Not-So-Super Committee: The congressional Super Committee is tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion from future deficits over the next decade. They can accomplish this by cutting spending or raising taxes. They have 9 days left to complete their mission before automatic cuts to defense and entitlements go into effect. Thus far, the Super Committee has been unable to reach an agreement.

If anything illustrates the ineffectiveness of Congress (and a failure of leadership by the President), this it it. Think about it. Over the last ten years, the federal government has spent about $28 trillion. Over the next ten years, federal spending is projected to be $45-50 trillion. All the Super Committee has to do is cut $1.2 trillion out of the next $45-50 trillion in spending, a miniscule percentage. The Super Committee's job isn't even about cutting spending. They are only talking about cutting the rate of future spending INCREASE. I could cut that much out of the budget in a day, if it took me that long. In fact, I'll do it right now, in about ten seconds. We could cut $1.2 trillion out of the military budget over ten years. That would come to $120 billion per year, out of a defense budget that is already larger than the defense budgets of all the other countries in the world COMBINED, a defense budget that costs almost $1 trillion per year when all associated costs are tallied. There. We're done. That wasn't so hard, was it ?

If the Super Committee can't even agree on these small cuts ($120 billion per year out of future $4-5 trillion budgets), what hope is there that Congress can close our annual trillion dollar deficits ? There is no hope, not with our current Congress, and not with our current President. Ron Paul sounds better all the time.

CBS Sucks: Speaking of Ron Paul, CBS held a 90-minute GOP presidential debate on foreign policy. CBS aired 60 minutes of that debate, and candidate Paul got a grand total of 89 seconds to speak on air. Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy (see – defense spending cuts). Apparently, CBS didn't want to hear it. Paul wasn't the only GOP contender complaining, and CBS's excuse was that they gave the most air time to the candidates highest in the polls. It is not the job of CBS to decide which candidates are legitimate and which are not. That's the job of the voters, and the voters can't make a sound choice if certain candidates are cut out of the debate process. It's the job of CBS to give each candidate an equal chance, and CBS failed miserably.

Cain-wreck: I thought Rick Perry forgetting which government deparments he wanted to eliminate was about as bad as it gets for political flubs. I was wrong. Watch Herman Cain trying to answer a question about whether he agreed with Obama's policy in Libya:

Ouch. That was actually painful to watch. 'Let's see…Libya…that's a country, isn't it ? Golly, there are so many countries that it's hard to keep track [even though we've been at war in Libya for months and it was all over the news]. Libya's trying to develop nuclear weapons, right ? No, that's China…or is it Iran ? Wait, no, Libya is where Qaddafi was at, correct ? Whatever it is, I'm disagreeing with Obama's policy on it, because…I have to…even if I have no idea what I'm talking about'.

Give me a break already. Cain sounded like a college student who didn't study for the entire semester and then stayed up all night cramming for the final. So much information "twirling around" inside his head. Thanks for playing Presidential Jeopardy, Mr. Cain, and please accept this wonderful parting gift, dinner for two at Olive Garden. But please spare us any more of your "views" on foreign policy. Cain would have been better off if he just said, 'hell if I know. I'm a businessman. I don't even know where Libya is'.

Given Cain and Perry's recent responses, I'm starting to think maybe I could run for President. There don't seem to be any qualifications for the job.

Supreme Test For ObamaCare: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the lawsuit challenging ObamaCare. This is huge. We should find out next year whether we have a constitutional government or a totalitarian government. If the ObamaCare insurance mandate is upheld by the Supremes, the government would be granted almost unlimited power over the citizenry. The government could then tell us what products we have to buy from private companies, what we have to eat and drink, what we have to wear, you name it. There would be no limits to governmental authority. The ObamaCare mandate to purchase health insurance or be fined is an assault on our basic rights and freedom, and possibly the most unconstitutional law passed since the 1930's, when several unconstitutional FDR laws were struck down by the courts.

There have been calls for Justices Thomas and Kagan to recuse themselves from the proceedings. Justice Thomas' wife has been involved in campaigns to repeal ObamaCare, and Justice Kagan worked for Obama and is on record cheering the passage of ObamaCare. It doesn't really matter if they recuse themselves, unless only one of them does, which would swing the balance of the court. We pretty much already know the entire liberal wing of the court will vote for a totalitarian government and approve the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate. The conservative wing of the court will vote to uphold the Constitution and liberty, and that leaves…Justice Kennedy, the swing vote who will decide the future of freedom in this country. The eventual ruling is almost certainly going to be 5-4 one way or the other. My view is that any Justice who votes to uphold the ObamaCare mandate should be immediately kicked off the Supreme Court for violating his/her oath of office.

