Rush Calls Out AP For Critiquing Montana Legislators While Ignoring Obama Admin 'Lawlessness'
Thursday, the Associated Press's Matt Gouras "reported" ("Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns") on legislative proposals in Montana. It got the attention of Rush Limbaugh, who skewered it as only Rush can.
Gouras's opening paragraphs read like a press release from an opposition party:
With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.
Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.
His third paragraph uses the "some people" tactic, which more often than not is AP code for "people I found who agree with me":
But some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock.
Limbaugh got wind of Gouras's gunk, and the self-described "America's anchorman" let it rip, and called out the wire service for selectivity in criticizing compliance with laws and the Constitution (link will go behind subscriber wall in a week; some paragraph breaks added by me; bolds are mine):
You want to hear something hilariously funny? This is from the Associated Press, State-Run out of Montana. Let me give you the headline: "'Tea Party Vision for Montana Raising Concerns' -- ..."
Now, this is not an editorial. It's supposed to be a news article. And when the AP writes that not everyone is buying their vision, or something, that means they disapprove of it and they manage to find a couple of people to quote who share their disapproval. It means the disapproval starts with AP, their premise and their narrative starts with them, and then they go out and try to find a couple people.
It's not that people in Montana are raising hell and AP hears about it and says, "Whoa, we got a story." This is AP creating a story. And what we have here is the Associated Press raging at a bunch of people who are passing laws which would, for example, ignore US laws.
What the hell is going on? We have the president of the United States himself saying, (paraphrasing) "That law doesn't count anymore, I'm not gonna defend that law, the Defense of Marriage Act." We have a president of the United States who himself is lawless. We went through this in great detail yesterday. Make no mistake. And it's not arguable. This is a lawless regime. And so here, the AP in Montana is about to have a conniption fit, they are having a conniption fit because of the Tea Party vision for Montana.
... Well, where are you, AP, on the defense of marriage and this regime simply choosing to ignore laws it doesn't like? How about when a president ignores various federal court rulings? A federal judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. No big deal, we're gonna keep implementing it. And you're worried about lawlessness in Montana? We've had an administration that's come out and said, "You know what, this Defense of Marriage Act, it's been around since the Clinton years, we don't like it. We're not gonna defend it anymore." Lawlessness! The president does not have such authority, and yet the AP wants to tell us how off the tracks and wacko they're getting in Montana.
... (The AP's Gouras writes) "Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law." It's already been declared unconstitutional, AP. "Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana." Why, how radical. All of this is happening within the bounds of the law. They're passing legislation to do this. They are not unilaterally implementing things, such as our president is doing.
Though there may be an exception out there somewhere, the establishment press on the whole hasn't even entertained the idea that the Obama administration's brazen continuance of Obamacare implementation is even the least bit problematic in light of Judge Roger Vinson's ruling in Florida. Page 75 of that ruling makes it very clear that this is completely contrary to what the judge expects. What about "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction” don’t they understand?
Outfits like the AP seem to believe that it's more important to create stories based on their own preconceived notions about those who are opposing the advance of statism than it is to explore the legality of the statists' actions.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Lawlessness
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:28am.
This is a question I raised elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
It's not enough that Rush and Hannity and others might point out the dictatorship that is the Chairman, but why aren't any of the Republican leaderships saying anything? Hell, even Newt raised the specter of impeachment after DOMA.
And if they are saying anything about the dictatorship, it must be really carefully hidden because I haven't seen it, has anyone else? They need to be talking about it on Fox News en masse(since FNC has the most viewers).
This is making for dangerous times. I don't like dangerous times. I just got my blood pressure back to normal, don't need it climbing again.
-Jon
Jon,
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:57am.
"Republican leadership" is an oxymoron. Republican "leaders" today are just plain, gutless morons.
You are right, I fear
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:27am.
Gutless is the key; morons are just like the Administration, the former Speaker (Pelosi), and the current Senate Majority Leader.
Dennis Prager
Many REP leaders are traitors
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 1:53pm.
Many REP leaders are traitors too. CFR members just waiting to sell out our Country a little slower and conservative than the DEMs. Even Huckabee, a preacher no less, is with them. That is JUST WRONG. We need some TEA party people in there to shut down all un-Constitutional arms of government. We will see those D.C. home prices dropping and it will be GREAT!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Several approaches, but all would take guts to implement
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:26am.
