In Brewing ObamaCare Contempt Showdown, Mark Levin Rips Into Press
On Wednesday, the inarguably correct Mark Levin, aided by flashbacks to monologues earlier in the week, laid out in detail the rule of law standoff the Obama administration has created in choosing to defy Monday's federal court decision declaring Obamacare null and void and continuing its implementation as if the ruling doesn't exist.
In the process, he also ripped in to the clear establishment press double standard at work.
Choice excerpts follow (internal links added by me; bolds refer to media-related comments; the rest is important for grasping just how serious this is):
... Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, "This is a declaratory judgment," finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) "I don't have to issue an injunction. The government can't impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation."
I said that if the administration failed to follow the law, then it was lawless. (I said that) it was violating the constitution, that this was as serious as Watergate.
... There it is on Page 75. He voided the law. It's dust. It's gone, until a higher court does something else.
... What will the media in our country do when a President of the United States intentionally and knowingly refuses to comply with a court order? Whether it's civil rights in the 1960s, whether it's anything else, does this not remind you of Watergate in a sense if the Executive Branch does not comply with this federal judge? Do we not have a constitutional crisis if the Executive Branch refuses to comply with a Judicial Branch order?
... (the Executive Branch's) only relief is to appeal it. You must cease and desist from further attempts to implement it. But I guarantee you ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed.
... What does the Obama administration do? (It) calls the reporters together in a phone conference -- this is CBS News, and I quote from CBS News -- "the White House official said the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law. which is being phased in gradually. The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014. They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implement in part because the ruling does not rest on anything like a conventional constitutional analysis."
... This (ruling) is a de facto injunction issued by a federal judge, and they cannot pretend that it hasn't been done, and play so ruthlessly with the rule of law.
... They don't get to enforce what they want, and ignore what they want ... Either the court has the final say or it doesn't, and if does, there's nothing else to say.
... Now the states of Wisconsin and Florida, it appears, have decided that there's no law for them to implement any longer. And they are in fact correct, since the last position of the law as it applies to Obamacare is that there is no law. And so the states should stop implementing this statute until there is a different ruling from a higher court. If the Obama administration wants to continue to violate the Constitution, to defy a federal judge, and play rope-a dope, then you states have no responsibility whatsoever to comply.
And you insurance companies ... there is no Obamacare law officially. It's been voided. And it is not an act of civil defiance to refuse to adhere to any aspect of it. The act of civil defiance -- that is, the act of constitutional violation -- are occurring on the other side.
Barack Obama today, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of HHS today, are conducting themselves in a lawless fashion. It is they, it is they who are leading opposition to the United States Constitution. ... It is they who are disregarding our universal values. It is they.
A related post is at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
No wonder Schumer called the
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:52am.
No wonder Schumer called the "three branches of government" the House, the Senate and the Presidency. To liberals, THERE IS NO JUDICIAL BRANCH. Unless, of course, it is in THEIR favor. For example, when a Federal judge said the Arizona illegal immigration law was unconstitutional. They embraced the judicial branch then, didn't they?
Mostlymoderate, and didn't they (Obambi and compnay)
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:49am.
embrace the ruling of the Arizona law being unconstitutional? And then didn't Arizona have to issue a repeal? And now the law has to be fought out in court before it can be implemented or in the case of the AZ law the unconstitutional parts removed and the law rewritten?
So why are the rules different now? Hugo Chavez is channeling himself through the Obammer.
corruption at the highest level
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:05am.
The refusal to stop implementing obamacare and the recent judges ruling that the obama administration is in contempt for enforcing a drilling ban that was voided is edging us ever closer to calls for impeachment.
We cannot have a rogue President.
Obama's Blatant Contempt For the Law
Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:14am.
I recall more than a few liberals calling the Bush administration the most lawless in history. If I'm not mistaken, there was even a book written on the subject. Now we have a press teaming up with politicians who cover for Obama's consistent and active disdain for the rule of law. There are so many infractions, it is hard to keep up.
Among them are: A recent contempt of court ruling on the Gulf drilling moratorium - The DOJ civil rights violations - Regulatory agencies handing down lawless decrees - DOJ terror trials in NY - Arizona immigration law - The GM bailout favoring UAW while ripping off investors. These are just a few that come to mind without research. I'm sure there are many more which will be uncovered. I doubt the Bush administration, while not entirely innocent, is no where near in the same league with Obama's. With this administration it's "the Law De Jour".