In my ongoing quest to educate liberals, I have often pointed out a basic economic point – increasing taxes on businesses causes job losses. Therefore, I keep advocating massive business tax cuts to stimulate job creation in this country and end the recession. For some reason, liberals keep arguing with me, though for the life of me I can't figure out what they are arguing with. Here is yet more proof of what I'm talking about:

Stryker, the Kalamazoo-based maker of artificial hips and knees, will cut 5% of its global workforce by the end of next year to reduce costs in the face of new fees on device makers required by the U.S. health care law [aka, ObamaCare].

The job cuts will reduce annual pretax operating costs by more than $100 million beginning in 2013, when the medical-device excise tax is scheduled to take effect, Stryker said Thursday in a statement. Stryker had more than 20,000 employees as of Dec. 31, according to Bloomberg News data.

Liberals run around crowing about poverty, greed, taxing the rich, fair shares, income disparity, class warfare, etc, etc, etc., but the best anti-poverty program ever invented is called a J-O-B, and liberal tax and spend policies INHIBIT job creation.

While I'm on the subject of ObamaCare, here's another unintended effect of that ill-conceived legislation:

Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months.

This is not what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010…

“The nation's largest private employer, Wal-Mart, announced in October that new part-time employees who work less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer be able to get their health insurance from the company. Wal-Mart laid out several other cuts to its health insurance offerings, including some workers’ ability get coverage for their spouses. Other companies have already made and will likely continue to make similar changes to their health insurance benefits….

“If Wal-Mart's decision is a precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue.”

So in addition to costing about $2.5 trillion over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting nearly $1 trillion from Medicare over that time (according to the CBO), forcing Americans to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law, and amassing unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans’ liberty — if Obamacare stays on the books, you may like your health care plan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can keep your health care plan.

This is yet another example of liberals loading costs onto the American private business sector, with predictable negative side effects. It also explains why the Obama administration has granted 1800 waivers to companies excluding them from ObamaCare regulations. If ObamaCare was actually helping businesses to compete in this country, that would not be necessary. Our brilliant President and his equally brilliant Democratic Congress actually designed a health care law that HURTS business and inhibits job creation, right smack dab in the middle of what Obama himself calls "the worst recession since the Great Depression".

Add this to the fact that Obama has run up a record amount of debt, with projected $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see, and my only question becomes…is Obama TRYING to destroy the country, or is he merely the dumbest and worst President in American history ??? In either case, unless we have a desire to commit national suicide, we better not elect him to a second term, and we better get rid of all the anti-business Democrats in Congress while we're at it. If there was ever a time for America to pursue pro-business job creation and economic growth policies, it's now. Unfortunately, Democrats are standing directly in the way, blocking the road to prosperity. There is no valid economic reason for it, which I suppose explains all the class warfare doubletalk Obama and the Democrats are engaging in. They would rather propagandize the country to win the next election than implement policies to get us out of economic flatline. They complain about jobs going overseas, while at the same time promoting tax increases, regulations, and spending policies that will send more jobs overseas. It's shameful, and it's far past time for somebody to call them out on it.

Recently, the Boeing Corporation announced plans to build a $1 billion commercial jet production plant in South Carolina.

With the national unemployment rate at 9%, and manufacturing jobs leaving America in droves, it's certainly good news that Boeing is building it's new plant right here in the good old USA, eh ?

While it may sound like good news to most of us, the Obama administration objects. Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has sued Boeing to prevent the plant from being built in South Carolina. The NLRB is accusing Boeing of unfair labor practices. The NLRB is accusing Boeing of union-busting. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the NLRB, it is a branch of the federal government whose board members are all appointed by the President. Three of the four current NLRB board members are Democrats. The stated purpose of the NLRB is to protect employee rights, which includes the right of workers to collectively bargain, as outlined in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (Note to Democrats in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana – the National Labor Relations Act specifically excluded federal, state, and local government employees from collective bargaining rights. It only applies to private sector workers).

