Are we ready for a NEW Mandate now?

How about you HAVE to watch political commercials? Because if politicians can’t tell you their ideas, how will you know who to vote for? See, it’s good for you.

So I was trying to convince others of my thoughts on a mandate/tax/whatever….
How is this for a thought experiment? Does it work?
John Ashcroft is the new AG and we have a President from the religious right.

Giving to charity is good for you. It’s needed. You have the money. It makes you a better person. New mandate….you must give x amount of dollars to one of these specific (and of course religious) charities. Of course they can make a religious exemption to certain classes, but no, not for you.

I think it works as a thought experiment…..Morgan is pretty sure that liberals can’t do thought experiments and that’s what makes them liberals.…he’s probably right, but I’m keeping mine lined up unless you have a better one.


NeoNeocon has a good snippet from a post from someone who is not necessarily conservative.

So far as I can tell from an initial reading of the 5-vote majority, the Court offers no functional reason whatsoever for its analysis of the taxing power. Indeed, the Court insults our intelligence by describing the conventional analysis of taxation under its prior precedents as somehow “a functional approach” (page 35). Of course, there is nothing “functional” about its definition of the taxing power, if the only relevant factors are the power of a taxed individual to avoid action or inaction that is taxed. If the test is, as Chief Roberts describes it, paying the tax “may often be a reasonable financial decision,” then Congress will have fairly unlimited power to regulate any activity simply by imposing an exaction just short of what it would take to eliminate the activity altogether. If the only other limit is that Congress (or the IRS) cannot “penalize” persons who choose to pay the tax, by stigmatizing them as “outlaws” (page 38), then such a limit is worse than formalistic: It is not even consistent with the precedent (Doremus) upholding the Harrison Narcotics tax.

How is such a taxing power consistent with any sensible notion of enumerating powers? Why would any sane framer, whether Hamilton or Luther Martin, Federalist or Anti-Federalist, ever agree to such an arrangement? The Court does not say.


There are soooo very many today……
Let’s start with Kim Strassel who’s whole column is worth a read:

ObamaCare is alive. And now we have us an election.

And in that vein is John Galt over at ThreeSources [bold and brackets are mine]:

Finally they [they being ‘regular folk’, though his thought is was more specific] may see a real difference between a country governed by Democrats and one governed by Republicans. Electoral politics is not just about guns and abortions anymore. The debate will finally be about whether or not our government can make its citizens do things whether they want to or not.

Thank you Justice Roberts for ripping off the Band-aid of liberty. Our polity may now either heal or bleed to death.

And of course the entire RNC new ad via Hot Air that is up and brilliant.

Yes, the RNC got themselves a ton of money yesterday along with Mitt Romney.
Andrew Saul on Twitter:

Thank you to everyone who donated at today! Raised $3.2 million online & counting! ‪#FullRepeal‬

3.2 million in one day!

UPDATE: The dollars raised yesterday by Mitt and the RNC were 4.6 million from 47,000 people.
Those were $100 donations my friends. NOT from the millionaires that the GOP theoretically have in their pocket. Go America.

And from our Attorney General in Colorado, John Suthers, who keeps the message basic:

“When you say this is a president who forces you to buy a product and tax you if you don’t, people understand that,” Suthers said. “I think it helps my party.”

….my rundown….Roberts may have made a brilliant move if and only if the election is so clear in November that we never end up with another Obama again. That’s a big if and his legacy will depend on it. Either way…it’s on and I, along with others are fired up. I even got into it on Facebook yesterday which I have not done in the past. No more holding back from me…nosirree. This is the fight.

And today in honor of the opinion and Eric Holder’s deep respect (ha) for his being in contempt of Congress, we’ll give you a nice Friday Calf blog.
Does that make it a calf pie?

UPDATE: Perhaps a more realistic view out of Commentary (ht JG), but really, do we need to be realistic. There IS something to that feeling of hope, no matter who co-opted the term.

Conservatives who are finding solace in potential political implications–that the decision will unite the Tea Party behind Mitt Romney, that Obama will get tagged for increasing taxes, etc.–are setting themselves up for disappointment. As of March, only half of Americans even knew that ObamaCare was still on the books. As of today, they’re going to be bombarded with the message that Obama won, that the Supreme Court signed on to ObamaCare, and that anyway, the issue is closed and we need to be talking about jobs.