What mountain of evidence does it take for us to finally stand against the Administration and the media machine to say NO MORE and demand an accounting from our leaders? For me, the last two incidents, with the Obamacare ruling and the drilling moratorium, are absolutely the last straw.
There is a quote which defines the dangers of our current Administration...."Lawlessness in a society increases with the corruption of it's rulers".
DC and Chicago contiue to
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:05am.
DC and Chicago contiue to thumb their noses at the Court over the rulings on gun control.
The Judge made a mistake here, imho
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:20am.
"... Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, "This is a declaratory judgment," finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) "I don't have to issue an injunction. The government can't impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation."
While this makes total sense, and I agree fully, the judge dropped the ball here. He should have issued an injunction in addition to his ruling that would have removed any doubt as to his meaning, leaving no room for subjective interpretation. For some reason he didn't, and here we are.obamacare? what obamacare?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:28am.
There is nothing subjective.
The whole law was thrown out as unconstitutional. You don't need an injunction to stop a law that no longer exists.
And yet, here we are
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:28pm.
The administration and plenty of other legal minds(including Michael Medved) are conluding that he didn't actually end the law. Including the injunction removes all doubt. He should have included it to remove all doubt. It would have been what, one more sentence?
Agreed. It couldn't have hurt
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:33am.
Agreed. It couldn't have hurt now could it?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Yes It Could!
Submitted by GeneralAl on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:40am.
An injunction is a delay pending a revue of the contested law by another or higher authority. Its usually a statement of some doubt to the validity of the law but not exactly sure. On the other hand, a declaration of unconstitutional states outright that the law cannot be implemented or enforced because it is forbidden by the Constitution. The judge did this deliberately to force the hand of the Community-Agonizer-In-Chief and his Gestapo force led by Heinrich Holder and Axis Janet!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
An 'injunction' would have been redundant and moot.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:29pm.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void".
Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
A finding of unconstitutional literally vaporizes the law. It no longer exists. There is nothing more to be said or done.
'Injunction'? Why? There is nothing left TO enjoin.
Until or unless the Supreme Court finds Obamacare Constitutional once again, which is not likely, it is totally dead.
And every day the Obama Administration defies the court in enforcing an illegal, unconstitutional and nonexistent law on the American people is a day since he has crossed a bright line into genuine tyranny.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Phweet.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:10am.
Maybe if the judge said something about a diesel-electric submarine, you might not have opened your big mouth and shoved that size 6 foot in there. But alas, for you once again have shoe leather breath. But whatever, you is so massive smart, tell us all about injunctions -
(law) a judicial remedy issued in order to prohibit a party from doing or continuing to do a certain activity; "injunction were formerly obtained by writ but now by a judicial order"
So we need an injunction for a law that has been declared null and void?
See you in your next monthly batch of Stupid Drive-by Johnny.
Yawn....
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:44pm.
Shoe leather breath is better than shit for brains like yourself I suppose. As for shoving things that are in the 6 inch range into mouths, that's more your speciality.
As for the injunction being required or not isn't my point, as I made clear in my post. But in your haste to be a smart ass, I guess you missed it. Nothing unusual there. It cost the judge nothing to include it in his ruling, unless there are legal reasons for excluding it. But if it makes you feel better, keep pretending that people, including the administration, aren't using the lack of one as a reason to move forward with the law.
Phweet. Phweet.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:45pm.
Awww. Someone picks a fight by slamming me with hit and run posts every other week. Now, suddenly it wants to get vulgar. Awwww.
~Small minds
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:30pm.
Small insults.
What can you expect from someone who wants prostitution legalized? I think all that time behind bars made him grumpy.
There is no subjective
Submitted by The Grooter on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:06am.
The ruling is very clear, and there is no room for subjective interpretation. The WH statement doesn't complain that there is no injunction bc the WH knows none is needed. The WH rational is simply that they don't need to obey the decree because the WH disagrees with the rationale of the ruling.
When and where did this legal doctrine develop that you don't need to follow a court's decree if you disagree with the rationale of the ruling? Well, apparently it developed first with the ban on drilling, and now in the implementation of the void and powerless obamacare.
This is nothing less than a coup over the constitution of the united states. No guns yet, but a coup nevertheless. Won't someone in the MSM have the integrity to pursue this story?
this is what I thought, but.....