There are several approaches to cure US lawlessness. They all start with inviting Eric Holder to testify before Congress about his lack of enforcement of immigration laws and the voting rights act. They finish with a decision by Holder:
But then, the Republicans have to do what they are loath to do; enforce their choice. And after the fiasco where Bill Clinton didn't even get a fair trial in the Senate (he would have been convicted if he had) they don't want to do it again. But it is best if they use all of the tools in their arsenal to get the attention of this President that he is NOT above the law. His job, as executive, is to enforce the laws of the nation, not to decide what he likes or doesn't like.
Dennis Prager
The helluvit
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:43am.
The helluvit is that what Clinton did PALES in comparison to what the Chairman is doing. For pete's sake, it was perjury, something to be impeached for, but everything in the last 2 years along are 100 times worse. I don't think I'm exaggerating the severity of this in the slightest.
Clinton broke one law, lying to a court of law. DuhOne has broken several, not counting his (in)actions regarding Americans and the soldiers in different situations and incidents in this country. Hell, he didn't just break them, he shattered them and peed on them.(he's also in league with the brotherhood, who by their actions, are a terrorist group. How are they in league with him? They've met several times about Egypt and he sided with them during Muburak's ouster)
And you're right, his people are doing the same thing, Holder, Nappy, Sebelius, Salazar, those people and more have also violated the country's laws in many ways.
It should start at the top and work the way down because the top is the head of the snake. They are doing what he wants them to do.
-Jon
Perjury Was the Least Of It.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 3:51pm.
The biggest crime Clinton committed was obstruction of justice. Think: FileGate, among others.
Visions and Principles blog
Oh yeah
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 4:45pm.
I had forgotten about that one. Hey, it was 15 years ago.
But even so.
-Jon
I'll bring you up to speed, jon...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 6:33pm.
Despite the revisionist fantasies of Tenebrous, both Ken Star and Robert Ray found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons with regard to the Filegate "scandal".
Jer
Yeah, Jer, and the Feds---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:33pm.
found no credible evidence that Al Capone was a murderous gangster, so the best they could do was imprison him for tax evasion.On the contrary, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 9:29pm.
There was a mountain of credible evidence of Capone's murderous gangsterism, but the Feds realized pursuing violations of federal tax law--for which they had him nailed to the wall--would most likely result in the criminal conviction necessary to put him away.
Jer
Then that mountain of "credible" evidence was---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 9:43pm.
Bandini mountain. I don't know about Georgia, but in CA Bandini is a brand of manure.So Jer.......you say...
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:45pm.
there was a "mountain" of evidence of Capones murderous gangsterism, but the feds resorted to the tax evasion charge, because it was "most likely to win a conviction"? Sorry, but that sounds like they didn't have that "mountain" of which you refer, or are you saying the federal prosecutor was lazy and went the route with least resistance? Sounds to me that they couldn't pin any of the murders on him directly, and he had a history of getting out of legal jams. So they punted.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
BEGRUNT...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:36pm.
A mountain of evidence doesn't necessarily guarantee a conviction [see e. g. State of California vs. Simpson, O.J.] And you are correct that Capone had carefully insulated himself from direct culpable connections with the violence perpertrated by his henchmen. But of equal significance was his corruption of much of the state law enforcement and judicial system--via bribes and payoffs to police, prosecutors, judges, potential jurors--wherein primary jurisdiction generally rested for trying charges of murder, assault, extortion, etc. against mobsters [and alleged killers] such as Capone.
So, it wasn't so much that the Feds "punted" rather than their having pursued the best course available--practically and legally--to put Capone behind bars.
BTW...interesting you mention Cicero. The "city" of that name--not the philosopher--was of far more importance to Capone.
Jer
When did you stop being a
Submitted by BD on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:18pm.
When did you stop being a lawyer?
What is your point?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:42pm.
What is your point?
Jer
Over the last couple of
Submitted by BD on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:59pm.
Over the last couple of decades a mantra of the legal profession has been that a man is not guilty until convicted. Most go to the rediculous point of saying "Alleged" while mentioning supposed crimes.