The NLRB demands that Boeing build it's new plant in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The reason is, South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states, while Washington is not. In right-to-work states, workers cannot be forced to join a union and pay union dues as a condition of their employment. Needless to say, forced unionism is exactly what the unions want, ergo the complaint against Boeing.

I have a few observations. First of all, aside from the union vs. right-to-work issue, I have a problem when our own government opposes an American company that wants to produce jobs and manufacture products in this country. Isn't job creation supposed to be what we are encouraging ? Second, why should the government have the potential to compel a private corporation to do business in one state over another ? I thought this was supposed to be the land of the free, the UNITED States, not the land of political friends and enemies. Third, there is no statute prohibiting collective bargaining or the creation of unions in right-to-work states. Workers are free to unionize if they wish, or not unionize. It's the worker's choice. I don't see a big problem there, but in the interest of fairness, here is the argument for and against right-to-work laws, via Wikipedia:

For Right-To-Work:

Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states.[2] They contend that it is wrong for unions to be able to agree with employers to include clauses in their union contracts (also known as a union security agreement) which require all employees to either join the union, or pay union dues as a condition of employment.[3] Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases forced union dues are used to support political causes, causes which some union members may oppose.[4]

Against Right-To-Work:

Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem,[8][9] in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.[8][10]

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered[10] and worker safety and health is endangered. For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right to work for less" states[11] or "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states. They also cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that, in 2003, states with right-to-work laws in general had a higher rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers.[12]

The Libertarian in me is persuaded by the freedom of assocation argument of the right-to-work supporters, but I also acknowledge the important role private sector unions have played in the past in securing rights and decent wages for American workers. That is no small thing, and it's also Libertarian to allow private sector workers to unionize (or not) as they see fit. In the end, it's that choice that is essential, and in the end, if workers in right-to-work states are being abused, they CAN still unionize. It's up to them. As long as that choice remains in place, I side with the right-to-work people.

Many Republicans, especially those from South Carolina, are taking issue with the NLRB's action against Boeing. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called it "nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America." South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham said, "If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual ‘veto' over business decisions. Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish Right to Work states that value and promote their pro-business climates." South Carolina Senator Jim Demint said, "This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama's re-election campaign. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of hundreds of jobs in South Carolina and thousands of jobs nationwide."

The International Association of Machinists And Aerospace Workers (IAM) union claims Boeing is building it's new plant in South Carolina in retaliation for past union strikes against Boeing. The NLRB, which is supposed to be an independent agency, is clearly acting as a mouthpiece for union grievances. The NLRB's Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, said Boeing was building it's plant in South Carolina "to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."

Boeing denies the accusation:

“We hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims,” Boeing CEO Jim McNerney wrote. “To the contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions — a ratio unchanged since 2003. Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-to-work.”

Boeing received about $900 million in tax breaks and other incentives from South Carolina.

For the sake of argument, let's say the IAM is right, and Boeing is moving to South Carolina to get away from the repeated union strikes. You must remember, Boeing is not a public service organization or a charity. It is a company that has to make a profit to stay in business. Therefore, Boeing acts in the business interests of Boeing, and it's not in Boeing's interests to have it's production halted by union strike after union strike, is it ? Thus, the repeated strikes are actually an INCENTIVE for Boeing to relocate elsewhere. I saw this exact same scenario play out in Akron, Ohio in the 1970's with the rubber shops. They moved production to the south to escape the unions, and Akron ended up high and dry, with nothing. Thanks for nothing, unions. You drove our jobs away, and they were good blue collar jobs. Our city was left a lot worse off because of it. That same scenario is turning parts of Detroit, Michigan into a ghost town today. Sometimes the unions end up being their own worst enemy. Personally, I'd rather have an actual job that pays $20 per hour than a non-existent union job that pays $30 per hour, but that's just me. I like to feed my family, and I can't do that in Akron if my job is in Alabama, or China.

To my knowledge, President Obama hasn't said a word about the Boeing situation, which led Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to wonder aloud whether Obama has an "enemies list". I'd phrase it a bit differently. What I think is, Obama has a friend's list, and Republican-voting right-to-work-states like South Carolina aren't on it. After all, our President is already in 2012 fundraising campaign re-election mode. He's looking to raise a billion dollars and reward his friends. Cronies unite !