The saddest thing I have seen in all of this comes from those with no real beliefs, only ‘what benefits them’ or ‘eh…it’s something to try’….or ‘it’s a step in the right direction’.
It must be empty to live without believing in anything. I’m not talking about God, I’m talking about any driving core belief on which you base your decisions and opinions. Like freedom. Or the Constitution. Or yes, God. Something.

Actually Commentary left jg with an actual realistic hope vs the unrealistic silver lining kind. Read the whole thing because it’s a good and accurate twist that brings up back to Kim Strassel and her “Now we have an election”.

Hopefully “the people” become engaged.

F$#% (tempered after sleep)

Too bad the court is so partisan.

What sort of country do we live in anymore?

UPDATE: I don’t even know why I’m so surprised. This is the same court (plus 2 new liberals) who passed Kelos. Thank God I’ll have coverage for my mental health now.

Amen Jeff, amen.

Random Thoughts

Romney’s quote yesterday is not good.:

“If it’s not, if Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president’s term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” said Romney, offering his most scathing review to date of Obama’s tenure should the plan be struck down.

I would suggest that if Obamacare IS deemed constitutional then the first 3 1/2 years has been wasted on something that will not help the American people, else why would he want his first action to be getting rid of it?

CNN thinks we are “too nosy” when it comes to Fast and Furious. We should just leave the government alone when it comes to working for our good. And our good in this instance is what?

By allowing guns to infiltrate Mexico’s drug cartel, we thought we could trace them up the ladder to the leaders. Take off the head and the body dies. As for the innocent people who lost their lives? Collateral damage. That’s the uncomfortable backstory to this scandal. And there are likely other operations like it in our nation’s history that we don’t even have a clue about.
And maybe it’s better for us not to be so nosy, not to know everything because, to paraphrase the famous line from the movie “A Few Good Men,” many of us won’t be able to handle the truth.

Me thinks the author has mistaken the point of the movie of A Few Good Men. We can handle the truth. AND none of us are sure that the point of F/F was to “take off the head and the body dies” vs “let loose the guns so we can tighten the laws.
Too stupid for too many words..

EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel


“It’s On”

So says Ed Morrissey, or rather so says Darrell Issa in a letter to President Obama yesterday concerning his invoking of Executive Privilege about the documents over Fast and Furious.

“[Y]our privilege assertion means one of two things,” Issa wrote to the president in a letter dated June 25. “Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the attorney general to the committee, or, you are asserting a presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation.”

Issa said Obama’s assertion of executive privilege “raised the question” about the veracity of how the “White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the department with respect to the congressional investigation.”


Michael Gerson hands it to Eric Holder on a platter

Any Justice Department would defend its prerogatives. But this one has also exhausted its credibility. False statements have given way to transparent obstruction. Eric Holder treated Congress with contempt long before it considered citing him for it.

And gives us our quote of the day:

It is Eric Holder’s distinctive contribution to the American political system: self-righteousness without the inconvenience of principle.

Read the whole thing. And then read these bozos (again from the Washington Post) who think the whole Fast and Furious issue is just a “political loser” because no one gains from it. Not the Republicans who think we should focus only on the economy and not the administration who doesn’t want to get embroiled and not the people who have no interest in the subject. [bold is mine]

By pushing this fight against Obama — an issue that the Republican base cares deeply about but few others are terribly interested in at the moment — the Republican-held House is allowing Obama to talk about the 2012 election in terms of a choice between him and House GOPers. That’s a bad comparison for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has done his damnedest to emphasize that he’s never served one second in Washington.
The other major reason for House Republicans to turn the steering wheel in this game of political chicken is that every minute spent talking about “Fast and Furious” is one not spent talking about Obama’s handling of the economy. And the clearest path for Romney to win this fall is to turn the election into a straight referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy. (That’s the reason why Romney has been almost entirely silent on “Fast and Furious” to date.)
So, why wouldn’t the White House want this fight either?
While putting House Republicans front and center could be read as a positive for Obama, it’s clear that wrestling with them amounts to a no-win political situation for him too.
Given that, it’s hard to see how congressional approval sinks any lower, and the only impact of Obama’s stand-off with House Republicans is to be dragged down into the political mud with them. As Obama fights with congressional Republicans, Romney will spend his time talking about how he has the outside-Washington experience to fix what ails the economy.

They are insane to think that people are not interested in the subject of our own government selling weapons to drug lords in Mexico, unbeknownst to Mexico, that have since been used in killings all for the purpose of exposing how easy it is for drug lords in Mexico to get weapons in the US.