You seem to have joined MY profession and actually come to conclusions based on intelligence Information rather than conviction.
Thus I assume you have stopped being a lawyer.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 9:25pm.
A presumption of innocence is first and foremost simply a judicial rule to be applied at trial relating to the level of proof required to obtain a conviction of the accused. As such, in a criminal proceeding the evidence presented must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in order for that presumption to be overcome.
Outside of the courtroom, I'm under no such constraints as far as speculating on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, except as follows: Reporters and others speaking publicly prior to and during trials should be careful to say "alleged" criminal act in order to a.) avoid influencing [poisoning] any potential jury pool, and b.) falsely accusing someone of a crime is libelous.
Although neither Capone [aside from income tax violations] nor O.J. [aside from the Las Vegas caper] was criminally convicted, I have no compunction whatsoever in saying both of them were guilty as sin.
Jer
How morally flexible of
Submitted by BD on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:58am.
How morally flexible of you.
Similarly, since we never intend to bring terrorists to trial or any other form of judicial proceeding, we can shoot them on sight/site and be done with it.
Thats the great thing about being a warfighter compared to a jurist.
And we are correct.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:13pm.
Morally flexible? What in the world are you talking about, BD? I have no idea, and I honestly don't think you do either.
Jer
On the wone hand you have a
Submitted by BD on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:38pm.
On the one hand you have a position that requires you to go through strange hoops and wickets to decide your moral position and its values.
On the other, you seem quite content to go trhough NO process to determine such.
If you cannot see the amazingly strange duality of your position, it must mean you are a well trained attourney.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:48pm.
It's obvious you completely misunderstood my post. Maybe it would help if you posed specific questions.
Jer
Right, you will shuck and
Submitted by BD on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:33pm.
Right, you will shuck and jive...
But down deep you realize the shallowness of the position.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:22pm.
Ask me a straightforward question, and I promise to give you a straightforward answer. No shuckin' and jivin'.
Jer
Okay... Could you kill a
Submitted by BD on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:40pm.
Okay...
Could you kill a man you suspect of being an enemy to the nation?
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:46pm.
Of course not.
Jer
But you are willing to say
Submitted by BD on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:11am.
But you are willing to say Capone was obviously guilty?
Those who are not willing to act on their beliefs are what we term Parlor pink.
Obviously the religion that is the law has gotten the better of you.
BD...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:34pm.
Do you believe OJ is guilty of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson? If so, why did you not act on that belief, track him down, and personally execute him? In other words, by your [convoluted] logic, either a.) you believe OJ did not kill his wife, or b.) you are Parlor pink.
In any event, I suggest you stop worrying about what my profession has done to me and start worrying about what yours has done to you. You make absolutely no sense.
Jer
I have enough scalps. Do you
Submitted by BD on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:18pm.
I have enough scalps. Do you have any?
Why don't you just answer the
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:56pm.
Why don't you just answer the question instead of shuckin' and jivin'.
Jer
My actions have spoken for
Submitted by BD on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:15pm.
My actions have spoken for me.
Have yours?
And your actions are saying that
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:31pm.
you have been transformed from a scalp taker to--with respect to OJ--a Parlor pink.
How morally flexible of you.
Jer
It all revolves around
Submitted by BD on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:19pm.
It all revolves around responsibility.
While I might be imperfect in mine.
You are unwilling in yours.
Stupefying Arrogance
Submitted by libBuster on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:31am.
Obama's refusal to carry out a basic duty of defending a Federal Law is troubling. He had two years to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and chose not to. HIs lack of respect for the Constitution and the Presidency is stupefying.
This "president" is out of control
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:34am.
It's time for the republicans to man up and put a leash on this rogue - before it's too late.
I do not understand why the repubs are so afraid to act in the best interest of this country, but if they continue to sit on their asses and let Obama run roughshod over the Constitution, the will of the people, as well as the rule of law as ordered by at least two federal courts, we are going to slide into a pit we are never going to climb out of.
And if one more person tells me to "Just wait until November of 2012," I am going to hurl chunks.
We don't have until November of 2012.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Two words...
Submitted by falcon on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 12:11pm.
..."status quo."
Too many people depend on things staying the way they are, and a lot of them are in the Republican "leadership."