Government tyranny has been staved off for a bit longer, as Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled the ObamaCare mandate is unconstitutional. The mandate would have forced all Americans to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine, a clear perversion of the Commerce Clause, which states Congress shall have the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Getting right to the heart of the matter:

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote that no court had expanded the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to allow the government to regulate a person's decision not to buy a product.

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," Hudson wrote.

From the Judge's actual case opinion:

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the [ObamaCare mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.

In another crucial part of the ruling, the Judge explains why the ObamaCare mandate was so dangerous:

Of course, the same reasoning [to require Americans to purchase health insurance] could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation.

In other words, if the ObamaCare mandate is allowed to stand, the government could force us to do almost anything it wished. There would be virtually no limitations on government power, rendering the Constitution a worthless piece of paper, and subjugating individual liberty to the whims of our government overlords….which pretty much explains why progressives LIKE the ObamaCare mandate. They're a bunch of control freaks. They WANT to subjugate individual liberty to their idea of the collective good. They want to tell the rest of us what to eat, what to drive, what to wear, what to think, what to see on television or hear on the radio, how much money we should make, how much of our own money the government should let us keep, how we should spend the money we do have, etc, etc, etc. Individual liberty is the arch enemy of the leftists.

So naturally, the White House is "disappointed" that a Federal Court has ruled Congress "exceeded it's authority" with the ObamaCare mandate (actually, only congressional Democrats exceeded their authority. Republicans correctly voted against ObamaCare). Tyrants don't like limits on their authority. Here's Obama defending his unconstitutionality in an interview with ABC last month:

"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty," [Obama] said.

What a pantload. Where should I start ?

No, Obama, nobody HAS to buy car insurance. Nobody even HAS to buy a car. Nobody has to drive. Those are individual choices. What Obama is doing with his health insurance mandate would be equivalent to FORCING people to buy a car, a clear violation of liberty. It doesn't matter whether the ObamaCare mandate is convenient to Obama's agenda or not. He shouldn't have the power to force such a thing upon the people. That's why we have a Constitution limiting the government's power in the first place. Plus, Mr. President, it's the STATES that require insurance if one chooses to drive a car, not the federal government. Read the 10th Amendment if you haven't yet, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor.

Obama's reasoning that others have to pick up an uninsured person's healthcare tab is even more specious, especially when you consider that Obama is a known wealth redistributor, as are all liberals. Obama has NO problem with other people subsidizing the housing, food, and healthcare of others. Are you kidding me ? What do you think welfare, section 8, food stamps, and Medicaid are all about, not to mention liberal views on tax policy ? Obama is for subsidization EVERY time. That's how his party gets elected to office, by offering to subsidize one group at the expense of another group. Now, all of a sudden, Obama reverses course and is worried about someone else subsidizing healthcare ? Bull-Spit. What a laughable lie. He could care less about that, as all his other beliefs prove. ObamaCare itself subsidizes healthcare for others. What Obama is really interested in is power. When the Constitution gets in the way of that power, it's damn the Constitution. He's not the first politican to act this way, of course, just the latest example.

Judge Hudson also shot down the White House's revisionist argument that the ObamaCare mandate is a tax and therefore constitutional. You may remember, Obama insisted over and over that the ObamaCare mandate penalty was not a tax, until the case went to court, at which time the Obamaniacs realized arguing that it WAS a tax was better for their case. Judge Hudson writes:

Having concluded that [the ObamaCare mandate] is, in form and substance, a penalty as opposed to a tax, it must be linked to an enumerated power other than the General Welfare Clause…in order for the noncompliance penalty to survive constitutional challenge, it must serve to effectuate a valid exercise of an enumerated power – here the Commerce Clause.

And in a footnote:

If allowed to stand as a tax, [the ObamaCare mandate] would be the only tax in U.S. history to be levied directly on individuals for their failure to affirmatively engage in activity mandated by the government not speciically delineated in the Constitution.

How I love it when the Court gets it right. The Court really is the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical government. No wonder FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with those friendly to his unconstitutional wishes. As I said before, tyrants don't like limitations.

We can't pop the champagne corks just yet. This case is not over. The Obamaniacs will no doubt appeal this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

But this is a hell of a good start. Score – Freedom 1, Tyrants 0.

Here is Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) informing a crowd that the federal government can do almost anything it wants, the U.S. Constitution be damned.

