Ya think?

A story appeared today in the Washington Times, “Chief Justice John Roberts may be beyond reconciliation with conservatives.” Is anyone surprised? Roberts received a pass by many in the GOP after his affirmative vote in favor of Obamacare. After his vote to support subsidies for Obamacare, Roberts lost whatever good-will he retained with conservatives and the rank-and-file GOP.

To his credit, Roberts voted against same-sex marriage and against the over-reach of the EPA in regulating the coal industry. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy who voted with the four liberals on the Court to uphold Obamacare subsidies and same-sex marriage. Ironically, while it was Kennedy who tipped the Court in favor of same-sex marriage, it was Roberts, the Chief Justice, who took the blame.

Now an outcast among conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may get the chance to redeem himself in the coming months with his stand on affirmative action, the power of labor unions and other key cases, but some on the right say it’s too late for him to salvage his credibility with them.

The court over the next year will issue several highly consequential decisions in cases of deep importance to conservatives. The justices will decide whether labor unions can force nonmembers to pay the equivalent of union dues, whether universities should consider race during the admissions process and, in a case that could dramatically alter the political landscape, how voting districts can be drawn.

Other cases centering on abortion and gun rights also could find their way before the Supreme Court, giving Chief Justice Roberts chances to regain the faith of conservatives who believe he betrayed them with two votes in three years to salvage the Affordable Care Act and cement a central piece of President Obama’s legacy. — The Washington Times – Sunday, July 5, 2015

For many, it is too late for Roberts to redeem himself. He has proven himself to be unreliable in the votes that have counted. The Justice who should be more despised is Kennedy. His vote was the tipping point on the Court for same-sex marriage and in truth, he has voted with the liberal wing as often as he has for the conservative wing.

The Court had been viewed, before the first Obamacare vote, as having a majority of conservatives. That belief has been dispelled and no conservative, now, has any faith that the Court will support any conservative issue.


The saga of the Casa Crucis siding project continues.  Last Friday, there was an issue with the scaffolding around the house.  The decision by the crew was to replace it with a different style.  The front of Casa Crucis is not a flat, smooth wall like the north and south sides.  Down came the scaffolding and today a new one is to be erected.

There is snow and freezing rain forecasted for overnight with 1″-2″ accumulation. I’m glad I’m not working outside.


I was surfin’ over the weekend and came across this article.  I’m not at all surprised at the results of the poll.

Gallup: Gingrich Leads Romney by 20 Points Among Conservatives; Romney Leads Gingrich by 10 Among Liberals, Moderates

December 15, 2011
(CNSNews.com) – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia is leading former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race by 20 points—41 percent to 21 percent–among self-professed conservatives, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.
By contrast, Romney is leading Gingrich by 10 points—27 percent to 17 percent—among self-professed liberals and moderates in the poll.
The poll, conducted Dec. 5-11, surveyed 1,665 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are registered voters. Among all poll respondents, Gingrich led Romney 33 percent to 23 percent, with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 9 percent, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at 6 percent, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 6 percent.
Gingrich led among most sub-groups in the poll—except for self-professed liberals and moderates, those 18 to 34 years of age, and those living in the East.
Among the Republican-leaning independents, Gingrich and Romney were tied at 23 percent, with Paul at 14 percent.
Among the Republicans, Gingrich had 38 percent, Romney had 23 percent, and Paul had 7 percent.

Among the conservatives, Gingrich had 41 percent, Romney 21 percent, and Paul had 7 percent.
Among the liberals and moderates, Romney had 27 percent, Gingrich had 17 percent, and Paul had 13 percent.
You can find the complete article with more poll data here.
I’m not at all surprised that liberal and “moderates” prefer Romney.  After all, he’s one of them.
Want to help make sure your children aren’t growing up in poverty?  Get, and stay, married.  According to a Heritage Foundation study, being in a stable, married household has a much, much better probability of staying out of poverty.  In the study, single parents were compared against married families and their income levels.  This study compared single parent white, black and hispanic families with their married counterparts using census data from 2010.

The married families at or below the poverty level comprised only 4-9% of the population.  The single parent groups varied from 40% and up.

Interesting, is it not?


The Missouri budget is projected to be several hundred million dollars in the red this fiscal year according to forecasts.  Democrat Governor Jay Nixon has a plan. He wants to “barrow” money from the state’s universities and repay the “loan” over a seven year period at zero percent interest.

Why am I concerned about this plan.  He wants to take money from the universities’ reserve funds, money they earned through various enterprises, from alumni donations and other income sources, keep it for seven years and then give it back with no interest.  The result, since there is no compensation for inflation is that if the plan worked as stated, the universities would end up with less than they had in the beginning.

It’s the same as theft. 

Nixon considers asking 5 Missouri universities to lend money to state

BY VIRGINIA YOUNG • vyoung@post-dispatch.com > 573-635-6178  

Friday, December 16, 2011 8:30 am

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon is asking five state universities to consider lending the state more than $100 million next year to help balance the state’s budget, a proposal that is drawing fire from key legislators unhappy with both its secrecy and its impact.
Nixon’s proposal, which his budget director termed preliminary, calls for the University of Missouri to chip in $63 million and four other schools to come up with lesser amounts, for a total of $107 million. The money would come from their reserve funds.
The state would roll the money into the $850 million higher education budget that covers operating expenses at all of Missouri’s four-year institutions and community colleges. The goal: to avoid a cut that could otherwise equal at least 13 percent across the board.
Universities making the interest-free loans would look to be repaid over a seven-year period with money diverted from the state’s college loan authority, known as the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA.

In addition, Nixon proposes cutting the schools scholarship funds in half and telling the universities to make up the difference out of their remaining reserve funds. As you can expect, the legislature is not pleased.

House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, called the plan ridiculous. “The governor is looking for this scheme that avoids making tough decisions on cuts,” he said. “Rather than balance the state’s budget, he wants to dream up new revenue sources which happen to be interest-free loans from our universities.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said the universities would have no guarantee that they would get their money back.
“If the proposal is a Bernie Madoff-type Ponzi scheme to make it look like something’s being funded that isn’t really being funded, that’s not acceptable,” Schaefer said.

Ah yes, your democrat pols at work.  If they can’t tax and spend, they’ll just steal money…and spend.  Cutting all that spending in the first place isn’t an option for them.

When your revenue projections are undercut by reality, sane people cut their spending to match their income.  Government, on the other hand, can’t imagine spending less.  They prefer to come up with schemes to get around our state’s balanced budget requirement.
Tax and spend. Steal and spend. The only difference is semantics.