“...in questions of power then, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1798, Kentucky Resolutions
“Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment…” - Woodrow Wilson
“Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Barack Hussein Obama, The Audacity of Hope
1) Obama, in a tremendous breach of decorum, hammers the Supreme Court…
Justice Alito mouths 'not true'
POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.
Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.
See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html
1a) President Wrong on Citizens United Case
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false (emphasis mine).
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind (emphasis mine).
See: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk
1b) More on this: Obama’s Shameless Demagoguery
(1) The Citizens United case dealt with a blanket ban on corporate expenditures. The Court struck down the ban, which is part of 2 USC 441b.
(2) A separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits “foreign nationals” from making expenditures or contributions. “Foreign nationals” includes corporations that are not incorporated or headquartered in the United States. This is an extremely broad prohibition that applies to any U.S. election (including state and local elections) and to any activity “in connection with” an election. The Citizens United ruling doesn’t touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgment about foreign corporations.
(3) This would allow a U.S. corporation, incorporated and headquartered in the United States, to make expenditures (Obama, remember, referred to “foreign corporations”). But . . .
(4) FEC regulations at 11 CFR 110.20 further delineate the prohibition:
A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
Additionally, the FEC requires that any funds so spent come from U.S.-generated income (in other words, the parent corporation cannot send capital to the U.S. subsidiary and then have the subsidiary spend that in connection with U.S. elections).
See: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcxNjNjNTlhNmQxZDYwYjNkOGJjZjkxZTZiMjI0NTg
1c) Morning Bell: A Speech Only Washington Could Love
The more things change, the more things stay the same. A little over a year ago, President Barack Obama came to office expecting to pass a “big bang” of policy changes all in the first year: health care, cap-and-trade, and banking regulation. With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, President Obama’s State of the Union address last night desperately tried to keep all of these legislative efforts alive while also acknowledging that the country has firmly rejected his policy agenda.
The result was an incoherent mess of promised tax cuts for small businesses coupled with the threat of tax hikes from his health care and energy proposals; more federal money to encourage banks to lend to businesses, coupled with new taxes on banks and individuals; the continued waste of his $862 billion stimulus plan and $2 trillion in new health care spending, coupled with a delayed and temporary spending freeze. As one of the longest State of the Unions in the past 45 years,…
…The Bank Tax
President Obama tonight called for a new tax on banks and other large financial institutions, “a modest fee,” he said, “to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” That sounds great, but in truth, the new tax would do nothing of the kind. Mr. Obama knows that almost every major bank has paid-back their bailout funds, with interest. Taxpayers made substantial profits on those repayments. On the other hand, most of the companies that still owe billions to taxpayers, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and auto firms GM and Chrysler, would not be subject to the tax. In short, Mr. Obama would tax those that have paid back taxpayers and exempt those who have not (emphasis mine).
The Spending Freeze
Obama’s spending freeze would apply to a narrow sliver of spending (somewhere around 1/8th of total spending) and at best, savings would be less than one percent of the total budget (emphasis mine). Moreover, it explicitly exempts the very entitlement programs driving future deficits. At a time when the deficit is $1.4 trillion and we face a sea of even worse red ink as far as the eye can see, such a freeze is tantamount to bailing out – forgive the double entendre – the Titanic with a dixiecup. And it would start next year, conveniently after the elections. Freezing spending is the right idea, but this freeze falls short of real action.
See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/morning-bell-a-speech-only-washington-could-love/
1d) Barack Obama LIED! (Really?)
Tonight, Barack Obama said, “To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
“That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.”
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it is not just Lynn.
-Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
-Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
-William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
-William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
-David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
-Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
-Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
-Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
-Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
-Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
-Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
-Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
See: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/01/27/barack-obama-lied/
2) Dems ally against EPA regulation
A resolution would stop the agency from acting on greenhouse gases.
Several Democrats have joined Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in trying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 26) with 39 co-sponsors, including three Democrats, was introduced Thursday on the Senate floor. It reflects a political shift in the chamber just days after Democrats lost the supermajority .
Until recently, Murkowski didn't have enough votes for her push. Now it seems possible that enough Democrats could deflect from the party line and join her as they court voters for midterm elections.
"We cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to propose back-door climate regulation with no input from Congress," Murkowski said after introducing the resolution.
See: http://www.congress.org/news/2010/01/21/dems_ally_against_epa_regulation
3) Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T
WASHINGTON – The Senate voted Thursday to allow the government to go a whopping $1.9 trillion deeper in debt, offering a vivid election-year reminder that the government has to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends.
The measure would put the government on track for a national debt of $14.3 trillion — more than $45,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.
…The measure passed 60-39 under ground rules insisted upon by Republicans that required 60 votes to pass it. Democrats and allied independents control 60 seats — for now — and were only able to win the vote because Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts has yet to be seated (emphasis mine).
See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_bi_ge/us_senate_debt_limit
4) Audio: “We’re told not to call it another stimulus bill”
Honest leadership … open government … and the Tooth Fairy. Breitbart and Naked Emperor News catches Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) telling his constituents in a telephonic town hall meeting that the new stimulus bill Democrats will promote in coming weeks is “pretty much similar” to Porkulus, just smaller in scale — which isn’t exactly news, since even Democratic leadership isn’t foolish enough to think they can get another $787 billion after getting nothing more than the loss of 3.4 million jobs from the first one. In an Orwellian admission, Sherman tells listeners that he’s been told not to call it a stimulus bill, but a “jobs bill,” even though he also admits that the jobs won’t come for years later:
See: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/audio-were-told-not-to-call-it-another-stimulus-bill/
5) Morning Bell: It Is Time To Prioritize Security Over Terrorist Rights
Yesterday, the White House ordered the Department of Justice to begin considering places other than New York City to host the civilian criminal trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists. The New York Times describes a decision to move the trials out of New York as “a retreat by the administration” and reported that the Obama administration “was scrambling” to find a new way forward.
This latest bit of self-inflicted national security chaos comes after Obama ally New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced yesterday that he did not want KSM’s trial in Manhattan. And Bloomberg was not the only Obama sympathizer to plead with the President to rethink his detainee policies. Six Senators, including Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Jim Webb (D-VA), John McCain (R-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) all signed a letter saying of KSM and his conspirators:
You will be providing them one of the most visible platforms in the world to exalt their past acts and to rally others in support of further terrorism.
And the KSM trial debacle is not the only sign the Obama administration is putting their personal politics over protecting American citizens. Last week, the nation’s top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, told a Senate committee that the Obama administration was wrong to question Flight 253 would-be-bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with civilian law officers instead of using specially trained interrogators from the recently-created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/29/morning-bell-it-is-time-to-priortize-security-over-terrorist-rights/
6) Pentagon set to seek repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' law
Fantastic! That will bolster the already low morale of our warriors for sure!
The Pentagon is moving ahead with plans to seek a repeal of the law that prohibits gays from serving openly in the U.S. military in what is expected to set off a new debate on the issue.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the effort to change the law on the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" that allows gay service members to remain if they do not disclose their sexual orientation.
See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/29/pentagon-set-to-seek-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-/
No comments:
Post a Comment