The crowd was none too happy to hear that American citizens are not free to engage in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit. No, instead of such trivialities, Rep. Stark says we are little more than pawns on a government-run chessboard who must obey any and all requirements placed upon us by our kings and queens. I rather thought we fought a Revolutionary War against ideas like Rep. Stark's, but I guess I could be mistaken. Maybe we are rewriting history about our founding in the same way that Rep. Stark would like to rewrite the Constitution. Maybe the Revolutionary War was about nothing more than a boatload of British tea, but I gather it was about much larger issues, such as liberty and self-determination.

I would write Rep. Stark off as a clueless nutball who could be ignored and laughed at, but he most certainly is not alone in his radical beliefs. The Democratic party is trumpeting the new "right" known as ObamaCare, and has no problem with the mandate requiring all American citizens to participate in this "right" or be fined/jailed. Apparently, most Democrats don't see the contradiction inherent in referring to something forced on the people by the government as a "right." The capacity to understand irony must be beyond them.

Leading the Democrats extremist charge of the "right" brigade to nullify the Constitution is none other than the Obama administration, which has taken to the court system to fight off challenges to it's regal omnipotence. Virginia, an upstart colony formerly known as a state, has claimed the ObamaCare mandate is unconstitutional. Lord Obama and his Superfriends sought to summarily dismiss the legal challenge of it's Virginia fiefdom, but a funny thing happened on the way to the quorum…a federal judge actually consulted the Constitution Of The United States, that musty old document these post-modern hipster Dems have no time for (I apologize for putting old Pete Stark anywhere near the phrase "post-modern hipster"). Go figure. A judge reading the Constitution. Maybe this could be the beginning of a trend. Here's what the judge said in his ruling:

In the opening salvo of the legal fight, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit, which argued the requirement that its residents must have health insurance is unconstitutional and conflicts with state law.

Hudson, who noted that his ruling was only an initial step, decided the issue the state raised — whether forcing residents to buy something, namely healthcare, is constitutional — had not been fully tested in court and was ripe for review.

"The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution's) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark," Hudson said in a 32-page ruling.

By "forges new ground" and "extends the Commeric Clause powers," Judge Hudson is telling us that the Commerce Clause was never intended to be used for such a purpose as requring American citizens to purchase health insurance from a private company. There are no constitutional grounds to mandate Americans to purchase health private health insurance. Here's what the Commerce Clause actually says about the powers of the federal government:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Regulating commerce means the government has powers to ensure commerice is equitable. The word "regulate" would have to be changed to "mandate" in the Commerce Clause in order to support ObamaCare. The Commerce Clause clearly doesn't say that.

It's so obvious that ObamaCare isn't supported by the Commerce Clause that left-wingers (and some right-wingers too), in order to justify their ongoing destruction of the Constitution, have taken to creating a second parallel Constitution out of whole cloth to replace the original one. In this parallel Constitution, the words of the Constitution mean something other than what they actually say. In the parallel Constitution, the words mean whatever the left-wingers want them to mean (and thus have no meaning at all). You'll know you're hearing about the actual Constitution when words like "originalist" are attached to it. You'll know you're hearing about the parallel Constitution that doesn't really exist when words like "living" and "evolving" are attached to it.

We could ignore and laugh at the advocates of the parallel Constitution just like we could laugh at the pathetic Rep. Stark, but we'd be making a grave mistake. Don't forget, the progressives and others have been progressively eating away at the original version of the Constitution for well over a century now, and they've achieved a great measure of success. Much of their unconstitutionality has legal precedent now, because judges have political ideologies too. We are getting dangerously close to Rep. Stark being correct, that the federal government can do whatever it wants to do, the Constitution be damned.

And anybody who isn't concerned about that is a fool of the first order.

Or a communist.

As the lady who questioned Pete Stark asked, if the government can get away with this, what can't they get away with ?

Not by the leftmedia, anyway.
===
Ever since Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate last year, she has faced a barrage of ethics complaints. No less than 14 complaints have been filed against her, for everything from firing Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, to taking trips out of state, to conducting television interviews in her state office, to Palin wearing a jacket from her husband's snowmobile racing sponsor to a public function. Out of the 14 ethics complaints, obviously motivated by partisan politics, Palin has been cleared of every single one.