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:42am.
can a judge issue an injunction to stop implementation of an illegal law?
doesn't the constitutionality issue supercede an injunction?
I wish I was in New York. I
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:33am.
I wish I was in New York.
I would be outside the HQs of CBS, NBC, ABC doorstopping their "reporters"...
Aasking them why they re not reporting on the President of the UNited States acting unlawfully in direct defiance to a federal court rulling!
Then posting the vido on-line.
Follow Couric down the street, shout questions at her if she refuse to stop, MAKE her the story too.
COME ON NY CONSERVATIVES WITH CAMCORDERS -- get at them, EXPOSE THEM. Mock their partisanship.
Has the MAVERICK John McCain (or any REPUBLICAN SENATOR) even mentioned this yet?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
obama in the doorway
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:45am.
The MSM has been trying to polish up obama's image by comparing him to Reagan but many of obama's actions as President put him closer to Governor George Wallace back in the 1960's segregated Alabama. Obama on several issues now is 'standing in the door way' refusing to obey court decisions.
What do you guys expect?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:09am.
This is a community organizer, surrounded by others of like mind. When a community organizer goes out to get something done, extra-legal does not matter to him. In addition, this is a Chicago pol; look at what the city of Chicago has done when they have had the gun statute struck down.
This is exactly how he behaved when his drilling ban was thrown out also. The next day, they put the same ban in place but called it a new ban. They also refuse to deport illegal aliens. The New Black Panthers prosecution for voter intimidation was dropped. EPA writes carbon control regulations despite lack of authority. All of this is behavior of type.
The only remedy is to consider impeachment. However, there are no Democrats, and there are numerous Republicans, that will support this. So, the American people are stuck with this behavior for two more years, and maybe as long as six if he gets the money he wants to white-wash his image in the next election campaign.
Dennis Prager
The Historian
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:53am.
Obama is starting to accumulate a long list of unethical and impeachable offenses, if you ask me, we just need someone in a good position to spike the ball. Another respected NB member dropped this off in another thread and I took note.
http://floydreports.com/talk-show-host-obama-could-be-impeached-over-egypt/
Still early to tell on this one maybe, but heck, even though the so-called "birthers" that get marginalized by the press, they too have a point and is yet another valid reason to believe we have a man in the White House that should be removed for the sake of the country.
Historian and ant...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:38am.
Here, hear! Though I worry an unsuccessful attempt at impeachment will only strengthen the sympathy to “his royal doofus” possibly insuring his reelection. Nonetheless, we have existing legal remedies to rid ourselves of this unconstitutional manner of federal operations. But, it’s sort of like having a two year old head cold… and still being afraid to take the head-cold medicine.
i agree with you on
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:18am.
i agree with you on everything except the deportation of illegals. Believe it or not Obama is deporting more illegals than Bush and Bush was going at a pretty good clip. I had heard this a few months ago and was surprised.
Not surprized!
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:55am.
I am not shocked by this. Obama has thumbed his nose at the rule of law since day one. This is the defination of "fundamental change" and like it or not this is what all of those people who voted for him wanted. Lenin had another way of putting it, he called it "controlled chaos" and this is also in Obamas plan. The pastor from Harlem (can't remember his name at this moment) has said for a long time his goal is civil disobedience and martial law which means no elections and him being king of the usa for 50 years. Obama recognises no god higher than himself, is totally overcome of evil, and yearns to be a bigger tyrant than Mao (one of his heroes), and the single most dangerous man in the world.
Saw this a mile away
Submitted by M.Maurer73 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:30am.
These people have no clue just how out of touch they are. Their(both the media and the Democrats) aroggance is just staggering. They're so stuck in their "group think" they can't see that we know exactly whats going on. It's like they've forgotten they don't control the internet as they do most broadcast media. While I AM enraged by this, it will ultamately work to our advantage.
We The People WILL win again in '12!! Then the this bloated, pork filled piece of crap will go down once and for all and if he veto's the repeal we'll have the votes to override it.
Obama administration's newest rationalization
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:51am.
The judge said it's unconstitutional. He didn't say we couldn't DO it!!
Someone needs to get John Conyers over there to explain the "good and welfare" clause to this judge, and show him where he's wrong.
Then John Lewis can instruct him on how it's covered in the "pursuit of happiness" clause.
This is why I say that to Democrats, the law is just a suggestion; a starting point, so to speak.
mother
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:45am.
