The Mighty Supreme Court Bookend: Twilight Of The Commerce Clause?

The Obama health insurance scam might end up to be a bookend ruling. The many hours set aside by the high court to discuss the law just might be the end of the long run of the Commerce Clause as the rationale for expanded federal power. The first bookend is the New Deal cases and the Civil Rights cases which followed decades later. The Obama government might prove to be the end times for the Commerce Clause and expanded federal power.

* * * * * *

After today we know a whole lot about how, when, who, and why the Supreme Court will rule on the Obama health scam. We might even know a little bit of “what” the Supreme Court will rule.

After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will sweep aside all the collateral issues and jurisprudential barnacles (such as the Anti-Injunction Act) and there is now only one issue before the high court. That issue is the Commerce Clause and the power of the federal government.

After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will come down to one man, one vote: Justice Anthony Kennedy.

While Justice Sotomayor made some noise indicating she might oppose the individual mandate and other Justices made equally intriguing statements/questions the bottom line is that both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings of the court will vote as expected (until negotiations begin at least). It is Anthony Kennedy that will determine the decision and once he decides the negotiations that will determine the ultimate vote will begin – ending in a ruling.

If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to reject the law then some “liberal” justices might be persuaded to join in that rejection if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling. If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to uphold the law then some “conservative” justices might be persuaded to join in if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling.

How might Justice Kennedy rule? Obama health scam supporters once ridiculed the possibility of the Supreme court rejecting Obama’s “big f*cking deal”. Now? As we wrote yesterday, supporters of the Obamination law are so desperate they are currently making the argument that a Supreme Court rejection of the Obamination health scam will be a plus. Sadly James Carville joined Tomasky and others in that embarrassing argument. Carville: ObamaCare being struck down would be the best thing ever to happen to Democrats.

Why is such a silly “we win when we lose” argument being made? Listen to the audio of Anthony Kennedy: The mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the federal government:



If that exchange is in any way indicative of Justice Kennedy’s thinking the Obama health scam is doomed. Of course judges can be wily and merely be playing devil’s advocate with probing questions. But even the most avid Obama health scam supporters are in shock. For example CNN’s
Toobin: “Train wreck for the Obama administration” today on individual mandate:



It’s gonna be struck down:

“According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin just said on CNN.

As to Justice Roberts upholding the law, does this sound like a man who is about to vote to uphold?:



Don’t count on Scalia either. Today Scalia lectured Verilli on enumerated powers:



Are we being selective in our quotes and misinforming our readers? We think our assessment is very fair. Even the rude DailyKooks realize that reality is intruding on their Hopium den and that the Obama health scam is in very “significant trouble”.

At the end of oral argument Day 2 of 3 it is the Commerce Clause, the difference between health care (which affects every human), health insurance (which the world has existed without for millennia), and Justice Anthony Kennedy. It is also clear that the high court will issue this ruling-this term, and it will not be a punt into 2015.

At the end of Day 2 we also have (via the respected SCOTUSblog) informed speculation as to what that ruling will be:

“Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble. It is not clear whether it will be struck down, but the questions that the conservative Justices posed to Clement were not nearly as pressing as the ones they asked to Solicitor General Verrilli. On top of that, Clement delivered a superb presentation in response to the more liberal Justices’ questions. Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge so far is that Justice Kennedy’s questions suggest that he believes that the mandate has profound implications for individual liberty: he asked multiple times whether the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals, so that it must surpass a special burden.

As to the meaning and impact of the eventual ruling this year? The highest of high stakes. We turn again to SCOTUSblog (from yesterday, before today’s hearing results):

“Without exaggeration, the final ruling has the potential to be the most important declaration on how the Constitution divides up power between national and state governments since the New Deal days some three quarters of a century ago. Without exaggeration, it could be the most important pronouncement on the federal “safety net” since the Social Security Act was upheld by the Court in 1937. Without exaggeration, a decision to strike down all or part of the new health law could be the most severe rebuff of Congress’s power over the national economy since the Sick Chicken Case in 1935. And, without exaggeration, a nullification of the Act in whole or in part could be the most devastating blow to presidential power and prestige since the Steel Seizure Case in 1952.

The law at issue is not directly about civil rights, but for the nation’s working poor, the coming ruling on the law’s validity could be as important to them as a 1938 decision was for racial minorities, essentially starting the modern civil rights revolution. And for individuals who want to be left alone by their government, the final decision may be a reminder of a 1905 decision that first spelled out a theory of individual liberty that, in time, would contribute importantly decades afterward to that same civil rights revolution.

Yes, it is that important…”

That’s a skewed view in favor of the government and a powerful federal government, but the potential impact is correct.

That analysis written before today’s events at the high court describes effectively what actually transpired today and what the arguments were/are:

“The federal government gets to open the argument that day, and its top Supreme Court advocate will seek to persuade the Court that history is on the government’s side, that health care is in a crisis of national proportions, that Congress must have the authority to rise to such occasions, and that this controversy calls for judicial modesty. For almost as long as there has been constitutional history, that attorney seems sure to argue, economic crises too big for the states to handle have been left to Congress. If Congress was constitutionally disabled from enacting this law, it will have had to surrender core constitutional power, the Court may be told.

And then two lawyers for the challengers will take turns arguing that this case does not involve just another episode of familiar history, but rather that this is constitutional history starting over. Congress, they will say, has never dared to so manage Americans’ private lives as it now has attempted, without precedent and without even a hint of authority from the Constitution. If Congress can do this, there is no invasion of private choice that will not be constitutionally tolerable, the Justices almost certainly will be told.

Wednesday will be a double-header on constitutional history. In the morning, the Court will return — as so often in the past — to the fundamental division of government authority between Congress and the courts — horizontal separation of powers that James Madison thought essential to individual liberty. That will be at the center of the argument on what happens to the remainder of the new health care law if the individual mandate were to be struck down,. And, in the afternoon, the Court will trace many of history’s earlier steps along the line that divides national and state power — the vertical separation that Thomas Jefferson thought essential to the sovereignty and dignity of governments closest to the people. That will be the focus of the argument over the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor, for the first time providing those benefits to millions of the working poor and to childless adults.”

That assessment is again skewed in favor of the government’s view. But it is correct that the issues before the high court are very high.

Left unmentioned by many is how badly Obama’s health scam is written (we can’t wait to hear the government explain why boilerplate such as a “severability clause” were not included in this legislative mess). Left unmentioned by many is the Karma of all this.

Instant Karma. Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton on the very question of the “mandate”. Barack Obama was warned here and by such as Paul Krugman that his attacks would come back to bite his scrawny ass. That they have.

Hillary Clinton proposed a mandate based on regional markets. Constitutional questions on the mandate could have easily been resolved, as Hillary proposed, with point of contact (meaning when you actually get sick and need health care) registration.

Also, Hillary Clinton had a plan that improved “health care”. Obama’s plan is a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies. That the Supreme Court is noticing what we noticed at the time – Obama’s scam is an health insurance finance scheme unrelated to somatic health care – is gratifying.

Under Hillary Clinton’s plan there would have been improvements on health care and the cost of insurance would have come down (by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs, for instance). But Obama allied himself with Billy Tauzin in private meetings at the White House early in 2009 (the same Billy Tauzin Obama attacked in campaign ads).

Obama (when he was popular and had high approval ratings in February 2009) sold out the American people to Billy Tauzin for money from Billy Tauzin. It’s what Obama always does (read about the Obama health plan Obama supporters do not want to discuss) – treachery for personal gain and advancement.

Barack Obama’s presidency is a failure already. Barack Obama has destroyed the Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton. Now Barack Obama unwittingly will destroy the Commerce Clause as it has been wielded for a century.

In a sense the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the discussion of health care and health insurance and the Obama health scam. That judgement has already been rendered by the American People. All that is left for the Supreme Court to do on the Obama health scam is to place the tombstone.

Share

364 thoughts on “The Mighty Supreme Court Bookend: Twilight Of The Commerce Clause?

  1. @Admin Hillary Clinton proposed a mandate based on regional markets. Constitutional questions on the mandate could have easily been resolved, as Hillary proposed, with point of contact (meaning when you actually get sick and need health care) registration.

    What a sad day! But nobody other than you will even mention anything about this. Forget DailyKos, how are those fools doing at firedoglake?

  2. Carville is not alone. There is a theory going around that it may be better for Obama to lose this battle, that he himself wants to see that outcome. Kind of makes me sick all around.

  3. Excellent analysis adm. I was able to hear more of the questions on Hannity and Greta
    and Kennedy, not Roberts, is obviusly the swing vote. Not sure how it is going to play
    out, but will be a rallying point for either side on the losing end of the vote.

  4. Excellent post admin.

    OTurd will lose either way. The Federal govt cannot force people to buy a private product period. Period.
    If the Supreme Ct is irresponsible enough to uphold the mandate, it will be overturn, 100%, in November or when the law itself is enforceable and there aren’t enough jailcells to hold the millions of Americans who will not be forced to buy a private product.

    Anyone remember this, I know many repub voters who were stupid enought to believe OTurd, and so vote for him. The lawyers arguing in opposition should just loop this recording in the court.


  5. Judges often ask questions that appear to signal how they will rule then they rule contrary to what was expected. As to Justice Roberts there is some analysis on his questions and the implications:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/roberts-will-likely-vote-strike-down-obamacare/449636

    Those who say that Roberts’ vote is in play point out that he asked critical questions to both sides. But a closer look reveals that when he was badgering President Obama’s solicitor general Donald Verrilli, he was speaking for himself, but when pressing lawyers opposing the law — Paul Clement and Mike Carvin — he created distance from the position by noting he was articulating the position of the government.

    There are a number of examples of him forcefully challenging the Obama administration’s key arguments, using such phrases as “it seems to me,” which I highlight below (with emphasis).

  6. Wonderful analysis, admin. Thanks for boiling it all down to a set of facts and conclusions that are in play here.

    If the Commerce Clause is overturned, having the Cap and Trade Tax coming from the UN looming in the distance; I wanted to ask if the Commerce Clause is what is preventing Cap and Trade from enforcement by the UN for the time being and if it is overturned we will be subject to it vis a vis the UN’s authority

  7. There is a theory going around that it may be better for Obama to lose this battle, that he himself wants to see that outcome.

    ===================

    Well, thats’s been his pattern. “Dudes, I tried, can’t blame me.”

  8. Mrs. Smith, the Commerce Clause will not be overturned, it can’t be “overturned” because it is part of the Constitution. What might happen is that the use of the Commerce Clause as a rationale to expand federal government power will be blocked. What this means is that once the government cannot rely on the Commerce Clause for “expansion”, once there are limits placed on the use of the Commerce Clause, those limitations will have to be seriously considered when drafting or proposing a law.

    If the court strikes down Obama’s health scam it will establish a precedent that will be used as citations in cases to come. There might even be a use of this case to strike previous precedents (such as the wheat case) further limiting the federal government.

    As to Cap and Trade the Commerce Clause enables such type of legislation because the claim is that pollution crosses state boundaries without discrimination (this does seem to be a valid use of the Commerce Clause whether one agrees with such legislation or not). We don’t see how any of this would implicate UN directives. Obama might try to make the case that UN directives trump U.S. law but it is doubtful that a Supreme Court which strikes down Obamacare would allow such a doctrine to take hold. Certainly such an argument when it is attempted has been resisted by at least one political party and the American people.

  9. Devastating video Tim. As we wrote, Obama’s attacks against Hillary are coming back to bite his scrawny ass.

  10. I don’t have good feeling that the SCOTUS will overturn fraudcare. I don’t trust Kennedy.

    “It’s [Justice] Anthony Kennedy’s world and we all just live in it,” Lithwick joked. a law expert.

  11. admin, I will completely agree with you on the point you made about Hillary’s 2008 plan. It completely avoided the whole mandate by only making people buy it once they needed it. This way, those who paid out of pocket for doctor visits, etc, and took really good care of themselves would never need be forced into commerce i.e. forced to buy HC. However, those that needed it, had to enroll in it permanently. Eventually and gradually this would have encouraged more personal responsibility with more coverage, better coverage without infiringing on the rights of other american who never relied on the state for help with aspect to healthcare.

    This would have reassured smaller and bigger businesses against drastic burdensome regulations, it would have been an actual healthcare reform bill rahter than the crap that its now.

    I did not support Hillary’s plan in the 90’s and helped repubs oppose it, but her 2008, she vastly improved it, and I thought it was good gradual business friendly plan which would have protected individual rights and religious rights.

    But OTurd, just knows everything, he mocked her, what a waste of 2 years, there is now a trust deficit, OTurd if relected will shove anything and everything on America that he wants. Who in their right mind trusts a word this man says?

  12. http://www.cnbc.com/id/46872408

    I agree with his line about businesses dropping their HI, smaller businesses will absolutely do this, people will not “be able to keep their doctor if they like their doctor.”

    “It vastly underestimates how many employers will actually drop their employer health insurance and dump people into the government exchange,” Ryan said.

    In fact, he said private sector actuaries have told him that within a couple of years, about two-thirds of employers will “wash their hands” of offering health insurance to employees.

    “Just about everybody will be in the [government] exchange,” Ryan said.

    The result, he said, will be the “implosion of the health care system and an explosion of our public debt.””

  13. We turn again to SCOTUSblog (from yesterday, before today’s hearing results):

    “Without exaggeration, the final ruling has the potential to be the most important declaration on how the Constitution divides up power between national and state governments since the New Deal days some three quarters of a century ago. Without exaggeration, it could be the most important pronouncement on the federal “safety net” since the Social Security Act was upheld by the Court in 1937. Without exaggeration, a decision to strike down all or part of the new health law could be the most severe rebuff of Congress’s power over the national economy since the Sick Chicken Case in 1935. And, without exaggeration, a nullification of the Act in whole or in part could be the most devastating blow to presidential power and prestige since the Steel Seizure Case in 1952.

    The law at issue is not directly about civil rights, but for the nation’s working poor, the coming ruling on the law’s validity could be as important to them as a 1938 decision was for racial minorities, essentially starting the modern civil rights revolution. And for individuals who want to be left alone by their government, the final decision may be a reminder of a 1905 decision that first spelled out a theory of individual liberty that, in time, would contribute importantly decades afterward to that same civil rights revolution.

    Yes, it is that important…”
    _______________________________________
    This is a disingenuous way to frame the issue: obama care vs curtains for the working poor.

    The truth is, if the mandate is struck down, as I predicted on this blog immediately after it was passed, and a number of times since, then guess what? Maybe we do the very thing that we should have done ab initio. Look at the specific holes in the current system in areas like 37 million uninsured, the lack of portability, etc. and patch them up. Now that is what needs to happen. And–undo the sweetheart deal Obama made with Tauzin to pay for his advertising in exchange for keeping cheaper Canadian drugs, and back off on the Obama approved 1/2 trillion cut in medicare. And let the CBO do an honest accounting for once. In most actuarial circles being off by 100% is not a good thing.

  14. Correction; keeping cheaper canadian drugs out of the country. One of the ten million ways Obama has found to fuck seniors.

  15. Wbboei, SCOTUSblog admits to their bias in all this. We noted their bias after every quotation cited but noting the bias bears repeating.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=61230D8C-5899-49E6-8512-EE824B8E1A77

    “The government had in my view as bad a day as it reasonably could have,” said Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog and a regular litigator at the high court. “It won’t cause the government to have a complete cardiac arrest — they’ll just be nauseous for months. … The only people coming out of that building optimistic today were the plaintiffs.” [snip]

    In the orgy of panel discussions, interviews and feature articles previewing this week’s arguments, law professors, Supreme Court litigators and journalists confidently predicted that the justices would uphold the individual mandate as a logical extension of the federal government’s well-established ability to regulate the health insurance market.

    Harvard law professor Charles Fried, a solicitor general himself in the Reagan era, famously promised a couple of years ago to eat his Kangaroo skin hat if the Supreme Court struck down the law.

    Within the first few minutes of Tuesday’s arguments, that bravado seemed to go out the window.

    “Eventually, the conventional wisdom will catch up with reality,” Goldstein joked. “It’s absolutely true that this argument has gotten the back of the hand from the legal glitterati, including myself.

    The final word won’t come for months, Goldstein said, “but I’ll tell you [the challengers] are doing the high-fives today. … They’re not doing them at the Department of Justice.”

  16. thanks, admin for the timely response:

    “We don’t see how any of this would implicate UN directives. Obama might try to make the case that UN directives trump U.S. law but it is doubtful that a Supreme Court which strikes down Obamacare would allow such a doctrine to take hold. Certainly such an argument when it is attempted has been resisted by at least one political party and the American people.”
    __________________

    Recently, I read the UN is working on an International Global Mandate for Cap and Trade which will ultimately involve commerce. In light of Panetta’s announcement, that the UN has the authority without congressional approval ordering our troops into military action is the reason I asked the question in the first place. Aware that the president is slowly shredding the Constitution bit by bit by bit through his signing statements. With the common thread entwined in all of the issues including a vehicle of enforcement for Obama care, where unless my thinking is wrong, once again all of these issues rest on the foundation of the Commerce Clause.

    And the scary thought, the Judges who appear to want to uphold the Commerce Clause and strike down ObamaCare in it’s entirety may just be playing Devil’s Advocate as theater for the listening masses- may just turn around and compromise it to the extent they are opening the flood gates for the heavy hand of government using any sort of compromise for oppression of the people.

  17. Admin, that would be such a wonderful turn around if it was struck down. Question: about the requirement to pay for insurance. What if someone refuses to pay, are they going to place a garnishment with the employer? I guess if they are unemployed it would be free. Michelle Bachmann has stated that there is a bill to repeal in the works even if the ruling is not in favor of overturning it.

  18. The painter Jon McNaughton was on Hannity last night; Hannity asked to buy the painting of ObaMAO setting the Consitution on fire and McNaughton said yes. Hannity is going to loan it to museums for the public can see. McNaughton said his recent paintings have been an artistic vision of what he thinks is being done to this country by the current administration.

  19. Speaking of twilight:

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_788643.html

    Rick Santorum appeared to be the Republican presidential candidate to beat in Pennsylvania a month ago.

    With the state primary four weeks away, Santorum now finds himself nearly tied with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among the state’s Republicans, and support is eroding rapidly, according to a Franklin & Marshall College poll out today.

    “The real Rick Santorum has emerged,” said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College Poll.

    “Santorum ran a disciplined campaign for eight months, but a month ago he began veering off message into all these cultural and social issues,” Madonna said, referring to flare-ups over women in combat and contraceptives. “That may help with his core voters, but they’re already with him. This is supposed to be about expanding your base.”

    The poll of 505 registered Republican voters, conducted March 20-25 in conjunction with the Tribune-Review and other media outlets, shows Santorum clinging to a small lead over Romney, 30 percent to 28 percent, within the poll’s 4.2 percent margin of error.

    That’s a big change from February, when Santorum, once a U.S. senator from Penn Hills, held a commanding 15-percentage-point lead over Romney in the poll.

    “I was really rooting for Santorum because he’s from Pennsylvania, but I switched over to Romney because I think he has a better chance of beating Obama and that he’d do a better job of running this country like a business,” said poll participant Rick Bierer, 51, a factory worker from Ford City.

    Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a Green Tree native, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who grew up near Harrisburg, are a distant third and fourth in today’s poll.

    The poll shows a worsening public opinion of Santorum. His favorability rating of 54 percent is down from 65 percent a month ago, although that remains higher than the 46 percent rating for Romney, the national front-runner.

  20. admin
    March 28th, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Thanks, Got it-

    I can honestly say- I do not trust the SC and leave it at that- for now.

  21. “If Congress can do this, there is no invasion of private choice that will not be constitutionally tolerable”

    That’s the direction the court’s been headed in for years, pro-corporate/anti-freedom. Is it possible they will “craft” a decision that is only applicable to health care and insurance? They did that in the Bush v. Gore case, stating that their decision was a one-off, not to be precedent. Thta would give them the result they want – serving the insurance/pharma/hospitals – while preserving the appearance of individual liberties.

  22. I’ll be happily surprised if the SC that selected Bush, plus a couple of Obama nominees, misses a chance to order us to buy something from Wall Street.

  23. Mittens has 42% in the California poll (1st place), but over half (including me) still wish there were another candidate to choose from. C’mon brokered convention/viable independent!

  24. valleyboy
    March 28th, 2012 at 1:19 am
    *********
    That’s what I see, or fear, but I am not a lawyer.
    ************

    Not going to happen, brokered or third party..it’s Mittens!

  25. Besides the superiority already mentioned about Hillary’s plan, I think it’s a safe bet her legislation would not have been written behind closed locked doors, by lobbyists!

    I think the plaintiff’s arguments are very strong, but since the supremes are so politicized now, that may not mean much. Call me cynical, but I’m epecting an appeasement ruling that will serve Obama and the industries, while deflating the government intrusion argument. Because the “we win if we lose” argument works both ways – if the law is upheld entirely it will motivate O’s opposition more, and possibly invite a third party candidate into the race since Romney can’t run against Obamacare. Given the unpopularity of the law, Obama vs. Romney vs. Door #3, could be undesirable outcome for the regime.

    I so hope I’m wrong!!

  26. gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 1:39 am

    Not going to happen, brokered or third party..it’s Mittens!
    ______________________

    See, choosing Mittens prevents extending the middle finger, and that is the message a lot of voters want to express to the establishment. 🙂

    But seriously, why is the one for you? I’ve said why I’m not keen on him, and I think it’s a little early to commit anyways.

  27. Valley

    I will vote for ABO, but there is something comforting about Mittens. He is a grown up, very little drama. I don’t want more drama. I don’t want the racist words, insanity of the last three years of the “Chicago way”. Hey, I am from Milwaukee, and it really is a Milwaukee vs Chi town attitude.

    There is a reason they have so many sitcom’s based in Milwaukee. It is America, middle of the road, no thrills, solid. To me that’s Romney. I feel I can trust him. I feel he loves this country and it’s values. Could be wrong, I just don’t think so. I know he will move the economy forward, not so sure on Foreign affairs. The world has gone insane.Maybe too insane for any one leader at this time. Would love to have both Bill and Hillary in the WH.

    If Hillary came a calling, I would be there in a New York Minute!

  28. I have posted this article from wsj twice already, but it explains what happened today at least–before it happened.
    ——————————
    Liberty and ObamaCare
    The Affordable Care Act claims federal power is unlimited. Now the High Court must decide.
    Few legal cases in the modern era are as consequential, or as defining, as the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court hears beginning Monday. The powers that the Obama Administration is claiming change the structure of the American government as it has existed for 225 years. Thus has the health-care law provoked an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional showdown that endangers individual liberty.
    It is a remarkable moment. The High Court has scheduled the longest oral arguments in nearly a half-century: five and a half hours, spread over three days. Yet Democrats, the liberal legal establishment and the press corps spent most of 2010 and 2011 deriding the government of limited and enumerated powers of Article I as a quaint artifact of the 18th century. Now even President Obama and his staff seem to grasp their constitutional gamble.
    Consider a White House strategy memo that leaked this month, revealing that senior Administration officials are coordinating with liberal advocacy groups to pressure the Court. “Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned,” the memo notes, rather than “the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence [sic].” Those nonpolitical details are merely what “lawyers will be talking about.”
    The White House is even organizing demonstrations during the proceedings, including a “‘prayerful witness’ encircling the Supreme Court.” The executive branch is supposed to speak to the Court through the Solicitor General, not agitprop and crowds in the streets.
    The Supreme Court will not be ruling about matters of partisan conviction, or the President’s re-election campaign, or even about health care at all. The lawsuit filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business is about the outer boundaries of federal power and the architecture of the U.S. political system.
    ***
    The argument against the individual mandate—the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or pay a penalty—is carefully anchored in constitutional precedent and American history. The Commerce Clause that the government invokes to defend such regulation has always applied to commercial and economic transactions, not to individuals as members of society.
    This distinction is crucial. The health-care and health-insurance markets are classic interstate commerce. The federal government can regulate broadly—though not without limit—and it has. It could even mandate that people use insurance to purchase the services of doctors and hospitals, because then it would be regulating market participation. But with ObamaCare the government is asserting for the first time that it can compel people to enter those markets, and only then to regulate how they consume health care and health insurance. In a word, the government is claiming it can create commerce so it has something to regulate.
    This is another way of describing plenary police powers—regulations of private behavior to advance public order and welfare. The problem is that with two explicit exceptions (military conscription and jury duty) the Constitution withholds such power from a central government and vests that authority in the states. It is a black-letter axiom: Congress and the President can make rules for actions and objects; states can make rules for citizens.
    The framers feared arbitrary and centralized power, so they designed the federalist system—which predates the Bill of Rights—to diffuse and limit power and to guarantee accountability. Upholding the ObamaCare mandate requires a vision on the Commerce Clause so broad that it would erase dual sovereignty and extend the new reach of federal general police powers into every sphere of what used to be individual autonomy.
    These federalist protections have endured despite the shifting definition and scope of interstate commerce and activities that substantially affect it. The Commerce Clause was initially seen as a modest power, meant to eliminate the interstate tariffs that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison noted in Federalist No. 45 that it was “an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Father of the Constitution also noted that the powers of the states are “numerous and infinite” while the federal government’s are “few and defined.”
    That view changed in the New Deal era as the Supreme Court blessed the expansive powers of federal economic regulation understood today. A famous 1942 ruling, Wickard v. Filburn, held that Congress could regulate growing wheat for personal consumption because in the aggregate such farming would affect interstate wheat prices. The Court reaffirmed that precedent as recently as 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, regarding homegrown marijuana.
    The Court, however, has never held that the Commerce Clause is an ad hoc license for anything the government wants to do. In 1995, in Lopez, it gave the clause more definition by striking down a Congressional ban on carrying guns near schools, which didn’t rise to the level of influencing interstate commerce. It did the same in 2000, in Morrison, about a federal violence against women statute.
    A thread that runs through all these cases is that the Court has always required some limiting principle that is meaningful and can be enforced by the legal system. As the Affordable Care Act suits have ascended through the courts, the Justice Department has been repeatedly asked to articulate some benchmark that distinguishes this specific individual mandate from some other purchase mandate that would be unconstitutional. Justice has tried and failed, because a limiting principle does not exist.
    The best the government can do is to claim that health care is unique. It is not. Other industries also have high costs that mean buyers and sellers risk potentially catastrophic expenses—think of housing, or credit-card debt. Health costs are unpredictable—but all markets are inherently unpredictable. The uninsured can make insurance pools more expensive and transfer their costs to those with coverage—though then again, similar cost-shifting is the foundation of bankruptcy law.
    The reality is that every decision not to buy some good or service has some effect on the interstate market for that good or service. The government is asserting that because there are ultimate economic consequences it has the power to control the most basic decisions about how people spend their own money in their day-to-day lives. The next stops on this outbound train could be mortgages, college tuition, credit, investment, saving for retirement, Treasurys, and who knows what else.
    ***
    Confronted with these concerns, the Administration has echoed Nancy Pelosi when she was asked if the individual mandate was constitutional: “Are you serious?” The political class, the Administration says, would never abuse police powers to create the proverbial broccoli mandate or force people to buy a U.S.-made car.
    But who could have predicted that the government would pass a health plan mandate that is opposed by two of three voters? The argument is self-refuting, and it shows why upholding the rule of law and defending the structural checks and balances of the separation of powers is more vital than ever.
    Related Video

    Editorial board member Joe Rago on the Supreme Court showdown over ObamaCare.
    Another Administration fallback is the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which says Congress can pass laws to execute its other powers. Yet the Court has never hesitated to strike down laws that are not based on an enumerated power even if they’re part of an otherwise proper scheme. This clause isn’t some ticket to justify inherently unconstitutional actions.
    In this context, the Administration says the individual mandate is necessary so that the Affordable Care Act’s other regulations “work.” Those regulations make insurance more expensive. So the younger and healthier must buy insurance that they may not need or want to cross-subsidize the older and sicker who are likely to need costly care. But that doesn’t make the other regulations more “effective.” The individual mandate is meant to offset their intended financial effects.
    ***
    Some good-faith critics have also warned that overturning the law would amount to conservative “judicial activism,” saying that the dispute is only political. This is reductive reasoning. Laws obey the Constitution or they don’t. The courts ought to defer to the will of lawmakers who pass bills and the Presidents who sign them, except when those bills violate the founding document.
    As for respect of the democratic process, there are plenty of ordinary, perfectly constitutional ways the Obama Democrats could have reformed health care and achieved the same result. They could have raised taxes to fund national health care or to make direct cross-subsidy transfers to sick people. They chose not to avail themselves of those options because they’d be politically unpopular. The individual mandate was in that sense a deliberate evasion of the accountability the Constitution’s separation of powers is meant to protect.
    Meanwhile, some on the right are treating this case as a libertarian seminar and rooting for the end of the New Deal precedents. But the Court need not abridge stare decisis and the plaintiffs are not asking it to do so. The Great Depression farmer in Wickard, Roscoe Filburn, was prohibited from growing wheat, and that ban, however unwise, could be reinstated today. Even during the New Deal the government never claimed that nonconsumers of wheat were affecting interstate wheat prices, or contemplated forcing everyone to buy wheat in order to do so.
    The crux of the matter is that by arrogating to itself plenary police powers, the government crossed a line that Justice Anthony Kennedy drew in his Lopez concurrence. The “federal balance,” he wrote, “is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of government has tipped the scale too far.”
    ***
    The constitutional questions the Affordable Care Act poses are great, novel and grave, as much today as they were when they were first posed in an op-ed on these pages by the Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey on September 18, 2009. The appellate circuits are split, as are legal experts of all interpretative persuasions.
    The Obama Administration and its allies are already planning to attack the Court’s credibility and legitimacy if it overturns the Affordable Care Act. They will claim it is a purely political decision, but this should not sway the Justices any more than should the law’s unpopularity with the public.
    The stakes are much larger than one law or one President. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court’s answers may constitute a hinge in the history of American liberty and limited and enumerated government. The Justices must decide if those principles still mean something.

  29. this was on C4P from the american spectator sorry its so long but worth reading: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/27/the-plot-to-get-rush/print

    Governor Palin Targeted by Media Matters
    Posted on March 28 2012 – 1:13 AM – Posted by: Stacy Drake

    Governor Palin tweeted a link to the following fascinating article by Jeffrey Lord over at The American Spectator titled, “The Plot to Get Rush” with the words, “My, my, my”… It was a set up. From start to finish.

    A quite specific, quite detailed plot to get Rush Limbaugh, ruin his career, and drive him off the air.
    Next targets? Sean Hannity and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
    Lots to cover here.

    Let’s start with Mr. Angelo Carusone.
    Who is Angelo Carusone? Today he is now the “Director of Online Strategy for Media Matters for America.”
    But a few years back? He was just your basic left-wing law student with a standard left-wing passion. That passion? Totalitarian-style censorship.
    Let’s stop here for a moment for a brief bit of historical background — not a detour but a very necessary context.
    It is a big mistake — a really big mistake — to dismiss what’s being done to Rush Limbaugh as just some crazy guys at Media Matters.

    V
    V go to article to read much more there… might be worth posting entire thing here on His44
    V

    What is it Angelo Carusone is quoted as doing in that 2010 Raw Story interview? A story that was in fact focused on Glenn Beck?
    Here’s the verbatim.
    …Carusone is mounting similar campaigns targeting Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and CNN.
    Beck is now off Fox’s air.
    The Rush campaign is now in progress — but in spite of all this, in fact precisely because of all this, his audience is sticking — not to mention getting pretty damn mad.
    CNN? What did these poor struggling media mushies do? No idea. But they have somehow offended the sensibilities of Commissar Carusone.
    But Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity? They have received their warning.
    The Political Police are out there. Commissar Carusone is keeping his lists. The Media Matters secret donors, carefully operating in the shadows, have the bucks to enforce the Commissar.
    Is this still America?
    Only if we fight back.