Palin said defending herself against all the frivolous complaints has cost more than $500,000, and she set up a legal defense fund to cover the costs.

Can anyone guess what happened next ?

Palin has been charged with ANOTHER ethics violation for setting up the defense fund !!! From the Washington Times:

Eagle River resident Kim Chatman challenged [Palin's defense fund]. "Governor Palin is perched to improperly receive an enormous amount of money for herself and her family and position a pool of pre-paid defense lawyers organized to deflect consequences of wrongdoings," Ms. Chatman said in the filing.

Egads. At what point do Palin's opponents go from being watchdogs to being harassers ? I think the line has definitely been crossed. Why don't they just cut to the chase, make it illegal to oppose liberals, and be done with it ?

In related news, be sure to stay tuned for MSNBC's upcoming "Palin removes tag from pillow !!" blockbuster expose, complete with Keith Olbermann's finest faux gesticulations and hyperbole, including a couple "Palin is worse than Hitler" comparisons for good measure. Do I smell a Pulitzer ?
===
As the USA moves left politically, with Democrats scoring big victories in the last two elections, the European Union is moving to the right. The EU countries, having already seen the consequences of adopting socialist democratic policies, handed big electoral victories to conservatives in last sunday's elections. From AP:

The European Union said center-right parties were expected to take the most seats — 267 — in the 736-member parliament. Center-left parties were headed for 159 seats. The remainder were expected to go to smaller groupings.

Right-leaning governments were ahead of the opposition in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium, while conservative opposition parties were leading in Britain and Spain.

We are the force that is acting level-headedly and correctly in this financial and economic crisis," said Volker Kauder, the leader of Merkel's [conservative] party in the German parliament.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservatives trounced the Socialists, while an ecology-minded party vaulted to a surprisingly strong third place, according to official results.

The Socialists, who dominated the last vote in 2004, suffered a stinging defeat, barely clinging to the No. 2 spot.

"Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," said Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."

For all those who have desired America to be more like Europe….okay, it suddenly sounds pretty good to me. Let's go for it.

There's something about the notion of liberal judges versus conservative judges that has always bothered me. I was taught that justice is blind, which means justice should be neither liberal nor conservative. Justice should be neutral on political matters. Justice should apply the law. When politicians like President Obama start saying they want judges with empathy for certain groups of people, we are being led astray. I know I wouldn't want to stand in front of a judge with empathy for groups A and B if I was a member of group C. In such a scenario, I'm pretty sure that justice is not what I would get. In such a scenario, a kangaroo court is much more likely. I don't want a judge who is a liberal activist or a conservative activist. I don't want a judge who is trying to fix all the problems of society. That is not the role of a judge.

I don't want a judge who says things like the following, which were said by Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made."

Judges should not make policy, and the law doesn't change based upon your gender, race, or cultural background. The law exists outside those things, and should be equally applied. Judge Sotomayor says she has great respect for the Constitution, as all Supreme Court justices should, but there is one recent decision she made where she didn't apply any Constitutional principles at all. In fact, she completely ignored them. That case was Ricci v. DeStefano, where Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a racial discrimination claim. Here are the facts:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned.”

But according to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument–ignoring the facts of the case.

“(T)he parties submitted briefs of 86 pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages; plaintiffs’ reply brief was over thirty pages long," Cabranes wrote.

"(O)ral argument, on December 10, 2007, lasted over an hour,” Cabranes explained, adding that more than two months after oral arguments, Sotomayor and the majority panel upheld the lower court in a summary order “containing a single substantive paragraph.”

Cabranes criticized Sotomayor and the majority for not explaining why they had sided with the city in their new opinion.

“This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit,” Cabranes wrote in his dissent.

Judge Cabranes also said that Sotomayor’s opinion failed to address the constitutional issues of the case, saying the majority had ignored the facts of the case as well.

“It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” the judge criticized.

“This Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,” Judge Cabranes concluded. “If the Ricci plaintiffs are to receive such an opinion from a reviewing court they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review.”

To me, this looks like Sotomayor had empathy for one group, but no empathy at all for another group, the plaintiffs. It looks like Sotomayor's brand of "justice" takes off the blindfold and evaluates the worth of one person relative to another. It looks like Sotomayor wasn't even thinking about the merits of the case at all, only with the implications it might have for Sotomayor's preferred groups of people in the future. I wonder if those 19 New Haven firefighters are impressed by Sotomayor's brand of empathy.