Don't forget to have Chuck U. Schumer explain the three branches of gubmint to him!
turn over
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:52pm.
don't rush too many over or DC will capsize like Guam
Veto not necessary
Submitted by BikerHoop on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:51am.
The Judge declared this whole piece of crap unconstitutional. Thusly, a repeal and/or veto and override are not necessary. What is necessary, however, is for our Congress-critters to force Odumbo to start following the rule of law. A full investigation of this usurper-in-thief needs to be conducted, starting from day one, to include everything about him including his history before being fraudulently elected to office. If they don't then they need to be gotten rid of also.
Isn't this a start to a dictatorship?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:15am.
Laws? Courts? We don't need any stinkin' laws/judgements. My word is law. Screw what that stupid judge said. He was probably a Reagan appointee anyway. What did Reagan know anyway? He was a senile old coot.
We will have this brand of health care in this country even if most of the country is too stupid to realize how good it is because it gives me the start to control.
No offense, but we've had one for two years now.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:58am.
A dictatorship, I mean.
It's just been a "soft" one. It's only recently been showing its hand.
And when 2012 comes around? Either there will be a "mandate" with a narrow victory for Obama, a suspicious landslide that won't match up with exit polling, some reason to abrogate the elections, or some other bogus methodology to keep Obama entrenched as long as he wants to be--which will be until he can figure out how to turn this current gig into a President of Earth deal.
When 2012 breaks down, you can forget about elections in 2016. Barack the First won't allow it.
--Mike
Mike, with all due respect, I
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:06am.
Mike, with all due respect, I don't think your dire 2012 predictions will come true. I heard very similar stuff from conservatives before Clinton's second term election and from liberals before Bush's second term election. It just is too close to a "conspiracy theory" violating Occam's Razor.
I am hoping for a true conservative to be elected POTUS in 2012.
Oh, I hope I'm wrong.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:30am.
But Clinton, whatever you think of him, wasn't a nascent dictator at that point in his office.
Obama is, and has been since Day 1.
And since you bring up Occam's Razor, let me suggest that the simplest thing for a dictator to do is to continue being a dictator.
--Mike
I will have to respectfully
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:08pm.
I will have to respectfully disagree and stand by my earlier statement specifically "I heard very similar stuff from conservatives before Clinton's second term election and from liberals before Bush's second term election. It just is too close to a "conspiracy theory" violating Occam's Razor.
hello Beukeboom
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:13pm.
I suspect our side might be engaging in a little bit of that "the only good liberal is a dead/out of office liberal." When Clinton was president I know a lot of conservatives really hated him. I remember people panicking over Troopergate, whitewater, etc. After Waco some thought we were heading for a police state. But now conservatives look back and say, "well gee Clinton was pretty good."
Here's the deal.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:22pm.
I have no problem with an elected liberal office-holder serving out his or her term.
Are we really supposed to be of the opinion that Barack Obama is a garden-variety office-holder, one who will abide by the rules and depart when he either loses re-election, as Carter did, or reaches the limits of his term, as Clinton did?
The past two years have demonstrated that Obama is not the typical liberal politician. And, again, the simplest thing for a dictator to do is to continue being a dictator.
--Mike
I would humbly suggest
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:26pm.
If people - on both sides - didn't scream bloody murder about every president from the wrong party, they would have more credibility when there really is a true crisis. You can't convince independents by saying "we were just kidding about Clinton, but please believe us now."
You have a point, HC.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:20pm.
Thankfully, I wasn't hyperbolic about Clinton. But is it really so difficult to discern the different between the combination frat-party/fund-raiser that was Bill Cinton's Excellent Adventure and the Constitution-dismantling narcissism of Barack the First?
--Mike
Well I for one ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:44am.
... have never said and will never say that I was "just kidding" about Clinton.
Nor should anyone else who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law.
I'd argue Clinton was far worse than Obama.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:01pm.
Clinton personally signed over to the Communist Chinese huge amounts of formerly restricted 'dual-use' defense technology of incalculable value to their military.
In return the Chicoms gave Clinton and Democrats millions in illegal campaign contributions.
In short, quid + quo = treason.
We are now watching a new rising China which is almost certainly being enabled by this technology.
We may face this technology ourselves should we ever be called upon to honor our treaty obligations re Taiwan.
The blood of our own troops may yet be on Bill Clinton's and Democrats' hands.