Dumping Obama will only take care of part of the problem. Every Congressman and Senator who's been in office more than two years needs to go back home. Term limits and limits on campaign contributions (and a law making them give back what they don't use) should be next. And then only people who don't want to do it for a living should be elected.
It's an onion. Too many layers. We can't just take care of the biggest problem, they're all part of the same problem.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Unabomber types
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:43am.
To the MSM elitists, I'm sure the fact that Montana is the state is involved is supposed to make us think that all of this is being done by a bunch of Unabomber types.
The Tea Party movement has stirred a desire to restore the country to its Constitutional limits at a time when we have a president who fancies himself a king and a political party which believes that it can do whatever it damn well pleases. Obama has shown himself willing to pull out all the stops to win reelection. No matter how low his approval rating, we'd better be prepared for one heck of a battle in 2012. We need candidates willing to draw blood early and often (figuratively, of course--gotta be civiil!).
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Montana infested with locusts
Submitted by JakeMo on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 1:49pm.
There's also a subtle effort here to convey the sense that "even in conservative places like Montana some say the Tea Party has gone too far."
Montana has become the latest destination of choice for the liberal elites. As Mark Levin says, socialists are like locusts. As soon as they ravage one fertile field they move on to the next. That's how Schweitzer got elected in the first place.
It's obvious that Obama and
Submitted by celator on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:47am.
It's obvious that Obama and his gang of tax cheats, Marxists, Mao lovers, union thugs and other assorted human trash are operating a lawless administration. Every decision they make is the wrong one for the citizenry, every word out of their mouths is a lie. The MSM enables these crooks every step of the way.
Remove BHO
Submitted by csmrjerry on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:53am.
What will it take to stop the destruction of America? Maybe it will take millions of Americans to march on Washington and demand that Obama resign and take all the communist with him. I am afraid that if this continues we could see an Egyptian event happen in this country......there is only so much America can take when we see our country being destroyed by a bunch of idiots that have no exerience what so ever and everything Obama touches turns to shit. WAKE UP! and do something to save America for our children and our grandchildren.
The Obama Regime
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:46am.
With the possible exception of an AP interview trip to Columbia. . . you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
MSM Hypocrisy
Submitted by Armymom on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 12:19pm.
Typical liberal MSM hypocrisy. Where did all the daily body counts of our solider killed in action go? Every soldier that was killed, the MSM reported under Bush daily. Just like every time gas went up a penny it was Headline News! Now nothing from MSM, Code Pink, KOS, NOW etc. The Stock Market dropped 100-200 points daily under Bush for the same info we get reported today, but the stock market goes up. You figure it out!
Stop being distracted!
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 12:17pm.
Government at various levels legislating code it is not empowered to make in the first place is what demonstrates lawlessness.
Rush makes a very real and powerful charge here, the AP is making news rather than reporting it. Mainstream Media is full of that false premise these days.
The basic parameters of the debate must be renewed and rerealized. They have been lost in the wash of time.
The federal government has been delegated certain authorities. The state and local governments have been delegated certain authorities as well. Sometimes these authorities overlap and sometimes they are quite distinct from one another. However, the entity with the most power, with the most latitude, has been ignored for far too long. The people!
Some authorities, an thus the responsibility for them, can not be delegated away to any level of government no matter what the will of the majority may want at a certain moment. Our Founders and Framers toiled to avoid that very Liberty destroying monster when it rejected the formation of a direct democracy and instead adopted a republican form of government. They knew that inalienable rights can only exist within a republican form of government for they would be whittled away under any other form of government.
Lawlessness is taking place, across the spectrum, because our constitution doesn't match our Constitution. People have been taught to think government has rights. NO! Government has authorities and responsibilities, NOT rights. Only people have rights. Mankind is the creator of government. Mankind may well be responsible for the ongoing survival of mankind but we are not our own Creator. It was long ago declared and accepted that rights are endowed by the Creator. Government is not the Creator.
Rush is right about the AP and media in general, but he, like so many others, is still missing the most important point.
The federalist versus anti-federalist argument was settled long ago. The "bi-partisan" compromise people so declare they are diligently searching for already exists. It is called the Constitution. Restore it, Respect it and abide by it - even change it the way provided if need be - and prosperity, along with Liberty, will return to this once great nation.