The Supreme Court is expected to overturn Sotomayor on this case.

The entire liberal media is telling you the FISA bill passed by the House Of Representatives on friday is the end of civil rights, the death of our Constitution, an example of Democrats caving to the lawless Bush administration, etc, etc. They try to drum this stuff into your head constantly, in the hope that you will forget what happened on 9/11, in the hope that you will forget WHY the Bush administration took the national security actions they took following that tragic attack, the worst ever on our homeland. They don't want you to ponder the REAL reasons for Bush's spying, because then it might look like Bush was only attempting to keep America safe from further attack, which is, after all, the job of the President. No, the liberal media wants you to believe Bush just woke up one day and illogically decided it was time to be a dictator and trample on the citizenry, for no reason really, just because Bush is an evil lawless tyrant and that's what evil lawless tyrants do. The liberal media wants you to know evil has a name, and that name is Bush. Also, the liberal media wants you to know that Bush=McCain=Republicans, just so there won't be any mistake. This IS an election year, after all.

But I assume most of you can see through the liberal media's shallow attempts at deception. Most people have the capacity for rational thought. This post is for you. I'll attempt to tell you what the new FISA update is really about.

In spite of the overblown protestations of the liberal media, many Democrats, most terrorist appeasers, and all outright Al Qaeda members, the new FISA bill is not the death of civil rights. There will be oversight of domestic spying with this new bill. It establishes a measure of balance between monitoring suspected terrorists and privacy concerns. It also attempts to establish limits on the president's executive powers. It spells out areas of domestic and international spying that needed to be spelled out.

The biggest sticking point to passage of the bill had been the provision to shield the telecommunications companies from lawsuits following the telcoms post-9/11 cooperation with the government in tracking terrorists. 40 such lawsuits were in the wings. None of the 40 persons or groups that wanted to sue the telecoms had any idea if their phones were monitored or if their rights were infringed. They just wanted to sue on principle. Democrats were hesitant to bargain away those lawsuits. The new FISA bill will shield the telcoms from lawsuits if the telcoms receive certification from the attorney general that the president ordered them to perform wiretaps to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. I like this provision, because it puts the responsibility for wiretaps on the government where it belongs. It is very troublesome to put the responsibility for making decisions about terrorism on private corporations who are torn between helping their country and treading into questionable legal territory that could cost them millions or billions of dollars.

I have some personal experience in this area. Following 9/11, I was a computer programmer/analyst for a bank. The government requested anti-terrorist type information from the bank, which I was tasked with providing them. Some of the requests involved the tracking of certain financial transactions and some involved other information, such as the reporting of all account signers who didn't have Social Security numbers. If any of you think this is improper action by the government, I can also tell you that the government has been tracking your financial information for decades. If you think your banking transactions are private, think again. They aren't. Nowadays, there are even sophisticated methodologies to track any type of unusual financial activity, and even methodolgies to predict financial activity, but that is a discussion for another time.

The point is that I certainly wouldn't have wanted to face a lawsuit for attempting to help my government track terrorist activity a few months after 9/11. The new FISA bill addresses that problem.

Some other provisions in the new FISA bill, according to the linked article, are:

- It requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

– The government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it.

– It would allow the government to tap a foreigner's overseas calls without FISA court approval.

– Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

– Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

– Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

– Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

– Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

– Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.

Is the new FISA bill perfect ? No.

Did the old FISA and spying procedures need to be updated to reflect the modern technological world and the new type of threat the terrorists present ? Absolutely.

We might as well elect this guy.

But first, a joke:

"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." – Jay Leno

That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====

Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:

KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

[Giuliani starts laughing]

KELLY: Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."

GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about – this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.

KELLY: Let me ask you.

GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.

The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.

I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.

Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.

Lawyers give more money to political campaigns than does any other industry. During the 2004 elections, lawyers donated $183.8 million. So far in 2008, they've given $103 million, and we have 7 months to go until the election. Approximately 75% of the lawyer's money goes to Democrats. Lawyers, and specifically trial lawyers, are the Democrats number one special interest group, and have been for years. By comparison, the industry that donates the biggest percentage to Republicans is Oil/Gas. They are 16th on the industry donor list, having given $11.5 million in 2008. 73% of that goes to the GOP. You can find the donor numbers at opensecrets.org. The other big Democratic donor industries are Securities/Investment (like Bear Stearns), TV/Movies/Music (the liberal media), and Education (failing public schools/teacher's unions).

