle against Multiple Sclerosis. Part of that therapy involves taking part in the sport of Dressage, which the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines as ‘The guiding of a horse through a series of complex maneuvers by slight movements of the rider’s hands, legs, and weight’ and The OED defines as ‘the art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance’ [in the rider].  read the rest

Carol's Blog:

DRESSAGE Is A VERY DIFFICULT Dicipline-Ann Romney GOOD- Lawrence ODonnell-BAD