Obama's still got time to catch up, but to me Clinton is still the real monster.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
From all appearances ....
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:31pm.
.... that's still happening.
Take your pick from this search.
Ouch.
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 5:04pm.
Well, what do you expect when they're holding liens on our entire economy?
Anyone expect Obama to look the Chicoms in the eye and say no?
Coward. What a f*cking coward.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
Tailgunner...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:52pm.
After wading through the right-wing propaganda sources which dominated the first few pages of Google, I could find scant independent and objective authority for the proposition that Obama is engaging in a significant transfer of highly sensitive military technology to the Chinese. Maybe you or Tom can help me out on that score. [I did encounter complaints from the Chinese leadership concerning Obama's continuing "hard line" against them as well their objections to the administration's sale of sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan.].
The issue of the Clinton waivers which resulted in controversial transfers of missile technology to China has been hashed and rehashed. The granting of the waivers was the extension of a policy which had been employed frequently in the Bush I administration and supported by many Republicans then (and later under Clinton). The notion that the practice was part of a quid pro quo for cash paid to Clinton's campaign coffers is utter nonsense. The matter was exhaustively investigated. If there had been a purpose so sinister, collusion so stark, behavior so nefarious and seditious, an impeachment-happy Republican Congress would undoubtedly have proceeded on those grounds rather than relying exclusively upon the exceedingly slender thread of lying about consensual sex.
Finally, with regard to the transfer of computer know-how to China toward the end of the Clinton presidency, I think it does indeed raise serious concerns--but apparently not serious enough to deter the subsequent administration from continuing the practice.
Jer
Jer, come on too far
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:33pm.
I agree these situations are much more complex then simply pointing fingers and too much is not know for national defense reasons. However, stating that the elected Republicans were impeachment happy and that it was about consensual sex is way below your normal level discourse.
US-China relations will always be a mess until people truly understand the culture of China better. This, IMHO, is one reason the Chinese don't like people to get to know their culture too well.
Correction, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:40pm.
Please note I said "LYING" about consensual sex.
Jer
"LYING"
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:45pm.
Yes - Under Oath and almost as importantly to many in the older generations was the fact that he looked into the camera and pointed his finger. People who remember the importance of a man's word lost all trust in Clinton plus the ability to give him the benefit of the doubt - therefore the ability to look at coincidences or accusations and assume at least a certain level of guilt.
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:20pm.
Henry Hyde defended Cap Weinberger's lying under oath on the grounds of "context". Do you agree or disagree with Hyde?
Jer
Yeah, I think the context was national security ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:00pm.
... and I don't think Cap Weinberger was ever President.
As to China, technology, and campaign contributions, please don't insult our intelligence with your "nothing is there" crap. Read the Cox report, or at least the overview. Do a search in that document on "Loral," and remind yourself that Bernie Schwarz was one of the largest if not THE largest individual campaign contributor to Clinton's reelect campaign.
Then read this Wall Street Journal op-ed from 1997, which I went out and got from the library database just for you, and try to tell me that Chinese and other illegal campaign contributions weren't a key factor in Clinton's reelection.
You don't have an argument, and you should stop wasting everyone's time by trying to pretend that you do. I certainly see no need to respond further, because the info provided settles matters.
In that case, Tom...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:23pm.
"You don't have an argument, and you should stop wasting everyone's time by trying to pretend that you do. I certainly see no need to respond further, because the info provided settles matters."
...inasmuch as you've now replied to my post with the unassailable "Truth" larded with your customary condescending snark, please feel free to excuse yourself and attend to more pressing issues.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:24pm.
It is a good thing that conservatives here have strong stomachs. Despite the fact that you on occasion chastise the miscreants who inhabit the Democratic liberal left, your continual posting to somehow try to elevate the left by explaining with prejudice how the right was, or is, wrong; while nausea inducing, pales in comparison to your continued inability to take criticism of the leftist pap you promote on a conservative site, as just that, leftist pap. Instead, you resort to making it all about personal criticism, i.e., "condescending snark" directed at you rather than your liberal take on things. What is really funny, you end up out snarking the "supposed" snarker.~As a 23 year old co-worker of mine once said
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:45pm.
"He was The President, I would have ______ his ____, too."
There's no such thing as "consensual" when there is that much disparity in power. That's why you're not supposed to sleep with the help, if you catch my drift.
Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:25pm.
