What goes around, comes around

Nothing in this nation, this world, is permanent. Even the mountains change over time. At one time, the Appalachian mountains were the height of the Rockies. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and parts of Nebraska were once under water—an inland sea. Nebraska was once a desert complete with sand dunes. The only thing we can be assured is that change will happen.

Politicians forget this.

Harry Reid is threatening to use the “nuclear” option to insure some liberal activists are confirmed as federal judges and nominees for other federal positions. Once in office, those liberal activists, the new judges, will have a job for life.

The ‘Pub establishment is in a conundrum. Do they oppose Reid and risk him pushing the button or shall they acquiesce, knuckle under to his threats?

McConnell, McCain and other ‘Pubs turned coward and knuckled under. They have agreed to confirm some of those activists saddling the rest of us with more activist bureaucrats ready to destroy the constitution piecemeal.

The ‘Pubs could have defeated Reid and his threats by reminding him of one simple fact. Nothing remains the same.

It’s beginning to look, more and more, that the ‘Pubs will seize the Senate in 2014 or 2016. It’s also likely the ‘Pubs will continue to control the House, perhaps with fewer members, but maybe with a larger majority. It depends on how well the democrat vote fraud network does its job.

All McConnell needed to do was to tell Reid that if he destroys the filibuster, it won’t be available to them when the ‘Pubs next take over the Senate. That could occur in 18 months.

Reid intended the threat to intimidate the ‘Pubs. He was successful. What would he have done if McConnell and the others showed some backbone? I think he would have blustered, made threats and…done nothing. He and the dems in the Senate need that ability to filibuster as much as the ‘Pubs.

From the Investor’s Business Daily

Democrats’ Assault On Filibuster Would Alter Our Republic 

Posted 07/16/2013 06:44 PM ET

Congress: Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, seem intent on pursuing the so-called nuclear option on the Senate’s filibuster rules. Someday, they might even win. They should be careful what they wish for.

Given the low esteem of Congress in the public’s eye and the slow-motion collapse of the Democratic Party’s Big Government agenda, Reid and his allies no doubt believe that changing the Senate’s decades-old filibuster rules is a good idea.

Reid’s filibuster rule-shift would require a mere majority to approve presidential nominees, instead of the current filibuster-proof 60 votes.

This might seem like a mere parliamentary trifle, but it isn’t. Back in 2005, when Reid led the minority Democrats in the Senate and Obama was just another senator, both spoke passionately in favor of the filibuster.

Now, not so much. They’ve changed their minds.

Lest they forget, the Republicans are looking pretty good right now for the 2016 elections.

Only half of the seats up for grabs are held by the GOP. Democrats look vulnerable — as New York Times polling guru and blogger Nate Silver recently noted.

Reid & Co. will no doubt scream bloody murder if, under GOP control of the Senate, their party’s rights in the minority are disrespected or even eliminated.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the filibuster is a long-run project for the progressive wing of the Democrats.

Their ultimate aim is to turn everything into a 51% vote, counting on their power to recruit new Democrats from the millions of illegal immigrants they plan to turn into citizens.

Think about that: That’s why our Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights added to it. It was to protect the rights of the minority from the political predations of the majority. End that, and our republic dies.

A government run by simple majority is little more than lynch mob rule justified by ballot; a government in which the rights of those not in power are protected is a republic.

Think about that last paragraph above for a moment. If the minority organization has no power within the system, why should they remain within that system? The primary reason the South seceded beginning in 1860, was due to their loss of power in the federal government. The voting blocks of the North and the growing Midwest overpowered the Southern Representatives in the House. The smaller states in the North had a numerical advantage in the Senate as well. When the Southern states saw they were losing the political battle in Congress, they, in their opinion, had no other choice but to secede.

A Senate rule can always be changed. Yes, if/when the ‘Pubs get back in power, the new Senate Majority Leader could reinstate the filibuster. But! Why should he. Harry Reid has given the new leader the power to push anything through the Senate with a simple majority vote. What worked for Reid will now be a tactic for the new ‘Pub leader.

Reid’s machinations are nothing more than strong-arm tactics. If the ‘Pubs had any backbone, McConnell would have told Reid to go pound sand. Unfortunately, we have few ‘Pub Senators with a spinal column. McConnell offered a compromise Monday of this week. Apparently, from late reports today, Reid has rejected that compromise. Or has he? Reid gets one position, one nominee, confirmed, with a promise of “quick action” on the others.