  30. A quite specific, quite detailed plot to get Rush Limbaugh, ruin his career, and drive him off the air.

    ==================

    What, Limbaugh didn’t really say all that nasty stuff? Someone faked his videos? /sarcasm

  31. admin
    March 27th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
    ———–
    A weakened commerce clause. Whoever thought commerce clause could be overturned!

  32. Tim, you’re right, they should just play that video of Obama from the primary campaign in the court.

  33. huh, Toby Harnden is using the same video and talking about the irony.

    http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html

    Supreme irony? Top court poised to throw out Obamacare in echo of case Obama made against Hillary Clinton

    It is a tad unfortunate that just days after the White House embraced the term “Obamacare” – previously regarded on the Left as a pejorative label – a majority of the nine Supreme Court justices have given strong indications they will rule it unconstitutional.

    Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.

  34. From Toby Harnden’s article: A video from the American Crossroads:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

    If Obamacare is thrown out it is likely to be a political disaster for Obama, and could very well be a nail in the coffin of his re-election hopes. Some Democrats believe such an outcome could allow Obama to run against a right-wing Supreme Court as well as a right-win, do-nothing Congress.

    But it would be difficult to portray Justice Kennedy is an obstructionist Republican, just as it will be hard to run against a Congress that is controlled in one chamber by the Democrats. And running as an outsider while living at 1600 Pennsylvania? Good luck with that.

    Given Obama’s open mic gaffe – “After my election, I have more flexibility” – yesterday, the potential for creating a narrative that the President is a slippery, disingenuous campaigner is very real. American Crossroads, the Republican super PAC, has already been quick off the mark with this web ad on Obama as a health care flip flopper:

  35. This is a tweet from the Journolister, Ezra Klein

    You can mark the point — page 14 — when the liberal justices decide Verrilli is screwing up and step in to make his argument for him.

  36. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/anti-obamacare-lawyer-makes-romneys-argument/449591

    If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate based on the theory argued by Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states that filed lawsuits against Obamacare, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign could get a big boost from the ruling.

    Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.

    “I do think the States could pass this mandate,” Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other.”

    Romney has argued throughout the presidential primary that Massachusetts has the ability, under the 10th Amendment, to enact an individual mandate for health insurance.

  37. If the decision of the SCOTUS is to keep ObaMAOcare, then it will excite his base; but the base will be with him no matter what. I would say they would be with him even if he had been the one that killed Trayvon or was an axe murderer; they are insane and do not have the country at heart. I find myself repeatedly asking what are they thinking and talking about. Now the meme is ‘how dare you disrepect the office and the President.” I guess it is essentially the ‘free stuff’ people; shame on them that is not what built this country.

    There will be cheating and military type force…that is the only way he can be reselected again. Heaven help the citizens if an opponent in the general is anything but equally tenacious; guerilla warfare tactics are mandatory and that will take a General, not a Lieutenant.

    It is very plain to see that the powers that be want Romney, demand Romney, and will accept no one but Romney as the nominee. That choice is at the peril of every man, woman and child in the country born and yet born. However, the nominee will not be decided soon and there are still some unknown events likely to happen, remember the October surprise that was often spoken about last election? If everyone who supports ABO does not use the gift of “…I will have more flexibility after the election” which may well be the silver bullet then there may not be a perfect storm to defeat him. Romney wants to win the White House, the other oppponents want to win to save the country.

    It will be crucial how those opposed to ObaMAOcare react should the SCOTUS uphold ObaMAOcare. Reading the justices, just like judges, is like reading tea leaves and I have no faith in any government entity at this point, not one little bit. Defeat just could be the rallying call that will unite the Republicans like no other; the question then becomes are there enough people who really love this country more than ‘stuff.’

  38. gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 2:39 am
    —————–

    Completely agree. No more Greek columns, fireworks, messiah drama and such. Give us the good old fashioned politics where they can be reasonably trusted and predictable.

  39. TRIFECTA of Failures for Obama this week- Who would have guessed according to what we depend on as media reportage? Now that MSM has scrapped stoking the recent supposed cold blooded killing of a 17yr old, changing horses, focusing on the animosity after the fact of Christy Brinkley’s divorce? Cover for Obama’s ‘AHCA’ as the SC’s initial reaction after 2 days of hearings is looking unfavorably on ObamaCare when a majority of the public’s eyes are focused on the court?
    _________________

    First:

    Holder Loses In Militia Case: ‘An Extraordinary Defeat for Federal Authorities’

    DETROIT – A federal judge dismissed the most serious charges Tuesday against seven members of a Michigan militia who were rounded up as homegrown extremists accused of plotting war against the U.S., saying their expressed hatred of law enforcement didn’t amount to conspiracy against the government.

    The decision is an embarrassment for the government, which secretly planted an informant and an FBI agent inside the Hutaree militia four years ago and claimed members were armed for war in rural southern Michigan.

    U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Other weapons crimes tied to the alleged conspiracies also were dismissed.

    “The judge had a lot of guts,” defense attorney William Swor said. “It would have been very easy to say, `The heck with it,’ and hand it off to the jury. But the fact is she looked at the evidence, and she looked at it very carefully.”

    Another attorney, Richard Helfrick, said: “It’s a good day for the First and Second amendments.”

    h.. w.. breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/27/Holder-Loses-Militia-Case-An-Extraordinary-Defeat-for-Federal-Authorities
    ………….

    Second:

    More Fail than Fact in Obama’s ‘Road’ Movie

    An analysis published Wednesday by FactCheck.org identifies four more factual problems with Obama’s campaign film “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

    The film says “17 million kids could no longer be denied for preexisting conditions,” implying all of them were being denied care before the federal health care law was passed. But that’s the total number of kids who could potentially be denied coverage or charged higher premiums if they sought coverage on the individual market.

    It also implies that Obama has reined in the costs of health care premiums — which “had been rising three times the rate of inflation,” as the film says. But the law hasn’t reined in premiums, which still rose three times more than inflation last year. In fact, experts say some of the recent growth was caused by the law, which requires more generous coverage.

    The film suggests that Obama refused to compromise on health care. Obama did hold out for a comprehensive bill, but there was compromise along the way, including the decision to drop the “public option” that he once championed. Later, he called the law “nine-tenths of a loaf.”

    On the auto bailout, the video…suggests that Bush gave away $13 billion to auto companies without demanding action on their part, when, in fact, Bush required them to come up with the so-called economic viability plans by March 31, 2009. Obama then used the plans to force the companies into bankruptcy and force the restructuring of the companies.

    h… w… breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/23/more-fail-than-fact-in-obamas-road-movie
    ………….

    Third:

    Obamacare Gets Slapped Around By Supreme Court

    By all accounts, today’s Supreme Court oral arguments were extremely lively. The hearing, which covered the individual mandate, matched the conservative constitutional wing of the Court – and Justice Kennedy – against the liberal wing of the Court, which inserted itself into the actual argumentation rather than asking questions.

    It’s worth noting up front that oral arguments rarely decide Supreme Court cases. Rather, they grant the public a window into the thinking of the Justices prior to the ruling.

    The lawyer for the government was Donald Verrilli; the lawyer for the State of Florida, which stands in for all states challenging Obamacare, was Paul Clement.

    The Case For the Individual Mandate

    Verrilli reportedly stumbled his way through his opening statement, which touched on all the basic Obamacare talking points: access to health insurance, lack of “affordable health insurance,” and supposed “discrimination against people based on their medical history” in the private market. The legal justification for Obamacare, Verrilli said, could be found in the Commerce Clause – the clause which states that the feds have the power “To regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Over time, the Courts have read this power more and more broadly, stating that many things that affect interstate commerce can be regulated, even if they only affect interstate commerce indirectly. The Court has never held, however, that the federal government can mandate individual purchase of product.

    Everyone recognizes that Justice Kennedy is, in all likelihood, the deciding vote for or against Obamacare in this case. It was surprising, therefore, to see Kennedy jump into the fray immediately, asking aggressive questions about the legislation. “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Kennedy asked, querying whether the government could force people to buy insurance and then justify that use of force by claiming that it was regulating commerce. Verrilli elided the question. Justice Scalia, however, chimed in, asking, “if I’m in any market at all, my failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation”? Once again, Verrilli attempted to avoid the question. Then Justice Roberts joined in, asking whether the government could “require you to buy a cell phone”? And, yet again, Verrilli sidestepped. So Justice Alito got in on the act with a semi-comic hypothetical: could the government force somebody to buy burial services, since at some point, everyone will need to be buried, and somebody will have to pay for it? Verrilli struggled to fend off the attack – and ultimately, failed.

    Finally, Justice Ginsburg stepped in to make Verrilli’s defense for him. Rather than asking questions, she simply stated, “If you’re going to have insurance, that’s how insurance works.” Verrilli, recognizing his cue, launched into a diatribe … and was cut off by Justice Kennedy, who asked a telling question: “Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?” Verrilli was once again at a loss. The weakness of his argument became even clearer when Justice Scalia asked whether the government could force people to buy broccoli, since there is a market in food to which many people do not have proper access.

    And once again, Justice Ginsburg stepped in to save Verrilli. And then Justice Breyer stepped in, backing up Ginsburg. Finally, so did Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. The lines were clear: this wasn’t about Verrilli anymore. This would be Ginsburg and Breyer and Sotomayor and Kagan arguing against Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Justice Thomas almost never participates in oral argument, which he considers a massive waste of time, but there is no doubt that he will stand against Obamacare, which he will surely consider an exercise of federal power not granted under the Constitution.

    Throughout the day, Verrilli struggled with the basics of his argument. Justice Scalia bashed him about on Tenth Amendment grounds, stating that “the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.” Justice Roberts backed him on that point, explaining that “the States are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal Government is.” And Justice Kennedy went even further, stating that the individual mandate “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

    Justice Scalia even gave Verrilli a tutorial on simple economics, explaining that if you want people to buy health care coverage when they’re young and healthy, you have to allow insurance companies to deny them coverage based on pre-existing conditions. As Justice Scalia pointed out, the problem Obamacare was designed to solve was the lack of affordable healthcare coverage for people who couldn’t afford it. That problem was caused by insurance companies having to spend too much thanks to regulations preventing them from taking into account pre-existing conditions. That regulation, in turn, incentivized people not to buy insurance until they’re unhealthy. That situation made insurance unaffordable. As Scalia said, “It’s a self-created problem.”

    Is The Individual Mandate a Tax?

    The hearing then moved to the question of whether this was a “tax,” and therefore an exercise of the government’s power to tax under the Constitution. Even the liberal justices seemed stumped by this argument. Justice Kagan asked, “here we have a case in which Congress determinedly said, this is not a tax, and the question is why should that be irrelevant?” Justice Scalia, obviously annoyed by this whole line of inquiry, smacked Verrilli around rhetorically: “You’re saying that all the discussion we had earlier about how this is one big uniform scheme and the Commerce Clause, blah, blah, blah, it really doesn’t matter. This is a tax …. Extraordinary.”

    The Case Against the Individual Mandate

    Clement led off his argument by explaining that the Commerce Clause “does not give Congress the … power to compel people to enter commerce, to create commerce essentially in the first place.” Justice Kagan tried to make the argument that Congress typically regulates at the “point of sale” – meaning that if you want to buy insurance, you have to buy it in a certain way. All the current law does is speed that up, since everyone will presumably need insurance. Clement shot her down, explaining that some people don’t want to buy insurance, and should be free not to do so. Forcing people to buy insurance is a different proposition from telling people how they must buy insurance if they want to buy it.

    Eventually, the liberal Justices began rewriting legislation for Congresspeople, trying to prod Clement to state how an Obamacare-type law could be Constitutional. Sotomayor asked if it would be Constitutional to force everyone to pay a tax, but give them a tax credit if they have health insurance. Clement answered that it might be. Herein lies the problem for conservatives: liberals will eventually find a way to ram a form of Obamacare through the courts. That’s why they must be stopped legislatively next time.

    Perhaps the funniest exchange of the day came when Justice Breyer, in the guise of a question, began arguing the liberal case for Obamacare. He quasi-asked – the question took more than two pages in the transcript — whether the federal government has already Constitutionally forced people to act by restricting them from growing marijuana in their home, or wheat in their back yard; he asked whether Congress could mandate affirmative action; he asked whether Congress could mandate a minimum speed limit; he asked whether Congress could mandate inoculations. Just as Breyer was about to get to his point, Scalia interjected, “Answer those questions in inverse order.” At the Supreme Court, that’s better than Second City.

    The key question was asked by Justice Breyer, and it really cut to the heart of the matter: “Do you think you can, better than the actuaries or better than the members of Congress who worked on it, look at the 40 million people who are not insured and say which ones next year will or will not use, say, emergency care?” This, of course, was not the point – the point is whether it’s an individual right not to buy health insurance. But this is also the crux of the liberal argument: the experts know better than you do what’s good for you. So sit down and shut up.

    That was essentially what the liberal justices tried to do, filibustering Clement until the conservative justices stepped in to police. And this is worth noting: the conservative justices did not step in and make the affirmative case on behalf of Clement, as the liberal justices did with Verrilli. That, in and of itself, is proof that Constitutional conservative judges are less ideological and more textually-bound than their liberal counterparts.

    The arguments continued at length, but the Justices’ examination of Verrilli and Clement were largely comprehensive in scope.

    Conclusions

    It seems likely that the individual mandate will be struck down 5-4, with Kennedy providing the deciding vote. Tomorrow, we move on to the question of severability – if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, must the entire bill be scrapped? Stay tuned.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/27/SCOTUS-arguments-individual-mande

  40. Even Obama’s benefactor can’t catch a break. The issue is rooted in principle rather than pecuniary interests. They’ve reduced the initial amount he was fined as a penalty-
    _________________

    Soros Loses Insider Trading Conviction Appeal

    Billionaire funder of left-wing causes George Soros, 81, lost his appeal to have his 2002 insider trading conviction overturned. The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber refused to consider whether France had violated his rights, reports Bloomberg News.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/soros-appeal-of-insider-trading-case-rejected-by-echr-high-court.html

  41. Its a damned if you do, damned if it doesnt, if Obamacare gets tossed, then the republicans can hang that albatross round Obama’s re-election by basically saying, we wasted billions upon billions on it when everyone knew it was unconstitutional and unworkable. That money could have been spent elsewhere in a recession.

  42. Mrs Smith, the stars are definitely aligning against dumbo…..sometimes fate just hands you shit and its his turn.

  43. IRS Poised to Link Tax Collection to Passport Application?

    Unless one is being criminally investigated, current guidelines allow U.S. residents to apply for and receive a U.S. Passport. The buzz in the tax community suggests that could soon change. It appears to based upon a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from March of last year. Failure to comply with the new regulation would result in a $500 penalty. This below is from the IRS a year later.

    Section 301.6039E-1(b)(1) describes the required information to be provided by passport applicants: the applicant’s full name and, if applicable, previous name; address of regular or principal place of residence within the country of residence and, if different, mailing address; taxpayer identifying number (TIN); and date of birth. Section 301.6039E-1(b)(2) provides that the required information must be submitted with the passport application, regardless of where the applicant resides at the time it is submitted.

    On March 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed a new regulation for the passport application process under the guise of the Paperwork Reduction Act. As they deemed it “not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866,” they decided a regulatory assessment was not required.

    This document contains proposed regulations that provide information reporting rules for certain passport applicants. These regulations do not provide information reporting rules for individuals applying to become permanent residents (green card holders). This document also withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking (57 FR 61373) published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1992.

    The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1359.

    Among other considerations, the proposed change would seem to make it clear the new information will be used for “tax compliance” purposes.

    Comments are specifically requested concerning:

    The collection of information in these proposed regulation is in § 301.6039E-1(b). The information is required to be provided by individuals who apply for a United States passport or a renewal of a United States passport. The information provided by passport applicants will be used by the IRS for tax compliance purposes.

    The GAO report cited above was explicit in terms of what it was looking into. Though it primarily looked at a small number of supposedly high risk instances, the new regulation would apply to everyone, excluding those on official government business. They do always seems to manage to exclude themselves from new laws and regulations, somehow.

    Potential for Using Passport Issuance to Increase Collection of Unpaid Taxes

    According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as of the end of fiscal year 2010, the balance of reported unpaid federal taxes was about $330 billion. Given the many challenges that IRS faces, the enforcement of the tax laws and the tax code is on GAO’s list of high-risk areas. GAO was asked to (1) determine, to the extent possible, the magnitude of known unpaid federal taxes for individuals who were issued passports in fiscal year 2008; and (2) identify examples of passport recipients who have known unpaid federal taxes. GAO reviewed data from the Department of State (State) and IRS. To identify examples for detailed audit and investigation, GAO chose a nonrepresentative selection of 25 passport recipients based on a number of factors, including amount of taxes owed. These case studies were chosen, among other things, by the more egregious amount of federal taxes owed and cannot be generalized beyond the cases presented.

    Ironically, a year old report indicated that more people than ever seem to be willing to give up their U.S. citizenship due to concerns from the IRS.

    More U.S. Citizens Toss Passports as IRS Seeks Hidden Assets

    The number of U.S. taxpayers renouncing their citizenship more than doubled to 1,534 in 2010 from 742 in 2009, according to the Internal Revenue Service. More taxpayers renounced their U.S. citizenship in 2010 than in the previous three years combined, or in any year since at least 2003, according to data compiled by Andrew Mitchel, an international tax attorney in Essex, Connecticut.

    The government has the right and needs to have the power to collect taxes. Whether this is a good, or bad idea, could be driven by other factors. If more people are willing to abandon the U.S. for tax purposes, is it becoming increasingly over-taxed, assuming most citizens pay taxes somewhere? AT the same time, will the new requirement discourage some amount of international travel? And, is there anything wrong with a government that makes a decision impacting all taxpayers, at the same time it can deem it not the people’s business to know it’s happening, while also excluding themselves from any new regulation? In an era when more and more people are sensing the encroachment of big government, this new action will do little to reverse that impression.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/26/irs-poised-to-link-tax-collection-to-passport-application

  44. Just now on the news it was reported that three states are starting a revolt agains tthe Federal govenment re drilling. Utah has started action for the federal government to return over 22 million acres to the state in order to drill for the abundant shale oil. Good on them. New Mexico and another state was mentioned as well.

    Also, the highest gas prices seem to be in Michigan…..the home of automobile manufacturing. Is that ironic or what?

    I wonder of the Queen of Spain has made backup plans? She might want to start.

  45. moononpluto
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Its a damned if you do, damned if it doesnt, if Obamacare gets tossed, then the republicans can hang that albatross round Obama’s re-election by basically saying, we wasted billions upon billions on it when everyone knew it was unconstitutional and unworkable. That money could have been spent elsewhere in a recession.
    ____________

    True enough- My fear is Obama, acting as Jesse James with pen in hand, has been slowly eroding the Constitution by Executive Order with his prolific signing statements. I’m just hoping there is a silver lining in this brackish cloud highlighting all of Obama’s failures as reason enough for preventing his re-election.

  46. moononpluto
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Oh, yeah- Trayvon has sputtered and may not be a good enough reason for justifying a race war- also a plus.

    Reading this morning, they are digging into Zimm’s background for negative occasions apparently for neutralizing the Hip-Hop appearance and burglary apparatus found with a pouch confiscated by police containing stolen jewelry.

  47. Here is why this case is significant from a political standpoint:

    If we get the favorable decision I believe we will—and I say if because when I see the so called Harvard intelligencia jumping over to my side on the issue of constitutionality, after having previously agreed with that oracle of wisdom (pronounced dumbshit) Pelosi–in re. its constitutional—are you kidding, I become how shall I put it a bit queezy, and second guessing myself, but if we get a favorable decision and if that decision says what Nano said–we have a federal government whose powers are confined to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution–if the majority goes that far even by way of dictum, then we have a criterion by which we can objectively measure so much of what Obama had done in other areas by way of executive order. In that case, I would argue that much of what he as done by way of quasi legislative executive order is likewise constrained, and in appropriate cases unconstitutional. The one are where that dog would not hunt, obviously, is foreign policy, because outside of a formal declaration of war, the law is well settled that the president is supreme. But of course that decision was rendered back in the bad old days when politics stopped at the waters edge–a quaint notion in todays world when deputy secretaries of state bitch and moan to Red China about the State of Arizona. (Note: the biggest farce of all was for MS. Magazine to ignore Hillary and put that idiot Pelosi on the front cover–as if she has done anything worthwhile for the country. They had might as well worship Marie Antoinette.)

  48. Reading this morning, they are digging into Zimm’s background for negative occasions apparently for neutralizing the Hip-Hop appearance and burglary apparatus found with a pouch confiscated by police containing stolen jewelry.
    ————————-
    Don’t you mean Tray Mrs. Smith?

  49. These people who fancy themselves to be civil libertarians–I mean those who are serious as opposed to mere possseurs, need, yes, I will say it again, need for the individual mandate to be struck down. Their turf–the issues they claim to care about is under violent assault by this Administration, and the question they need to ask themselves even if they are prepared to compromise their principles because of some glandular misfunction when it comes to Tray’s daddy is this: would they trust a Republican President if there was no limiting principle under the commmerce clause? No . . . they are too stupid. Fuck them and their double standards.

  50. As we wrote: Instant Karma. Love, just love those Obama attacking Hillary Clinton on the mandate videos. The chickens….

  51. “Don’t you mean Tray Mrs. Smith?”
    _______________

    No- There is a report published today about Zimmerman stating he has a police record recording a felony because of battery on a law enforcement officer in 2005.

    h.. w.. policeleak.com/post/19671656352/george-michael-zimmermans-criminal-record
    ________________________

    Honoring Trayvon-

    Police: Trayvon protesters ransack store
    North Miami Beach Walgreens incident caught on video

    http://www.local10.com/news/Police-Trayvon-protesters-ransack-store/-/1717324/9719674/-/xctonpz/-/index.html

    NORTH MIAMI BEACH, Fla. –

    North Miami Beach police said surveillance video shows dozens of high school students demonstrating in the Trayvon Martin case Friday ransacking a Walgreens store.

    The incident occurred during a walkout from North Miami Beach Senior High School in support of Martin, 17, who was fatally shot in Sanford. Protesters have been calling for the arrest of George Zimmerman, 28, who has not been charged because he claimed self-defense in the shooting, according to police.

  52. Laugh, or cry?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/03/27/fox-pulls-ben-stiller-movie-neighborhood-watch-per-our-expose/

    Fox has decided to pull the trailer for the Ben Stiller movie Neighborhood Watch per our exclusive story from yesterday.

    The Hollywood Reporter, as usual, has written its own version without crediting Forbes. But I told you yesterday afternoon that this movie would be a problem because of the Trayvon Martin killing. Neighborhood Watch is a comedy, but the trailer suggests Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and Billy Crudup menacing a suburban neighborhood.

    The studio says it’s sticking for the time being to the July 27th release date, hoping that Martin and the whole situation will be forgotten in four months. It’s a $100 million gamble. My guess is Neighborhood Watch will get moved to the fall, or next January.

    All together now: “RACISTS!”

  53. admin, I love those videos but I want someone in the MSM to come back and talk about how she would have done it differently and rightly so(as you allude to in your post). Right now the impression left is that if she were elected and she had instituted a mandate it would have been no different. And that is not the correct picture.

  54. Whatever. It does not change the facts of what happened here. At the end of the day, the evidence may show that they are both thugs. But one was the aggressor here and the evidence adduced thus far suggests that that was the late great Tray. Hardly the grist for a national day of morning. But what the hell, the Whitney Houston story is finally running out of steam, so we need some new bullshit to trouble the living stream.

    Hearts with one purpose alone
    Through summer and winter seem
    Enchanted to a stone
    To trouble the living stream—Yeats, Easter 1916

  55. Mrs. Smith, I read that Z does NOT have a felony conviction of any sort. Someone (can’t remember where) posted the police report of that incident. It seems that a police officer grabbed his friend’s arm in some crowd, and Z reflexively went to pull his hand off.

    Stupid thing to do (you NEVER put a hand on a police officer, even if they are being a dick), but there was no fight, no battery. The cop handcuffed Z and took him in, but all charges were dropped, as even the police dept thought it was bullshit.

    BTW, he would NOT be able to legally get a license to own a gun were he a felon, so that right there tells you the story of a felony is a lie.

  56. OT, but my 5 year old granddaughter is dressed and twirling outside in the drizzle in her favorite frill-laden lace-and-petticoats princess dress, and has adorned her hair with a giant blue clip-on flower. She is also wearing her big clunky stompy boots, whacking things with hefty sticks, and keeps trying to transport drowning beetles and waterlogged snails into the house, along with various rocks.

    She picks and chooses gender roles however she damn well pleases. Good for her.

  57. HillaryforTexas
    March 28th, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Mrs. Smith, I read that Z does NOT have a felony conviction of any sort. Someone (can’t remember where) posted the police report of that incident. It seems that a police officer grabbed his friend’s arm in some crowd, and Z reflexively went to pull his hand off.
    _______________

    Zimmerman originally was charged with a felony. Most likely the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor after the case was heard in court. As reflected here in the police report.

    The reduction of charges was conveniently left out of the published news report most likely because Trayvon supporters are scrambling to cast Z in a bad light. I don’t have a problem with it..

    …………

    ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL

    10/05/1983
    07/18/2005

    Div 10

    OKane, Julie H

    Criminal Felony

    Closed

    CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
    BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

    2005-MM-010436-A-O

    ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL

    10/05/1983
    07/18/2005

    Orlando
    Miller, W Michael

    Misdemeanor

    Closed

    http://www.policeleak.com/post/19671656352/george-michael-zimmermans-criminal-record
    ___________________

    wbboei,

    reminder-

    recalibrate your phone. Easier hearing you when you call…

  58. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/28/MSNBC-ZImmerman-Ellipses

    Here’s what MSNBC staff and NBC News published.

    “This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a police dispatcher from his car. His father has said that Zimmerman is Hispanic, grew up in a multiracial family, and is not racist.

    The quote gives the impression Zimmer was somehow equating the fact that Martin was black with his looking suspicious, or “up to no good.” Here is what MSNBC/NBC News left out thanks to a convenient ellipsis.

    ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good, [begin ellipsis] or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic? [end ellipsis]

    ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

    Not only did Zimmerman not equate Martin’s skin color with his looking suspicious; he didn’t even initiate the comment. It was simply a response to the police dispatcher. What the full quote does seem to make certain is that at that period in time, Zimmerman wasn’t even positive as to what race Martin was. He was speculating based upon what he could determine at night in the rain to answer the police dispatcher.

    From the full quote, we don’t know if race was even on Zimmerman’s mind before the dispatcher brought it up. There are often cases when it makes sense to shorten a quote with an ellipsis. This isn’t one of them.

    The only intent of MSNBC’s omission appears to be to cast George Zimmerman in the harshest light possible as regards issues of race. MSNBC and NBC should not be using editing devices to lead people to a specific conclusion – a conclusion that appears to be unrelated to the text they are citing.

    ______________

    Why do we, or their immediate victims, have no recourse from behavior like this?

    Of all the frivolous law suits I wish someone would find a way to bring this one.

  59. ShortTermer
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:28 am

    ——————
    Well said and exactly the same scenario I have been seeing since the 2008 elections and the false messiah showing up to steal the show.

  60. Justice Kennedy argued today it may be more extreme to pick & choose parts of law to overturn than to just strike down the whole thing.

    Hmm, ominous…who knows, maybe Obama really wants it tossed out.

  61. I don’t know what Carville is thinking, but I am so angry and disgusted with democrats. After listening to some fool democrat on Greta last night I broke a deal I made with my self and called Amy Klobuchar to tell her what a cowardly fool she was/is.

    Honestly, supposedly she felt so strongly that Obamacare was the right thing to do that she flew in the face of her constituents to vote for it, yet she couldn’t bring her self to name it a tax to protect it from challenge.

    She thought she could fool the Supreme Court by saying: When I stand on this foot it is a penalty, when I stand on this other foot it is a tax. Never mind that it is still just me standing there. (I always make it personal with my representatives because I expect them to represent me not the party they belong to)

    So she foisted Obama on us and denied us true health care reform when the time was so right, and they she made such a cowardly mess of what she did do and wasted four years.

    Here we are four years and trillions of dollars later and nothing, nothing has been accomplished. American’s are groaning under the burden of Obama and Carville thinks what has went on will be good for Democrats? He is a fool too.

    And there is a movement to add a post it note to any gas pump you use thanking Obama voters which I hope you will all take part in.

    As they explain on legal Insurrection:

    Unlike the astroturfing Media Matters Twitterers who make a small number of people seem like a mass movement because they can hit a “send” button all day long, this is one-at-a-time, hand-to-pump combat.

  62. Good article admin. I am sooooo happy that Obamacare WILL be scrubbed. What bothers me about all this, though, is that there are members of the Supreme Court who will actually vote to uphold it. Are they that ideologically compromised? That’s disturbing since the four in question are all Democratic appointees, right? So, please tell me which political party is more of a danger to our personal freedoms when you have Supreme Court Justices chosen by Democratic presidents doing their limited best to force Americans into something that undeniably infringes on a citizen’s right to make his or her own decisions on how to lead a lawful life as he or she sees fit. These Justices apparently are willing to do this which leads me further away from any thoughts of how pro-little people the Democrats are. It’s a farce. I cannot believe that I have supported this political party through 2006. They are authotarian aligned as far as I am concerned. I am more and more inclined to libertarian thoughts. I prefer not to miss my rights AFTER they have been taken away, but to fight to keep them from an overzealous and overreaching government.

  63. Mrs. Smith
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:39 am
    ——————–

    Good post, especially the summary. Thanks for posting.

  64. MoonOnPluto, check this out:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

    Reporting from Washington—
    The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

    Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

    The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

    One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

    Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed with that proposition.

  65. ShortTermer
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Romney wants to win the White House, the other oppponents want to win to save the country.

    __________

    That is it in a nut shell. I wish every one here would read:
    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/26/wall-street-insider-why-i-do-this/

    And if you are being paid to promote a view – just stop.

    You are in league with people who want to destroy American Liberty and Freedom and even if you do not live here, where will you be when those rights are gone? And the same goes for people who agree to cheat in elections. It IS and individual choice.

  66. In The Court, A “Politically Dangerous” Argument Obama First Advanced

    This time four years ago, Barack Obama was the one campaigning against the individual mandate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign warned, presciently, that his argument would return to haunt him.

    Mar 28, 2012

    On February 1, 2008, in the frantic run-up to Super Tuesday, Senator Hillary Clinton’s aides convened a conference call with reporters to sound a note of outrage over a round of mailings from Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

    The mailers targeted a central feature of Clinton’s health care plan, a mandate that Obama said “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it,” headed with an image of a couple that recalled the “Harry and Louise” campaign the insurance industry ran against the Clinton Administration attempt at a health care overhaul.

    The call became a distraction when one health care expert, Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, let his fury at the Democrat-on-Democrat attack get the better of him.

    “I am personally outraged at the picture used in this mailing,” he said. “It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Ill…. I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”

    But it was Clinton’s top policy aide, a politically astute policy wonk named Neera Tanden, whose warning that day sounds particularly relevant right now. The attack was, she warned, “politically dangerous.” Tanden went on to help craft Obama’s health care law from the Department of Health and Human Services; she’s now one of its key defenders as president of the Center for American Progress.