Some people say AP makes stuff up
Submitted by JakeMo on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 1:34pm.
The "some say" phrase is an AP propaganda tool just like the notorious "correlation."
I've learned when reading AP stories to go straight to the propaganda code words to figure out what AP's opinion is. Then I skip to the next article. I can usually get through the Sunday LA Times in 12 minutes using that method.
force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone
Submitted by Vonu on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 2:05pm.
Yes! There are some smart people in Montana.
→ Rush was in rare form
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 2:33pm.
The day before this, Rush had me cracking up over his "What if President Palin did this (I only use her as an example because they hate her)"
He went on to name off a number of laws with which conservatives disagree, that a President Palin might choose not to enforce.
I saw that!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:59pm.
That was an excellent Rush clip!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
First it was AZ, then it was WI, and now it's MT...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 3:53pm.
The question every single voter should be asking him/herself is this: why are so many states suddenly "bad boys" and does it matter what the media thinks of them?
Visions and Principles blog
Tenebrous,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:58pm.
JMO: Because until either the federal government crossed the line or the conservatives stuck their head up and said something about states rights and separation of powers the state governments were happy to take their tax payer funded federal checks to buy votes and stuff the pockets of friends, family and supporters. All the while passing the buck back to the federal government about the collapse of the local economies.
Something similar could be said about Republicans in the House and Senate for most of the last 70 years.
speaking of which.....
Submitted by spepper on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 5:17pm.
......states that have a stake in oil production should go right ahead and give permits to drilling companies (preferably AMERICAN ones) to proceed with oil production-- because the federal government sure as hell won't issue them-- TO HELL WITH THE FEDS-- and let them try to stop the states, because they have precedent in the form of FEDERAL COURT RULINGS telling the feds to issue the damned permits!
A few words for Justice Limbaugh:
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:12pm.
If you intend to lecture America on the law and lawlessness, at least do some cursory research on the issues piquing your concern.
Re Obamacare: The ruling of a single federal judge in a single federal district does not prevent the government [as the named defendant] from implementing provisions of a law as they may apply to parties not before the court or otherwise beyond its jurisdiction.
I posted this a couple of days ago. It's a complicated issue about which the article [and a commenter, GregNJ] provides some helpful analysis.
Jer
A word for Justice Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:38pm.
But if the Federal Government decides not to prosecute illegal alien cases or defend the DOMA, you're pretty much on the side of cute justice?
Is that how it works?
Why not
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:45pm.
Been working up till now? The libtards beleive in law,,, where ever possible
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 9:09pm.
What do you mean by "cute justice"? This administration hasn't exactly been timid in the enforcement of immigration law or the deportation of illegals. Regarding DOMA, it's my understanding the Justice Department has indicated that while the Executive Branch will continue to enforce and comply with the law, the DOJ will no longer actively defend its constitutionality on legal grounds which it and the administration believe to be untenable--and with respect to which the Supreme Court has yet to rule.
Jer
Sure, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 9:21pm.
if you consider threatening to or bringing suit against the State of Arizona, as somehow enforcing "immigration" law. I can't speak for Cool Arrow, but to me, "cute" justice would be only enforcing justice as it fits your political perception of what is or is not "justice". That is neither fair, nor equal, enforcement.md...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 9:49pm.
What do you mean you "can't speak for Cool Arrow"? You appear determined to respond on behalf of practically every person to whom I post a question or comment.
However, I think your defintion of "cute justice" makes sense. Nor did I agree with the administration's precipitous reaction to the Arizona law [before Holder even read it!]. On balance, though, I believe it has demonstrated a firm commitment to the enforcement of existing immigration law.
Jer
You can't be serious?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 1:28am.
"On balance, though, I believe it has demonstrated a firm commitment to the enforcement of existing immigration law"??????
We have mountain tops in Az that have been "captured" by Mexican drug smugglers and you think you see some firm commitment to the enforcement of existing immigration law.
Well that about says it all.
hbnolikee...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:07am.
Granted, "firm" is a subjective term. So, what is your opinion? Compared with that of the previous administration, do you believe enforcement of immigration law has become more lax, more stringent, or is roughly the same?
Je
I mean what I said, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:11am.