The reason the newspapers are not interested is because they hate to make themselves look bad by not having followed this incredible story from the start thinking that it would just go by the wayside eventually.

Imagine if you will (and my apologies to whichever blog it was where I read this yesterday) the government in Mexico, in order to prove to the people that drugs were a problem in Mexico, sending massive amounts of cocaine over the border with no oversight and no discussion with our own government and your kid died.

It’s a big story. Eric Holder needs to be fired. President Obama needs to quit backing him. And Darrell Issa deserves a medal for treating this with the seriousness it deserves in spite of GOP objections.

UPDATE: I found it! At DiploMad 2.0 and he (they?) say it better than I did, so go read his whole post, but here’s the imagining.

Imagine if the situation were the reverse. Imagine that the Attorney General of Mexico, in order to argue for stronger anti-drug laws in Mexico, decided as a matter of policy to provide drugs to the most powerful US criminal gangs. How would we react? Drone strikes on Chapultepec Castle, anybody? I must say that the Mexican reaction has been surprisingly muted to Obama’s declaration of war against Mexico.


While today may bring us news from the Supreme Court, the main news in my part of the country is either fires or fracking. I think it mostly heated up when a woman from Erie organized a protest. Since that time people all over the county have gotten loud concerning the practice that has gone on for years.

Every day there is a new story and my city council is in the process of trying to please the antifrackers and the rules ownership at the same time by putting off decisions to “ban tracking” within city limits.

In other news………
Fracking makes the news because it’s the apparent reason that greenhouse gases have been cut recently and the reason why the United States may actually make it’s stated pledge of a 17% cut in emissions by 2020.

ht JK at Three Sources who notes:

that free market innovation is doing more for the environment than (don’t laugh) the UN and top-down controls:

From the CNN report regarding the greenhouse gas drop:

So what’s going on?
Some of the reductions can be attributed to executive decisions taken by the Obama administration to curb pollution from power plants and other sources.
Investments in energy efficiency have also helped, along with state rules requiring utilities to purchase power from renewable sources.
But the main and most surprising reason: cheap natural gas.
“The primary reason by far is low natural gas prices,” said Robert Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard.
Natural gas prices are so low largely thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Known as fracking, the process uses sand, chemicals, water and pressure to crack shale rock and allow the gas to flow.
While the practice has raised fears over ground water contamination and other issues, it’s unleashed an energy boom in the United States that’s taken gas prices to their lowest levels in a decade.


From Micky Kaus [ht instapundit] concerning Eugene Robinson’s column suggesting that Congress should quit bothering about Fast and Furious and instead start focusing on the giant flow of weapons crossing the border into Mexico.

That will reassure Second Amendment enthusiasts who suspect the otherwise indefensible Fast & Furious fiasco was really an effort to lay the groundwork for a … ban on the sale of weapons (by confirming the Mexicans’ complaints about the origin of guns involved in Mexican drug violence). …


There is the scandal that is Fast and Furious (freely selling weapons to drug lords and NOT even attempting to trace them) and then there is the scandal that is why.
Bill Whittle covered that yesterday in “Follow the Ideology” video below, and today we have Michael Walsh from the NYPost.

It’s really about stealth gun control

Even before Obama was inaugurated, gun control was high on his wish list, including the restoration of the Clinton-era ban on “assault weapons.” So the most plausible explanation for the fine mess the administration currently finds itself in is this:

Wishing to “prove” the lie that 90% of the guns used in Mexican drug violence originate in America (the real figure is closer to 17%), Justice used the failed Operation Wide Receiver as the model for a larger operation deliberately designed to fail.

That way, they could point in feigned horror at the recovered American weapons and crack down on legitimate gun dealers — the very dealers they had forced to sell weapons to the cartels via “straw purchasers” in the first place.

In short, the truth is that Fast and Furious was most likely a murderously cynical assault on the Second Amendment — and one whose multiple ghosts will now haunt the Obama administration’s remaining days.

That’s the part that is sooooo distasteful that this story keeps getting pushed aside for more standard stories of intrigue and politics. However, that’s the part that is criminal.

Fast and Furious

All in one show. Without the missing key bits.
Bill Whittle is rough on this administration, but what else can we conclude, those of us who have kept up with the nitty gritty of this story since the get go.

Why does Issa wants documents AFTER Feb 2011? Because that would be when people would be trying to figure out who knew what when and how to protect themselves. If you “follow the ideology” as requested here, you have to conclude what Mr. Whittle is concluding. And no, they have no shame.