Drift caught. However, tt might be helpful to examine who was seducing whom, who pursued the relationship, who tried to stop it and ultimately did end it--long before the Jones attorneys set the perjury trap.
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:56pm.
It is impossible for an older, more experienced, more sophisticated male to be "seduced" by a comparatively young woman. Bill was no wide-eyed innocent who fell prey to her superior wiles. Frankly, you malign the hell out of that poor fool by casting the responsibility on her like that.
As for "trying to stop it", well, that's ludicrous. Did she force herself on him when he blushed and demurred? All that wimpy crap about "We shouldn't be doing this" was his way of pretending to have qualms while doing exactly what he wanted to do.
Well, Bru..
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:10pm.
Please don't mistake my earlier comment for a proclamation of Clinton's innocence or an effort to excuse his [breathtakingly reckless and immoral] behavior. But the relationship with Lewinsky was completely consensual. Both parties were willing participants.
Jer
~Willing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:17pm.
Like I said before, a much younger woman in a sexual relationship with an older man in a position of great power may be there voluntarily, but that doesn't mean she's not being taken advantage of. That's why there's such a thing as "statuatory rape".
Let me help you with that Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:23pm.
Don't want you getting dizzy with a deja vu incident. The issue of "consent" has been discussed at length ad nauseum here:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/10/huffington-post-blogger-charged-incest
Thanks, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:35pm.
but I had already read every word to date on that highly entertaining thread and agree that a parent/child incestuous relationship--except in instances so rare that the exception proves the rule--will by definition negate consensuality regardless of age.
But the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was a far different kettle of fish.
Jer
Why did Clinton strip export authority from DOD and State...
Submitted by Tailgunner on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:37pm.
...and hand it over to his hand-picked political crony Ron Brown at the Department of Commerce?
That's because the DOD, as they had been doing for decades, was restricting the export of technology that also had the potential for military use. In short, they were getting in the way.
These weren't 'waivers'. This was the result of a proactive and comprehensive policy on Clinton's part to streamline the wholesale transfer of everything from missile guidance and reentry materials and multiple warhead (MIRV) technology to entire manufacturing plants and precision machines; even, allegedly, laser technology used in the enrichment of weapons-grade plutonium.
His political appointee Hazel O'Leary at the DOE declassified millions of pages of formerly classified nuclear secrets and scrapped all internal security protocols allowing Chinese scientists to steal incalculable amounts of national security material (Steal, my ass. It was practically handed to them.).
How much did China get from us? We don't know. Clinton personally classified one third of the Cox Report...coincidentally the section on the mid-90's.
What we do know from the Cox Report is that the PRC, during the 90's, did use formerly classified materials and technology, personally signed over to them by President Clinton, to improve the numbers, accuracy, reliability and destructive power of their ICBM fleet.
A country that 'couldn't hit the side of a barn' or even reach US cities with their missiles in 1993 could within a decade rain multiple warheads on any number of US cities with pinpoint accuracy.
How much did Clinton get from China? "Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China. " (Richard Poe, The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate- richardpoe.com)
Quid, meet quo.
And Clinton's treason wasn't even committed out of some misguided sense of idealism...but only to keep his ass and other Democrats' in power.
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
I think you are correct about the last 2 years.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:42am.
Did you ever think you would see Government Motors? The government takeover of health care? Etc.
I think Barry wants to be the Hugo Chavez of North America.
Unless we have a candidate for president that wins 49 states expect the Dems to cheat as much as they can, with the dead voting in record numbers, etc.
I am still hoping for two
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:11pm.
I am still hoping for two things in 2012 elections: 1) Obama becomes a 1-term POTUS & a true conservative is elected, and 2) true conservative Republicans take control of the Senate.
Amen
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:36pm.
Amen to that.
It's not 'soft' if you're a GM investor or oil rig owner...
Submitted by Tailgunner on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:24pm.
...or Joe the Plumber, Gerald Walpin, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin.
Obama and his minions play some very hard ball against those courageous or unfortunate enough to stand directly in their way.
I read somewhere that (paraphrased) 'tyranny is rarely felt except by those who resist it.'
(EDIT: "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." John Hay, 1872)
CANDIDATE Obama: 'Yes, we CAN'.
PRESIDENT Obama: 'BECAUSE we CAN'.
That's my point, Gunner.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:40pm.
It's getting progressively (pardon the pun) more difficult to deny the reach of the dictatorship.