Simple as that. I can't speak for Cool Arrow; I was giving MY opinion. See my post below.Two words for Jer, via Mark Levin ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:02pm.
... "wrong" and "wrong."
Jer: Your link demonstrates
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 12:54am.
Jer:
Your link demonstrates some of the reasons laypeople do not care for attorneys who prevaricate and pussyfoot around like cowards.
What did Federal Judge Vinson conclude, Jer?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/#ixzz1F83qt1lY
stratman...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 1:56am.
Which idiots do you have in mind? The individual who penned the article is an anti-Obama conservative. The commenter [GregNJ] whose analysis I recommended is an attorney and an anti-Obama conservative. I did not research the ideologies of the constitutional scholars who were quoted in the article itself.
Here is a follow-up note by the author with a link to a Motion for Clarification which has been filed by the feds. The Motion delineates the arguments against the "Obamacare dead in its tracks" interpretation of Vinson's ruling (very persuasively, imo). Give it a look. I'll be back tomorrow.
Jer
PS...As I said the other day, this case will get to the SC--and probably sooner rather than later. And whatever it decides will bind all parties equally in every jurisdiction. But Vinson doesn't have the power to do that beyond his own limited jurisdiction, and he can't enjoin the government from implementation in all respects unless he jumps through several more legal hoops than he has thus far.
Jer
Jer, Motions for
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:33am.
Jer,
Motions for clarification can be used to drag out finality. In the case of ObamaCare, it gives Obama more time to continue to implement policies and further cement them into the consciousness of Americans in the hope that citizens will support statist health care. What took them so long to file the motion? Is Team Obama really, really, really careful? Are they stupid and just bought a clue? Or is there another end game in play?
ObamaCare is mostly "sugar" now with the bad tasting medicine to come shortly. It's similar to a drug dealer giving away product initially to hook people on it, knowing full well the new addicts will do whatever to keep getting their fixes even while understanding the miserableness of their position.
I asked you to explain in your own words. Links are great, especially to back up what you write, but I want your thoughts too. What explicitly is it you think is so persuasive? What legal hoops do you refer to?
stratman...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 4:40am.
In light of the judicial zigging and zagging over the past few months and the consequent uncertainty with respect to the efficacy and enforcement of any, some, or all of the provisions of the Health Reform Act, I am gravitating toward the conclusion it may have have been better for the Democrats to have simply--make yourself a stiff drink and do a couple of shots--rammed through a Medicare For All system and avoided the constitutional thicket which has ensnared the existing model--one which was cobbled together to placate the majority and only succeeded in satisfying the few, and is still slammed as "statist government-run socialized medicine". Could the outcry from the critics have been any more strident than what has in fact occurred? Maybe, but it strains the imagination.
The current plan adopted many of the core proposals put forth by Republicans as an alternative to HillaryCare in the early 90's--a competing plan which over fifteen years ago included an individual mandate (because the cost analysis experts stated then and now it was an essential prerequisite for the financial viablility of the insurance-based model) similar to the present requirement which is nevertheless--and rather ironically--mercilessly bludgeoned as quintessentially anti-liberty, anti-American, and constitutional garbage.
I don't know what will happen with regard to Vinson's decision. From a purely academic standpoint, it's a hell of an interesting case and is no doubt already the subject of spirited debate in Con Law and Federal Civil Procedure classes in law schools across the country. As the decision now stands, I don't believe the weight of authority supports the argument that Obamacare is a complete nullity, frozen in a colossal chunk of procedural and constitutional ice until the Supreme Court either frees it or permanently kicks it out to sea. That's certainly not my personal view. But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
Are you going to be pissed by another link? It's very brief, but contains some interesting insights. It's from the Cato Institute. I'm trying to supply you with ideologically-acceptable sources.
Jer
Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993
Submitted by Par for the Course on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 12:24pm.
Jer:
I believe the Republican alternative you are talking about was this bill, S.1770 -- Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, introduced by Senator John Chafee.
After a quick perusal of the bill:
Chafee's bill calls it a tax, Obama calls it a penalty.
And saw this:
I couldn't find any information about how much actual support the bill had at the time, other than there were 20 Republican co-sponsors, which surprised me. The bill, in my opinion, has many of the same flaws the PPACA has.