    The attack, Obama aides said at the time, polled well, however. It was a bit thin in its substance — Obama’s mailer cited the Daily Iowan, a student newspaper — and Obama’s own alternative was barely developed, but could involved, he had told Tim Russert, “charg[ing] a penalty if they try to sign up later.” The comment never went anywhere, but Paul Krugman kind of liked the idea.

    The main thrust of Obama’s health care talk, though, was an assault on Clinton, not an elaboration of his own plan, and as Toby Harnden recalled yesterday, Obama articulated a liberal critique of what is now ObamaCare that begins a lot like the conservative one.

    “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance,” he said in a South Carolina debate.

    He continued, however, that the real solution was simply to spend more: “I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care,” he said. “The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasizes lowering costs.”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/in-the-court-a-politically-dangerous-argument-o

  67. Thanks JanH. Karma. The scrawny ass is getting kicked with his own words and attacks.

    The RNC is having fun:

  68. the Hip-Hop appearance and burglary apparatus found with a pouch confiscated by police containing stolen jewelry.

    ==================

    Really? Last I saw, the ‘burglary apparatus’ was a flat screwdriver (ie the ordinary kind, not a phillips) and the jewelry was not identified as stolen. TM said it was a gift but at that time refused to name the giver.

    Has something new come out? From what source?

  69. 1:45 video
    ——-
    tsk tsk
    #############
    I was interested enough in the AFP rally held outside SC yesterday to watch the live stream. 4000 attended. I loved Sen DeMint who stood up to mic and greeted the crowd by saying “Welcome back!” Then he mentioned how Pelosi and Reid think the tea party has evaporated.

    It was good.

  70. turndownobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    ——————
    Ok, now you are adding words tha I have yet to see reported which seems to be an attempt to influence much like propaganda is used to influence thought. You use the word “gift” which would imply something innocuous instead of just saying that his friend “gave” him the jewelry. Additionally, the man who found the tool described it as both a screwdriver and a burglary tool. He saw it, so i will respect his judgment as to what it could be used for, as you should probably do yourself. Sometimes you are too willing to suppor the least likely scenario. The guy is walking around with what sounds like women’s jewelry, and that doesn’t sound suspicious at all? Perhaps he was bringing this jewelry to a local bank to deposit it in a safe deposit box for his mother. Yeah, the more I thnk about it, the more I believe that to be the most likely scenario.

  71. Smart Americans agree with us: it’s too early and we need more facts to make up our minds:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/rasmussen-does-poll-on-whether.html

    One-third (33%) of adults believe crime watch volunteer George Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder in the shooting death of the Florida teenager, while 15% think Zimmerman acted in self-defense, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But 52% of Americans are not sure.

    Thank you, 52% of of America.

    Given the outrage in the black community over the incident, it’s not surprising that 55% of black Americans think the man who killed Martin should be found guilty of murder.

    Wait! It is surprising. It’s surprising that only 55% have given in to the pressure. Don’t you think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson think they hold more sway than that?

    Fifty-five percent (55%) of whites, 36% of blacks and 42% of those of other races are not sure at this point whether it was murder or self-defense.

    Thank you, people of all colors, who refrain from judging where you have not studied all the evidence. This is heartening news of rationality and respect for due process.

  72. I am currently waching, for a second time today, a dvd entitled “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West”. Less you have any doubts, turndownobama, you would be a kuffar, and in certain Islamic circles, you could be murdered just because you are one, and that would be acceptable. They are not your friend, no matter how fair you try to be.

  73. Admin, my last post is in moderation. There’s nothing bad in it, and no links are attached. Please release. Thanks

  74. Here are a few paragraphs from an interesting post at markamerica. Excerpted from markamerica:

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No. It’s because you’re going — in the health care market, you’re going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get, getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow — that — to which we’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care.

    Here, Scalia absolutely demonstrates he understands the issue:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, don’t obligate yourself to that. Why — you know?

    And now, for the slam dunk:

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I can’t imagine that that — that the Commerce Clause would — would forbid Congress from taking into account this deeply embedded social norm.
    JUSTICE SCALIA: You could do it. But does that expand your ability to issue mandates to — to the people?

    http://markamerica.com/2012/03/28/did-the-solicitor-general-lie-to-the-supreme-court/

    And more from markamerica:

    What Scalia here recognized is that which I’ve been telling you all along: The government may enact a law forcing somebody to provide a good or a service(I reject that too, by the way) but the fact that the government creates a legal obligation for itself does not give them an additional claim of authority over you.

    A good example is this: You let one of your adult children move their entire family into your home with you, despite the fact that they can or should afford their own domicile on their own, but when you perceive it is too burdensome, you then go to your other adult children and demand they help you support them, since it’s now bankrupting you. Your other adult children would rightly say to you: “Don’t let them live their any longer.”

  75. Sorry, I am way behind on the blog, (at work) – did CSPAN post the audio for today yet?
    Do we know what happened today? Does ObamaCare still suck?

  76. What’s the issue with moderation? People have been noting the increased frequency of its occurence.

  77. @nobama,

    Unless new evidence has turned up, the following is speculation and should be labeled as such, not reported as though it were fact:
    “the Hip-Hop appearance and burglary apparatus found with a pouch confiscated by police containing stolen jewelry.”

    nobama said:
    Additionally, the man who found the tool described it as both a screwdriver and a burglary tool. He saw it, so i will respect his judgment as to what it could be used for [….]”

    tdo:
    That is his opinion. For one thing, the report I saw did not say there was anything special about the screwdriver; apparently it was his opinion that an ordinary screwdriver found in the same backpack as jewelry should be called a ‘burglary’ tool. So what we have is the poster reporting her opinion of his opinion — as though it were fact. (And she even drops out the simple fact “screwdriver” and mentions ONLY the opinion “burglary apparatus”. So now the ordinary simple screwdriver has grown to be “apparatus” suggesting a set of lockpicks, chisels, etc!)

    Actually it all comes back to that one un-named man’s (sfaik unsupported) statement: what the backpack allegedly contained, and what TM allegedly said about it being given by someone. Btw you make a good point. Someone might have “given” it to TM to return to someone else, or for various other reasons other than it being a “gift” to him. Thanks for the correction.

    I’m going out, BBL.

  78. HOLY CRAP!!!! Democrat Sen. Dick “I am a Vietnam war hero – oops I misspoke!” Blumenthal has just launched into a full-throated panicked diatribe against the Supreme Court and their legitimacy.

    Seriously, he is fucking unhinged-sounding. He’s saying that the course loses all credibility is it strikes down Obamacare, that “The court commands no army,it has no money,it depends 4 its power on its credibility & its reputation.” Says that they are presuming the power of Congress if they do this, etc etc.

    I think the Obots in Congress are scared shitless, and are trying to intimidate the justices.

  79. H4T, that sort of dumbass reaction from Blumenthal is the sort of thing that will make SC Justices go, “you know what, screw you, strike it”

    I actually feel as if Dems want it struck down, so they have a war banner for Nov….except for the simple fact most of the country wants it gone and wants it struck down.

  80. This aired last night, is fairly thorough, but leaves out bounty which New Black Panthers advertise [and Rep. Allen West has decried]
    Trayvon Martin: Fact vs. Fiction – WPIX NEW YORK (PIX11)—
    Whenever a news story captures wide attention like the Trayvon Martin shooting, inevitably false information emerges that obscures the facts. This article aims to separate the known facts of the case from rumor and innuendo. Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said at a news conference on Monday, “They killed my son, and now they’re trying to kill his reputation!” -Could she be so concerned about that reputation that she’s trying to trademark it? YES. Sybrina Foster has applied for trademarks for the phrases “Justice for Trayvon” and “I Am Trayvon” for their use in DVDs, CDs and other media. The trademark attorney Foster hired, Kimra Major-Morris said in a written statement that Trayvon Martin’s family is not seeking to profit from the trademarks, but is instead hoping to raise funding, through the trademarks, to help what she calls other victims of racial violence., and not seeking profit.
    -Did Trayvon Martin, 17, have a juvenile criminal record? NO. However, Martin was on a 10-day suspension from his Miami school, Dr. Michael R. Krop High School, when he was shot. It was Trayvon Martin’s third suspension. The one he was serving when he was fatally shot was for a baggie with marijuana residue on it, found in his backpack. An earlier suspension came after school officials found a dozen items of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver, described by a school guard in the suspension report as a “burglary implement” in Martin’s backpack. His other suspension was for vandalism. All three suspensions debunk another unfounded rumor: that Trayvon Martin had been suspended for attacking a bus driver. In fact, a Miami-Dade School District official confirmed on Monday that Martin had no violent infractions on his record. .-Did Hollywood megastar Will Smith tweet a message reading, “WE live in America where a girl that threw flour on Kim Kardashian was arrested on site. But the man who KILLED Trayvon Martin is still free.”? NO. While the message was re-tweeted by dozens of celebrities, including Spike Lee, and hundreds of other Twitter users, the message, was sent by @RealWillSmith. That account turned out to belong to a white man in Tennessee. -Is there an eyewitness who saw the struggle between Martin and his shooter, George Zimmerman? YES. A witness who has given his name as only “John,” spoke off-camera with a reporter from WOFL-TV in Orlando, and described the scuffle between Zimmerman and Martin that he observed. “The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was calling to me, ‘Help help.’ I told him I was calling 911.” The person wearing red during the incident was Zimmerman. The eyewitness description maintains that Martin was beating up Zimmerman before the neighborhood watch captain used his weapon. -Has the Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced an “Obama 2012” hoodie in the wake of the Trayvon Martin case garnering headlines? YES. The drudgereport.com first posted that Obama For America had started marketing a “collegiate hooded sweatshirt” earlier this week. However, that hoodie was added to a collection of dozens of Obama 2012 items for sale, including a different hoodie that the campaign had been marketing for quite some time. -Also, new images of Zimmerman and Martin have emerged. One, of Zimmerman, is a sharp contrast to the photo of him that’s been used most often in news reports, showing an unsmiling, hulking man staring somberly into the camera. A new image of the 28 year-old who remains in hiding, shows him smiling in a friendly manner.Meanwhile, new, recently taken photos of Martin, including a self-portrait, show gold fronts he had applied to his teeth, and show tattoos on his body, including one of his mother’s name, Sybrina.
    http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-tryvon-foster-fact-or-fiction,0,2376948.story

    I know commenters here have been over this pretty well so it is not introduced as anything new, but rather as all from one source.
    Tuesday night NBC Brian Williams did not mention it at all. Early this morning ABC did not mention it either. I began to think it was calming down. However early CBS came down hard in defense of Martin and it seemed to me it was all coming back for a second round.

  81. Betty
    March 28th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    ShortTermer
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Romney wants to win the White House, the other oppponents want to win to save the country.

    __________

    That is it in a nut shell. I wish every one here would read:
    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/26/wall-street-insider-why-i-do-this/

    And if you are being paid to promote a view – just stop.

    You are in league with people who want to destroy American Liberty and Freedom and even if you do not live here, where will you be when those rights are gone? And the same goes for people who agree to cheat in elections. It IS and individual choice.
    ****************

    The thought that Newt and Insanity are in it for the country and not themselves vs Romney, whom you state is in it only for himself is conjecture…quite a stretch in my mind. Does not compute Will Rogers.

  82. Politico’s biased report from today includes this remarkable passage:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74591.html

    The questions showed the justices are wrestling with a real dilemma: Striking the entire health law would be a radical step and could throw the country into an uproar. But they’re not health care experts, and they were clearly worried about the consequences if they pull out pieces of the law and that throws the rest of the health care system into chaos.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the most legally conservative position is to uphold the law and that the decision on what to do with rest of the law should be left to Congress.

    If the justices have to choose between “a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job,” she said.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is viewed as a key swing vote, appeared to align himself with those inclined to throw out the law if the mandate goes.

    If the justices leave part of the law in place, “by reason of the court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider,” Kennedy said.

    He said it would be a “more extreme exercise of judicial power” to do surgery on the legislation — a position endorsed by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said it is “totally unrealistic” to comb through a 2,700-page law.

    “My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone,” Scalia said.

    For Politico doing what a majority of the country wants is “radical”. Why would there be an “uproar” if most people want this Obamination gone?

  83. SCOTUS Obamacare arguments end on Medicaid debate byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer

    Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up three days of health care oral arguments this afternoon with a discussion of whether the national health care law’s expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional.

    Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of 26 states led by Florida, made the case that the expansion of the joint federal/state Medicaid program was coercive to states. Under the health care law, Clement said, if states don’t go along with the expansion, they not only lose out on the new money, but risk forgoing the money that they already receive to implement the existing Medicaid program — a figure that totals $3.3 trillion over 10 years.

    From the get go, the liberal justices on the court pounced on Clement. Justice Elena Kagan said she couldn’t understand how the state receiving a “boat load of money” from the federal government to finance health care for the poor could be seen as coercive, a sentiment echoed by other Democratic-appointed justices on the bench.

    Justice Stephen Breyer also said that the law doesn’t actually say existing funding would be cut off, it only says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has that power.

    Clement responded that the power itself has a coercive effect.

    Even conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against Clement, saying that since the New Deal era, states had become more dependent on the federal government, and thus their sovereignty has been compromised.

    When U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrill defended the Medicaid expansion, however, Roberts also argued that it could be seen as coercive because the states have no real choice but to accept the money.

    Justice Antonin Scalia compared it to an old Jack Benny joke about the phrase, “Your money or your life.” In apparent reference to the famous line in the Godfather, Scalia also said the Medicaid expansion was akin to the federal government making states an offer they couldn’t refuse.

    Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, often considered the swing vote, raised coercion concerns, at one point saying of the Medicaid expansion, “There is no real choice.”

    That said, the Medicaid argument was the toughest one for challengers to the health care law, and it has never succeeded at any level of the court system. It would be surprising if they ruled it unconstitutional, but this would be a moot issue if they struck down the whole law.

  84. Same article, more Politico bias and sheer stupidity:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74591.html

    But after the court’s conservative justices defied expectations by attacking the mandate, the focus of Wednesday’s arguments no longer felt like an academic exercise. The harsh reception Tuesday prompted court watchers to revise their earlier predictions that the mandate was certain to survive, saying it appears to be in more trouble than many had expected.

    Is there really a sane observer that did not expect the “conservative justices” to attack the mandate? Really? They “defied expectations by attacking the mandate” – Really? Didn’t everybody with half a brain or more expect the conservative justices to attack the mandate and the Obama appointees to support the mandate? Wasn’t the only real question observers had before the oral arguments what Kennedy would do?

  85. WWKD… bracelet. Make it red, white and blue…if he votes to down fraudcare…black if he sides with the unholy.

  86. Late last week, Spike Lee re-tweeted the address of ‘George Zimmerman’ to his quarter of a million followers.

    Except it was the wrong address. It was the address of an elderly Florida couple whose son… William George Zimmerman (no relation to shooter) – lived briefly there in 1995. Now the 70-year-old school cafeteria lunch lady with a heart condition and her 72-year-old husband have been forced to move out of danger into a hotel temporarily after receiving hate mail, threats, harassing visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors.

    The woman’s other son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel, “It’s scary because there are people who aren’t mentally right and will take this information and run with it. To endanger people who are innocent because people are angry is not the answer. That’s not how we’re going to heal. It’s not [going] to help the Martin family for someone else to be hurt.”

    The O’Reilly Factor contacted Spike Lee’s production company “40 Acres and a Mule.” Instead of issuing a statement or an apology, the executive office told Factor producer Jesse Watters that Spike Lee had “no comment.” That’s it. The famous filmmaker is coming under heavy pressure on Twitter to apologize. Lee’s tweet has been removed, but it continues to be retweeted. Developing…

    http://nation.foxnews.com/spike-lee/2012/03/28/spike-lee-no-comment-dangerous-trayvon-martin-tweet

  87. I hope this is for real admin:
    __________________

    admin
    March 28th, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Reporting from Washington—
    The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

    Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

    The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

    “One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

    Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed with that proposition.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

  88. nomobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Mrs. Smith
    March 28th, 2012 at 8:39 am
    ——————–

    Good post, especially the summary. Thanks for posting.
    ______________

    welcome, nomobama

  89. Great, there is a pic on Drudge that has people wearing hoodies that say “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon”…idiot in chief.

    Black is thicker than President

  90. Pic of a ridiculous Bobby Rush @ link
    ____________

    Congressman escorted from House after wearing hoodie in Trayvon Martin tribute

    Rep. Bobby Rush, D-lll., donned a hoodie during a speech on the House floor deploring the killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, receiving a reprimand for violating rules on wearing hats in the House chamber. Msnbc’s Thomas Roberts reports.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10904941-congressman-escorted-from-house-after-wearing-hoodie-in-trayvon-martin-tribute

  91. So much going on didn’t even notice…NQ
    ***************

    Did Gingrich suspend his campaign? * Open Thread
    By Matthew Weaver on March 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM in Current Affairs
    Late Tuesday night Politico reports that Newt Gingrich replaced key staff and will now focus on the convention instead of the remaining primaries. I read this as he is suspending his campaign without officially announcing it. Well, not sure how he suspends something that is so obviously dead, but he’s finally actually starting to react to reality.

    Newt Gingrich is cutting back his campaign schedule, will lay off about a third of his cash-strapped campaign’s full-time staff, and has replaced his manager as part of what aides are calling a “big-choice convention” strategy, communications director Joe DeSantis told POLITICO.

    And recall, as Bronwyn’s Harbor noted earlier this week, Newt is down to hawking pictures for $50 each. Do you want and is it worth $50 to have your picture taken with Newt Gingrich? Who was it that said ‘A fool and his money are soon parted’?*

    Anyway, please take a quick read of Politico at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74569.html, then rejoin this discussion.

    Do you agree he has suspended his campaign without quite saying so? Will this have any meaningful impact on Romney or Santorum? Will anyone even notice? Finally, will he expect and should he be included in any future debates, if any?

  92. I know that the litigation before the SC is much more interesting, but I am still think about the Zimmerman/Trayvon altercation. I suspect that the only reason Trayvon attacked Zimmerman is because once Zimmerman got out of his truck, Trayvon probably sized him up and thought “I can take that fat azz”. If Zimmerman were built like a pro football player, then I doubt there would have been any physical confrontation.

  93. nomobama, I think I remembered you were interested
    in hearing about Brenda Elliot’s new book-

    She is also the author of “The Manchurian President” and “Red State Army”- I can’t post the particulars here because the book title is still under wraps..

    From the review written at Amazon, this book is going to blow Obama’s agenda wide open for the world to see.. …

    you can e-mail me @ tequila81618@yahoo.com

  94. Brigham A. McCown

    3/28/2012

    Betraying the Legacy of FDR, Eisenhower, and Other Great Infrastructure Presidents

    More than 75 years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicated the Boulder Dam (now the Hoover Dam), calling it “an engineering victory of the first order—another great achievement of American resourcefulness, American skill and determination.”

    Indeed it was.

    Built during the Great Depression, the project created thousands of jobs, guaranteed a reliable water supply for several states and harnessed the power of the Colorado River, ultimately generating electrical energy for millions throughout the West.

    Just last month in his State of the Union Address, President Obama cited the Hoover Dam as a testament to American ingenuity, noting that the dam was built at a time in American history when Democrats and Republicans worked together and “invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.”

    But this architectural and engineering wonder was built in an era when the government looked favorably on massive infrastructure projects, acknowledging the stimulus they provided to a struggling American economy. Today, Washington’s bureaucratic morass of overly complex and stifling regulations enacted at the behest of special interests would make building something as grand as the Hoover Dam or President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System well, impossible.

    One need only to look at the tortuous, multi-year deliberations that have been taking place in our nation’s capital over whether to green light a far less formidable, but equally important, infrastructure project—the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring upwards of a million barrels of North American oil per day from Canada to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast—and eventually to cars and trucks across our country.

    As the safest way to transport liquids and gases, there are already millions of miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying all sorts of products needed to fuel our economy, including oil, natural gas, jet fuel, gasoline, water, and, in some places, even beer.

    Similar to the construction of our Interstate Highway Systems and the Hoover Dam, building the pipeline to utilize this natural resource would create thousands of domestic jobs and provide cost-efficient energy to millions of Americans at a time when high volatility in oil prices caused by renewed tensions in the Middle East threatens our country’s fledgling economic recovery. And unlike the Hoover Dam or the Interstate System, Keystone XL would have been entirely privately funded. One need only observe spiking gasoline prices and continued sluggish recovery news to wonder why the Administration would not fast track a privately funded $ 7 billion project.

    Yet, despite being cleared by the U.S. State Department and Secretary Hillary Clinton as eminently safe, President Obama put the brakes on the Keystone XL pipeline, rejecting its permit application and requiring the project’s developer to restart the multi-year approval process anew. This move, calculated to stall any real progress until after the 2012 election, was widely reported as a play to appease a small, but vocal environmentalist constituency.

    This decision is indicative of a larger problem in Washington, specifically that politicians on both sides of the aisle are eschewing critical policy issues in favor of sound bites and political gamesmanship.

    The need for reliable U.S. energy—specifically oil—is undeniable. And with the world’s third largest reserves sitting under our ally to the north—it is also undeniable that Canada is one of the most logical, efficient, and geopolitically “safe” places for the U.S. to obtain a reliable source of oil.

    While the U.S. politicizes the issue, in Canada it’s a matter of economics. Although Canada would prefer to sell its oil to its closest ally, the U.S., if we say no, Canada will still move forward in developing its resources and sell them elsewhere—most likely to China.

    The Chinese thirst for oil is virtually unquenchable as China’s 1.3 billion inhabitants are constantly seeking new energy sources from around the globe, eager to enter into agreements with any nation willing to provide the country with the fuel it needs to grow.

    Meanwhile stalemate continues to reign in Washington.

    Speaker Boehner, on the Right, is threatening to attach a “Keystone provision” to every piece of legislation possible, as Members on the Left continue to bemoan unsubstantiated environmental concerns to thwart the project.

    Americans’ frustrations with Washington, DC have never been greater. And it’s no wonder. The President touts his own ‘green’ stimulus programs, which did little to create jobs and resulted in multiple bankrupt companies. At least Presidents Roosevelt and Eisenhower had something to show for their federal spending projects.

    As American families struggle to cope with high gasoline prices and an unstable job market, those in charge have lost their way—focusing on tone-deaf political fights instead of embracing practical bi-partisan policy solutions for the benefit of our Nation.

    Unfortunately, the political reality is that the Keystone XL pipeline has been so battered by the partisan back-and-forth that any bill with its name may never be able to gain the President’s signature.

    But, the President and Congress have an opportunity to match the successes of the New Deal and expand American infrastructure by approving the construction of a pipeline from Canada, be it Keystone XL or a different pipeline. Either way, such a project would certainly rival, if not eclipse, the economic benefits conferred by the Hoover Dam including, as President Roosevelt said, “giv[ing] actual work to the unemployed and at the same time … add[ing] to the wealth of the nation.”

    Regrettably, the American spirit and the vision of yesterday’s leaders responsible for building our national infrastructure appears absent from our current representatives in Washington.

    It’s time for our modern leaders to reject the special interests thwarting our forward progress and curtailing our economic recovery. Today is the day our leaders can bring us one step closer to energy independence, without even spending taxpayer money, by approving a project certain to bring jobs, security and lower gas prices to all Americans.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2012/03/28/obama-keystone-pipeline-betraying-legacy-of-fdr-eisenhower-great-infrastructure-presidents/?feed=rss_home

  95. admin
    March 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    The media spin is ginning up. Firstly the media and legal talking heads seemed gob-smacked that anyone would object to the whole mess. When states were initially saying they would bring suit in 2009 because it was unconstitutional the WH and press were dismissive. As the lawsuits for TWENTY SIX states worked its way through the courts they were dismissive towards the states AND the courts. The arguments were deemed inferior, illogical, and stupid. Lawyers for the WH seem ill prepared, assuming they are correct and no one would dare question them or even disagree with them. Hubris from this administration may be the final straw in this whole mess. I am listening to the final argument in which the WH lawyer is claiming that the power to compel the states to spend on Medicaid expansion would actually never be used even though they would have it. Liars.

  96. admin
    March 28th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
    Same article, more Politico bias and sheer stupidity:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74591.html

    Is there really a sane observer that did not expect the “conservative justices” to attack the mandate? Really? They “defied expectations by attacking the mandate” – Really? Didn’t everybody with half a brain or more expect the conservative justices to attack the mandate and the Obama appointees to support the mandate? Wasn’t the only real question observers had before the oral arguments what Kennedy would do?
    _______________________
    Guess those ignorant, racist, bitterly clinging, teabagging rednecks may have understood a little more about the Constitution than the Big Media echo chamber.

  97. working long hours this week so have only been able to check in…

    re: admin
    March 28th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    MoonOnPluto, check this out:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

    Reporting from Washington—
    The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

    Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

    ****************************

    they have got to be thinking to themselves…this whole thing was shoved thru the congress on bribes and with not one vote from the other party…how in the hell can they make this monstrosity the law of the land under those “undemocratic” circumstances…

    got to go…great job here

    *************

    will try to catch up later or tomorrow…

  98. It was really amazing to see the obots dancing around in front of the Supreme’s building…’protesting’, chanting, and doing their mindless dance that Health Care is a human right and that everyone should have it for free.

    Reminds me of the idiots on campuses that think education should be free.

    The fact that these people have the right to vote and don’t realize our taxes can’t pay for all their unicorn’s is amazing to me.

  99. HA! Drug companies and insurers are panicked over what happens if the mandate goes away but the rest of the bill stands. They did a deal with the lying devil to get themselves a nice captive little market, and may be the first ones to get burned when things go sour.

    Cry me a river.

    Industry lobbying group PHRMA spent $32 million negotiating with lawmakers for a deal favorable to drug companies. The group agreed to $80 billion in price controls after months of exchanges with the administration.

    Obama used the individual mandate as a selling point for the pharmaceutical industry, arguing that more insured individuals would translate into a larger market of customers. If the court severs the mandate, however, companies would still have to abide by the price controls while receiving little in the pledged market growth.

    “These concessions are already written into the bill; they are part of the law,” said Dr. Jerry Isaacson, the report’s author. “The price controls will become stricter, but the industry will lose out on 30 million new (customers) if the mandate is unconstitutional.”

    http://freebeacon.com/overruling-cronyism/

  100. HillaryforTexas
    March 28th, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    HA! Drug companies and insurers are panicked over what happens if the mandate goes away but the rest of the bill stands. They did a deal with the lying devil to get themselves a nice captive little market, and may be the first ones to get burned when things go sour.
    ———————-

    Exactly what I was thinking, to screw Obama and his capitalists cronies. Take out the mandate and leave the rest of the mess as is.

  101. Laugh or Cry- says it all!
    ________________

    If Obamacare is ruled constitutional, here are 7 more things the Obama administration may soon require everyone to purchase

    (NaturalNews) The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week about Obama’s health care law, which has been challenged by twenty-six states. The crux of the legal arguments center around whether the federal government can mandate private citizens to purchase a product or service they may not even want or need. (I don’t buy health insurance, for example, because I prefer to invest in healthy eating and superfoods.)

    If the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare, it would mean a limitless expansion of federal government authority to dictate to Americans what they must buy — and then to financially penalize Americans who don’t buy those products or services. This is precisely the model for Obamacare, which financially punishes those who fail to buy private health insurance by fining them through the IRS.

    I began to wonder: What else might the government force Americans to buy if they are granted this absurd new power by the Supreme Court? I’m sure there all sorts of things the government would want to push for its selected business buddies who profit from Obama’s new consumption mandates. So here are ten more things the Obama administration may soon require people to purchase (or else!).

    #1) A Chevy Volt

    Since nobody is voluntarily buying Chevy Volts, for the good of the auto industry we must all be forced to buy them! That will keep Detroit in business and create jobs for the economy. Keep America strong!

    Chevy dealers will be staffed with military personnel toting M4 rifles, and those rifles will be pointed at customers to make sure they “comply” with Obama’s new economic program. Those who refuse to buy a Chevy Volt will be punished by being forced to buy a Chevy pickup.

    #2) Annual flu shots

    With so many people figuring out that flu shots are total medical quackery and are intentionally laced with mercury preservatives, it’s no wonder most people don’t want to buy them anymore.

    Without public demand for vaccines, the vaccine industry might collapse! And that would be terrible for the fat cat CEOs who run those companies and also sit on the boards of all the other global elite corporations. The answer? Mandate annual flu shots for every person, every year! Get your flu shot, or we’ll throw you in prison and jab you there!

    #3) Terrorism insurance

    What? You don’t own terrorism insurance? Then how will you keep your family safe with all the countless terrorism attacks happening every day?

    Coming soon: Obama’s buddies will set up a whole new insurance scam called “terrorism insurance,” and they’ll use false flag terror attacks to remind people why they need to keep buying insurance policies. All Americans will be forced into buying these terrorism insurance policies, and those who don’t will be called anti-American traitors.

    What? You don’t have terrorism insurance? You must be one of those anti-government nuts who also owns gold. Yeah, that’s a sure sign of being a terrorist yourself.

    #4) Pink slime

    Given that nobody in the country wants to buy pink slime anymore — that’s the new term for “mechanically separated meat” that has suddenly become widely known across the ‘net

    h.. w… naturalnews.com/035255_pink_slime_USDA_school_lunches.html) —

    the government may simply force everybody to buy it!

    Yep, every month you’ll have your “pink slime quota” that you must meat — er, I mean meet — by purchasing pink slime at the grocery store, filling out twelve pages of documentation describing your purchase, then mailing it off to Washington with proof your purchase to a whole new federal department called “Food Usability for All” or just “F U All” for short.

    #5) Air tickets

    Given that the TSA has utterly destroyed the U.S. travel economy with its illegal, perverted “hands down your pants” search and seizure protocol, Obama must mandate that everybody buy one air ticket a month, whether you need it or not.

    Supporting the travel industry is patriotic, didn’t you know? And if you refuse to buy an air ticket each month, you’ll be visited by TSA agents in your own home who will conduct a crotch-and-anus search of your entire family in lieu of you actually showing up at the airport for the search. This will be called a “pre-search” for the travel you’re supposed to be taking. You can never be too safe in the war on terror, right? Now bend over…

    #6) A gun –

    but you have to carry it into Mexico and sell it to a drug gang member.

    This might be called the “Eric Holder” program: Every American will be required to buy a firearm at a gun shop in a state bordering Mexico, then walk that gun across the border and deposit it into the hands of the Mexican drug gangs.

    Oh, wait… that program already exists. It’s called “Fast & Furious” or “Operation Gunwalker,” and it was dreamed up by Attorney General Eric Holder to cause gun violence by having ATF operatives buy guns in America and sell them to Mexican drug gangs.

    h.. w… naturalnews.com/032934_ATF_illegal_firearms.html

    #7) Obama Water – with electrolytes!

    Coming soon: Obama Water! It’s got electrolytes! And if you drink it, you’ll get free rent for the rest of your life.

    Or should I just call it the Obama Kool-Aid?

    Either way, the government will make you buy it, and you can bet it will be “enhanced” with government-approved fluoride chemicals. But they can’t actually make you drink it, so flushing always remains an option for getting rid of the stuff.

    Tyrants versus entrepreneurs

    The difference between tyrants and entrepreneurs is that tyrants always FORCE you to buy things, while entrepreneurs leave it up to you and your free choice.

    At the same time tyrants force you to buy their products and services even if you don’t want them, they also criminalize you buying things they don’t want you to have — such as raw milk, Chinese Medicine herbs or medical marijuana.

    So instead of respecting freedom and the free market, the oppressive system of economic dictatorship being practiced by governments everywhere is designed to deny people their free choice and force them to purchase monopoly-priced products that the people don’t even want.