They've had specific targets, but now it's clear to even the most obtuse that we're all in Obama's crosshairs.
Oh, I forgot... employed some firearms metaphors there...
--Mike
The media, the media, the media
Submitted by gwalt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:53am.
The media still get tens of millions of viewers each day. Not only Liberals, but Conservatives and moderates as well as Independents. Please Mr. Bozell, name names. Put Katie and Matt on billboards, not their network logos. Imagine Katie's face on a billboard with Liberal and Biased captioned underneath. We need to publicly humiliate these people. Why can't we get personal with these people? You have the resources. If they go after you, people will then check out Newsbusters and MRC. What's the downside?"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
Seems easy enough to fix.....
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:55am.
The House controls the purse strings....just refuse to fund any part of obamacare until the Supreme Court rules on it...."No bucks, no Buck Rogers".....
I wonder if, by cutting
Submitted by dmntd1 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:20am.
I wonder if, by cutting everything even remotely tied to this law, we'll be able to keep from raising the debt ceiling....
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
I guess I am confused. There
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:55am.
I guess I am confused. There are four rulings on this law, 2 for and 2 against. So do the rulings against trumph the rulings for the law? Is this common practice to stop all actions because of one ruling against? These are lower court rulings. SCOTUS need to scoop this law up and rule on it posthaste.
The conclusion I have is that LAWYER season should be opened immediately.
Dan
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:32am.
The last ruling trumps them all, because it dismisses the law in it's entirety.
There are many suits coming up, even one that deals with the waiver Obama has given to those he feels worthy. 26 States filing jointly and 3 filing separately. 29 States in all, with possibly more coming.
The States need to tell the Fed they will not honor this or other unconstitutional laws. The Fed will in turn threaten monies. Then the States should quit sending the Fed all funds until the Fed gets it's Constitutional boundaries in order.The States have the power here, they need to wake up and relize it!
2 of them are
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 6:53pm.
"The States need to tell the Fed they will not honor this or other unconstitutional laws."
I think Florida is one of them, but not sure who the other is. Good for them. Hopefully more will join in.
Wisconsin
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:40pm.
.
I wonder that as well. When
Submitted by ThatDude on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:42am.
I wonder that as well. When you have opposite rulings does a case automatically go to higher courts? Or does it work like it did in my household where if one parent said yes and the other said no, then the answer was no?
Still Another question...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:09am.
I was just wondering if there is any way for the AG’s of the 26 States who brought the lawsuit to go back to the same court and ask the judge to find the Obama administration “In Contempt of Court” for not obeying the judgement?
OOPS! Question has already been posed... see the comment below (additionally, it is phrased better... :o)
Legal question
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:46am.
Since the federal government (specifically the Executive and Legislative branches) have openly and publicly stated they will continue to implement this now-ruled-unconstitutional law can the federal judge (or another member of the Judicial branch) issue a contempt of court citation against the Executive and Legislative branches for openly defying the judge's ruling?
If Levin has addressed this, I would like to know. I am now fully convinced that Levin single-handedly knows more about the law than the gaggle of intellectual legal eggheads within the Obama regime.
Answer to first question is Yes
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:49pm.
Also Levin did detail this all quite nicely the last few days. Yesterday 2/3 was quite informative, laying out options and particulars. I highly recommend folks listen, it's free
I let my Senators (2 x D) have it!
Submitted by Deskpilot on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:56am.
Sen. Carper,
In your posted statement of 2/2/2011, you state:
"I'm disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the Senate attempted to roll back legislation that will protect consumers and provide Delawareans with better health care outcomes for less money...."
[/Customized]
Sen. Coons,
In your posted statement of 2/2/2011, you state:
“Instead of working on bipartisan solutions to create jobs and grow our economy, today our attention was once again distracted by Republicans’ symbolic attempt at repealing a law already at work improving people’s lives."
[/Customized]
The House of Representatives voted on a matter of Public law at the time their vote was cast and tallied.
You, sir, and all 99 of your colleagues, decided to take a vote on an matter whose effect as a matter of law has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. At the time of YOUR vote, the ACA was NULL AND VOID.
Forget whether you voted YEAH or NAY on the repeal amendment offered, ALL of you voted for something that DOES NOT EXIST.
As the current status the ACA is NULL and VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it is your Constitutional responsibility to ensure that NO ACTION by any element of the federal government moves forward on ACA. No funding, no hiring, no building of facilities, not even the purchase of a single paperclip.