Wouldn't it be interesting, if the CBO could go back and input information from the bill and fast forward, using actual economic, census and health care data, and see what the results would be.
Jer: I recalled that you
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 2:26pm.
Jer:
I recalled that you were in favor of Socialized Medicine implementation, so no surprise. What I find concerning is your inability to understand that ObamaCare is designed to undermine private insurer relationships with citizens and the businesses that purchase insurance via financial disincetives and other roadbloacks. It is the proverbial frog slow cooked in a pot. The bill promotes migration into government exchanges with oncommitant extinction of private insurers viability. So, while not a sudden lurch into Statism as you point out, ObamaCare is a gradual decline into single party payer system run by the government.
As to what Hillary or the Republicans suggested back in the 90's -- bad is bad no matter who tries to pawn it off.
Dissappointedly, you didn't present your "persuasive" arguments as I asked. The Cato link is well and good, but I wanted your words in order to understand issues as you see them through the prism of your training, experience and culturalization.
I've read people's conclusions but want to know how they came to them. All I get is bread without the meat in the sandwich.
stratman...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:19am.
Your recollection is not entirely accurate. What I favored--and so stated in Blonde's original forum--was the enactment of health reform legislation which would address the flaws in our (then) current system: exploding medical costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums, unequal access to quality care, lack of plan portablility, pre-existing condition limitations, tens of millions of uninsured or underinsured, and the financial devastation to individuals [and their families] hit by catastrophic illness.
My opinion has always been predicated on a willingness to embrace measures which were/are purely market based, purely government prescribed, or a hybrid of the two--the particular model adopted was not of paramount importance to me--as long as the above-described problem areas were ameliorated. (You may have also forgotten that I have been and remain a staunch advocate of tort reform and limitations on malpractice awards.)
I regret you are disappointed in what you perceive as my failure to present argumentation on behalf of my position with respect to the legal and practical reach of Judge Vinson's decision. Over the course of several posts on a couple of threads, I have attempted to provide a concise overview of a complex issue about which even the experts are divided, while linking several explanatory articles and comments and including my own perspective on the matter. However, since you obviously believe the latter effort in particular to be inadequate and unsatisfying, would you please let me know exactly what you want from me and I'll try again.
For example, is it your contention that Judge Vinson's holding extends to the operation and implementation of Obamacare in states which were not even one of the 26 plaintiff states in the FLA case? And that it also would extend to citizens, insurance companies, and other non-state entities--and non parties--outside of the Northern District of Florida in which latter jurisdiction Vinson is the federal judge and lies the venue of the suit? Is his opinion binding, for example, [in your view] in the District of Columbia where another federal judge just last week rejected the plaintiff's constitutional attack on the law? How would opposite rulings in separate federal districts comport with your notion of equal protection issues?
It seems at this point a better articulation of my view requires a better understanding of yours.
Jer
Jer: What I recall is that
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:15pm.
Jer:
What I recall is that you were agreeable to a single payor system, you were less than hopeful that private Insurers are in the best interest of America without major alterations to their operations (necessarily changing the current system of free enterprise which could cause private business insolvency), you were in favor of wealth redistribution to create an "improved" healthcare system, and you were in favor of ObamaCare while criticizing it from the Left in that ObamaCare did not go far enough/fast enough towards Socialized Medicine.
Is health care a RIGHT? The answer tells me all I need to know about what one wants or expects. If you say "yes" then America must be foundationally changed to accommodate this development in confiscatory, tyrranical (soft) government.
I have already explained my position as best I can, which is obviously rudimentary and untrained. My answer has been and continues to be YES, Vinson's ruling is binding on the entire country until overridden by a higher court. The affirmatory of Vinson's decision supercedes the negatory of other judges's decisions in that it protects Americans from (potential) harm to their Constitutionally observed rights and liberties.
Your education and experience in the legal profession I thought would provide valuable insights for me that would better comport my arguments and conclusions on sound legal law/theory. I already can Google. I asked you your opinion and understanding, specifically referencing your "persuasive" argument comment, because I actually wanted to know more of the nuts and bolts from your perspective.
Maybe it's best I move along.
Ummmmmm.... NO, actually it
Submitted by BD on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:20pm.