    This is how national economies are destroyed. Once government starts telling you what you can and can’t buy, the whole economy becomes distorted at first, and then paralyzed soon thereafter. That’s when governments historically bring in yet more insane economic policies such as price control which almost immediately result in a wipeout of available supplies (store shelves stripped bare).

    The bottom line truth in all this is that centrally-planned economies always — ALWAYS — fail! No government, no matter how compassionate or well-meaning, can replace the individual economic decisions and behavior of hundreds of millions of people. That’s why protecting liberty is the only proper role of government. By protecting liberty (and free choice), the government allows the People to make their own decisions about products and services. Government intervention only interferes with good decision making, causing both economic loss and resentment among the population.

    No one wants to be forced to buy something, especially if that something is supporting the drugs-and-surgery medical industry (which is heavily populated with quacks, criminals, corrupt scientists and fabricated data).

    I repeat here that I will REFUSE to buy health insurance mandated by Obama or any other president.

    No politician has any right to tell me what I can and cannot buy as a free citizen in a (supposedly) free country. And any decision the U.S. Supreme Court renders that stands in gross violation of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is automatically null and void from the outset. You cannot legislate against natural, God-given rights, and no government has any right whatsoever to force you to buy something you do not wish to buy.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/035384_Obamacare_Supreme_Court_insurance.html

  102. Just an observation.

    Why is it behind EVERY successful MAN IS A WOMAN?

    Just thinking about all my great loving friends the other day coming to my rescue after the Anniversary of my husband’s death- who they are and how they have fared since he passed away..

  103. Admin, glad to see you link to Althouse. Smart people from here should go there (and on other Republican blogs) and comment on Hillary’s plan. Spread the word instead of preaching to the choir here.

  104. I was just thinking about the vote from the Supremes, say there really is ONE (Kennedy) vote that will be the deciding factor. The pressure on that one person, all the folks that thought they would get free health care and if the bill goes down, he will get the blame.

    Makes me think, one way or the other, it will not come down to one vote on this decision, for the safety of the Supremes. I think they will try to toss out the bathwater and save the baby…some how. Possibly making recommendations that would be Constitutional, like the penalty is declared a darn tax, etc.

  105. Shawn Tyson sentenced to life in prison for murder of British tourists James Kouzaris & James Cooper in Florida.

  106. Boy Beaten in Paris for Being Jewish

    Attended School Run by Shooting Victims

    March 28, 2012

    A 12-year old Jewish boy was beaten outside his school in southeast Paris, the Associated Press reports.

    Although the boy did not suffer serious injuries, his attackers recited anti-Semitic taunts as they pummeled the young man about 100 yards from the entrance of the Ozar Hatorah School.

    The victims of last week’s shootings were a part of the same educational network.

    “There was a feeling of solidarity for our schools after this drama (in Toulouse),” said Jean-Paul Amoyelle, the president of Ozar Hatorah. “Now I fear that this has provoked a hostile reaction, shown by the attitude of these boys who called him dirty Jew and beat him up.

    “We have to be vigilant, because this could lead to more aggression,” he added.

    Although French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered security to be increased at Jewish schools and synagogues, the victim was reportedly attacked just out of view of school officials and police officers stationed outside.

    The assault has only heightened tensions in the European state, leaving the future of the half-million strong French Jewish community in doubt.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/paris-beating.php

  107. gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Personally, if Romney has to President, I would love to have seen it in 2008 instead of what we have now; but only if Hillary was not elected. He should have run then….oh but wait. He did. He lost. The people don’t want him.

    There is much good reasoning and reading here today. The news reports showed students leaving schools in protest of the Trayvon event of the year; where are the parents? Youths entered a Walgreen’s in mass; did damage; and exited quickly; where are their parents? The couple that Spike Lee tweeted their address twice were interveiwed and they are going to get some of Spike’s money….I hope they get all of it. They are about to or have filed a lawsuit.

    I am going to end all my posts from now on with….

    …”I will tranmit that information to Vladamir.”

  108. Shadowfax
    March 28th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    ************

    Generally, I am a pessimist that the SCOTUS will actually make the right decision and throw out fraudcare.

    I am hoping for a miracle

    I also realize that health care in America is a disaster and people do need help. The Insurance industry is predatory no matter what they are insuring. This will set back any true bipartisan help for many years to come.My husband has hypertension and when we had private pay insurance, they wanted 3,000 a month.

    I really never had too much sympathy for the college loan cries till I listened to one of my co workers BF’s story. Jesus, there is no way he is going to be able to pay back 200,000 dollars. The interest rates are dreams of Al Capone. I went to college when it was cheap, loans were cheap and my kids had full sponsorship’s. How the banking industry got the Gov to allow and support these predatory practices on the youth is the story. Gov and Bankers in bed together. Money, Money, Money. with no end to greed.I was, or I should say, my cars were involved in two car accidents in the last 6 years. One, a drunk pasted out and totaled my car that was parked on the street. Second, I was at a stop light and rear ended. I ended up paying 2500 dollars out of pocket for the two accidents. I won’t go into details how that insanity was all legal, but the outcome speaks for itself. Think about the Katrina victims and their flood insurance denials…Housing loan disaster…

    We need Hillary more than ever but it an’t going to happen folks.

  109. ShortTermer
    March 28th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Personally, if Romney has to President, I would love to have seen it in 2008 instead of what we have now; but only if Hillary was not elected. He should have run then….oh but wait. He did. He lost. The people don’t want him.
    ****************

    Clinton lost an election or two himself, so what does that mean exactly?

  110. I am going to end all my posts from now on with….

    …”I will tranmit that information to Vladamir.”
    ****
    That is funny by the way

  111. Romney lost in 2008 because it was winner take all that time and Dems crossed over to vote for McCain. In fact you ardent followers of WHI and Ulsterman must have read the post where WHI talks about McCain being the preferred opponent for Obama and how they made that happen. It was rigged on the left (to deny Hillary) and on the right (to prop up a weak opponent, just in case). But most of all it was a winner take all that pushed McCain to the front. If it was winner take all now, Romney would have clinched it. It is unbelievable that some people want Santorum to win this nomination!

    NO, ROMNEY DOES NOT PAY ME TO SAY THIS.

  112. Is this a joke or what? Andrea Mitchell is nuts .
    __________________________________

    Obama Campaign: Republicans “Politicizing” Trayvon Martin’s Death

    “His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course,” Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.

    “People have to stop politicizing it,” she added. “It’s no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/28/obama_campaign_republicans_are_politicizing_trayvon_martins_death.html

  113. Re: McCain being the preferred opponent for Obama and how they made that happen. It was rigged on the left

    You just made my major point; Romney is the preferred candidate of the left in both parties.

    Btw, the little faith bracelet was an excellent idea; mind if I use it?

    “…I will transmit that information to Vladamir.”

  114. pm

    NO, ROMNEY DOES NOT PAY ME TO SAY THIS.
    ********

    They just can’t stand that he is winning. I really don’t get it. Did you see my post gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
    So much going on didn’t even notice…NQ
    ***************

    Did Gingrich suspend his campaign? * Open Thread
    ******************

    Romney is our best option at this point.

  115. short
    ******************

    I do think Romney is the preferred candidate on the Right, but not for the same reasons. I think it is because he can win.

    If you are talking about the WWKD, be my guest.

  116. “But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”
    *********
    The twenty something frat boy who thought up the planted question and “answer from the heart” must have taken a beating and is sweating his job status. The moron should have looked a Mr. Martin’s Facebook page. Not exactly the image that Obama wants for his non-existent son.

  117. gonzotx

    I agree, and also went to school when a public college was affordable and it took me years to pay off my loans, while some was scholarships and workstudy grants.

    These days, I could never afford to go to college, and paying back loans over $50k is a crying shame.

    I do feel badly for our kids, my son ran into to same problem…but it’s the ones that think they should march though college with everything paid for, like their freakin’ pResident that got a free ride makes me nuts.

  118. Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate

    If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare’s individual mandate (which is very likely after yesterday), will it also strike down President Obama’s entire 2,700-page law? The justices signaled they might do so during the third day of Supreme Court arguments.

    Most of the time when part of a law is invalid, courts “sever” that part from the rest of the law and save the rest. This ruling of “severability” often coincides with the law at issue having a severability clause, where Congress declares that if part of the law if found unconstitutional, a court should save the rest. Courts can sever a law even without such a clause, but it gives the court more latitude because there’s no rock-solid indication that Congress wanted that outcome.

    The Supreme Court has three issues when it comes to Obamacare. It can (1) totally sever the individual mandate section, retaining the other 450 sections; (2) partially sever the mandate, striking down some sections but keeping the rest, or (3) can hold the mandate “totally nonseverable” and strike down the entire Obamacare law.

    The normal route of severing the individual mandate should not be the outcome in this case, not just because Congress included no severability clause in Obamacare, but also because of the unique role that Section 1501’s individual mandate plays in financing the entire Obamacare system.

    The attorney for the challenger states and private businesses, Paul Clement, explained: “What makes this different is that the provisions that have constitutional difficulties or are tied at the hip to those provisions that have the constitutional difficulty are the very heart of this Act… they are interconnected to the exchanges, which are then connected to the tax credits, which are also connected to the employer mandates, which is also connected to some of the revenue offsets, which is also connected to Medicaid; if you follow that through what you end up with at the end of that process is just sort of a hollow shell.”

    So in order to go the route of partial severability, the justices would have to go through Obamacare line by line, guessing which parts Congress would want to keep and which ones it would not.

    The courtroom erupted in laughter when Justice Antonin Scalia rejected that possibility, saying, “What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” The Eighth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that forbids cruel or unusual punishment.

    Justice Samuel Alito then looked to whether Congress would deliberately have created a train wreck. Obamacare imposes $700 billion in costs on the insurance industry, $350 billion of which is supposed to be offset by the individual mandate, and $350 billion from Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid. He asked what happens if the Court nullified one half of that funding, indicating that Congress would not have liked the result.

    This issue arises because most of Obamacare is about imposing mandates on businesses, employers, insurers, healthcare providers, and families. Each mandate carries a hefty cost. Forcing millions of healthy people to buy insurance and pay much more than they need to is the only way to force enough money into the healthcare market to prevent it from collapsing under the weight of the government’s commands.

    Kennedy was quick to follow up, asking if courts should impose that kind of risk on the entire healthcare system that Congress’s law never intended: “When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite… We would have [created] a new [law] that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That … can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than striking the whole [law down].”

    But it’s a mistake to think Kennedy is the swing vote on this issue of severability. He’s the fifth vote on the individual mandate but not severability. That crucial role likely falls to Chief Justice John Roberts, who favors the Court taking narrow action and not going further than necessary in each case.

    But there is reason for hope in this case that Roberts thinks part or all of the law must fall with the individual mandate. Severability is about giving effect to Congress’ intent.

    Roberts reasoned, “Congress had a balanced intent. You can’t look at another provision and say this promotes patient protection without asking if it’s affordable.” He thus signaled that if Obamacare were to cause prices to rise without the offset created by the individual mandate, then you could not separate the two without upending Congress’s plan.

    There were three sides to the government’s severability argument. The central core of Obamacare is made of three provisions: the individual mandate, the guaranteed-issue provision that no one can be denied coverage, and the community-rating provision that you must charge people the same for health insurance, not accounting for any of their individual health factors (such as having cancer).

    These three cannot be separated because the text of the mandate itself declares that it is necessary to the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions. So the Justice Department argued that those other two would have to go, but keep the rest. And the Court appointed an outside lawyer to play devil’s advocate to argue that you could save the entire law.

    The government mainly did so by saying that when the law said the mandate is “essential” to the other two provisions, it really means “helpful.” Scalia called this an “imaginative” definition that defies the meaning of the word in the English language and challenged the lawyer to cite a single dictionary that supported him (there were none).

    Even Justice Elena Kagan admitted that if you keep the entire law in place without the individual mandate, the entire health insurance industry would “crash and burn.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed, saying one major source characterized the result as a “death spiral” for financing healthcare.

    But when Obama’s lawyer argued that Congress could handle fixing the law if the mandate was struck down, Scalia retorted, “It’s unrealistic to say, ‘Leave it to Congress.’” Besides, another part of the law says the individual mandate is critical to all of Obamacare’s healthcare reforms.

    Instead, it’s the job of the courts to decide how much of the law to keep. There are apparently no votes for totally severing the mandate, and we’ll find out in June whether there are five votes to strike down significant parts of Obamacare or instead, whether they will take down the entire law.

    That last option is the one we should all be hoping for. YUP!

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/28/obamacare-day-3-court-may-strike-down-entire-law-not-just-mandate

  119. http://www.Theulstermanreport.com

    WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama Election Team Preparing For “Healthcare Warfare” Campaign

    by Ulsterman on March 28, 2012 with 18 Comments in News

    A brief heads up from a longtime D.C. political operative indicates “serious” discussions among high ranking members of Barack Obama’s re-election team on how to handle a possible Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare – discussions that include a “Healthcare Warfare” operation that will purposely create widespread chaos throughout the American healthcare industry – putting you and your loved ones at risk.

    First few days of SC going well for us. Yesterday rocked them back. Today not as explosive but real panic setting in among the Obama people. Discussion last night with -Name Deleted – told me his contact at -Deleted- indicated administration is already putting up warnings regarding summer chaos plan if SC decision goes against them. Called it a “Healthcare Warfare” plan. Muck up the administrative machine so badly there will be delays, confusion, and then anger. They are serious about it.

    Obama will then point to the chaos and make an “I told you so” move to the American people. They plan to have him run against Congress, run against the SC, run against alleged racism, run against Wall Street. He is running for nothing and against everything.

    Wanted to let you know on the Healthcare Warfare thing. Help get the word out. Tell others to watch for signs of it unfolding if it looks like the SC is going to rule against Obamacare. Right now the mandate is about 80% gone. The rest of Obamacare is about 50/50 according to -Name Deleted- and he sat in on the pharma meetings with the administration so likely solid judgement on this.

    So add healthcare riots to the race riots that are coming this summer.

    F*ck him.

    F*ck all of them.

    Hold the line. I’ll do the heavy lifting. You just help spread the word. I want people to know when they see it.

  120. gonzotx, I saw it. I can’t believe how deluded some people are. Their guy can’t even win with his own party but these people on the other side, supposedly Hillary supporters are willing to give away the farm to that crazy egomaniac. Given Santorum and Romney, whom do they want? Yeah, sure I could also wring my hands and go around insulting everyone that if only my gal had run and won. What I don’t understand is, is it worth being that bitter about Newt not making it? Really?

    And you give them a fact-based reason why the primary is turning out the way it is (you know, proportional versus winner take all) and that does not even register with these people. What is up with that? And all for what, Newt?!

  121. Except it was the wrong address. It was the address of an elderly Florida couple whose son… William George Zimmerman (no relation to shooter) – lived briefly there in 1995. Now the 70-year-old school cafeteria lunch lady with a heart condition and her 72-year-old husband have been forced to move out of danger into a hotel temporarily after receiving hate mail, threats, harassing visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors.

    =======================

    Spike Lee is very much at fault here, and so are the other rabble rousers. But pls note that with this kind of threat frightening the neighbors in the gated community, there’s a strong motive for any and all of them (and the police) to lie to try to cool things down by condemning Martin. Any resident who reports evidence supporting Martin, might face reprisal from his own neighbors, the community management, and the police.

    As Admin says, we should all withhold judgement till all the evidence is in. Imo eventually there should be enough forensic evidence to make the key points clear: angle of wound, powder burns, fingerprints, medical report on Z, etc.

    But the less threat and pressure on the police, the more likely they will issue an honest report.

  122. Eisenhower said “beware the Industrial Military Complex” meaning beware of Fascism . The idea that only acceptable to the State, Insurance Corporations , must collect premiums for all persons in the country , who might one day access health care, it exactly what Eisenhower was warning, that when government gets in bed with industry to finance our lives, and punishes us with penalty, that is a Fascist State, no matter how “Progressive” the care sounds, it is all just what Mussolini would do.

  123. I like, Alito, think that they set it up to fail; Nancy said herself pretty much that they knew what they were doing. You can tell she nearly chokes when the word ‘Constitution’ has to leap out of her mouth. Poor poor baby. They are all lawyers for the most part; that would have ben Law 101 to add a severability clause, actually they had it in and then took it out for some reason.

    Thanks, gonzotx. Thanks, Mrs. Smith, for posting the breitbart part 3. Whatever happened about the autopsy of that hero for America?

  124. Maybe Spike Lee can be of some assistance here:
    _________________

    Anti-Violence Trayvon Supporter Beats Up Girlfriend

    In an ironic twist, an anti-violence protester who had held up a sign reading “I am Trayvon Martin” was arrested for kidnapping and beating up his ex-girlfriend. As Lancaster Online in Pennsylvania reported, Akeem Johnson said that he listened to the 911 call: “I listened to it on YouTube. I damn near cried listening to him and then the shot.” Lancaster Online continued:

    As a black man, Johnson said, he could easily put himself in Martin’s situation. Just the other day, he said, he was walking with his girlfriend and a dog in an area just off campus when a man came outside and asked them what they were doing in the area. Johnson said he felt afraid, even though it was daylight and he was doing nothing wrong. “It made me feel less of a man,” he said.

    Apparently Johnson had other ideas of how to act like a man. After the anti-violence rally, Johnson went to his girlfriend’s dorm, waited there all night until she returned in the morning, then followed her into the elevator and punched her in the face and head over and over. He then forced her into his car, drove to his home, and dragged her out. Fortunately, she escaped. A neighbor, hearing her screams, called police.

    Johnson is being held on $200,000 bail at Lancaster County Prison.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/28/Trayvon-Supporter-Beats-Up-Girlfriend

  125. Re: BASIL99
    March 28th, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    So, they are going to throw granny off the cliff? That is definitely the way to go. Or throw the Down’s Syndrome kids out with the bath water. That is sure to be a hit. Totalitarian military state, what day will it be born? Yeah, he is flexible that way.

    …I will transmit that information to Vladamir.

  126. I suspect that the only reason Trayvon attacked Zimmerman is because once Zimmerman got out of his truck, Trayvon probably sized him up and thought “I can take that fat azz”.

    =================

    Is “Travon attacked Zimmerman” accepted as fact now? On what evidence? From what source? Last I saw, there were witness/s to a fight in progress or ended, but none to the start of it.

    In addition to “suspect” and “probably”, the other clause in that sentence needs a similar adverb, or a cite of evidence.

  127. there is no way he is going to be able to pay back 200,000 dollars. The interest rates are dreams of Al Capone. I went to college when it was cheap, loans were cheap and my kids had full sponsorship’s. How the banking industry got the Gov to allow and support these predatory practices on the youth is the story. Gov and Bankers in bed together.

    =================

    That reminds me of Hillary’s statement early in 2008 on student loans. She said that when she went to college, the loan rate was 4% iirc, and she had no trouble paying it off. It was subsidized by some government program that has since ceased.

  128. Is there a summary of Hillary’s healthcare plan anywhere that you guys know of?

    Admin, could you please point to a post where you would have talked about it?

  129. when government gets in bed with industry to finance our lives, and punishes us with penalty, that is a Fascist State, no matter how “Progressive” the care sounds, it is all just what Mussolini would do.

    ========================

    Yes, the insurance companies and the employers should be left out of it; putting them in charge is fascist, feudalistic — not “Progressive” at all.

  130. that would have ben Law 101 to add a severability clause, actually they had it in and then took it out for some reason.

    =====================

    Well, maybe they wanted it to either pass or fail all together. Taking out the financing while leaving the commitments would make a mess. If they can’t have their mandate, better send the whole thing back to the drawing board.

  131. Althouse has a nice commentary on today’s SCOTUS proceedings. There is more on her site. I am opposed to copy and paste of loooooooong articles here. Please go there for more, if you want to.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/time-shifted-live-blogging-of-this.html

    UPDATE 1: Paul Clement will attack the expansion of Medicaid. He’s talking about whether it’s “coercive,” because if it is, it won’t fit the Spending Power. Justice Kagan wants to know why a “big gift from the Federal Government” is coercion. “The Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money.” Page 3. Just a big old boatload of money is coercive, Clement says confidently. But the actual bill has a “very big condition.” Kagan interrupts, trying to make her point that a big boatload of money is not coercive. What if someone offered you a job and would pay you $10 million a year. Of course, you say yes, but you’re not coerced are you. Clement lays down one of the cleverist teasers I have ever heard: “Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from.”

    “Wow. Wow.” says Kagan. Has a Supreme Court ever said “Wow. Wow” before? She can’t believe you’d do anything other than snap up that money. “I’m offering you $10 million a year to come work for me, and you are saying that this is anything but a great choice?”

    Clement springs his trap: “Sure, if I told you, actually, it came from my own bank account.”

  132. Short Termer-

    You’re welcome-my pleasure. It was comforting to read the latest where the Justices seem to be leaning towards scrapping Obama’s entire legacy, as it should be-

    The AA’s are going hog wild seeing they feel specially empowered by an unjustified cause when it still remains to be determined.

    Isn’t that the way of Mob Rule anyway? You get a group together large or small, assign a target, and they go hog wild feeling justified in their persecution of one or more individuals who do not fit the parameters of the unhappy leadership grinding away by any means necessary of changing the atmosphere to suit themselves. It all boils down to group think- where Independent thought is catastrophic to the well being of the mob of group thinkers. Assigned a task of doing their darnedest stamping out individuality declaring Mob Rule the only acceptable dynamic if the leadership is to survive. OWS is the perfect example. Their own leadership stabbed them in the back. As donations accrued- bank accounts were opened- then they became the designated drivers as to how the money was to be spent when people were going hungry without a warm place to spent the night..

    Take a chance, discourage Mob Rule wherever you find it- Usually, at the base of Mob leadership you will find an neurotic unhappy camper with an axe to grind disinterested in harmony and balance but needing to be adored and revered as the ONE- the only one- (to follow.)

  133. That Spike Lee should be hauled into court (as NQ rightly points out) for his tweeting of the wrong address and putting its residents in harms way. What are these fuckers thinking?

  134. A brief heads up from a longtime D.C. political operative indicates “serious” discussions among high ranking members of Barack Obama’s re-election team on how to handle a possible Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare – discussions that include a “Healthcare Warfare” operation that will purposely create widespread chaos throughout the American healthcare industry – putting you and your loved ones at risk.
    ———————
    Now there is a winning strategy . . . this is where the hard left always goes–to the street. Being by nature, thugs, they automatically assume that if they stick a gun in someone’s face they will hand them the money. They cannot help themselves—when the chips are down this is where they always to—in Russia, in Spain, in Germany–and it produces a right wing reaction which provides security at the cost of liberty. Why? Because security is main brain stem stuff–survival. And they are the wolf at the door. The problem here is more complex however because Brian Williams, Phil Griffin and their ilk cover for the thugs . . . which makes them what? Thugs themselves.

  135. The thought that Newt and Insanity are in it for the country and not themselves vs Romney, whom you state is in it only for himself is conjecture…quite a stretch in my mind.

    =================

    Thanks for supporting the difference between fact and conjecture!

  136. That Spike Lee should be hauled into court (as NQ rightly points out) for his tweeting of the wrong address and putting its residents in harms way. What are these fuckers thinking?
    ————————
    If . . . the people at the wrong address are injured, intimidated, or worse, then a $50 million dollar lawsuit should be brought against that prick—and let the jury decide. This reminds me of an old episode of law and order, where a website operator posted all the tools on how to commit suicide, and took no responsibility for the consequences. His putative defense was what? He did not facilitate the murder suicide which ensued he merely took information which was in the public domain already and assembled it, to make it easier on people who chose that course. Cortney Vance the black ADA hauled him before a grand jury, and after he got done with that saying that asked him–if he was as neutral and disengaged as he claimed then surely he must have posted other advice on that website on how to avoid the suicidal path. Turns out he did not, and the ADA got the indictment he was looking for. In the case of Mr. Lee, to post the address like this is an incitement to violence–it is thee equivalent of hate speech, and if it leads to an innocent death then Lee should be charged with manslaughter–and sued civilly.

  137. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”
    *********
    The twenty something frat boy who thought up the planted question and “answer from the heart” must have taken a beating and is sweating his job status. The moron should have looked a Mr. Martin’s Facebook page. Not exactly the image that Obama wants for his non-existent son.
    ——————-
    Brian William would say he was merely reaching out to his base. Ya know? That vaunted demographic of blacks, youth and billionaires–the dims don’t need middle class, or white people any more. Right Donna Godzilla Brazil?

  138. Well, do we have to wait for them to get injured? Or are there privacy related laws that could be brought to bear?

  139. Photos of Zimmerman “on police survelliance tape”, being brought into police office after allegedly being injured in the shooting incident. No blood visible, walking okay.

    abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475?tab=9482931&section=1206839&playlist=9660543

    Alternate source, two stills that don’t require a video player:
    http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9498269.html

  140. ShortTermer
    March 28th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    ——————
    He was an ADA, and was pretty effective in prosecuting the mob in New Jersey. He followed in the footsteps of Herb Stern. Stern began his career with the New York City Homicide bureau and investigated the murder of Malcolm X. Shortly thereafter, he was recruited by William Brennan, and a circle of public minded leading citizens in New Jersey who were concerned about the incestutous relationships which had developed between mob families and public officials. His mentor was Fred Lacey, and when Lacey left, Stern became US Attorney for New Jersey at the age of 29. He obtained high profile convictions of mobsters and mayors and corrupt union officials in Newark, Union City, Jersey City, Atlantic City etc. Thereafter he was appointed to the Federal Bench, and was a pretty tough task master on the attorneys who appeared before him. Playboy did a movie on him called Tiger In Court–I never saw it but he told me it was a lousy movie–starring Martin Sheen. For my money that group in New Jersey–was the creme of the federal prosecutor bar, and Alito comes out of that tradition.

  141. turndownobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Photos of Zimmerman “on police survelliance tape”, being brought into police office after allegedly being injured in the shooting incident. No blood visible, walking okay.

    abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-police-surveillance-16024475?tab=9482931&section=1206839&playlist=9660543

    Alternate source, two stills that don’t require a video player:
    http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9498269.html
    —————————————-
    Turndown: what is your take on this incident based on what we have seen so far?

  142. ‘Post-Racial’ Lynch Mobby Ann Coulter03/28/2012386
    Comments
    Even after the Duke lacrosse case, Texaco executives allegedly using the N-word in private meetings — which turned out to be “St. Nicholas” — the Tawana Brawley case, not to mention virtual hailstorms of racist graffiti and nooses materializing on college campuses, all of which invariably end up having been put there by the alleged victims, the Non-Fox Media (NFM) didn’t even pause before conjuring a racist plot in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida last month.

    Like Captain Ahab searching for the Great White Whale, the NFM is constantly on the hunt for proof of America as “Mississippi Burning.”

    Over St. Patrick’s Day weekend, the month after Martin was killed, gangs in Chicago shot 10 people dead, including a 6-year-old girl, Aliyah Shell, who was sitting with her mother on their front porch.

    One imagines MSNBC hosts heaving a sign of relief that little Aliyah was not shot by a white man, and was thus spared the horror of being a victim of racism.

    As it happens, Trayvon Martin wasn’t shot by a white man either, but by George Zimmerman, a mixed-race Hispanic who lives in a diverse (47 percent white) gated community and tutors black kids.

    But Hispanic is close enough for the NFM. They’re chasing the Great White Whale of racist America and don’t have time to check to see if the whale is actually a guppy.

    Since the cat leapt out of the bag on Zimmerman being Hispanic, the media have begun calling him a “white Hispanic.”

    Not being a race-obsessed liberal, I don’t particularly care, but it’s indisputable that Zimmerman is brown. I saw his face carved on the side of a Mayan temple in the Yucatan. Using his mother’s maiden name, he would be admitted to the University of Michigan law school on a full scholarship.

    Apart from that, pretty much all that is known with certainty is that Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious character in his neighborhood, and shortly thereafter he shot and killed Martin.

    On the basis of little else, the media conjured a Hollywood script: A “white” man was “stalking” a little black kid — who could be Obama’s son! — confronted him, beat him senseless as the small black child screamed for help, and finally shot the kid dead, “just because he was black.”

    Two weeks of nonstop hysteria later, it turns out that every part of that gripping plot is based on nothing that could be called a reasonable assumption, much less a fact.

    The NFM’s theory of the case might be true, just as it might be true that the loud bang I just heard outside my door is Godzilla returning to terrorize Manhattan. I, like the NFM, have no facts supporting my theory. (Although mine is more credible because Al Sharpton is not involved and none of my facts are provably false, such as the NFM’s claim about Zimmerman being “white.”)

    First of all, there’s no reason to believe Zimmerman followed Martin after the police told him not to, which is the linchpin of much excited reporting.

    Zimmerman told the police, his friends and his lawyer that he walked back to his car after hanging up with the police and was waylaid by Martin. No witnesses have told the press otherwise.

    We don’t know if -– as the NFM has baldly asserted — it was Martin yelling “Help!” during the struggle. Before the case became a nationwide sensation, the lead detective told the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel that the police had played all the 911 calls for Martin’s father, and he said the voice crying “Help!” was not his son’s.

    (The father has subsequently retracted that.)

    Before the shooting was even a twinkle in the eye of MSNBC, an eyewitness gave a detailed account to the local media, indicating that it was Martin who was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him, as Zimmerman screamed “Help!”

    The police report says Zimmerman’s nose was bleeding and his back covered in grass stains when they arrived at the scene. His lawyer and friends say he was treated for a broken nose the next day.

    There’s no sense in arguing in public about such facts. The medical records exist or they do not.

    Of course, the information contradicting the media’s fantasy comes to us only in the form of witness statements and police reports appearing in the press, not as evidence in a formal criminal investigation.

    It’s hard to tell where the NFM’s suppositions are coming from inasmuch as they simply report their version as hard fact. But all their evidence seems to come only from Martin’s family and girlfriend. Can we start trying all criminal defendants based exclusively on the testimony of the victim’s friends and relatives?

    Among the reasons to be suspicious of the media as impartial judges of the evidence is that they keep showing us snapshots from Martin’s childhood, rather than any recent photos.

    Without doing research, the average person would think Martin was a slight 12-year-old whippersnapper at the time of the shooting, rather than a strapping 6-foot, 160-pound 17-year-old. Indeed, he was 3 inches taller than Zimmerman, according to the police report.

    Why aren’t they showing us Zimmerman’s baby pictures? (And why didn’t we get to see baby pictures of the Duke lacrosse players? I bet they were adorable.)

    CNN ceaselessly reported the allegation that Zimmerman could be heard in the background of one 911 call using an archaic racial epithet. Before playing the tape, correspondent Gary Tuchman first announced what the slur was supposed to be (“f*****g coon”).

    There’s nothing like suggesting the answer in advance to improve reliability! Police should try that in lineups.

    Then the same network that couldn’t find the Jeremiah Wright tapes for sale in a church lobby brought in “one of the best audio experts in the business” to enhance the tape — take the bass away here, add volume there — and played the 1.6-second loop again and again, just in case you were not suggestible enough the first time.

    Still, all that can be heard on the enhanced tape is “cha-chu, cha-chu, cha-chu.”

    But Tuchman wrapped up this demonstration by saying, “You know, it sounds like this allegation could be accurate, but I wouldn’t swear to it in court. That’s what it sounds like to me.”

    To the small percentage of CNN’s audience with triple-digit IQs, it was comedy gold. The only thing missing was Tipper Gore playing the audio backward to reveal satanic lyrics.