So, what do lawyers get in return for all that money they are throwing at the Democrats ?

Well, the Dems let the Protect America Act expire rather than grant immunity to the telecom companies that aided the government in tracking terrorists following 9/11. The lawyers have billions in lawsuits waiting in the wings there. Even national security took a back seat to the trial lawyers on that issue. That's what the Dems do for the trial lawyers. Dems block tort reform, block medical malpractice reform, block 'loser pays' lawsuit reform, and block damages award caps. Democrats are a trial lawyer's dream come true. Dems allow lawyers to continue to feed at the trough, uninhibited. Dems are money in the bank for trial lawyers. It's no wonder that Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards are all lawyers. No wonder all three of them buy into the ideas of victimology and entitlement. It's in their DNA. Everybody I know thinks our society has become overly litigious (except the litigators living in their mansions. They think it's peachy). Democrats are the reason our society is so sue happy. It's a big part of their agenda.

This leads me to the prestigious law firm of Milberg Weiss LLC (and by 'prestigious', I mean 'crooked as hell'). Milberg Weiss is one of the big tort law firms, and their specialty is class action lawsuits against corporations on behalf of their shareholders. You see, if shareholders don't get the expected return on their stock investment, the landsharks at Milberg Weiss are ready and willing to call that fraud or mismanagement, and sue the corporation. I kid you not. If you are a corporation and your stock price drops, Milberg Weiss will sue you if they can get enough of your stockholders to go along. Another specialty of Milberg Weiss is the so-called 'strike suit', which is a lawsuit that is so expensive to defend that corporations find it easier and less expensive to settle rather than fight. I'm pretty sure they used to call that extortion in the old days, but this is a brave new world.

There was a bigger problem with Milberg Weiss – they gave kickbacks to shareholders who provided primary testimony against the corporations they were suing. In other words, the testimony was bought and paid for, and that IS fraud, big time.

To call Milberg Weiss successful is an understatement. A 2004 Forbes article estimated Milberg Weiss lawsuit winnings at $30 billion. A couple weeks ago, I heard a Wall Street Journal analyst say it was up to $45 billion by 2008. The pattern of corruption at Milberg Weiss was mind boggling. They paid millions in kickbacks.

When the Bush Justice Department indicted several Milberg Weiss attorneys in 2006, after investigations that had been going on since the Clinton administration, Democrats in the US Congress rushed to their defense. The Dems politicized the indictments (surprise, surprise !) by issuing the following accusatory statement against the Bushies, which was signed by four Democrat Congressmen – Charles Rangel, Carolyn McCarthy, Gary Ackerman and Robert Wexler:

“The unprecedented recent indictment of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman is a very thinly veiled attempt by the Bush Administration to accomplish by bullying and intimidation what it has not been able to do by law – to end class-action lawsuits, one of the few tools remaining to safeguard the American consumer.”

That is typical Dem hyper-partisanship, but Rangel and company had a bit of a problem – Milberg Weiss attorneys were guilty as hell, and now the convictions are coming down. Seymour Lazar, retired, was convicted of paying $2.6 million to "professional plaintiffs" [link], and previously was found guilty of obstruction of justice, filing a false tax return, and making false statements to the court. Mel Weiss pled guilty to conspiring to obstruct justice by hiding secret payments to plaintiffs in securities lawsuits [link]. The prosecutor in the case against Mel Weiss said the firm has been running this scam for 25 years. Bill 'The King Of Torts" Lerach was also convicted in the kickback scheme [link]. Several others are still awaiting trial.

So, what kind of prison time did these felonious mass corrupters of the justice system get ?

You're gonna love this part.

After defrauding and extorting corporations for 25 years, bribing witnesses, giving kickbacks, obstructing justice, lying to the court, and collecting tens of billions in ill-gotten gains from it all….

Seymour Lazar got probation (he's 80 years old). Mel Weiss got 20-33 months, and Bill Lerach got 2 years. You'd get more time than that if you robbed $200 from the local mini mart.

Isn't it great to have friends in high places ?

Btw, Hillary Clinton has received more money from Milberg Weiss than any other member of Congress. Barack Obama received a lesser amount.