Until such time as other judicial action is taken, either to reinstate ACA, or affirm is UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, it does not exist, and I urge you and your colleagues to challenge the Executive Branch and all of its various agencies to cease and desist from any matter relating to ACA, with the exception of the DOJ, who may only act before the courts of appeals.
Any other action by any government actor should well be considered as acting in Contempt of Court.
Sincerely,
Crossposted @ RedState
Great,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:52pm.
Well said
I thought this site was about media bias
Submitted by bsny on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:17am.
and not turning up the volume in the echo chamber.
~BS
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:27am.
Is the Obama admin acting in defiance to a court ruling? Is the media covering it the way they would have covered a similar action by the Bush admin?OK, but
Submitted by bsny on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:31pm.
The Mediocre One himself did not say anything about the media in his diatribe.
direct quote from the article
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:35pm.
"But I guarantee you ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed."
Either you are a liar or you are too stupid to read. Which one is it?
silence
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:05pm.
thought so.
Both?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:12pm.
Both?
Don't think
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:28am.
....you screw it up every time you try, BS.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Zippers Lite®
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:53am.
.
I thought the word press
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:06pm.
appeared in the very headline of this article. Do you even read things before you jump in to criticize?
Guess What
Submitted by bsny on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:40pm.
The Mediocre One did not rip the press, at least in the citation provided. Looks like the blog writer failed to do his job.
Read it again but this time
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:14pm.
Read it again but this time slowly, carefully and with great attention.
Zheesh
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:02pm.
Follow the linked item in the first two words ("On Wednesday") of this post.
What a light weight
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:59pm.
Really, is this the best you can do, show up un-informed and proove it.
There you have it---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:59pm.
bsny = fookin' mook.Mark Levin's "Double Standard"
Submitted by hoodad500 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:39am.
I hate to disagree with Mark Levin on this issue, but this time, he is dead wrong. There is no such thing as a double standard when the other side clearly has no standards at all. Such is the case with most far-left positions.
True, no doubt Mark
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:55pm.
Would agree
this is what I thought, but.....
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:44am.
disregard, placed in wrong location.
memories
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:13pm.
"The decision of the Supreme Court has felt stillborn, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate...John Marshall [chief justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
-Andrew Jackson, 1832
Obama is just falling in the footsteps of racist Democrats before him who totally ignore the Supreme Court as soon as it's not convenient.
But don't you dare ever question the validity of Roe v Wade.
Another Example for Mark to share -
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:17pm.
It is just like Illinois defying Heller and McDonald by keeping in place the absolute prohibition on exercise of the Second Amendment. Illinois is the only state in the country absent some "legal" form of carrying a firearm even though SCOTUS recognized what the Second Amendment says and held that yes indeed the Second Amendment applies to Illinois (and chicago) too.
Obama and crew ignore the Constitution because that is how they operated here, that is how it still is here in this corrupt state.
"... They don't get to enforce what they want, and ignore what they want ... Either the court has the final say or it doesn't, and if does, there's nothing else to say."
And there it is. Which way will they have it? Have the cake and eat it too? USA - welcome to Illinois. The country is now experiencing what Illinoisans live with every day and have for my entire lifetime. I have said here many times that we need our fellow americans help here. I wasn't kidding. The lawless governance, the corrupt tyranny, that eists here has spread to national government. Illinois government ignores Constitutional boundaries (both Constitutions binding it) and that mentality has spread to the federal governance.
Mark Levin, I implore you to examine this point and demonstrate how true it is by talking about tyrannical Illinois gun laws. You nailed Dick Durbin yesterday with his own words and deeds. Please do the same thing to the Illinois state gtovernment itself regarding the father - daughter team that is the Attorney General and Speaker of the House. Show the country where Obama's position came from and expose how to destroy it once and for all.
A Contempt Citation for the Administration Issued.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:37pm.
...over Gulf drilling ban. Betcha didn't hear about this in the MSM.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/ccontempt_citation_for_the_adm.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Injustice
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:54pm.
Kathleen Sebelius takes on Lady Justice. Guess who wins...
This administration cares
Submitted by jdawg2009 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:11pm.
This administration cares nothing about the rule of law. They'll do anything to push their agenda.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/democrats-push-obamacare-despite-being-ruled-unconstitutional