    (Incidentally, the Nexis transcript of the indecipherable “cha-chu” sound reads: “ZIMMERMAN: F*****g coons, f*****g coons. F*****g coons. F*****g coons. F*****g coons.” Except it doesn’t use asterisks.)

    All this may give you an inkling of why we rely on the criminal justice system to determine guilt in criminal cases and not the fervid imaginations of the race-obsessed media.

  143. Rubio is one of very few Rebubs that seems genuine, thoughtful, intelligent and doesn’t make my skin crawl like Sweaters.

    He supports Romney and doesn’t want to see a fight for the primary in July. He is a tea guy, so this endorcement should pull some weight.

  144. Shadowfax
    March 28th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
    ——————-

    Jay Leno asked Romney to describe each person he named with one word.. Romney’s words for Rubio were ‘American Dream’. I would have said the same thing. But that response does not come from just a cliche. Romney seems to understand where Rubio comes from (which is also how I came to associate that phrase with Rubio). Rubio is articulate and understands and conveys the idea of America, the unique and the beautiful. That would be a powerful and positive response to Obama (than zingers from other people). And he has a great sense of humor.

    Here is a video of a speech from him — watch it if you have the time:

  145. Hey gang, so much going on…

    “If I had a son, he’d be a race-baiter just like me”.

    “I’ll have some flexibility if you tell Vladmir to play along; I’ll roll the fuck over right after the election. Because I don’t care about America’s security, I just like having the title of President”.

    “I’m going to wear this hoodie right here in the Congress to make the point that there are many of us that are willing to play the race card, and take an uncertain situation and doggedly manufacture it into an Incident of Outrage. Facts be damned.”

    “If the Supremes invalidate Obamacare, it will rev our base. If they uphold it, it makes Obama look good. If a meteor takes out the Earth, that will energize the base.”

  146. Was Obama saying to Medvedev during that hot mic situation, don’t leak anything to jeopardize my re-election, I will reward you later?

  147. If . . . the people at the wrong address are injured, intimidated, or worse, then a $50 million dollar lawsuit should be brought against that prick—and let the jury decide.

    ====================

    What bets the lawsuit would also name as defendants the housing association and Zimmerman, for starting the mess in the first place.

  148. turndownobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
    ————
    What do you think was Spike Lee’s motive in tweeting that address?

  149. your welcome short
    **************

    I don’t like demonizing Trayvon anymore than convicting Zimmerman in the court of public disdain. In the end, a child died. Yes, a 17 y/o who was probably going down the wrong road, but he hadn’t gotten there yet, he was salvageable. Some of Zimmerman’s story seem’s suspect, but I have no way of knowing that. I don’t know if we will ever hear the truth. Stories change, different eye witness accounts, lawyering up.

    I know when Black youths are walking towards me, or behind me, I get nervous. One time I actually was able to prevent one group from stealing my purse because I was hyper vigilant. Youth probably had something to do with it too! No rotator cuff tears then.

    Guns, how do “civilized countries” do it without them? (Japan prohibits gun possession by citizens except for shotguns and single-shot rifles for hunting or sports. Semiautomatic and full automatic weapons are restricted to military and police. Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test. Police check on the owner once every three months on an unannounced visit. They inspect the gun locker, proper ammunition storage, and the firearm. There are strict laws against owning swords unless they are traditionally hand made Japanese Katanas and a license must be obtained, it is usually illegal to carry any sword or knife in public (unless transporting legitimately). WIKI. I have always felt we needed stricter gun laws. In my heart I think Trayvon would probably be alive if Zimmerman didn’t have one.

    I like the Japanese way of gun ownership. We have a love affair with guns, but like most love affairs, when it goes bad, it goes really bad.

    Trayvon’s parents are understandably angry, but they are being used terribly. Anger combined with grief is a powerful antagonist.

    The Fascist in the WH and the usual racist publicity hounds, Sharpton and Jackson, are going to be responsible for any deaths, in my mind, associated with this fiasco. They won’t take any responsibility of course. We see already the media whores coming to rescue, but they will be. Especially the fraud, especially our so called leader. But leader of whom? Do we all look like him? Would he care because we don’t? I think you know the answer.

    Once again he use’s any opportunity to ignite the flames of hatred and racism.

    It just might work this time…welcome to the spring of racism.

  150. The Donald thinks Hillary will run if she remains healthy, in 2016.

    He said he has been friends with the Clintons and really likes both of them very much. Hillary has done a great job as SOS, even though she has to follow Barry’s agenda, and she is a very hard worker.

    Greta asked him if he would support her if she ran in 2016… He laughed and said he didn’t want to get into that yet. ( Their entire conversation before and after talking about Bill and Hillary…was about his support of Mitt.)

  151. What do you think was Spike Lee’s motive in tweeting that address?

    ===================

    I haven’t seen the tweet or its context, dunno Lee. I’m sure he thought he had the right Zimmerman, though imo he was culpably careless about that, and I hope the elderly couple sue his ass.

  152. gonzo, I agree with mosty of this post.

    “In my heart I think Trayvon would probably be alive if Zimmerman didn’t have one.”

    Here I’d omit the ‘probably’. 🙁

  153. turndownobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
    —————-

    So if Spike Lee had tweeted the right address, that would have been alright in your view?

  154. <i.“In my heart I think Trayvon would probably be alive if Zimmerman didn’t have one.”

    May be, but Zimmerman may have been dead or ended up with a brain injury, if his account and eye witness’s are true. We don’t know what happened and it is best to leave it to the courts.

    I think the majority are objecting to the way other Blacks and the media (because Obama is Black and they are in love with him) are using this situation.

  155. from NQ…way to go Ani
    ************
    Dirty Words on Clean Skin — The Real War on Women
    By Anita Finlay (“Ani”) on March 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM in Current Affairs
    In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama waged an epic battle for the presidential nomination that captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but the joy of watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch. What I witnessed made the bile rise in my throat from such a deep place, I felt compelled to take action, transforming from actor and fearful news junkie to determined campaign grunt and citizen journalist.

    Since the sexist hazing endured by Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin four years ago, we have been offered every single narrative except one: the truth about the culprits who damage the credibility of women and the cost to those watching from the ground.

    DIRTY WORDS ON CLEAN SKIN is my shocking exposé about the real war on women…who’s buying, who’s selling, and why they get away with it.

    That war is waged daily by mainstream media, party backstabbers, opposing politicians, advertisers and lowbrow comedians on high powered television shows – all of whom miss no opportunity to degrade and marginalize; reducing women to body parts, wardrobe choices and vocal tics.

    The quality and preparedness of Hillary Clinton was continually obscured by the bread and circuses of distraction and character assassination. To a greater or lesser degree, these are tactics with which all females running for office have become acquainted. We say the sky’s the limit for women in this country, but the reality was quite different when we were presented with a test case.

    In her recent WaPo article, Twenty Years On, ‘Year of the Woman’ Fades, Karen Tumulty offers many reasons why women have not attained anything approaching parity in political representation, after female membership in the House and Senate doubled in 1992:

    “…They made their presence felt beyond Capitol Hill, with the passage of legislation that made the workplace more family-friendly, that directed more medical research to women’s health issues and that made the criminal justice system more responsive to domestic violence.”

    Women now represent 16.8% of Congress. We have now hit a plateau, Tumulty says. Another way of putting it is stagnation. The treatment received by Hillary Clinton, who won more votes than any candidate in Primary history, and Sarah Palin, only the second woman to get on a presidential ticket, served as horrifying cautionary tales rather than encouragement. Why would more qualified women run for higher office when a misogynist gauntlet awaits them?

    Ms. Tumulty notes Democrats have now declared that Republicans are waging a “war on women.” But the current “war” is being confined to contraception — only one aspect of the debate — rather than addressing the underbelly of woman-hate that still seems to permeate all levels of society.

    2008 is the year misogyny was made cool. Four years later, the verbal and visual assaults continue unchecked. The culprits may surprise you. The facts will shock you.

    DIRTY WORDS ON CLEAN SKIN transcends party politics and goes far beyond the treatment of one woman to examine the cost of denying equal respect to all women. This first person narrative will resonate with anyone who feels a burning frustration with mainstream media and the state of our political dialogue today.

    Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening is available for purchase today on Amazon and soon on Kindle as well. The official book launch will be April 24th. I am pleased to make it available early at a discounted rate for my readers who buy prior to that date.

    Thank you so much for your kind support of my work!

  156. pm
    ************

    I don’t know, to my limited knowledge, Trayvon probably stole some things, jewelry, and yes TD. screwdrivers are common tools to break into windows and yes, jewelry is a common item stolen, and there was some possibility of minor drug use and threatening a bus driver I think, skipping school, but no hard core assault charges. Mostly minor stuff.

    I am thinking Zimmerman did not back off initially, called out to Trayvon in some way, possibly Trayvon pursued a retreating Zimmerman and an altercation took place. Zimmerman got scared because he was way smaller and out came the gun. That’s just my theory.

    I also understand the lead detective wanted to press manslaughter charges on Zimmerman but was told there was not enough evidence.

  157. Turndown: what is your take on this incident based on what we have seen so far?

    ================

    We haven’t seen enough — as you and Admin have said.

    As I’ve said, forensics should have all the important answers (if we can trust the police for an accurate report in these fearful circumstances).

    The longer version of the 911 call seems to clear Z of outright racism (he was answering the dispatcher, who brought up the question of race).

    TM has been getting the Joe the Plumber treatment, though from the conservative side. They’re digging up minor human pecadilloes to make him seem worthless (or in his case dangerous). Graffiti, marijuana, tardiness — big deal. Someone else’s txt message ASKING him if he’d swung at a bus driver is not strong evidence that he really did. If he had, it would be on his school record, which apparently has nothing so serious. If this record belonged to a rich white lawyer’s kid, no one would find it ominous. Seems pretty mild compared to what most kids get up to these days. Gold teeth (decorative overlay?), sagging pants, ambiguous fingers in a photo: is all this the WORST they can find?

    BRB.

  158. screwdrivers are common tools to break into windows and yes, jewelry is a common item stolen

    ===================

    Oh, come on! Screwdrivers are common tools for EVERYTHING.

  159. gonzotx, your observation about Japanese gun laws and practice is interesting. Speaking broadly of that society though, I would die of suffocation. Gender disparity is too much and the society demands so much more of individuals to conform to some vague notion of acceptability that would be stifling to me. Some good will result but at the cost of individual liberty.

  160. Mutnodjmet
    March 28th, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    With the “severability factor”, we can add a ship-sinking and complete the Trifecta structural failure that this TITANIC Obamacare legislation has been.
    ———————————

    It was Bambi what got drowned in the deep blue sea . . .

  161. turndownobama
    March 28th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    but not the combo, jewelry and screwdriver!

    you are not that niave are you?

  162. bstonesfan
    March 28th, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Polls on RCP today look bad . Obama ahead in swing states and trending up in approval rating.
    ——————————————-


  163. The article is actually talking about the New Black Panther Party but had this about the FL law and neighborhood watches: excerpt

    Additionally, according to Adams, Trayvon Martin, himself, may have been in violation of an “oddball” Florida law which accords protections to those individuals engaged in neighborhood watch activities. The existence of such a law carries with it the possibility that Martin, whether or not he was otherwise innocent of any criminal intent, violated Florida law by aggressively challenging Zimmerman’s inquiries.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/will_florida_prosecute_holders_people.html

  164. gonzotx
    March 29th, 2012 at 12:13 am

    ===================

    Maybe the nurse had a conscience clause. Like the US nurses who will not give a rape victim an emergency contraceptive.

  165. The existence of such a law carries with it the possibility that Martin, whether or not he was otherwise innocent of any criminal intent, violated Florida law by aggressively challenging Zimmerman’s inquiries.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/

    ====================

    This contains the assumption that Martin DID “aggressively challenge Z’s inquiries.” What evidence is there that Martin challenged Z at all? Just Z’s word? — who at this point will say anything to save his neck.

  166. This week has shaken the establishment to the core. It has forced them to concede what was obvious to us, but obscure to them, namely that they are neither infallible or final–but just a bunch of assholes with attitude–and opinions which they routinely substitute for fact hoping that we will not notice. One tin foil hat at Red State–a red under every bed sort of feller—he said this was all a big conspiracy–and in fact the Obama Administration wanted to fall flat on their faces in the Supreme Court hearing, because now they can go for full blown government health care. Bait and switch. This delusional son of a bitch (him not me) quotes Sun Tsu, therefore he must be right. But I think he is wrong (the blogger not Sun Tzu). Sun Tsu is like Judith Durham–never wrong and never off key. And Obama handed our friend Jim Carville the brown helmut job of appearing on CNN, and saying losing the trifecta before the magnificent 9 would be a wonderful thing politically because it would rally the base and guarantee Obama a second term (just joking jbstonesfan). And bearing in mind the mental acuity of the base, I fully expect that they will see the doubling of premiums, the reduction of mediCaid, and the loss of death panels as a great blow to personal liberty. It is all so Orwellian–good is bad, up is down and I can use words to mean anything I want to. Well, Moe Lane has a different take:
    ————————————————————————-
    Posted by Moe Lane (Diary)

    Wednesday, March 28th at 10:00PM EDT
    6 Comments

    So I watched this clip of James Carville furiously spinning the suddenly-more-plausible possibility of Obamacare going down utterly in flames as being the most awesome thing ever for Democrats:

    By the way: I should ask Erick how he manages to avoid pointing and laughing at performances like this. I don’t know that I could manage the same self-control.

    Anyway, Allahpundit watched the clip, too, and he’s got a legitimate question about whether Carville is correct and that this would be ultimately good for Democrats. The answer is… if it is, not in the sense that everybody is meaning. Except maybe James Carville: he’s clever enough to give out the wrong reasoning in public.

    The basic argument being presented here is, as far as I can tell, that killing Obamacare will at least rally the base, bringing them back to the polls just in time to recreate the energy and dedication that got elected Barack Obama in 2008. The President will go out and convince the American people that the Supreme Court slapping down Obamacare means that it’s now the Republicans’ problem to solve. That, and the judicious choosing and pushing of individually popular features of Obamacare will put the Democrats back over the top, and did you catch all the hidden assumptions that I loaded into this paragraph?

    Let’s unpack ‘em:

    First: note that casual equation of ‘rally the base’ with ‘recreate the 2008 Obama voter demographic.’ Not really justified. Obama won in 2008 because he won independents 52/44 and moderates 60/39. This recent CNN poll suggests the problem then for the Democrats; in that poll independents oppose Obamacare 41/53, moderates only support it 52/41… and liberals only 63/26. This means that ‘rallying the base’ is a prerequisite not for ‘winning the election,’ but rather for ‘avoiding losing the election by a catastrophic it not apocalyptic margin.’
    Second: the President. Convincing people. Or anything. This would be President Obama, right? The joke has long been among the VRWC that one of best things that can be done to further one of our policy positions is to con Barack Obama into making a speech about it: the man has no judgement and no demonstrated ability to learn from his mistakes. And he’s notoriously bad at convincing people to go into a direction that those people, in fact, do not wish to go.
    Third: that because some individual features of Obamacare are popular, arguing that they’ll go away with the larger law will be a powerful driver of votes. Because, after all, noting that stopped the Republicans from gaining 63 seats in the House and 7 in the Senate during the 2010 election cycle – no, wait, in point of fact it did not. Largely because the assertion can be fairly easily counter-argued, and in fact will be: if an individual feature is so popular, let the legislature go back and enact it. The true issue is the incredibly complex and disastrous-to-pernicious interrelated clauses, additions, add-ons, out-and-out bribes, and other detritus that was all swept up in one big messy pile and called Obamacare.

    So… if Obamacare going down in flames isn’t good for letting Democrats win, then how will its destruction actually be good for Democrats? Easy: its destruction will wreck the political careers of both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi (I wish that it’d also wreck Harry Reid’s career, but the Senate’s funny that way. Besides, Reid’s very possibly not running for another term in 2016 anyway). Because when you think about it; Obamacare’s pretty much the only thing that the Democrats have done that they even remotely want to talk about. It’s not that Obamacare is great – it’s actually awful – but everything else that they’ve done has been worse. When and if that goes away, the way that Obamacare goes away will hopefully make it clear in the process that the next Democratic Speaker of the House (and there will be one eventually: just not in 2012) should be someone who is nota San Franciscan liberal who treats the Speakership as if it was a crude, Stone Age club…

    But I malign our primitive ancestors with that comparison: they worked with the best that they had. It’s too frightening to even think that, when it comes to Democrats, so did Nancy Pelosi.

    Moe Lane (crosspost)

  167. gonzo,

    According to Blunt, anybody can have a conscience exemption to anything, they don’t even need a religion to back it up. And the way conscience exemptions have been used in practice, the person can keep his job while refusing to do whatever normal job task his conscience forbids.

  168. WBBOEI,

    I’m sorry I got distracted. On the Florida case I’m trying to focus on objective evidence: forensics, tapes, etc. Discounting anyone’s word, according to how long they’ve had to prepare, and how much danger they’re in.

    I just went out to see if I’d missed some forensic evidence. Googling for [ Zimmerman “powder burns” ] I found a lot other people asking the same questions I’ve been asking, but no indiction of any such evidence having been released or leaked.

    Here’s an example:
    http://ingunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/201666-17_year_old_kid_shot_dead_by_neighborhood_watch_captain-91.html#post2753385
    [ One day ago ]
    The news reports stated that Zimmerman said Martin was on something. Where are the tox reports that lend credibility to Zimmerman’s statements.
    [….] Again, where are the forensics? Does the bullet trajectory match Zimmerman’s version of events? Does the bullet wound match his version of events? Powder burns? No powder burns? Did the investigators thoroughly examine the crime scene with complete objectivity?

    Also, where are photos of Z’s claimed injurie, bloody clothes (and whose blood was it, if any), claimed grass stains, etc. If he’s telling a story but there is no evidence where there should be evidence, that throws the rest of his story in doubt.

    Offhand I can’t find the date of the shooting, and I must go catch a goose. But wasn’t it over a month ago? Is it reasonable that the police did collect all this forensic evidence and are not leaking it, if it supports Z? Does the lack of leaked evidence suggest that they didn’t bother to investigate in the first place, or that it implicates Z so they are concealing it? Or is this secrecy normal police procedure?

  169. Justices Question Extent of Federal Power
    Arguments Over Health-Care Law Veer Into a Challenge to Medicaid as Obama’s Signature Measure Faces a Rough Ride

    By JESS BRAVIN

    Justices in the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said Wednesday that it would be difficult to figure out which parts of the Obama health-care law should survive if one part of it is judged unconstitutional. Jess Bravin has details on The News Hub. Photo: Reuters.

    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ended three momentous days of argument Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s signature health-care law, with opponents pushing their rhetoric into fundamental questions about the limits of Washington’s power.

    Conservative justices suggested that if one part of the law is judged unconstitutional, the entire health overhaul with hundreds of provisions may have to fall with it. In the afternoon, the case took a twist that upended expectations, as the conservatives challenged the basis of the federal-state Medicaid program.

    Together, the questions underscored the rough ride the administration suffered over the three days that left President Barack Obama’s top domestic achievement in doubt. On Tuesday, justices challenged the law’s centerpiece, the requirement that Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, sharply questioned both supporters and opponents, leaving his ultimate position in doubt.

    In his final minutes before the court Wednesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sought to seize the patriotic mantle from the law’s challengers, who have portrayed their effort as a defense of fundamental American values.

    As the affordable health care law arguments wrap at the Supreme Court, WSJ’s Peter Landers checks in on Mean Street to outline the next steps in the legal process. Photo: Getty Images.

    Expanding health coverage through the private insurance market or Medicaid, as the Obama law envisions, will extend “the blessings of liberty” to individuals hobbled by disabilities or families decimated by illness, Mr. Verrilli said. “There will be millions of people with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease” who won’t have to worry about medicine, he said.
    Annotated Transcript: Day Three

    Listen to audio excerpts and read commentary on the arguments in this interactive graphic.

    View Interactive
    More

    Recap: The Hearings, Day 3 | Transcript and Audio
    Washington Wire: Justices Question Basis of Medicare
    Law Blog: ‘Severability’ Debate Falls on Familiar Lines
    Justices Question Insurance Mandate | Five Takeaways
    Listen to Arguments From Days One and Two
    Opinion: A Constitutional Awakening | Insurers and the Supremes

    But as the marathon arguments—extended 30 minutes, at the order of Chief Justice John Roberts, to a total of 6½ hours—neared an end, it was Paul Clement, representing 26 Republican-led states opposed to the law, who had the last word.

    “I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it’s a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not,” Mr. Clement said.

    He added that the health law’s expansion of Medicaid “is a direct threat to our federalism.”

    Some states are challenging the Medicaid changes, saying the law effectively coerces them to cover more poor citizens than they wish, under threat of being kicked out of the federal-state program altogether.

    In the run-up to the court arguments, the Medicaid expansion received less attention. But the issue emerged as perhaps the most revelatory of the Roberts Court’s view of American federalism, with conservative justices suggesting a deep unease over the dominant role in domestic policy Washington has played since the New Deal.

    At issue was the national government’s ability to require states to meet federal conditions in exchange for federal money. In the drive to reach near-universal coverage, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the formal name of the Obama law, expands eligibility for Medicaid and provides $9 for every $1 a state spends to comply.

    Congress traditionally has exercised wide discretion in its power, as stated by the Constitution, to “provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.” Even the conservative federal courts that struck down the mandate to carry insurance sided with the Obama administration on the Medicaid issue.

    WSJ’s Jess Bravin examines the topics surrounding the health care law final day of arguments before the Supreme Court, including whether components of the law can stand if the individual mandate is struck down. Photo: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images
    Transcript, Audio From Tuesday’s Arguments

    See the full transcript, read highlighted commentary and listen to select audio.

    View Interactive

    Transcript, audio from Monday

    Photos: Day Three of Health-Law Arguments

    View Slideshow
    [SB10001424052702303404704577309453646189884]
    Jonathan Ernst /Reuters

    Health-care legislation supporter Margot Smith, left, of California, pleaded her case with legislation opponents Judy Burel, second from right, and Janis Haddon, both of Georgia, on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

    At the Supreme Court, however, Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the conservatives’ position on requiring states to expand Medicaid by referring to a legendary comedy routine.

    It’s “the old Jack Benny thing,” Justice Scalia said, invoking the joke where a robber holds up the famously stingy comedian and says, ” ‘Your money or your life,’ and, you know, he says, ‘I’m thinking, I’m thinking,’ ” Justice Scalia said. “It’s funny, because it’s no choice.”

    The court’s liberals seemed incredulous, if not outraged, at the possibility of a tectonic shift in constitutional doctrine that has dominated since the New Deal. “If you are right, Mr. Clement, doesn’t that mean that Medicaid is unconstitutional now?” said Justice Elena Kagan.

    Mr. Clement avoided a direct answer. “Not necessarily,” he replied.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “We have never had, in the history of this country or the court, any federal program struck down because it was so good that it becomes coercive to be in it.”

    But Justice Kennedy saw it differently. “There’s no realistic choice,” for states, he said, because there is no practical way for them to leave Medicaid without stripping millions of low-income Americans of their health care. “Congress does not in effect allow for an opt out. We just know that.”

    The Obama law’s best hope on the conservative side may come from the chief justice, but not out of sympathy for federal objectives. If the states felt trapped in Medicaid, he said, it could be their own fault, given “how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the federal government’s money.”

    Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com

  170. Turndown–you are trying to look at this the way a lawyer would. But that is not the way nbc, abc and cnn look at it. Having painted this as a race crime in order to advance Obama’s interests, they found themselves in the awkward position of going out on a limb before they had all the facts, and inciting low intellect thugs to offer bounties and the like. FOX did not rush to judgment but brought out contrary facts that nbc, abc and cnn tried to suppress. NBC, ABC and CNN deal in lies, half truths and propaganda. It is a bad thing for them to be trying to convict a man before the facts are in and the judicial process has run its course, but their entire world–100% of it revolves around shoehorning any violent confrontation between blacks and anyone else into a civil rights morality play. These media outlets are a disease fatal to liberty, and national unity. They are race baiters of the lowest order–from the top of those organizations to the very bottom. The people at the top are de facto racists, and the people down the chain of command are simply rank and file. Remember that comment by Bob Sharpiro in the OJ Trial—his co-counsel F Lee Bailey and Johnnie Cochrane played the race card from the bottom of the deck. So it is with them. It is all too reminiscent of Bonfire of the Vanities.

  171. I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety or profit from this in some way, but there’s so much hate.

  172. Here is what I am talking about, in re. Bonfire of the Vanities. Mainstream media however is the culprit here–they come from the Sherman McCoy social class referred to in the last paragraph– the worst bastion of elitism, prejudice, and self-delusion. Sharton is Reverend Bacon.
    ———————————-
    The Bonfire of the Vanities Summary

    by Tom Wolfe

    Summary

    The Bonfire of the Vanities, set in New York City in the nineteen eighties, has as its protagonist Sherman McCoy, a self-dubbed “Master of the Universe.” McCoy makes a million dollars per annum on Wall Street. He is married to Judy McCoy, and they live with their six-year-old daughter on Park Avenue while maintaining a weekend house in Southampton, Long Island. Much of the action of the story takes place in the extremely decadent world of Park Avenue in the 1980s. Sherman and Judy McCoy’s life of elegant apartments, profligate spending, and shallow friendship plays out amid Sheraton furnishings, marble floors, and $2000 suits.

    Behind his wife’s back, McCoy is conducting an affair with a younger woman, Maria, the socialite wife of another Park Avenue millionaire. One night, after picking her up from the airport, they make a wrong turn into the Bronx. There they have an encounter with a pair of young African-American men; this encounter possibly results in an accident that leaves one of the African-American men dead. McCoy and his mistress flee the scene, resolved not to tell anyone, including the police. At the time of the “accident,” Maria was driving Sherman’s car.

    An unscrupulous civil attorney, Albert Vogel, finds out about this incident, including the information that the driver of the car was probably white, and feeds this news to Peter Fallow, a tippling British reporter at the New York daily newspaper The City Light. Fallow distorts the facts of the story to such an extent that certain African-American groups, led by the extortionist Reverend Bacon, take the story up as a rallying point against racial injustice. The story becomes politically charged and Bacon leads an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    Meanwhile, Abe Weiss, the District Attorney in the Bronx, is up for re-election. The same Reverend Bacon has been vocally opposed to his campaign, accusing him of favoring white interests. Desperate for African-American votes, the D.A. ruthlessly prosecutes Sherman McCoy. Meanwhile, his Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, Larry Kramer, wrestles with serious self-esteem issues. Kramer uses the high profile of the case to attempt to impress his would-be mistress, Shelly Thomas.

    Sherman ends up indicted for the crime after his mistress Maria and the other witnesses lie to legal authorities. Sherman uses the services of a flamboyant and street-wise Irish-American lawyer, Tommy Killian, who knows the criminal justice system inside and out. Though Sherman gets off through a trick involving a fraudulent taped conversation, he is not free of legal woes. All his assets are appropriated or frozen, and his wife and child leave him. He fights against the legal and political system that ruined him, and grows into a vocal critic of society.

    Throughout the novel, Wolfe writes in a bitingly satiric style, sparing no one from the top to the bottom of society. The Mayor of New York, the Reverend Bacon, the D.A., prosecutors, middle-class people, the police, and the poor minorities of Harlem and the Bronx are all shown to be selfish and morally flawed. The wealthy W.A.S.P. world of Sherman McCoy, however, with its Park Avenue shindigs and its pandering to artists-of-the-moment, is shown to be the worst bastion of elitism, prejudice, and self-delusion.

  173. Life imitates art. Sharpton, Obama, the NBC/CNN/ABC cabal–they are all here.

    The Bonfire of the Vanities Summary

    by Tom Wolfe

    Summary

    The Bonfire of the Vanities, set in New York City in the nineteen eighties, has as its protagonist Sherman McCoy, a self-dubbed “Master of the Universe.” McCoy makes a million dollars per annum on Wall Street. He is married to Judy McCoy, and they live with their six-year-old daughter on Park Avenue while maintaining a weekend house in Southampton, Long Island. Much of the action of the story takes place in the extremely decadent world of Park Avenue in the 1980s. Sherman and Judy McCoy’s life of elegant apartments, profligate spending, and shallow friendship plays out amid Sheraton furnishings, marble floors, and $2000 suits.

    Behind his wife’s back, McCoy is conducting an affair with a younger woman, Maria, the socialite wife of another Park Avenue millionaire. One night, after picking her up from the airport, they make a wrong turn into the Bronx. There they have an encounter with a pair of young African-American men; this encounter possibly results in an accident that leaves one of the African-American men dead. McCoy and his mistress flee the scene, resolved not to tell anyone, including the police. At the time of the “accident,” Maria was driving Sherman’s car.

    An unscrupulous civil attorney, Albert Vogel, finds out about this incident, including the information that the driver of the car was probably white, and feeds this news to Peter Fallow, a tippling British reporter at the New York daily newspaper The City Light. Fallow distorts the facts of the story to such an extent that certain African-American groups, led by the extortionist Reverend Bacon, take the story up as a rallying point against racial injustice. The story becomes politically charged and Bacon leads an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    Meanwhile, Abe Weiss, the District Attorney in the Bronx, is up for re-election. The same Reverend Bacon has been vocally opposed to his campaign, accusing him of favoring white interests. Desperate for African-American votes, the D.A. ruthlessly prosecutes Sherman McCoy. Meanwhile, his Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, Larry Kramer, wrestles with serious self-esteem issues. Kramer uses the high profile of the case to attempt to impress his would-be mistress, Shelly Thomas.

    Sherman ends up indicted for the crime after his mistress Maria and the other witnesses lie to legal authorities. Sherman uses the services of a flamboyant and street-wise Irish-American lawyer, Tommy Killian, who knows the criminal justice system inside and out. Though Sherman gets off through a trick involving a fraudulent taped conversation, he is not free of legal woes. All his assets are appropriated or frozen, and his wife and child leave him. He fights against the legal and political system that ruined him, and grows into a vocal critic of society.

    Throughout the novel, Wolfe writes in a bitingly satiric style, sparing no one from the top to the bottom of society. The Mayor of New York, the Reverend Bacon, the D.A., prosecutors, middle-class people, the police, and the poor minorities of Harlem and the Bronx are all shown to be selfish and morally flawed. The wealthy W.A.S.P. world of Sherman McCoy, however, with its Park Avenue shindigs and its pandering to artists-of-the-moment, is shown to be the worst bastion of elitism, prejudice, and self-delusion.

  174. Life imitates art. Obama, Sharpton and the NBC/CNN/ABC cabal–they are all here.

    The Bonfire of the Vanities

    by Tom Wolfe

    Summary

    The Bonfire of the Vanities, set in New York City in the nineteen eighties, has as its protagonist Sherman McCoy, a self-dubbed “Master of the Universe.” McCoy makes a million dollars per annum on Wall Street. He is married to Judy McCoy, and they live with their six-year-old daughter on Park Avenue while maintaining a weekend house in Southampton, Long Island. Much of the action of the story takes place in the extremely decadent world of Park Avenue in the 1980s. Sherman and Judy McCoy’s life of elegant apartments, profligate spending, and shallow friendship plays out amid Sheraton furnishings, marble floors, and $2000 suits.

    Behind his wife’s back, McCoy is conducting an affair with a younger woman, Maria, the socialite wife of another Park Avenue millionaire. One night, after picking her up from the airport, they make a wrong turn into the Bronx. There they have an encounter with a pair of young African-American men; this encounter possibly results in an accident that leaves one of the African-American men dead. McCoy and his mistress flee the scene, resolved not to tell anyone, including the police. At the time of the “accident,” Maria was driving Sherman’s car.