Ummmmmm.... NO, actually it does, or so says the left.
Or they did, when it went their way.
A few words for Jurisprudence Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 7:28pm.
Rush says, "Bite me."There is no leadership in the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 8:03pm.
There is no leadership in the republican party, just useful idiots who will in the end submit to their islamic overlord in the white house.
Good thing the dimwits
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 8:13pm.
Have our backs, aint it?
Your tagline
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 8:18pm.
Well, I'm glad your not sorry for anything. That attitude will certainly help you out in the place where your scary Islamic overlord is going to send you..bon voyage ;)
Where Is The Rest Of The Media?
Submitted by Boil It Down on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 8:33pm.
Why is it that so few in the media will do their duty to protect the Constitution and the rule of law that keep this country together? It's not about the controversy....it's about the law!
With the evidence readily at hand about so many acts of lawlessness within this administration there should be columnists, news anchors and commentators busy constantly exposing these things to the unsuspecting public. Just a few that come to mind are...
The DOJ's problems with selectively not investigating complaints concerning charges against people who are of color....or....suing the group 'True The Vote' because they found rampant voter fraud. Continuing an oil drilling moratorium after it was blocked by a judge. 26 State's district attorneys have deemed Obamacare unconstitutional. Judges in Virginia and Florida have ruled it unconstitutional. The EPA and FCC have been making end runs around Congress to rule by authoritarian decree. These are not exactly lawful activities. I am confident that if I were to take a day out and search for other lawless activity, the results would be very disturbing. The problem is that the journalists in America are negligent in doing this research and reporting it to us. Some Fourth Estate, huh? Considering this administration's demonstrated disdain for the Constitution, everyone should be on high alert.
The quote, "Lawlessness in a society increases with the corruption of it's rulers" has always proven to be true throughout history. By not following Rush's lead, the rest of the media is willfully allowing the spread of further lawlessness.
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:03am.
if you have a particular problem with me exercising my rights as a member of NewsBusters in deciding who I shall respond to, what I have to say, where it takes place, when I choose to post, why I say what I have to say and how I go about saying it, by all means, enumerate your grievances so that I may concentrate the whole of my being on doubling down on the offending items in order to drive you batshit nutso. :o)
Obama, his gargoyles, and most especially the lickspittle toady Eric Holder are most certainly NOT paragons of reasonable and balanced jurisprudential conduct.
Quite the opposite, actually.
And you know it, though as a liberal you prefer to profess otherwise by leading the cheers, while those of us who see the current administration for the phony lying bastards that they are, prefer to sit on our hands rather than applaud them for their actions.
MD
I'm just ragging on you, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:25am.
I don't mind it. I just want to know when you're going to start posting your replies in the right place instead of down here at the bottom of the thread. I think I've finally overcome my tendency to do the same thing.
Jer
Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:33am.
I'm still having problems with the reply formatting; I prefer to be able to bold and italicize, and if I can't do so with the reply button directly below the post I want to reply to, but can with the reply format at the end of the thread, I will usually use it instead. A bit aggravating, but life sucks, and then ends. No problem with the ragging on me, as you are quite patient when I do it to you.We the people
Submitted by MacWell on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 11:20am.
Great words.
When these great words are displayed by everyday Americans, like the tea partiers, it is a truely wonderful display to witness. We the people still run this country, contrary to popular belief.
Next year, we will decide the future of America. Yes, I believe the next election is THAT important. We the people must make it clear that we will not sit idol while America is taken over, as Europe has been. We DO NOT want a European styled, socialist lite, form of government.
We do not want to support a wellfare state anymore.
We believe Americans are better than that.
We believe that with a classical education, any child can succede in America. We believe the real unions, (the trade unions), are a useful in training new, young people to build the nuclear powerplants of the future.
We believe the appretenceship program is a good one and should be supported. We believe that when business is allowed to thrive, people have jobs, to choose from again.
Other than an evil mindset, how else would you describe the obsession with controling everyone's lives.
Believe me, 2012 is that important!
Could be Obama........
Submitted by fastfood on Sun, 02/27/2011 - 3:15pm.
Could be Obama is really Hugo Chávez's incognito. Last time I saw the two of them together they seemed pretty buddie-buddie.