I see no win here for McConnell or for any conservative. Just another day in Foggy Bottom where the Establishment continues to betray our interests.

An Insidious Form of Corruption

Obama went on a media tirade this week on the possibility (probability?) that the Supreme Court will declare Obamacare unconstitutional.  He claimed it was “judicial activism” if they would over-rule congress.  Apparently, his definition of judicial activism is when courts uphold the Constitution and it isn’t judicial activism when courts read words into the Constitution that doesn’t exist…such as “privacy” in the case of Roe v. Wade.

On the other side of the coin, is the view of Obama’s administration on not upholding existing law such as “No Child Left Behind (2001)” where the DoEd is passing out waivers like candy to spoiled children.  Another example is the “Defense of Marriage Act (1996).”

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

For over 200 years, administrations have supported laws passed by Congress when those laws have come under fire and judicial review…even law the current administration disapproves.  Obama has broken that tradition.  Upon entering office they grudgingly agreed to support DOMA.  When liberal and gay activists filed suit, the government initially supported DOMA but that support was minimal.

Finally, in 2011, the Obama Administration declared Section 3 of that law was unconstitutional using the ruling of a Federal District Court.  The district court’s ruling was under appeal but it was sufficient for Obama to declare, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. However when Obamacare was declared unconstitutional by two Federal Appellate Courts, Obama continued to push the implementation of Obamacare.

Another example is the Immigration Reform Act of 1996.  That act requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce a number of provisions governing federal and state benefits to illegal aliens and employment verification among other revised provisions to existing law. 

The Obama Administration has issued an Executive Memo waiving portions of the 1996 act that effectively grants amnesty to a large number of illegal aliens.

(The Daily Caller) — President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters without alienating the populous at large, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.  The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

The failure of this administration to support and uphold existing law is a violation of Obama’s Oath of Office in spirit if not in fact.  He and those under him, have created a major crack in the stability of our government.  If the Executive can ignore law, constraints on his office and is allowed to continue to do so, our nation will slide into anarchy.  For if law is mutable on a whim, nothing will prevent government to define or redefine law to suit their agenda.

Once trust in government is lost, as it has in the Obama Administration, can it be regained?

I don’t know but I fear it cannot. Kris Kobach, substituting on the Greg Knapp radio show this morning, called it, “an insidious form of corruption.” Insidious. That description fits Obama perfectly.                             

Evidence of Stupidity

This will be a short post.  It’s election day here near KC.  Up for election is our local Mayor, the City Council and some slots for the school board.  I attended a candidate’s forum last week.  With a couple of exceptions, the candidates were mostly fiscal conservatives.  I suspect from the equivocation of some their responses, their conservative leanings were more for show than actual practice.

Be that as it may, I’m volunteering for a candidate at a poll site later today.  In the rain if the radar plot for an incoming front  is accurate. At least it’ll be a warm rain.


I posted an item on my facebook page this item last night.

Hey, O’bozo!  It’s not judicial activism to uphold the Constitution.

 Continuing on that theme, here is an item that arrived in my e-mail this morning.

by Hayley Peterson, Examiner Staff Writer

President Obama on Monday warned the Supreme Court against overturning his health care law, saying such a decision would set a dangerous precedent that gives the nation’s highest court veto power over Congress.
“Ultimately I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said, employing some of his strongest language to date as the Supreme Court’s contemplates the constitutionality of 2010 health care law.
Obama argued that conservatives, the strongest critics of his health care reforms, should share his concerns over the potential power grab by politically appointed justices.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly-constituted and passed law,” he said. “Well this is a good example and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Obama repeatedly declared his certainty that the court would uphold the law following three days of oral arguments last week. The court is expected to announce its decision in June.
“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said.

Evidently, constitutional scholar and professor Obama has never heard of Mayberry v. Madison, a case that established judicial review of the Supreme Court over Congress. And from their comments, neither have Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor nor Kagan.

Speculation abounds that someone in the know has leaked last Friday’s confidential vote on Obamacare by the JusticesElena Kagan was Obama’s Solicitor General who drafted the arguments when in that position that were used as the defense for Obamacare last week.

She should have recused herself.  It is significant she did not proving she’s nothing more than a political hack and a liberal rubber stamp. But, why should we not expect better from our current gangster government.

With that, I’m off to do my small part in the fight against liberals and governmental gangsterism—by voting.