    An unscrupulous civil attorney, Albert Vogel, finds out about this incident, including the information that the driver of the car was probably white, and feeds this news to Peter Fallow, a tippling British reporter at the New York daily newspaper The City Light. Fallow distorts the facts of the story to such an extent that certain African-American groups, led by the extortionist Reverend Bacon, take the story up as a rallying point against racial injustice. The story becomes politically charged and Bacon leads an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    Meanwhile, Abe Weiss, the District Attorney in the Bronx, is up for re-election. The same Reverend Bacon has been vocally opposed to his campaign, accusing him of favoring white interests. Desperate for African-American votes, the D.A. ruthlessly prosecutes Sherman McCoy. Meanwhile, his Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case, Larry Kramer, wrestles with serious self-esteem issues. Kramer uses the high profile of the case to attempt to impress his would-be mistress, Shelly Thomas.

    Sherman ends up indicted for the crime after his mistress Maria and the other witnesses lie to legal authorities. Sherman uses the services of a flamboyant and street-wise Irish-American lawyer, Tommy Killian, who knows the criminal justice system inside and out. Though Sherman gets off through a trick involving a fraudulent taped conversation, he is not free of legal woes. All his assets are appropriated or frozen, and his wife and child leave him. He fights against the legal and political system that ruined him, and grows into a vocal critic of society.

    Throughout the novel, Wolfe writes in a bitingly satiric style, sparing no one from the top to the bottom of society. The Mayor of New York, the Reverend Bacon, the D.A., prosecutors, middle-class people, the police, and the poor minorities of Harlem and the Bronx are all shown to be selfish and morally flawed. The wealthy W.A.S.P. world of Sherman McCoy, however, with its Park Avenue shindigs and its pandering to artists-of-the-moment, is shown to be the worst bastion of elitism, prejudice, and self-delusion.

  175. Turndown–you are trying to look at this the way a lawyer would. But that is not the way nbc, abc and cnn look at it.

    ======================

    So how about meeting me in a moment of sanity. What about my questions? Where is the forensic evidence? Are the police concealing it? Or is this time lag normal?

    It’s not like a crime drama where they are trying to flush out some mysterous one-armed man or something.

  176. Offhand I can’t find the date of the shooting, and I must go catch a goose. But wasn’t it over a month ago? Is it reasonable that the police did collect all this forensic evidence and are not leaking it, if it supports Z? Does the lack of leaked evidence suggest that they didn’t bother to investigate in the first place, or that it implicates Z so they are concealing it? Or is this secrecy normal police procedure?
    ———————————————-
    The cops should not be leaking anything. It should all go to the district attorney, who will make the decision on whether to prosecute. As in Bonfire of the Vanities–the media is responsible for what is going on now:

    Peter Fallow, a tippling British reporter at the New York daily newspaper The City Light. Fallow distorts the facts of the story to such an extent that certain African-American groups, led by the extortionist Reverend Bacon, take the story up as a rallying point against racial injustice. The story becomes politically charged and Bacon leads an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

  177. In case I have not been clear, by the media I mean nbc, cnn and abc. Msnbc does not count because they are not a news organization. msnbc are Shelter Island–a refuge for the criminally insane.

  178. So how about meeting me in a moment of sanity. What about my questions? Where is the forensic evidence? Are the police concealing it? Or is this time lag normal?
    __________________________________________
    See my comment above about the district attorney.

    We do not need the press to solve crimes. Whenever they undertake to do so, they distort, they mislead and they incite violence. And, they are seldom right but never in doubt. As Ann Coulter noted above:

    Even after the Duke lacrosse case, Texaco executives allegedly using the N-word in private meetings — which turned out to be “St. Nicholas” — the Tawana Brawley case, not to mention virtual hailstorms of racist graffiti and nooses materializing on college campuses, all of which invariably end up having been put there by the alleged victims, the Non-Fox Media (NFM) didn’t even pause before conjuring a racist plot in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida last month.

  179. In any major criminal case, if the investigation unearths a lot of information which is screened out because it is unreliable, and would generate more heat than light. When the press tries to try a case in the newspaper those safeguards do not exist, which means innocent people can be seriously harmed and more often than not the wrong conclusion is reached.

  180. The cops should not be leaking anything. It should all go to the district attorney, who will make the decision on whether to prosecute.

    =================

    On what time frame? How much more time would they need to collect everything relevant to this particular case?

    And keep the evidence secret till the DA is ready to reveal it at the trial, if any, so as not to tip off the defense? Of course the police “should not” reveal anything, which is why I said “leaking” instead of “revealing”.

    But do you really see them as concealing their evidence now in hopes of convicting Z later? They’re being criticized for appearing not to prosecute or even investigate his action. Wouldn’t they want to disarm this criticism either by arresting him — or by leaking evidence that would suggest he’s innocent (if they have any).

  181. Special WH Protection if you donate $1M to Obama’s campaign- as did Spike Lee. Buys you plenty of msnbc spin and cover..Here’s the skinny:
    ______________________

    MSNBC Glosses Over Spike Lee Story, Doesn’t Disclose He Directed ‘Lean Forward’ Ads

    In this MSNBC segment on the case of Spike Lee tweeting what he thought was George Zimmerman’s address, anchor Chris Jansing glosses over the director’s irresponsible actions and fails to disclose that he directed the network’s famous “Lean Forward” ad campaign.

    Jansing characterizes the event as a “Twitter error,” as though the most notable element of the story is that the wrong address was posted–not that a Hollywood director deliberately posted the street address of a private citizen, seemingly to direct those who want “justice” to his home.

    This omission is glaring and is more evidence of exactly where MSNBC stands on the issue of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The network’s coverage–in example after example after example–has tilted toward bloodthirsty anger at all things even tangentially related to Zimmerman and outright dismissal of uncivil, vile behavior in the name of Martin.

    What Lee did wasn’t a “Twitter error;” it appears to have been a call to arms. And when two people completely unrelated to Zimmerman or Martin got caught in his cross hairs, Lee had not expressed any remorse at the time of this broadcast (he has since apologized). And MSNBC didn’t find this newsworthy.

    Why could this be? Perhaps NBC News wants to limit negative coverage of Lee’s Twitter antics, as that could damage their own brand. Yes, Lee was the director of MSNBC’s “Lean Forward” advertisements:

    Jansing and her producers did not find it necessary to disclose their relationship to Lee for this story, which begs the cliche–if this were Fox News, how many weeks of outrage would this elicit?

    Jansing also falsely reports that the tweets containing the address have been removed–most likely based on a report from the Orlando Sentinel which makes the same claim. However, one need only take 30 seconds to scroll down Lee’s Twitter time line to find that both tweets containing the Florida address are still present. Here is a screenshot of Lee’s Twitter feed taken this morning showing both tweets.

    MSNBC’s coverage of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and now Spike Lee’s role in the story is a classic campaign of bias-by-omitting-information, and the most ethically troubling omission is that which might embarrass the network itself.

    http://www.breitbart.com/

  182. Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? ‘Yes, of Course’

    (CNSNews.com) – During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?

    “Yes, of course they could,” said Breyer.

    In the history of the nation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never done this.

    But Breyer, on Tuesday, stated his belief that the basic power of Congress to do such a thing was settled by the Supreme Court as early as 1819, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the court decided Congress had the power to create a Bank of the United States.

    Breyer explained his point of view after becoming impatient with the convoluted answers Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had offered up in response to questions from Justices Sam Alito and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.

    Alito had asked Verrilli if Congress could force young people to buy burial insurance because everyone is going to die someday. Roberts asked Verrilli if Congress could force people to buy cell phones because it would facilitate contacting emergency services in the event of an accident. And Kennedy asked Verrilli: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it.”

    “I’m somewhat uncertain about your answers to, for example, Justice Kennedy,” said Breyer. He “asked, can you, under the Commerce Clause, Congress create commerce where previously none existed.

    “Well, yes,” said Breyer, “I thought the answer to that was, since McCulloch versus Maryland, when the Court said Congress could create the Bank of the United States which did not previously exist, which job was to create commerce that did not previously exist, since that time the answer has been, yes.

    “I would have thought that your answer [to] can the government, in fact, require you to buy cell phones or buy burials that, if we propose comparable situations, if we have, for example, a uniform United States system of paying for every burial such as Medicare Burial, Medicaid Burial, Ship Burial, ERISA Burial and Emergency Burial beside the side of the road, and Congress wanted to rationalize that system, wouldn’t the answer be: Yes, of course, they could,” said Breyer.

    “And the same with the computers, or the same with the cell phones, if you’re driving by the side of the highway and there is a federal emergency service, just as you say you have to buy certain mufflers for your car that don’t hurt the environment, you could,” said Breyer.

    “I mean, see, doesn’t it depend on the situation?” said Breyer.

    “It does, Justice Breyer,” said Verrilli, “and if Congress were to enact laws like that, we –”

    “Would be up here defending it,” said Breyer.

    “It would be my responsibility to then defend them, and I would defend them on a rationale like that, but I do think that we are advancing a narrower rationale,” said Verrilli.

    Breyer served as a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the late 1970s, when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) chaired that committee. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In 1994, President Clinton nominated him to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who in 1973 had authored the Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion a constitutional right.

    When Breyer was confirmed to the Supreme Court, only 9 Republicans in the Senate voted against him.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-can-congress-make-americans-buy-computers-cell-phones-burials-yes-course

  183. Getting the feeling Justice Breyer is setting up some sort of life-line for saving ObamaCare. Apparently, even Verrilli couldn’t follow Breyer’s point of view as he was trying to help him mount an argument. So, Verrilli fumbles. TG-

  184. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, sharply questioned both supporters and opponents, leaving his ultimate position in doubt.
    *****************
    Be very afraid…WWKD

  185. WBBOEI.

    I have been speaking about the “Bonfire of the Vanities” for days.

    It is the exact literary metaphor for what’s happening via Tray. I suggest everyone read it.

    It’s dense in parts but entertaining as he11. One of Wolf’s best despite the horrible movie.

    It is one of the masterpieces of 20th century American literature

    Gonzo and I were discussing it three days ago, at least.

  186. Text accompanying video admin posted at 2:17 am, statement of Robert Zimmerman. It fills in so many gaps. Our totally unscrupulous media will not even feel shame for having done this.

    29 March 2012 Exclusive interview with myFOXorlando:
    snip In his first interview, Robert Zimmerman told myFOXorlando he decided to speak out for his son against the advice of police. Robert Zimmerman claims his son was going to the store when he spotted Martin walking through his neighborhood. George Zimmerman, he said, found it odd the teen was walking in between the town homes on a rainy night, rather than on the street or on the sidewalk. Since there had been multiple break-ins in the area, George Zimmerman decided to call police on the non-emergency number.
    Police told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and asked him where he was. However, because he was behind the town homes he could not see the nearest address. This is why, Robert Zimmerman claims, his son decided to keep following Martin, so he could obtain an address to give to police.
    “(George Zimmerman) went to the next street, realized where he was and was walking to his vehicle,” Robert Zimmerman said. “It’s my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him and asked him, ‘Do you have a [expletive] problem?’ ” Robert Zimmerman says his son told Martin he did not have a problem, and reached for his cellphone. Then, Robert Zimmerman claims, Martin punched George Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground.”Trayvon Martin got on top of him, and just started beating him,” Robert Zimmerman claims. “In his face, on his nose, hitting his face on the concrete.After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him, in the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, ‘You’re going to die now,’ or ‘You’re going to die tonight’ or something to that effect,” Robert Zimmerman said. Robert Zimmerman said Martin continued to beat his son, and George Zimmerman at some point pulled out his gun and “did what he did.”
    Robert Zimmerman also responded to the 911 tape audio that has been widely publicized in the case, in which someone can be heard screaming for help. Martin’s family claims it was their son screaming on the tape, and the fact that the screaming stopped after a gunshot is heard proves it. “All of our family, everyone who knows George, knows absolutely that is George screaming,” Robert Zimmerman said. “There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind.”When asked why the recording picked up screams for help but not the alleged threats by Martin, Robert Zimmerman said he does not know. Robert Zimmerman also claims he doubts the account of the night from Martin’s girlfriend, who claims she was talking with Martin on the phone before the incident.
    “I don’t believe that happened,” Robert Zimmerman said. “I don’t believe she was on the phone with him, and I find it very strange with the publicity involved… that all of a sudden, after three weeks, someone would remember that they were on the phone.” Robert Zimmerman said his son, who is reportedly in hiding, had a broken nose and injuries to his head after the incident. “Currently he is not doing well,” he said. “I don’t know if those injuries are physical or mental, but he’s not in good shape.”
    Robert Zimmerman says his family has received death threats, and he only spoke to myFOXorlando on the condition they did not show his face. A former magistrate judge and Vietnam War veteran, Robert Zimmerman says this is one of the hardest things he has ever been through. “Tough was being in Vietnam and other things in my life,” he said. “This is way beyond anything I can imagine.”
    Zimmerman says he is hopeful his son will be cleared of all charges. He described George Zimmerman as a former Altar Boy who hoped to become a judge like his father. He also said George Zimmerman once served as a mentor to two black boys and that his son is “colorblind.” Also Wednesday, a surveillance video shot after the shooting was released, showing George Zimmerman being led in handcuffs from a police car. An attorney for Martin’s family said it is obvious to him that Zimmerman did not have injuries to his face and head as his supporters have asserted. “This certainly doesn’t look like a man who police said had his nose broken and his head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk,” Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin’s family, said in a statement after viewing the video. “George Zimmerman has no apparent injuries in this video, which dramatically contradicts his version of the events of February 26.” Crump called the video “riveting” and “icing on the cake” that Zimmerman should be held accountable for what happened.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/george-zimmermans-father-claims-trayvon-martin-beat-his-son-threatened-his-life/

  187. Spending like a mad woman……all that money now…hmm whats he worried about.

    President Obama’s re-election campaign has spent more than $135 million so far, the AP reports.

    That’s about $3 million more than all his Republican challengers combined.

  188. SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    Secretary Clinton is on foreign travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Istanbul, Turkey through April 1. The Secretary is accompanied by Assistant Secretary Shapiro and Director Sullivan. Please click here
    for more information.

    Glad that she is out of the mess that BO has created for this country.She must be our next POTUS.

    How soon o Lord?

  189. Yes, ABM, how soon. When Big Dawg left office I in great naivity thought NOW WORLD, Bill has shown us the proper way to resolve conflict. I truly anticipated a grateful world, or at least US administration that would follow the Clinton logic Of course as soon as reins were turned over to Republicans, all the good was overturned; and is nearly beyond comprehension at this moment. So yes, it is time to pray for Hillary’s wisdom and decency at our helm.

    Unfortunately as you have no doubt noticed, I’m riveted to saving George Zimmerman and in that regard, am here to report that Drudge has picked up the FoxNews interview of his Dad’s and has it top center now.

    Cannot help but noticing the runaway media. Just like 2008. EVERY DAMNED TIME BARACK NEEDS VOTES we are subjected to this unstoppable train wreck.

  190. gonzotx
    March 29th, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, sharply questioned both supporters and opponents, leaving his ultimate position in doubt.
    *****************
    Be very afraid…WWKD
    ———————
    Gonzo–the justices always question both sides closely. It is a mistake to read too little or too much into what they say. And, it depends on the issue. For example, he might be willing to strike down the individual mandate, but unwilling to block the expansion of MediCaid. They are entirely different issues. The individual mandate is the key to this. Remember the Florida Judge struck down the individual mandate but rejected the states rights argument. If I were in Roberts shoes, I would recogize the importance of the overall issue, and see if there is any grounds for consensus in the court before I did anything else. For example, if everything else fell in line, would they all agree to strike down the individual mandate. I am predicting a 5-4 decision because I do not think that will happen, but he has got to try. It is remotely possible that he would get Breyer to go his way in which case it would be 6-3. The key to this thing from their standpoint could be a narrow holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but the rest of the legislation survives and gets remanded to congress. With an election coming up, in which the senate and house will both go to the Republicans, that is one possible outcome.

  191. I would like to turn the tables on Breyer and ask him if we accept your position, is there any limiting principle on the commerce power other than some vague, nebulous, subjective and arbitrary concept of the general good, which like justice depends on whose ox is being gored?

  192. Donald Trump gambling on Hillary Clinton in 2016

    By MJ LEE | 3/29/12

    Donald Trump predicted Wednesday night that Hillary Clinton will take one more shot at winning the White House in 2016, and declined to rule out the possibility of throwing his support behind the former presidential candidate.

    “Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman,” Trump said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, and I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot.”

    Praising the secretary of state for being a hard worker and for having done a “good job” since joining the Obama administration, Trump said he expects Clinton to run for office again.

    “I think assuming she is healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she runs after the next four years, I would imagine,” he said.

    Asked whether he would support her, the real estate mogul replied, “I don’t want to get into this because I’ll get myself into trouble,” before adding, “I just like her. I like her and I like her husband. … He is a really good guy and she’s a really good person and woman.”

    Clinton has repeatedly said that she has no intentions of running for president again.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74636.html

  193. Analysis: US thwarting Israeli strike on Iran

    Obama betraying Israel? US making deliberate effort to hinder Iran strike by leaking classified info, intelligence assessments, says Ron Ben-Yishai in special Ynet report

    Ron Ben-Yishai Published: 03.29.12

    The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off.

    Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties…

    cont.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209836,00.html

  194. holdthemaccountable
    March 29th, 2012 at 9:39 am
    ——————————-
    Let me begin by saying I don’t give a fuck what Ben Crump, aka Rosie the Riveter says. He is nothing more than a hired gun, but I will say he probably has more credibility than Brian Williams. But that is damning with faint praise. The extent of Zimmerman’s injuries as revealed or not revealed by the tape is not the icing on the cake. Medical evidence of injuries would be far more probative. However, I would go on to say that the far more important issue is who was crying for help seconds before Tray was shot–and if that is Zimmerman–not Tray–as Bencrump would have us believe, then it supports the contention that Zimmerman was in fear of his life when he shot him ergo self defense. There is no other living witness to the events leading up to the shooting. If that is the ultimate finding of the court however that will not satisfy the demons Brian Williams and his ilk have turned loose on the world. Mainstream media and Spike have painted a target on this guys back which will make him look over his shoulder constantly for the rest of his days. This is the kind of world Barack Obama has visited on this nation in his post racial presidency. Is it the world we want to live in. But it is not enough to simply vote him out of office, we need to indict big media for what they have done. It is their credibility that must be impeached. Let the court system and the police do their work. These people have no business interfering in the affairs of Nemesis–as Bismark once put it.

  195. Another one looking to get her ass sued off……

    MARCH 29–The comedian Roseanne Barr last night tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents to her 110,000-plus Twitter followers, only to delete the posting after “not fully understanding that it was private not public.”

    Barr’s posting of the correct Florida address of Robert and Gladys Zimmerman came at the same time Spike Lee was issuing an apology for erroneously disseminating a tweet that purportedly contained the home address of George Zimmerman, who last month killed teenager Trayvon Martin.

    The residence cited by Lee is actually the home of an elderly couple with no connection to Zimmerman.

    Barr, who deleted her tweet in the face of criticism from some Twitter followers, noted that she first thought it “was good to let ppl know that no one can hide anymore.” That stance quickly changed, with Barr reporting, “But vigilante-ism is what killed Trayvon. I don’t support that.”

    But while Barr deleted her original posting, the Zimmermans’s address remains in messages in her Twitter stream. Barr’s original tweet was a retweet of a post by a new Twitter user who appears devoted to disseminating the Zimmermans’s address and phone number, as well as contact information for Joseph Oliver, who has made numerous TV appearances in support of Zimmerman, a friend and former coworker.

    Still, the entertainer left open the possibility that she would again circulate the Lake Mary address of Zimmerman’s parents. “If Zimmerman isn’t arrested I’ll rt his address again.” She added, “maybe go 2 his house myself.”

    There is no indication that Zimmerman, who is reportedly in hiding, is holed up in his parents’s residence.

    By tweeting the Zimmermans’s address, Barr appears to have violated Twitter rules that state, “You may not publish or post other people’s private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission.” (3 pages)

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/roseanne-barr-zimmerman-tweets-893416

    …………………………

    What gives them the right, this sort of celebrity stupidity leads to acts by people who are dare i say it, not entirely sane.

    They never learn.

  196. So will we see the AA and Obama mobs out to spread outrage at this….

    http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17284891/seneca-police-arrest-6-accused-of-beating-nc-man

    SENECA, SC (FOX Carolina) –

    Seneca police said they arrested six men Wednesday in connection with the beating of a North Carolina man at Applebee’s earlier in March.

    Police said their investigation determined that the victim was beat by the group of men and the incident may have been racially motivated. The department said they forwarded the case to the FBI to determine if it should be pursued further as a hate crime under federal law.

    SLIDESHOW: Police arrest 6 in beating by mob

    Officers said all six suspects were charged with assault and battery by a mob in connection with the March 17 beating.

    The suspects are Teryn Robinson, 18, Tray Holland, 19, Justin Alexander, 20, Derick Williams, 22, Kino Jones, 25, and Montrez Jones, 22. Police said all of them are from the Seneca area and were taken into custody without incident.

  197. holdthemaccountable
    March 29th, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Yes, ABM, how soon. When Big Dawg left office I in great naivity thought NOW WORLD, Bill has shown us the proper way to resolve conflict. I truly anticipated a grateful world, or at least US administration that would follow the Clinton logic Of course as soon as reins were turned over to Republicans, all the good was overturned; and is nearly beyond comprehension at this moment.

    =========================

    Bill also showed us how to fix the economy, balance the budget, pay off the national debt….

  198. I note that Ginzberg proposed salvaging Obamacare by simply striking down the individual mandate and preserving the rest. When the attorneys for the insurance industry heard that I am quite sure their collective assholes puckered. Suddenly, they were stuck with the obligations without the dough re me. My option, which was to strike it down and remand it to Congress was better, but still not good. The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire act must be struck down. The court does not want to be in a position of deciding what stays and what goes–Nano’s remarks below make that much clear. But the larger problem is Reid and Pelosi, in an effort to trap the court into upholding Obamacare, have managed instead to trap themselves. Their failure to include a severability clause was too clever by the halves. Had such a clause been in the Act, then what Ginzberg proposed would be logical. But absent such a clause, and given the fact that the individual mandate is the engine for the whole contraption without which it cannot get off the ground–and furthermore its removal would upset whatever balancing of interests exist in the act, it would be the greatest feat of judicial activism in history to strike down the mandate and yet preserve the act. Judicial self restrain augers for driving a silver stake through the heart of the vampire and killing it dead. For more on that subject, this piece from today’s wsj:
    ——————————————————————————————–

    The ObamaCare Reckoning
    Overturning the whole law would be an act of judicial restraint.

    After the third and final day of Supreme Court scrutiny of the Affordable Care Act, the bravado of the legal establishment has turned to uncertainty and in some cases outright panic. Everyone who said the decision was an easy fait accompli has been proven wrong by a Court that has treated the constitutional questions that ObamaCare poses with the seriousness they deserve.

    This reckoning has also been a marvelous public education. The oral arguments have detailed the multiple ways in which the individual mandate upsets the careful equilibrium of the American political system. The Obama Administration’s arguments in favor of the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a penalty stand exposed as a demand for unlimited federal power.

    Most of the Justices seem to be discomfited by this proposition, to one degree or another, and in Wednesday’s session they grappled with the Court’s options and the consequences if the mandate falls. Over the 90-minute exchange the Justices conducted a tutorial about the limits of judicial power in handling a huge bill if its core is found to be unconstitutional.

    Editorial board member Joe Rago takes apart the government’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Plus, new polling shows that the law unpopular.

    The issue is known as “severability,” or what happens to the rest of a law if part of it is struck down. Usually Congress includes a clause that clearly defines its intent in that event. But the Obama Democrats neglected to include one amid the political rush to pass the law, and Supreme Court precedents are less than clear.

    The Court could uphold the individual mandate, in which case the point is moot. It could overturn the mandate without invalidating any other provision. Or it could say that everything else never would have passed without the mandate, so everything else should be taken down with it.

    That last is the persuasive contention of Paul Clement, the attorney who argued for the 26 states challenging the law. He argued that the mandate is “the very heart of this act” because it is meant to subsidize the insurance regulations that drive up costs. It forces the younger and healthier to buy coverage they may not need to finance people who consume more health care.

    That requirement is also tied to ObamaCare’s “exchanges” where everyone will buy coverage, which are in turn tied to the new entitlement subsidies, which are in turn tied to the Medicaid expansion, the many tax increases and all the other things on the periphery of the law that wouldn’t have passed without the individual mandate.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Mr. Clement is asking the Court to conduct “a wrecking operation,” before stating that “the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.” The Obama Administration didn’t say exactly that, but it did argue that the mandate is indispensable to its supposedly well-oiled regulatory scheme and if it is thrown out the insurance rules should be too.

    But Justice Anthony Kennedy doubted Justice Ginsburg’s logic, since by taking out only the individual mandate the Court would in effect be creating a new law that Congress “did not provide for, did not consider.” To wit, costs would soar without any mechanism to offset them.

    “When you say judicial restraint,” Justice Kennedy said, “you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite.” Overturning the mandate alone, he continued, “can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike the whole.”

    Enlarge Image
    1daythree
    1daythree
    Reuters

    A courtroom illustration of attorney Paul Clement before members of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

    Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in to note that severing would require the Justices to comb through ObamaCare’s 2,700 pages and pick out the parts that are connected to the mandate and those that aren’t—essentially asking them to play omniscient time travellers, if not legislators. Striking it down altogether would paradoxically be a gift of judicial modesty by avoiding the legal invention of a new law. A clean slate gives Congress the most options.

    As Mr. Clement argued, the best analogy is the Court’s misbegotten 1976 Buckley decision, which struck down some campaign finance provisions but not others and has led to a hash of contradictory and ambiguous rules for political speech that continues to this day.

    The Court’s liberals pushed back by suggesting that the individual mandate is “just a tool to make other provisions work,” as Justice Elena Kagan put it. Yet by that standard the Court ought to strike down the entire law or most of it if it strikes down the mandate, because it shows that Congress used an illegitimate device to do things that it could have done constitutionally without it.
    ***

    So far the larger liberal reckoning hasn’t been as nuanced as the High Court’s, as evidenced by the media mugging of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Liberals castigated his performance during oral arguments Tuesday and all but blamed him for any ObamaCare defeat.

    Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn’t that he’s a bad lawyer, it’s that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn’t—not because he didn’t know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.

    Mr. Verrilli came closest to a limiting principle—and got some sympathy from Justice Kennedy—when he claimed that everyone will use health care at some point in their lives, so what’s the big deal with making young people pay more earlier?

    Even if this were true, it is a deeply radical claim. The government is mandating that everyone buy health insurance specifically, but by this reasoning any economic or personal decisions that touch on health care could be used as a pretext for federal police powers. People who lead healthy lives consume fewer medical services than others, so the government could mandate exercise, a healthy diet, and more.

    This is power without limit, which is not what the Constitution provides, or what its framers intended, or what the Supreme Court has ever tolerated. That is why this week’s arguments have been so careful, why they have revised the establishment’s thinking, and why they are so important for the future of American liberty.

    A version of this article appeared Mar. 29, 2012, on page A18 in

  199. 29 March 2012 Exclusive interview with myFOXorlando:
    snip In his first interview, Robert Zimmerman told myFOXorlando he decided to speak out for his son against the advice of police.

    =======================

    There are certainly internal problems with RZ’s statements as reported here. But we now know there may be problems with ANYTHING that Fox reports. So first, is there any other source or evidence as to what RZ is actually saying?

  200. turndownobama
    March 29th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    ————
    Why don’t you watch the full length interview I posted up thread and listen to the dad yourself? Fox is not in the picture.

  201. But he will still caryy 78% of the Jewish vote JanH…and when he is re-elected he will have even more flexibility which is scary considering how overt his anti-Israeli views are even in an election yr. He knows he has (us) in his pockets.

  202. turndownobama
    March 29th, 2012 at 12:20 am
    gonzotx
    March 29th, 2012 at 12:13 am
    ===================
    Maybe the nurse had a conscience clause. Like the US nurses who will not give a rape victim an emergency contraceptive.
    ——————-

    Sorry, but that is not funny. And since you are so inclined to ask for sources, please providr a reliable and uncontroversial source of this assertion. Yeah, that’s something (refusal of contraceptives) that happens every minute of every day.

  203. the Non-Fox Media (NFM) didn’t even pause before conjuring a racist plot in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida last month.

    =====================

    I agree that any ‘racist plot’ claim would be nonsense. And the medias are behaving very badly: both sides.

  204. I agree that any ‘racist plot’ claim would be nonsense. And the medias are behaving very badly: both sides.
    ——————–
    No. There is no moral equivalency here. Mainstream media is the culprit. To blame everyone is to blame no one.

  205. But he will still caryy 78% of the Jewish vote JanH…and when he is re-elected he will have even more flexibility which is scary considering how overt his anti-Israeli views are even in an election yr. He knows he has (us) in his pockets.
    ———————
    If the candidate is Romney???

  206. But we now know there may be problems with ANYTHING that Fox reports.
    ——————————-
    Can you give me three specific examples?

  207. So looks like Newt sees the writing on the wall.
    ————————
    It is money–or more specifically the lack thereof and a power play. It is good strategy. Focus on the convention.

  208. But we now know there may be problems with ANYTHING that Fox reports.
    ——————————-
    Can you give me three specific examples?

    =================

    One strong one: look backwards for Mrs. Smith saying that I should have verified a Fox story about Hillary at a budget hearing. Iirc she made it a bit more general than just that one story.

  209. wbboei
    March 29th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    ===============

    I disagree. Neither side can be trusted on this, and both are behaving very badly.

  210. (refusal of contraceptives)

    ===================

    There was a very full discussion about this some time ago. Some posters here defended the hospitals’ refusal. It was in connection with Scott Brown iirc.

  211. wbboei,

    In haste. You’ve made a good defense of the police secrecy re forensics etc. But since much of the mob threat involves people looking for Zimmerman, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the police to take him into protective custody?

    This might be presented in a way that would cool some of the calls for his arrest.

  212. The severability clause was omitted on purpose. It was not an oversight even if the overall bill is a hashed up mess. It was left out because the mandate is the glue that holds it all together in its Rube Goldberg awful genius. It is the “eat your peas” so you can get the rest of the goodies. If you don’t you get nothing. That was the intent from the beginning and the mawkish pandering about helping the poor and uninsured was just that-pandering while melding federal law and federal tax enforcement with corporate contracts and profits. If the mandate is struck the Democrats know the rest will result in a insurance industry revolt if they don’t get their captive customers. Their defense of severability was empty posturing as evidenced by the inane ramblings of the liberal justices. If the mandate goes the Democrats better hope the entire shebang is dead or they will get the dunce cap. Personally I would like the mandate to go while the rest stands so we could watch the Congressional Democrats and the WH suffer the consequences.

    I have also immensely enjoyed the WH, press, and assorted legal talking heads surprise that the 26 hillbilly states hired lawyers that can read and write and even wear shoes on weekdays. Who knew?

  213. Mormaer, I am a very proud Hillbilly, thank you. Those who use that word and redneck as an insult are not smart enough to know that it actually is a compliment; that is why we call our sons Bubba as in Big Dawg. There are not many other better compliments thrown out as insults. It tells us that the person doing the flamthrowing does not have a two digit iq.

    A funny on my fb this morning. Someone posted they had received a phone call from someone from Nigeria who said she had won a grant. She hung up and the same call came into her husband who works in fraud detection. A poster said this: Sounds like you were contacted by the Obama Department of Instant Gatification. I thought that was hilarious.

  214. Re: turndownobama
    March 29th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Back up this assertion with real facts and sources.

  215. Re: wbboei
    March 29th, 2012 at 11:33 am

    wbboei, could others as in others who live in the Zimmerman community follow with suit because the media, and other bad actors like Spike and Roseanne, have put them in fear for their lives and safety? What about others who also live in gated communities who now feel unsafe?

  216. Mormaer

    The severability clause was omitted on purpose. It was not an oversight even if the overall bill is a hashed up mess. It was left out because the mandate is the glue that holds it all together in its Rube Goldberg awful genius. It is the “eat your peas” so you can get the rest of the goodies.

    ——–
    A big yup to that!

    They didn’t try to save money on health care when Barry climbed into bed with BigPharma and the Insurance companies, he just wanted to ‘pass’ the crap bill so he could claim he was able to accomplish something that Hillary wasn’t able to pass.

    He didn’t care if it was crap or not, he didn’t care if it put the country in debt or if none of his bros in the hood would get decent coverage…it was all about getting himself in the history books as the health care superman.

    I fear the Supremes are afraid of the blow-back if they toss the bill in the dumper, and may try to save some of it by recommending changes to the mandate, like calling it a ‘TAX’.

  217. The severability clause was omitted on purpose. It was not an oversight even if the overall bill is a hashed up mess.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    Nobody that I know is arguing this was an oversight. The question goes to why it was omitted. First of all, the individual mandate was the payola to his health insurance contributors. Without it there would be no guaranteed customers for the industry. The second reason was to present the court with an all or nothing proposition, in effect daring them to overrule it. But as I say, they were too clever by the halves. And if the Court strikes down the act, then their efforts backfired. If they think a loss is good for them, then they need to revisit the article by Moe Lane which I posted yesterday. A loss may activate his base, but it will have the opposite effect on independents who are the swing vote in the elections. And it will tell everyone that that could change if Bambi gets a second term because then he will be able to stack the court.

  218. I fear the Supremes are afraid of the blow-back if they toss the bill in the dumper, and may try to save some of it by recommending changes to the mandate, like calling it a ‘TAX’.
    ——————–
    No. Even Breyer won’t buy that one. Remember? He corrected the Solicitor General when he called it a tax and forced him to acknowledge that it was a penalty. Of course the SJ then said tax penalty.

  219. Shortermer–Spike Lee has always been one french fry short of a happy meal. There is no material difference between him and Shabaaz in Philadelphia (NBP)–a racial grievance looking for an excuse. The community has no cause of action absent a showing of specific harm, and even then the first amendment would give protection to Lee. But not when he hands out the wrong address and someone gets murdered–if that were to happen–different story.

  220. On Rubio: I like the fact that he kept saying Country over party, on that I agree. He also stated pretty emphatically I thought that he had no interest and did not want the VP slot, and that disappoints me because I had said early on that I would vote for whoever placed him as their VP; he also said that Romney had promised to govern as a conservative, and I doubt that very much as Romney has flip flopped on so much that I compare those skills equal to ObaMAO. Rubio has to be careful, or at least he does if he is smart, because it was the Tea Party who got him elected and they are all about UNelecting anyone who violates their pledge to work in office as conservatives. As much as I love him, I now doubt him. And that is sad. Just sad.

    “…I will transmit that information to Vladamir.”

  221. There is only one intellectual giant on the court–and it aint Breyer, much as the left would like to think of him in those terms. The following examples show that he is not that up on the law.
    ——————————————————————–

    Breyer’s Missteps
    5:11 PM, Mar 28, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    During yesterday’s arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, Justice Stephen Breyer took exception to the states’ argument that the mandate imposes, for the first time in American history, a congressional obligation that private citizens must purchase a product of the government’s choosing. Breyer, who consistently grants extraordinary deference to Congress under the commerce clause and correspondingly little deference to our government’s federalist design, said, “I look back into history, and I see it seems pretty clear that if there are substantial effects on interstate commerce, Congress can act.”
    US Supreme Court Building

    Breyer then offered three examples to support his point:

    “I say, hey, can’t Congress make people drive faster than 45 — 40 miles an hour on a road? Didn’t they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his — for his cows? Didn’t they make Mrs. — if she married somebody who had marijuana in her basement, wouldn’t she have to go and get rid of it?”

    Breyer’s second example, however, isn’t accurate. Congress did not require the farmer in Wickard v. Filburn to buy wheat. It limited the amount of wheat he could grow. He may have decided to buy wheat in response, or sell less of his allotment and keep more of it for his own use, or take other courses of action, but he was not required to purchase wheat under penalty of law — a fundamental distinction.
    Related Stories

    Obamacare on Trial: The Individual Mandate
    Washington Post: Obamacare Is Constitutional Because …
    Obamacare ‘Looks Like It’s Going to Be Struck Down’
    Obama Looks to Shift Blame on Obamacare
    Americans Reject Obamacare, Mandate-Centered Approach

    More by Jeffrey H. Anderson

    Washington Post: Obamacare Is Constitutional Because …
    ‘The President’s Approach … Gets Our Deficit on …
    Obama Looks to Shift Blame on Obamacare
    22-Point Win Is 2nd-Biggest
    Obamacare: Two Years Later, 2 Million More Are …

    Breyer’s first example cites a power that, so far as I know, Congress has never claimed. When Congress wants states to lower speed limits within their borders, even on interstates, it gets them to do so by taking actions like threatening to withhold federal highway funds. Congress doesn’t set speed limits itself. In any event, telling people what speed they can’t exceed (or, in Breyer’s exact example, what speed they must exceed) bears little resemblance to compelling them to buy a product.

    Breyer’s third example is, indeed, of an actual congressional power, but its relevance to the case at hand seems mysterious. Is Breyer saying that because some unfortunate brides have to remove their husbands’ pot stashes, Americans can be compelled to buy federally approved health insurance? That’s not an argument that seems likely to persuade the majority of the Court — or of the citizenry.

  222. On Rubio: I like the fact that he kept saying Country over party, on that I agree. He also stated pretty emphatically I thought that he had no interest and did not want the VP slot,

    —-
    When he spoke on Fox last night, it seemed to me he left a little wiggle room to accept the VP job if it was given to him.

    He said he has doing what he wanted to do, (in the Senate) and that he didn’t think anyone would offer him the VP job.

    Also, that Mitt and he have never discussed the VP job although he has ‘known’ and spoken to him since 2007.

  223. Then again, with Rubio there is the Natural Born citizen problem if he were nominated as VP, maybe he knows this.

  224. supreme court
    Of all the causes which conspire to blind
    Man’s erring judgement and misguide the mind
    What the weak head with strongest bias rules
    IS PRIDE–THE NEVER FAILING VICE OF FOOLS
    —————————————–

    Morning Jay: Why Were Liberals So Surprised By the Supreme Court?
    6:00 AM, Mar 29, 2012 • By JAY COST

    This week has really reminded me of Election Day 2004. Liberals, then, were just plain convinced John Kerry was going to be elected president, so much so Bob Shrum actually called Kerry, “Mr. President.” The left had convinced itself Bush was unpopular, Kerry had closed the deal, and everything was swinging his way in the final week. So, when the early, unweighted exit polls came up Tuesday afternoon, they were exuberant.

    Oops!

    I imagine a lot of liberals felt a similar letdown reading the transcript of Tuesday’s arguments on Obamacare. Almost immediately Justices Scalia and Kennedy jump in with tough questions, with the latter quickly getting to the heart of the matter: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”

    Oops!

    The Court might very well uphold the law, but it will not nearly be the slamdunk that almost all liberals thought it would be. Why did the left get it so wrong?

    It’s important to keep in mind that the concept of governmental limits is something that many liberals do not accept, at least not beyond the Bill of Rights (minus the 2nd and 10th Amendments, of course!). For a century, the progressive/liberal attitude has been: we want to make things better, so why are you bothering us with these antiquated notions of enumerated powers and federalism? Or, as Justice Kagan put it today:

    The federal government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no — there’s no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

    Of course, not everybody sees things this way. There are a number of people – conservatives – who raise a skeptical eyebrow whenever a person in a gray suit knocks on the door and says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.

    I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.

    Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?

    Then, insofar as they encountered conservative pushback, they mostly ignored it.

    They mostly ignored the cases from the 1990s – namely Morrison and Lopez – where the Supreme Court put limits on what Congress could do under the Commerce clause. Insofar as they did pay attention to these cases, it was only to insist that they did not apply to Obamacare. They never stopped to think that maybe the lesson of Morrison and Lopez is that the conservatives on the Court took seriously the idea of enumerated (and therefore limited) powers, and so maybe a novel device like an individual mandate would not be a slam dunk for a Court that now has a 5-4 conservative bent.

    They also ignored a 2009 report from the Congressional Research Service report that warned:

    One could argue…whether a requirement to purchase health insurance is really a regulation of an economic activity or enterprise, if individuals who would be required to purchase health insurance are not, but for this regulation, a part of the health insurance market…This is a novel issue: whether Congress can use its Commerce Clause authority to require a person to buy a good or a service and whether this type of required participation can be considered economic activity.

    They also ignored the 11th Circuit Court decision that struck down Obamacare with a carefully constructed, 300-page decision that won the endorsement of a Clinton appointee.

    They preferred to cite the 6th Circuit’s upholding of the bill, in particular conservative Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s concurrence, but they ignored his many exhortations to the Supreme Court to bring some clarity to the Commerce Clause, to set some limits to congressional power (by, for instance, striking down the law) or quit saying there are limits. They did the same when the D.C. Circuit upheld the law, and Judge Laurence Silberman similarly suggested that this was a matter ultimately for the Supreme Court to issue some guidance..

    So that is why the left was so surprised. They have no intellectual sympathy for the positions articulated by the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Those opinions rarely if ever make it into their news reports, newspapers, or magazines, and insofar as they were confronted with these contrary views they just ignored them.

    Oops!

  225. Here is the complete interview with Rubio on the Hannity show. At about the 5:00 mark Rubio states in response to Hannity talking about Rubio at least leaving the door open to agreeing to the VP nominee slot and he stated, “…it is not want I intend [to be]…not what I want to be…” To me that is pretty definitive.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html

    About the NBC in reference to Rubio….after ObaMAO and Romney….do you really think that charge will hold water? What is sauce for the goose, you know…

    “…I will transmit that information to Vladamir.”

  226. Re: ShortTermer
    March 29th, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    It looks like it takes two clicks to get to the video. I don’t know why that happened.

  227. Congress Wants Former Obama Staffer To Testify On Fast and Furious – White House Says NO

    by Ulsterman

    Despite no longer working within the Obama White House, administrative officials have apparently demanded that Kevin O’Reilly NOT answer questions to Congress regarding information linking the Obama administration to the failed and deadly Fast and Furious gunrunning operation.

    An excerpt from a just-published Fox News Report:

    Two top Republican lawmakers investigating the Fast and Furious controversy are demanding the White House make a former aide available for testimony to see whether the scandal reached the upper echelons of the administration, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.

    …the lawmakers are giving White House staffers the deadline of April 4 to respond, with Republican aides privately saying the back-and-forth could provoke a showdown over executive privilege if the administration tries to shield O’Reilly from talking to investigators.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/29/congress-wants-former-obama-staffer-to-testify-on-fast-and-furious-white-house-says-no/

  228. Sowell gives a good reasoned argument to the article I posted earlier this morning, Breyer’s stilted view, we need to recognize the Commerce Clause has legs(?):
    _________________

    Back to the Future?

    When a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know that something unusual is going on.

    What makes that 1942 case — Wickard v. Filburn — important today is that it stretched the federal government’s power so far that the Obama administration is using it as an argument to claim before today’s Supreme Court that it has the legal authority to impose ObamaCare mandates on individuals.

    Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn’t sold, so that it didn’t enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal government had no right to tell him how much wheat he grew on his own farm, and which never left his farm.

    The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. So you might think that Filburn was right.

    But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn’s farm never entered the market, just the fact that “it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market” meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market.

    The implications of this kind of reasoning reached far beyond farmers and wheat. Once it was established that the federal government could regulate not only interstate commerce itself, but anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the powers of the federal government virtually disappeared.

    Over the years, “interstate commerce” became magic words to justify almost any expansion of the federal government’s power, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. That is what the Obama administration is depending on to get today’s Supreme Court to uphold its power to tell people that they have to buy the particular health insurance specified by the federal government.

    There was consternation in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. That conclusion might seem like only common sense to most people, but it was a close 5 to 4 decision, and it sparked outrage when the phrase “interstate commerce” failed to work its magic in justifying an expansion of the federal government’s power.

    The 1995 case involved a federal law forbidding anyone from carrying a gun near a school. The states all had the right to pass such laws, and most did, but the issue was whether the federal government could pass such a law under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

    The underlying argument was similar to that in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn: School violence can affect education, which can affect productivity, which can affect interstate commerce.

    Since virtually everything affects virtually everything else, however remotely, “interstate commerce” can justify virtually any expansion of government power, by this kind of sophistry.

    The principle that the legal authority to regulate X implies the authority to regulate anything that can affect X is a huge and dangerous leap of logic, in a world where all sorts of things have some effect on all sorts of other things.

    As an example, take a law that liberals, conservatives and everybody else would agree is valid — namely, that cars have to stop at red lights. Local governments certainly have the right to pass such laws and to punish those who disobey them.

    No doubt people who are tired or drowsy are more likely to run through a red light than people who are rested and alert. But does that mean that local governments should have the power to order people when to go to bed and when to get up, because their tiredness can have an effect on the likelihood of their driving through a red light?

    The power to regulate indirect effects is not a slippery slope. It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/03/28/back_to_the_future/page/full/

  229. Allen West is up for reelection. They changed his district boundaries, so he is running in the new district. Just look at this article; what will those ObaMAObumblers not do?

    Florida Dems Can’t Find Voters to Protest Allen West, so They Hire Some
    http://www.breitbart.com
    Repeatedly and across the country we see unions, Democrats, and other far left groups planning rallies and protest marches but finding that they simply can’t put bodies in the streets to make all the effort worthwhile. They just don’t really have the support of the common man, the folks in the stree…

    Shadowfax, I is smart. I is funny. I is no typist.

    “…I will transmit that information to Valdamir.”

  230. Shadowfax, I am not into the LOTR, but more into Downton Abbey. I so wish I could find the second season on tv. I found the first season on netflix, but no second season yet. I am now hooked on Masterpiece Theatre as I have also watched Little Dorrit.

  231. ShortTermer
    March 29th, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    But more into Downton Abbey. I so wish I could find the second season on tv. I found the first season on netflix, but no second season yet. I am now hooked on Masterpiece Theatre as I have also watched Little Dorrit.
    _____________

    Downton Abbey, per PBS, offers their 2nd season of DVD’s for sale on the PBS site. It might be a little early for them offering the 2nd season for rentals as they are offering them for sale themselves.

    If you liked DA, then you will like “Bleak House”. Their initial foray into serialized period recreations besides their former versions of Pride and Prejudice. (not quite as rich and lush in costumes and scenery as the newer version starring Keira Knightly..) I’m pretty sure the DVDS should be available on Netflix; if not you can ask them to order them for you.

  232. The Trayvon Timeline: How Local Crime Story Became National Racial Outrage

    An analysis of media reports on the Trayvon Martin shooting reveals how a local crime story became a national racial outrage.

    The incident happened on Feb. 26, 2012, and was primarily reported in local outlets. The first major national news report was on CBS This Morning on March 8, and did not mention race.

    The story did not take on a racial dimension until later that day, when the AP mistakenly identified the shooter as white (George Zimmerman is of mixed Hispanic descent).

    The racial claims were then repeated and amplified by other media outlets, including Gawker, which claimed the neighborhood in which Martin was shot was “predominantly white” (it fact is is “almost 50 percent white,” according to the Daily Beast).

    As online buzz heated up, activist groups became involved. The New Black Panther Party was among the first, gathering outside Sanford, FL police headquarters on March 11 to demand they arrest the shooter, known by then to be Zimmerman.

    The next day, March 12, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network issued a statement in which Sharpton called for a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police,” a misleading claim later disproved by transcripts of the 911 call, in which race was first raised in a question by the dispatcher, not by Zimmerman himself.

    On March 13, Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”

    Sharpton did not interview anyone representing Zimmerman–though Joe Oliver, a friend of Zimmerman’s, had been giving interviews elsewhere, pushing back against racism claims.

    By March 14, the white-versus-black meme had become a fixture of media reporting on the story, including in local media outlets that had initially avoided casting events in that mould–and which had access to the facts.

    The Orlando Sentinel, which had produced one of the first stories about the shooting on Feb. 28, with no mention of race, now described the “slaying of [an] unarmed black teen by a white crime-watch volunteer last month.”

    The mainstream media picked up the racial theme and ran with it. Charles Blow of the New York Times cast Martin as a symbol of black boys–and the fears of black parents–everywhere.

    Some conservative media outlets began exposing less innocent aspects of Martin’s life–but they were not the first to put character at issue; ABC News had highlighted Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest for battery (charges were dropped) in a March 10 report.

    By March 23, President Barack Obama had entered the fray, reinforcing the idea that the Martin case was primarily about race. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama told reporters.

    Nearly four weeks after the shooting, with investigations still pending, America now confronted a national debate about race–with all its attendant divisions.

    It is worth noting that the mainstream media, even after the AP’s mistake about Zimmerman’s race, was rather reluctant to make the Martin case into an overtly racial issue. The key step appears to have been Al Sharpton’s intervention, when he used his activist network to make accusations of racism, then used his nightly platform on MSNBC to amplify those claims the next day, presenting a sensational, false, and one-sided account.

    Sharpton may also have been important in bringing the White House into the debate. He has been an advisor to the Obama administration, and his hiring by MSNBC last year was criticized by liberal journalists and activists alike, who alleged he was being used as a “water carrier” for the president. In his tripartite media, activist, and political role, he has tried to turn the Martin case into a political cause for the left and for Obama.

    There is, at the core of the Martin case, a legitimate story. A serious crime may have been committed, one that might reflect a real and persistent problem of racial profiling by police and by members of the public.

    And then there is the illegitimate, false, white-versus-black story of how a Hispanic man was made “the scapegoat for what ails this country as far as racial relations go.”

    That, in itself, is cause for outrage.

    http://www.breitbart.com

  233. Thanks, Mrs. Smith re Downton Abbey info.

    I put my graphic designer hat on for a few minutes and did my own forensic research on the abc video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station, or jail, in handcuffs. Some of the video, when his face was shown, was blocked out but a bubble screen so his face was blurred, I guess in order to block his identity. A part of the video showed him under the ‘screened’ banner for the video therefore it was blurred again. At about the 1:05 minute of the video it gives a clear shot of the back of Zimmerman’s head, the area where the officer had looked so intently earlier in the video.

    I took a screenshot of that frame saved it as a tiff, put it into PhotoShop and enlarged it. There is without dispute a large mark of something that at the top flares out and then makes a rather long trail downward. It is not a mark on the camera lenses as it follows the back of his head in the video. I believe it to be a wound to the head; it is thick enough to have stitches but then I am not a nurse or a doctor.

    The officer checks the jacket front and back, jacket pockets and appears to be zipping one of them, after Zimmerman gets out of the police car. The officer checked out whatever the mark was on the back of Zimmerman’s head (do not remember the squence of this, it was likely before he was backed against the wall). A little later, Zimmerman is apparently instructed to place his back against what looks like a wall where he remains for a brief period of time. He is then escorted, handcuffed, into the building. I have a saved copy of the photo if admin or anyone would like it.

  234. LMAO!

    I have also immensely enjoyed the WH, press, and assorted legal talking heads surprise that the 26 hillbilly states hired lawyers that can read and write and even wear shoes on weekdays. Who knew?

    😀

  235. “better not to get too involved with either event. The overall picture is where the signposts lead. The larger picture is the election not defining and exploring the devil in the details.”
    ____________

    I agree-

    If there’s a strategy here, it’s very subtle.

    “Their only strategy seems to hold off long enough so their race war is in full swing so as to concern Congress that requesting any documents (or witness testimony in F&F) will add to the WH meme of “racists”…

    Holder earlier made such a reference with his” have you no decency” remarks implying the investigation was ONLY because he and Obama are Black.

    The calls of ravi seems to be their trump card and they’ve been laying the groundword for sometime before the WH and Obama unleashed the Trayvon card.

    The Obama administration seems to believe the grievance industry will buy them the WH as the rest of the country will cower in the face of their race war. Holder was counting on it as he called us “cowards.”

    They want us to recount the savagery of black on white crime of the stories of Channon Christian, the Witchita Massacre, the recently executed British men, the 85/90 year old Tulsa couple..

    The Obama-Holder plan is not only to strike with a race war but to strike the fear of a race war unless we comply.”

  236. America the Beautiful says:

    Step back see the overview…

    the attack on NewsCorp , Murdoch has produced the results wanted…

    My view Murdoch was black mailed, arm twisted whatever.

    l.James Murdoch walked away from his family media company …Murdoch’s Foxnews is now in pretty full compliance in compliance with Obama with the new cast of liberal tools reporting …

    note FoxNews is still using the 14 year old image of Treyvon not his gang pic with Made Nword across it or the gold toothed thug version…

    nope Fxnews is using the choirboy pic of Treyvon playing into the Obama meme.

    The left have this election tied up they believe and many are falling into full compliance with the Thugocracy…

    Note how long James Murdoch was missing until just very recently.

    …. Fight back ….

  237. ADMIN, please embed. I don’t agree with everything he says, but boy oh boy does he rip Obama a new one!


  238. The community has no cause of action absent a showing of specific harm, and even then the first amendment would give protection to Lee. But not when he hands out the wrong address and someone gets murdered–if that were to happen–different story.

    =====================

    Absent further harm, I wish the elderly couple who had to move out could at least sue him for their hotel bill. And punative damages….

  239. gonzotx
    March 28th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
    from NQ…way to go Ani
    ************
    Dirty Words on Clean Skin — The Real War on Women
    by Anita Finlay
    —–

    Thanks, gonzotx. Very kind of you!

  240. White House Vs. Supreme Court: It’s Getting Ridiculous

    By
    Jan Crawford
    Topics
    Supreme Court

    John Roberts

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 9, 2010.
    (Credit: AP)
    For the life of me, I just don’t get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. I’ve suggested before that perhaps it’s a sign President Obama intends to tap an outsider when John Paul Stevens retires, so he can beat the drum that the Court is out of touch with everyday Americans.

    But after Chief Justice John Roberts made some entirely reasonable remarks yesterday — and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just had to respond — it’s now getting ridiculous.

    Whether the White House has a short-term or long-term strategy or no strategy at all, it’s flat-out absurd and ill-advised for the administration to think it should always have the last word. It’s like my 6-year-old: “I don’t LIKE your idea. I like MY idea.”

    It wasn’t enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on — including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy — while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.

    All that, of course, was too much for Justice Samuel Alito, who shook his head and silently mouthed, “not true.”

    The next day, the White House just couldn’t let it rest. It again had to have the last word. It put out a “fact sheet,” trying to prove it was Mr. Obama — not Justice Alito — who was right.

    Now the Chief Justice, speaking yesterday at the University of Alabama Law School, has weighed in. Responding to a question from a clearly insightful Alabama law student, Roberts said he thought the whole scene was “very troubling.”

    “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” Roberts said.

    Watch CBS News Videos Online
    He didn’t slam Mr. Obama for singling out the Court, as some have done. He said people have a right to criticize the Court if they disagree with a decision.

    “I have no problems with that,” Roberts said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

    And he’s right. The justices have to sit there with their hands in their laps and their faces blank. They can’t be seen as taking sides — they may have to decide some of these issues some day. Justice Scalia has said they look like bumps on a log. And that’s why some justices won’t go to the State of the Union address — and why none of them probably ever will again after this year’s dressing down from the president.

    But once again, the White House has to try to get the last word. Last night, Gibbs struck back at Roberts.

    “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,” Gibbs said. “The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

    Maybe it’s because he’s an Auburn guy and the Chief Justice was talking to law students at the University of Alabama (or, as we like to say, “the University”), but Gibbs should have let this go.

    This administration is going to have to be dealing with this Supreme Court for at least three more years, if not more. Its lawyers are going to have to appear before these justices to defend presidential initiatives or federal laws in case after case, big and small.

    I’m not suggesting they won’t get a fair shake simply because the White House is trying to stick it to the conservative justices. George Bush repeatedly got slapped down by this Court, even though he never lashed out at the justices.

    But at some point — and I’d say that point is now — the Obama Administration is working against its interests.

    They’d do well to remember that on a lot of the issues they care about, the Supreme Court gets to decide. No matter how much they stomp their feet and shout, “I don’t LIKE your idea; I like MY idea,” the Supreme Court is going to get the last word.

    Jan Crawford

    Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent.

  241. Spike Lee offered a settlement to the wronged Zim neighbors. They accepted. Deal Closed-
    —————————
    Like Mary Jo Kopekne’s parents they took the money. But the public at large still holds Lee responsible and his payment of money is an admission.

  242. A couple of people today have asked about reasons to doubt Fox. This was pretty thoroughly discussed on the evening of March 25.

    First, here is what Hillary really said at a hearing c. Feb 28, from a video posted at
    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2012/02/boom-goes-secretary.html

    Text Onscreen: At Senate Hearing, Lautenberg Exchange with Secretary Clinton on International Family Planning | February 28, 2012.

    Senator Frank Lautenberg: In recent years, Congressional opponents of contraception have sought deep cuts to international family planning programs. What happens, Madame Secretary, if they succeed in cutting the family planning programs? What’s the penalty—what’s the cost of that in real terms?

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Well, the cost is financial, the cost is in women’s lives, the cost is to undermine what many of the very same opponents claim is their priority, namely to prevent abortions [wry grin] because—you know, we want to stay focused on improving maternal and child health, and there is no doubt at all that family planning services are absolutely essential to improving both maternal and child health.

    Working through our government—with other governments, with NGOs with expertise, capacity, proven track records—we have made a big difference in women’s health. You know, global estimates, Senator, indicate that, by helping women space births and avoid unintended pregnancies, family planning has the potential of preventing twenty-five percent of the maternal and child deaths in the developing world.

    Family planning is the best way we have to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion [wry grin] so I—I know that it—it is, um, a very, um, controversial issue [she seems barely able to spit the words out through her disdain and casts her eyes down then lifts them back up as she continues] but numerous studies have shown that the incidence of abortions decreases when women have access to contraception.

    And therefore I strongly support what this administration is doing in trying to provide the means to improve the health of women and children around the world. [nods sagely]

    Fox published a much shorter version and added that Hillary had “weighed in” on a current US controversy and had specified “Catholics”. I unsuspectingly posted Fox’s version. Mrs. Smith challenged it, and I was not able to find any support for Fox’s addition. Also, less important imo, Fox had given a link to the wrong hearing.

    Here is one among several posts, before and after this.

    hillaryis44.org/2012/03/23/obamination-anniversary-corpse-of-trayvon-martin-abused-by-barack-obama-to-hide-from-heathcare-scam-anniversary/#comment-370974
    Mrs. Smith
    March 25th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
    [….]
    From what I see- Fox News used the wrong link to back their claim in the Hillary quote. That was their mistake. The only obvious conclusion was the quote was false after searching for Hillary testimony on that day and there was nothing to substantiate their claim. So much is written about Hillary and quoted that isn’t true there was good reason to question Fox’s link and that was the second mistake…

    From further down that thread:

    Mrs. Smith
    March 25th, 2012 at 7:47 pm [….]
    I doubt everything in print until I research the source especially if it’s about Hillary.

  243. Mrs. Smith
    March 29th, 2012 at 10:26 pm [….]
    …Murdoch’s Foxnews is now in pretty full compliance in compliance with Obama with the new cast of liberal tools reporting …

    ====================

    What, another reason to mistrust Fox? 😉

  244. Shadowfax said:
    Some of the video, when his face was shown, was blocked out but a bubble screen so his face was blurred, I guess in order to block his identity.

    ================

    Might look further. I’ve seen a version or two without any deliberate bubble, though a “screened by” blurb was in the way. But that had apparently been added by some news source, rather than being in the original.

  245. pm317
    March 29th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
    Why don’t you watch the full length interview I posted up thread and listen to the dad yourself? Fox is not in the picture.

    ====================

    Thanks, but I can’t find any video posted under your name in this thread or the previous two.

  246. Nope, this isn’t a quote from me…

    ——-

    turndownobama
    March 30th, 2012 at 12:45 am
    Shadowfax said:
    Some of the video, when his face was shown, was blocked out but a bubble screen so his face was blurred, I guess in order to block his identity.

  247. On the news today, for the first time in American history the USA has been surpassed in oil production. Today China surpassed ExxonOil in the production of oil.

    “…I will transmit that information to Vladamir.”

  248. Early this morning from TV/DC Media Complex:
    SC holding secret O’Care vote today.
    Trayvon funeral director “testifies” on tee vee that TM’s hands too clean to have fought with GZ.

    Still hardly reported is Z-father’s declaration that TM was walking between houses. Not on sidewalk or street even tho it was raining, so suspicious in of itself. When Z called in suspicious sighting he (Z) was also on lawn between houses. Told to quit following, but police requested address of the sighting. Being the side of units, there were no numbers posted; so Z kept going until he saw unit #. Then he headed back to his vehicle. TM followed him. Then the alleged struggle. Burglaries in the mixed community had been on the upswing. Maybe that’s why TM was where he was. Maybe he was wearing gloves. I would not put it past funeral home to remove them. I wonder how many here are aware that AA community is VERY tight-lipped about tattling on its own. (This is fact, not racism. Check Philly Mayor Nutter statements.) So I think glove removal is a possibility. Since this incident, Z has been diagnosed PTSD. wbb’s remarks yesterday about what has been done to him emotionally make skin crawl. I’ve not yet come across Dad’s remark wishing Z had been the victim, but that too would make sense. Little else does.

  249. Trayvon funeral director “testifies” on tee vee that TM’s hands too clean to have fought with GZ.
    [….]
    Burglaries in the mixed community had been on the upswing. Maybe that’s why TM was where he was. Maybe he was wearing gloves. I would not put it past funeral home to remove them.

    =======================

    If the funeral home removed them, would the director then go on tv about the hands being clean? /da da dum dum

    Did he mention whether there had been a autopsy?

  250. U.S., terrorists involved in anti-Israel march

    A worldwide pro-Israel Christian ministry is concerned about today’s “Global March to Jerusalem.”

    The Times of Israel reports that Arab and international protestors from 80 countries are taking part in today’s Global March to Jerusalem to show their solidary for the Palestinian cause. According to Bill Sutter, executive director of The Friends of Israel (FOI), some bad actors are involved.

    “There are some horrible connections with Hamas, with Hezbollah [and] with Iran,” he lists.

    Bill Sutter (FOI)And one of the leaders in the march is none other than President Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

    “He is a member of the central committee of the Global March to Jerusalem,” Sutter details. “And so we have participants across a huge and radical stripe of terrorist groups and apologists for Islam, even to the point of here in the United States.”

    The FOI executive director concludes this demonstration illustrates that there is a war over the Holy City of Jerusalem, which is mentioned numerous times in the Bible in relation to the Jewish people. That, however, is absent from Islam’s holy book, the Koran.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1567642

  251. holdthemaccountable
    March 30th, 2012 at 6:11 am

    =================

    Thanks for including some ‘alleged’ and ‘maybe’s.

  252. Woops, sorry, the comment about the ‘bubble screen’ was from
    ShortTermer
    March 29th, 2012 at 8:17 pm

  253. Islam already crying foul:
    ______________

    France bars four more Islamic preachers from entry

    (Reuters) – France barred four Islamic preachers from entering the country on Thursday after banning prominent preacher Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi and another Egyptian cleric who wanted to attend a Muslim conference in Paris.

    Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and Interior Minister Claude Gueant said in a joint statement the four preachers “call for hate and violence … and, in the current context, present a strong risk of upsetting public order”.

    President Nicolas Sarkozy, who ordered a crackdown on radical Islamists after the Toulouse killings by an al Qaeda-inspired gunman last week, said on Monday that Qaradawi and Mahmoud al-Masri were not welcome in France.

    The Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), which invited the clerics to an April 6-9 conference, said it was surprised and hurt by the government’s “manifest determination to prolong a polemic … based on total ignorance”.

    Sarkozy and his UMP party, campaigning hard to win votes from the far-right National Front, have stressed divisive issues such as halal food and Islamic radicalism in their campaign for the two-round presidential election on April 22 and May 6.

    The UOIF said the bans “risk deepening the feeling French Muslims have of being blacklisted and treated with prejudice”.

    FOUR BANS, ONE REGRET

    http://news.yahoo.com/france-bars-four-more-islamic-preachers-entry-190815297.html

  254. Now that Fox has fallen, Murdock finally caving to external pressures, Soros has finally won the war on media who refuse to be compliant in promoting WH spin.
    ______________________

    Ex-communist nations expose Obama ‘fraud’
    Amid U.S. media blackout, foreign press sounds alarm on ‘largest scandal in American history’

    Media from former communist nations are once again breaking through the veil of silence surrounding President Obama’s eligibility for office – even when the U.S. media refuse to investigate what is being called the “largest scandal in American history.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/

    First, it was the Russian news website Pravda.

    Then, it was The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union.

    And now it’s the Czech Republic’s Neviditelný pes (The Invisible Dog), a popular news website from Prague, that’s sounding the alarm.

    Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!

    Likewise, Russia’s Pravda has published a second expose on the issue by Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University.

    Russia’s Pravda: ‘Largest scandal in American history’

    As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.

    “Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history,” Cotter wrote in a March 29 Pravda commentary. “Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.”

    She added, “Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.”

    Cotter details results from a WND investigation revealing a retired U.S. Postal Service carrier claims the parents of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers helped finance Obama’s Harvard education – and that Ayers’ mother indicated she believed Obama was a foreign student.

    “There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life. As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation,” she wrote. “If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.”

    Cotter also noted that the U.S. media have remained silent about Obama’s Selective Service card.

    “Has the wider American media addressed any of this in context?” she asked. “It may be the largest scandal in American history, certainly the most significant constitutional crisis the nation has faced since the end of the Civil War.

    “No.

    “They don’t dare. …

    “To be brutally clear, the power and backing of the United States Federal Government is being used to silence the press about Barack Obama. Either outright or through coercion, the media is complicit in covering up the crimes of the fraud Barack Obama and his unconstitutional government. These patterns are clear and unmistakable.”

    As WND reported, Pravda also published a March 7 piece from Cotter on the topic. In that commentary, she accused the American media of being “tame,” afraid to publish news and “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about [President Obama’s] defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Czech press: More known about ‘birth of Jesus two millennia ago’

    Now, Neviditelný pes (translated “The Invisible Dog”), a popular news website from Prague, Czech Republic, has published a two-part series noting that even Americans seeking to apply for a driver’s license must submit proof of their identity.

    According to a rough Google translation, the article explained, “It is the responsibility of applicants for the [presidency] to make available documents about his previous life – to present a birth certificate …”

    The article continues, “So now we know more about the circumstances of the birth of Jesus two millennia ago than about Obama half a century ago.”

    The piece offers detailed background on the eligibility issue and the investigation led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A roughly translated version of the series is available here and here.

    The Voice of Russia: ‘Obama’s birth certificate may be forgery’

    WND also reported when The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union – published an exclusive interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 26 titled, “Obama’s birth certificate may be forgery.”

    “Wherever I go, people commend me for doing this,” Arpaio told The Voice of Russia. “So, naturally this has been probably the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism when no one from the national level will cover the story.”

    However, in the recent The Voice of Russia interview, the Russian host argued that the Obama eligibility issue has been covered by “hundreds” of U.S. news outlets for years – after both Donald Trump and Arpaio brought up the question.

    “Well, I wish you would tell me who they are. I’m sure it’s not national. CBS, ABC, cable?” Arpaio asked. “Just show me who has been covering it. They haven’t been covering. I’m not going to get into inside sources that say that they don’t want to cover it, that’s another issue when we are talking about the media. But where is all the news? You are calling me, you are dealing with Russia, so I have to talk to Russia to get this story out.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/

  255. When I see Al Sharpton getting involved in carrying water for Otrauma It reminds me of the Rudyard Kipling poem :Gunga Din” the native waterboy.The movie was made in 1939 and the water carrier was played by Sammy Davis Jr.The wonderful black actor.Now I have to put up with Sharpton following his leader Otrauma around with a bucket to catch the
    BS from his boss.Times have changed since BO became POTUS by hook and by crook and America is in Danger.

  256. A reliable source tells TheDC that a Paul Ryan endorsement of Mitt Romney is imminent.

    The timing seems to fit. Rep. Ryan wrapped up his Presidential Trust Duties today. The House just passed his budget. And with the Wisconsin primary right around the corner on Tuesday, Ryan’s endorsement could be doubly effective.

    What is more, coming on the heels of Sen. Marco Rubio’s endorsement Wednesday night and President George H.W. Bush’s endorsement Thursday, this would be yet another example of the Republican old guard — and the up-and-coming conservative establishment — coalescing around Romney as the inevitable nominee.

    Update: BuzzFeed reports that Ryan “has communicated to former Senator Rick Santorum that he will endorse Mitt Romney, according to a source familiar with the conversation.”

    Additionally, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin writes, “I have no doubt Rep.Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will soon endorse Mitt Romney.”

    Update: A second source says to expect Ryan’s endorsement to come as early as Friday morning.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/paul-ryan-expected-endorse-mitt-romney/#ixzz1qbNc2NIX

    looks like this race is going to be put to bed.

  257. Hey turndown, here is the full interview with the dad, the video you said you could not find on this thread. He sounds so grief stricken. While they are parading TM’s parents on TV and everywhere, it is good to hear the other side too.

    #
    pm317
    March 29th, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Here is the full interview with the dad. At one point he says he wishes it was his son who got killed that night.

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032812-exclusive-robert-zimmerman-interview

    EXCLUSIVE: Robert Zimmerman interview: MyFoxORLANDO.com

  258. Paul Ryan just endorsed Romney live on Fox TV : “The longer we drag it out the harder it is to win in November…”

  259. Obama not hauling donations like 2008…..

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obamas-campaign-cash-haul-trailing-pace-of-08/

    With the president’s re-election fundraising drive thus far coming up short of his record-breaking 2008 pace, Team Obama — with the president and first lady Michelle Obama in the lead — is pushing hard to pump up the money figures ahead of Saturday’s financial-reporting deadline.

    By some measures, Mr. Obama’s re-election drive, which at one point was projected as perhaps the first $1 billion campaign in U.S. history, has collected tens of millions of dollars less than President Bush’s campaign had at the same point in 2004, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) figures.

    Democrats say the numbers are not exact apples-to-apples comparisons, with total numbers complicated by the rise of independent super PACs and funds raised for the party organizations.

    But the less-than-imposing numbers have prompted a flurry of fundraising emails to supporters to donate ahead of the March 31 first-quarter deadline, including separate appeals from Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama just in the days since the president returned from an international summit in South Korea on Wednesday.

    Mrs. Obama’s pitch, titled “Up Late,” extolled her husband’s work ethic and said she needs supporters “to have his back” this week and donate.

    Through the end of February, the campaign had raised a total of $118.79 million, for a total of $157 million when combined with the $38.25 million left over from the 2008 race.

    At the comparable point in 2004, Mr. Bush had raised $158.25 million for his re-election effort, with barely more than $1 million of that coming from his previous campaign, according to the FEC.

    At times, Mr. Obama’s top aides have openly fretted about the level of resistance they are encountering from some Democratic donors, especially in the face of the challenge posed by the pro-GOP super PACs. The president’s fundraising team has tried to highlight in stark terms what it sees as the consequences of Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney winning the White House.

    “We cannot underestimate someone like Romney, who has shown he will spend and say anything to win,” campaign manager Jim Messina warned in an email to supporters last week. The pitch included a poll showing Mr. Obama losing to Mr. Romney if the election were held now.

    Earlier this month, Mr. Messina took a swipe at Mr. Obama’s supporters in an email blast at 3 a.m.

    “Too many Obama supporters are falling into a trap,” he wrote. “They’re waiting to donate until we have a clear opponent. There’s too much at stake, and not enough time, to be doing that.”

    The expectations game

    While pushing for more donations, Mr. Obama’s aides are pushing back at suggestions that the campaign is strapped for cash or falling well short of expectations.

    Democratic officials argue that comparing the figures for Mr. Bush eight years ago and Mr. Obama today isn’t fair because the president has been furiously raising money for the Democratic National Committee this year and last as well.

    So far this cycle, the DNC has raised $157.68 million and has $37.17 million in cash on hand and $5.9 million in outstanding debts, while the Republican National Committee has collected $127.66 million and has $42 million in cash on hand and $10.9 million in debts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

  260. The Mrs couldn’t be any more de classe and irresponsible:
    __________________

    Michelle Obama Desecrates White House Yet Again

    by Ulsterman on March 28, 2012

    First it was her use of the East Room to stage a televised sack race with a late night talk show host.

    Now First Lady Michelle Obama has staged yet another self-promoting event in one of the nation’s most sacred rooms in the White House – this time a workout session for an upcoming broadcast of The Biggest Loser.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/28/michelle-obama-desecrates-white-house-yet-again/

  261. She’s turned the WH into a cheapo reality show big brother house complete with trashy cometitions and housemates.

  262. moononpluto
    March 30th, 2012 at 9:42 am

    Students can’t be bothered with Obama 2012…..bored with it.
    _________________

    Yep, when adults take advise from the young, disaster is always the result- i.e. Caroline Kennedy’s retelling what swayed her to support Obama; from her college age children: “Obama is another JFK.” There are books on JFK, Caroline. Are there any similarities between “Dreams of My Father” and “Profiles in Courage”? FAIL
    _______________

    Pompos

    President Racist McBlackPanther Affirmative Action Man is going down in 2012!

    Garr Obo 4 minutes ago

    As you get a little older, hopefully, you get a little smarter. This ‘Pied Piper’ led the airheaded students and ignorant ‘independents’ around by the nose during the last campaign.

    Again, hopefully, this next batch of kiddie voters won’t be so interested in being made fools of.

  263. You cant make it up…..talk about making yourself look dumb in front of everyone…..

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/hoodie-wearing-gunmen-kill-1-wound-5-in-bobby-rushs-ill-district

    Former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, made quite a fuss when he donned a “hoodie” in the U.S. House until he was escorted out. At the time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, “applauded his courage” for doing so. Meanwhile, back home in Rush’s district, two men wearing hooded sweatshirts, or “hoodies,” were the shooters in an incident that left one dead and five injured.

    A congressman was removed from the House floor Wednesday after giving a speech about Trayvon Martin while wearing a hoodie.

    In fact, during a span of six-hours Thursday night, 13 people were shot, leaving two dead in Chicago. The two men in hooded sweatshirts were identified as the shooters in the single more significant incident. It would seem it takes more courage to simply walk down the street in Rush’s district, than it does to wear a hooded sweatshirt in the House of Representatives by way of a stunt in a bizarre tribute to a young man shot and killed in Florida during a shooting incident still under investigation.

    13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago in six hours Thursday night

    The worst shooting occurred around 6 p.m. Thursday when two men in hooded sweatshirts opened fire inside a convenience store in the 1400 block of West 79th Street in the Gresham neighborhood, police said.
    One man was killed and five others were wounded. The victims ranged in age from 16 to 24. The gunmen fled in an SUV and police continued searching for them this morning.

    There’s also another report on that particuar incident here. Perhaps if Bobby Rush and Nancy Pelosi ever got around to actually doing something to lift up the people in Rush’s district in a manner that didn’t simply serve to make them dependent upon them as U.S. Representatives, there would be fewer stories like the one above out of Chicago and less need to don a piece of clothing in Congress in what amounts to an empty and silly gesture.

    ………………

    Now Mr Rush, what wa that about hoodies again?

  264. moononpluto
    Students can’t be bothered with Obama 2012…..bored with it.

    ——-
    Yup, this has been going on for about a year or so from what I have seen. The ones that are ‘bored with Obama’ have realized he promised to be fresh and new, not the typical politition…but although they don’t donate to him, and may not muster the effort to vote for him, they are turned off to politics again and will not vote for a GOPer, and some of them have voted for Ron Paul.

  265. I was struck a bit by the wild prognostication by Charles Freid, former solicitor general for Reagan, that Obama care would be upheld 8 to 1. Obviously, this is cited by the leftist totalitarian elites as proof that the challenge to Obama care was frivoulous–and they were perfectly justified in treating with the contempt them did—and if perchance the Supreme Court strikes down the law then it the fault of the solicitor general Verilli who did not live up to their expectations.

    How do a group of supposedly enlightened people get so fucked up in their thinking. Is it group think–or is there more to it. In Freid’s case it was a matter f embracing class over substance or the Republican Party. He went blatto when the party nominated Palin–who was not a Harvard graduate whereas Obama is. A CEO I know had the exact same reaction. In fact, he quit the party over Palin–and this was all the more remarkable since his grandfather was a close friend of President Taft, and used to stay with him when he was in Illinois.

    That same wilful blindness makes them not notice the harm Obama is doing to this nation. Sowell’s point that Obama is such a genial man, and to the point that matters most to the elites a Harvard graduate and a black one at that, fucks with their collective mind, that they cannot see the irreversible harm that his warped policies and rutheless tactics are doing to a system which has given unprecedented prosperity and freedom to generations of Americans. With Romney will they come back to the fold–these elitists? The jury is still out.

    I do not know if anybody here is interested in the attorney who the states chose to present their case. I would have recommended Ted Olsen, but it sounds like they got someone who is at least as good in Paul Clement. One look at his bio tells you all you needed to know. When you clerk for Laurence Silberman in the Washington DC Circuit and then for Nano on the Supreme Court, that raises an irrebuttable presumption that you know what you are doing. And he does–he is a real heavy weight, and it showed. It was interesting to see him skewer Kagen on her boatload of money hypothetical, who has never been a judge before, but that did not stop here from being appointed. Nuts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Clement

  266. Years ago, I hired a guy as a labor representative in the mid west. It was a bad decision. But one thing he told me was that his former employer told him that his job was to give the company away to the union as slowly as possible. After I heard that I watched his every move. But I thought about him this morning as I was thinking about Obama. It is the same with him he is giving the country away–everything before he is done, but unlike that former employee he is doing it as quickly as possible. But people like Charles Freid do not see it. He voted for Obama and wrote him a torrid love letter after he was installed. That is a form of mental illness, which is common among the beltway elites. That said, they misunderstand our motives. They think we are not as smart as them, therefore we should defer. We say, we don’t give a rat’s ass whether you are smarter, you have a big deficit when it comes to common sense, you represent your own interests at the expense of the country, and you have not done such a hot job of running the country that you are entitled to deference–and a Harvard degree in the flimsiest excuse for you to demand such deference.

  267. Hillary Clinton in Middle East push to end crackdown in Syria

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met King Abdullah on Friday in the Saudi capital as she kicked off a two-country tour aimed at raising pressure on the Syrian regime.

    30 Mar 2012

    It said Defence Minister Salman bin Abdul Aziz, Foreign Minister Saudi al-Faisal and the kingdom’s intelligence chief, Mogran bin Abdul Aziz, also took part in the meeting but gave no further details.

    Clinton is due on Saturday to hold talks in Riyadh with ministers of Saudi Arabia’s five Gulf Arab neighbours – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – before broader meetings Sunday with Arab, Turkish and Western officials in Istanbul.

    The Friends of Syria meeting in Turkey follows the inaugural one Clinton attended in Tunis at the end of February – a response to Western and Arab failure to win Russian and Chinese backing at the UN Security Council.

    Aides said Clinton will discuss how to make President Bashar al-Assad comply with a new plan to end his crackdown on a pro-democracy movement, study further sanctions against his regime and consider ways to aid the opposition who will be in Istanbul.

    On Thursday, Assad said he would “spare no effort” for the success of UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan but warned the proposal would only work if “terrorist acts” backed by foreign powers stopped.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9176246/Hillary-Clinton-in-Middle-East-push-to-end-crackdown-in-Syria.html

  268. 03/29/2012

    The Obama team flubs on Jerusalem

    By Jennifer Rubin
    The Free Beacon reports:

    A State Department official refused to state that Jerusalem is the [capital] of Israel when pressed today by AP State Department reporter Matt Lee.
    The Free Beacon was first to report yesterday that the department had quietly altered an official communication that originally referred to Israel and Jerusalem [as] separate entities.
    When pressed by a reporter earlier today, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland carefully avoided calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel, instead deflecting the query by claiming that Jerusalem’s ultimate status will only be determined in peace negotiations by the Israelis and Palestinians.
    “The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances,” Nuland explained when asked about the altered press release. . . . “With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.”
    Goodness knows the administration has had its hand caught in the cookie jar trying to “scrub” references to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The administration has previously tried writing Jerusalem out of Israel on a travel itinerary.

    But the ham-handedness and unnecessary eye-poking aside, critics of the Obama administration should be careful on the substance. No American president has made — nor, I would argue, should make — a definitive judgment on the disposition of Jerusalem.

    Friends of Israel should not encourage irresponsible and unachievable pandering on the status of Jerusalem. The United States has signed multiple international agreements specifying that Jerusalem is a final-status issue. We only invite fights about apartment buildings and imperil our own ability to influence events by jumping the gun to declare as a matter of U.S. policy what we think the final disposition should be.

    Understand, this applies to official U.S. government policy. Friends of Israel are entirely reasonable in proclaiming their support for Jerusalem as the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state. (Full disclosure: I have a bumper sticker on my car that says precisely this.) But private citizens making the historical, religious and geopolitical case for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is different than the administration taking sides on an issue that is supposed to be the topic of negotiation.

    Making a mountain out of a molehill (an apartment permit) was where the administration got badly off track, you will recall. In that instance the administration took what every prime minister in Israel has done (build in his capital) and turned it into a huge to-do and part of a precondition of negotiations.

    Perhaps the administration should be guided by a simple rule: If you don’t have something nice to say about Israel’s capital (like “Next Year in that-final-status-issue-locale!” at the White House Passover seder), put a cork in it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn

  269. Not-So-Smooth Operator
    Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.

    By PEGGY NOONAN

    Something’s happening to President Obama’s relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, “Nothing new there,” but actually I think there is. I’m referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

    It’s not due to the election, and it’s not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn’t happening.

    What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it’s his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it’s a big fault.

    Enlarge Image
    noonan0331
    noonan0331
    Getty Images

    The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? “You’re kidding me. That’s not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it’s not even constitutional!” Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

    What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who’d been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

    Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for “space” and said he will have “more flexibility” in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he’d been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

    Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president’s response were, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: “Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.”

    Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

    Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history’s time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

    The high court’s hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

    All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

    I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I’m only saying he’s made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

    In terms of the broad electorate, I’m not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

    From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

    That’s what the American people were thinking about.

    But the new president wasn’t thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn’t know it was so bad, didn’t understand the depth of the crisis, didn’t have a sense of how long it would last. They didn’t have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

    The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the ‘Is America over?’ part.

    And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they’ve read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
    More Peggy Noonan

    Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns

    click here to order her book, Patriotic Grace

    If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying “Obama Loses,” do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It’s hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, “If only Obama were president!” Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn’t seem to like his job that much. As a former president he’d be quiet, detached, aloof. He’d make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans’ fault. They didn’t want to work with him.

    He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O’Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.

    An American president has to make cooperation happen.

    But we’ve strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

    Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.

  270. No he cannot win. If he is re-elected, it will rain fire and brimstone down on the heads of the elites, and it will change the nature of our political system. It really could lead to a revolution which is the last thing we need. We need a fresh start, and we need to put the radical Chicago based racist left in cages where they belong–and throw away the key.

  271. Wbboei, its taken Peggy this long to say that people increasingly know “Obama cannot be trusted”. Kinda late for Peggy to realize this.

  272. This is just f*#king insane. Our soldiers in Afghanistan now have to be guarded while they sleep, advised to carry weapons inside Afghan ministries, and turn all their desks to face the door while working in buildings populated by our “allies”.

    We’ve spent all this time, money and blood trying to train up and partner with Afghan defense forces – who are now using that training and close relationship to kill our guys.

    GET. THEM. THE. HELL. OUT. of that hopeless shithole. They are not our friends, and they have age-old problems of their own that have kept them killing each other for decades, LONG before we came along. That we cannot solve, and shouldn’t try. Not our problem. Get the hell out. And frankly, I don’t care if the whole area descends into utter barbarism and they all slaughter each other to their heart’s content for another hundred years. Sad, and I’m sorry for many of the Afghan innocents (especially women) who will suffer, but not our problem. Get the hell out.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9174294/Guardian-angels-assigned-to-watch-over-US-troops-in-Afghanistan.html

  273. If I was playing detective, I would ask what the motive for Zimmerman to pull the trigger on Martin. From his dad’s interview it looks like he was an alright guy with no psychotic tendencies. He had just called the police on that fateful evening and he was expecting they would arrive there. Why would he willingly take the chance to pull the trigger if he was going to get caught in the act by the police whom he had called? It seems to me that his narrative and what his dad repeated about what he was told transpired makes sense — it was going to be either him or Martin in that fateful minute of the scuffle if there really was one. If there was not one then that raises the original question, why would Zimmerman pull the trigger on a ‘retreating or not’ Martin esp. when the police were on their way and he was on the phone with them?

    Well, that is my thinking Or I have just been seeing too much Maigret!

    But it makes me queasy that he was carrying a gun at all on him (and that he was purportedly on the way to a store). Then again I don’t know gun culture in the south in this country.

  274. Guess what,she’s Black!

    *********

    “The same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the work place are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes … and now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/afl-cio-exec-conservative-right-wing-policies-to-blame-for-trayvon-martins-death-video/
    ********************************************
    Scarborough has completely jumped the shark and lost his mind

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/30/scarborough_the_right_is_politicizing_trayvon_martins_death.html

  275. It makes sense to me that he would be carrying, especially if he was going out into the stores. The gated community had experienced some thefts; that is unusual in a gated community; that alone is a good reason not to let thugs roam around free in a complex that they don’t live in. The man had a big gash on the back of his head, but the effects of a broken nose likely had not set in yet. For those yelling he should have been arrested; I don’t know what they think was going on when the police carted his butt to the police station; they were doing their job; they must not have had evidence of a ‘murder’ but rather self defense. You can’t fault a guy for having protection when the area is experiencing crime waves; otherwise, he might be dead, but would that have been as big of a shame as the dead person they keep portraying as a 12 year old?

    Without pause on the tv there are reports of crime in Orlando. I would not live in Orlando because of the crime rate. I know they want the area to appear pristine because of Mickey, but that just is not the case. During Carter’s administration, he allowed entrance into the Miami area of undocumented people. Fidel seized upon the opportunity to empty his jails and those people came to Miami by boatloads. With them came their criminal behavior. Friends I know who have moved from south to central Florida site the reason as the crime…and the criminals who have spawned that Jimmy Carter so stupidly allowed in the country.

    Further, the state does not cherish a blemish on their state, after all they have an awful lot of seniors who live here who demand to feel safe as well as tourists, so imho, they will do what is right and likely even be a little extra cautious and overzealous in finding the facts of the case. It tells me that since Zimmerman has not been arrested that he likely was the victim. And I believe the state has to prepare for bad behavior on the part of blacks and their ilk that will not like any action short of lynching Zimmerman in the town square. After all they have no way of knowing that Spike Lee, Roseanne, the NBPs and other batsh!t crazy liberals will not take out a bounty on whose head next, or jeopardize innocent people by tweeting so sweetly. And then there is the NBP’s to worry about who seem like unintelligent gestapo, and they thought the KKK was bad, heh?

  276. admin
    March 30th, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Wbboei, its taken Peggy this long to say that people increasingly know “Obama cannot be trusted”. Kinda late for Peggy to realize this.
    ——————————
    Admin:

    “From love’s close kiss to hell’s abyss is one sheer flight, I trow,
    And wedding ring and bridal bell are will-o’-wisps of woe”—The Harpy, by Robert Service

    For Peggy it has been a four year flight, I trow
    (Conclusion: slow learner).

  277. Now where would all of these stolen credit card numbers be going? To who? For what? So- a quick fix may be to max your card out until you receive a new one?
    ________________

    MasterCard, Visa confirm credit card data theft described as ‘massive’-

    Krebs reported that hackers had access to the unknown processor’s data from Jan. 21 through Feb. 25, and were able to siphon off enough data to easily create counterfeit cards. His sources called the leak “massive.”
    _________

    http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/30/10940640-mastercard-visa-confirm-credit-card-data-theft-described-as-massive

  278. ROTFLMAO! This new anti-Obama ad is freaking hilarious! “Operation Hot Mic”, a movie trailer with James Bond music and “I transmit this information to Vladimir”

  279. Early on- from what I read about Zim and the gun- He was pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him. Zim felt his shirt pulled up with Martin trying to pull the gun out of Zim’s waistband.

    The oddity is- the spent shell was still in the chamber after the gun fired because whatever movement of the gun discharges the shell was prevented from completing itself. Which as was further explained, could happen when there is a struggle for control of the gun, 2 pr of hands on the gun fighting for the gun, preventing the spent shell from ejecting itself.

  280. HillaryforTexas
    March 30th, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Sending to all my T-Party friends in Dallas-

    ROFL…

  281. admin
    March 30th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
    Wbboei, its taken Peggy this long to say that people increasingly know “Obama cannot be trusted”. Kinda late for Peggy to realize this.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&

    Yeah. For instance, she writes:

    “The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. ”

    We recall “the shift” going back to when he was running for Senator in 2006. He’s been a dishonest f*** since the day he was born.

  282. Re: holdthemaccountable
    March 30th, 2012 at 6:11 am

    I did not hear Zimmerman’s father say HE wishes his son was killed or shot. What I did hear him say that ‘they’ may have preferred his son was beaten to death or shot; and that was in response to the question of what the ‘others’ when they state George should never have killed Travon, that it was racial. It occurred at about the 11:10 minute mark in the video. Accurate reporting of facts is important; and that little difference could have made a whole world of difference, especially if the crazies had gotten the info and it had been in writing somewhere…they would consider it reliable.

  283. Exactly! I am going to post this ad on my FB community.
    You can only run twice…then you can establish yourself as a dictator.

    “…I transmit this nformation to Valdamir and I stand with you.”

  284. Admin, please delete the accidental post at 3:41pm. Thanks.

    “…I transmit this information to Vladamir.”

  285. And to top off a very bad week for the Obots:

    BWAHAHAHA!!! Just saw on Twitter that Current TV is terminating Keefie Olbermann?
    *snerk* Good riddance. Sorry asshole couldn’t even make it on that poor excuse for a “network”.

    One wag had this to say:

    So when you get terminated by CurrentTV I guess your next option is shouting at people on street corners.—
    Jim J (@anthropocon) March 30, 2012

  286. BWAHAHAHA! Current had this to say:

    We are more committed to those goals today than ever before. Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.”

    WHAT??? Big egomaniac tantrum-throwing Keefie was perhaps not collegiate and respectful? Who’da thunk?

  287. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/kinde-durkee-pleads-guilty_n_1392139.html?ref=politics

    Kinde Durkee, Former California Campaign Treasurer, Pleads Guilty To Looting $7 Million

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A former California campaign treasurer pleaded guilty Friday to looting at least $7 million from the accounts of dozens of Democratic candidates and political organizations, in one of the nation’s most egregious political embezzlement cases.

    Kinde Durkee, who had operated Durkee & Associates of Burbank until her arrest last September, entered the plea to five counts of mail fraud in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. The plea deal carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in federal prison.

    It ended a criminal case that left numerous state and federal candidates with little or no money in their campaign accounts, heading into an election year in which they face newly drawn districts and a new primary system.

    Durkee, 59, now faces civil lawsuits from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who believes she may have lost as much as $5 million, and other victims.

    Prosecutors say she controlled some 700 bank accounts and embezzled money from at least 50 victims, including members of California’s Democratic congressional delegation, Democratic state lawmakers and various political organizations.

    Court filings say the money went to pay mortgages on Durkee’s homes, various business expenses that included health care benefits and 401(k) contributions for her employees, and her mother’s care in a home for seniors.

    She also used the political accounts to pay for an array of personal expenses, including bills from Disneyland, Costco, Amazon.com, Ulta cosmetics and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    Neither Durkee nor her attorney had spoken publicly since her arrest.

    The California Fair Political Practices Commission said the Durkee case was by far the largest political embezzlement case in state history. Officials with the Federal Election Commission said it was the largest they could recall.

    In 2010, Christopher Ward, a former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee, pleaded guilty to embezzling nearly $850,000 from the NRCC and other political committees in the largest such federal case in memory. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

    Prosecutors said Durkee also filed false information with the FEC and the California Secretary of State, which track campaign contributions and expenditures.

    Her former clients have been in limbo because their campaign accounts were frozen as investigators tried to trace the money.

    In California, the Fair Political Practices Commission has told candidates for state office that they are allowed to open new bank accounts and report any projected losses as “expenditures” until the case is sorted out. But the agency has put off a decision about whether affected candidates would be allowed to request additional contributions from donors who already gave the maximum amounts allowed by law.

    The state commission is awaiting a decision on that matter regarding federal candidates from the FEC in a case filed by Feinstein. A hearing in the federal case is scheduled for April 12.

  288. Winning tweet:

    Keith Olbermann’s career looks like a mashed up bag of meat caused by a dipstick.

  289. Sharpton should be arrested and at the very least removed from MSNBC if he keeps spreading and threatening incitement.

    Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free.

    If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.

    Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department’s handling of the case.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-al-sharpton-20120330_1_civil-disobedience-national-action-network-national-association

  290. w.ksee24.com/news/local/9-Year-Old-Gives-Birth-In-China-143484786.html

    =====================

    Maybe someone had a conscience clause against abortion — or against emergency contraceptive.

    No, conscience clauses aren’t funny. They cause real physical suffering for real people.

  291. Why would he willingly take the chance to pull the trigger if he was going to get caught in the act by the police whom he had called?

    ====================

    Good point. Pre-meditated intention seems out. (Unless there was some really crazy racist or cultural motive, which he expected the police to share and cover for. Like getting rid of one of those &%*&*&U_r’s that wear loose pants.)

    But our laws have various ‘manslaughter’ categories which are still criminal and prosecuted in the same way as murder.

  292. Unless there was some really crazy racist or cultural motive, which he expected the police to share and cover for. .

    That seems so far fetched given other circumstantial evidence it does not merit any consideration.

  293. ShortTermer we won’t delete your “accidental post”. We want to get you in trouble with Vladamir. 🙂

  294. TDO:
    Unless there was some really crazy racist or cultural motive, which he expected the police to share and cover for. .

    PM:
    That seems so far fetched given other circumstantial evidence it does not merit any consideration.

    ================

    I agree it’s far-fetched and scarcely worth considering, beause I’m of Southern background myself and I know very few if any Southerners would really feel that way.

    But what circumstantial evidence are you talking about? What circumstantial evidence do we have (other than the timing of the call etc)?

Comments are closed.