Thursday, April 12, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
More Democrat illogic: DOMA v Obamacare!
Byron York points out the blatant politicizing of the courts. They should be ashamed!
"In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by huge bipartisan votes -- 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law. Now, the Obama administration says DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states and also creates a federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. ... '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 Monday about the arguments over Obamacare before the nation's highest court. The danger presented in the health care case, the president continued, is that 'an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.' ... If the president was so concerned about a court overturning a duly constituted law passed by a democratically elected Congress, why was he urging a small group of unelected judges to strike down DOMA, a measure that won passage by a far greater margin than Obamacare? The answer is, of course, that the administration is making a political argument for its positions, not a legal one. ... [T]he timing of the arguments over Obamacare and DOMA has revealed the flexibility of the administration's arguments over constitutionality. And the flap over Obama's remarks is just a preview of what is coming when the court issues its decision on Obamacare this June." --columnist Byron York
"In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by huge bipartisan votes -- 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law. Now, the Obama administration says DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states and also creates a federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. ... '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 Monday about the arguments over Obamacare before the nation's highest court. The danger presented in the health care case, the president continued, is that 'an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.' ... If the president was so concerned about a court overturning a duly constituted law passed by a democratically elected Congress, why was he urging a small group of unelected judges to strike down DOMA, a measure that won passage by a far greater margin than Obamacare? The answer is, of course, that the administration is making a political argument for its positions, not a legal one. ... [T]he timing of the arguments over Obamacare and DOMA has revealed the flexibility of the administration's arguments over constitutionality. And the flap over Obama's remarks is just a preview of what is coming when the court issues its decision on Obamacare this June." --columnist Byron York
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Dems: Politicians of the People?
Remember this when you vote this November:
"New Chief of Staff: Former Hedge Fund Exec. at Citigroup, Made Money Off Mortgage Defaults
Daniel Halper
January 9, 2012 5:56 PM
President Obama's first chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once sat on the board of troubled federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac. Bill Daley, the president's chief of staff whose departure was announced today, was previously a top executive at financial firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. So of course there should be little surprise that Obama's latest chief of staff, announced today by the president himself, also has deep ties to the financial industry himself.
From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank's alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting "U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments," as the Huffington Post reported.
The piece also reported: “Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.”
Of course, one should not begrudge Lew his personal, professional, and financial successes. But one might wonder what kind of message the president is sending with this appointment.
“I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people,” Obama said in 2010. “So if these folks want a fight, that’s a fight I’m ready to have.”
In announcing Lew today, the president mentioned his previous work at the State Department and in the Clinton administration. Obama did not mention Lew's past of making billions of dollars for Citibank just a few years ago. "
And they will attack Mitt Romney - or the Rep nominee, whoever it will be - for the same thing.
Don't kid yourself about the Dems motivations! they simply have no shame - and that is a deadly characteristic.
From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank's alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting "U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments," as the Huffington Post reported.
The piece also reported: “Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.”
Of course, one should not begrudge Lew his personal, professional, and financial successes. But one might wonder what kind of message the president is sending with this appointment.
“I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people,” Obama said in 2010. “So if these folks want a fight, that’s a fight I’m ready to have.”
In announcing Lew today, the president mentioned his previous work at the State Department and in the Clinton administration. Obama did not mention Lew's past of making billions of dollars for Citibank just a few years ago. "
And they will attack Mitt Romney - or the Rep nominee, whoever it will be - for the same thing.
Don't kid yourself about the Dems motivations! they simply have no shame - and that is a deadly characteristic.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
"Root Cause Analysis" of the World's Current Problems by Mark Steyn
Read today's Mark Steyn column for a take on the West's real problem! Very interesting perspective, and one I agree with whole heartedly!
Comments?
Comments?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
How the left MSM taints our process for 2012
Read this article from Investor's Business Daily on a meeting this Monday at the White House between BHO and the lefty MSM setting up talking points for the 2012 race.
This is how they will operate. The MSM is not a news gathering industry, it is a left support industry, and at this time is not ashamed to admit it. They should be ashamed!
Or do you think that is proper activity for the Fourth Estate?
This is how they will operate. The MSM is not a news gathering industry, it is a left support industry, and at this time is not ashamed to admit it. They should be ashamed!
Or do you think that is proper activity for the Fourth Estate?
Monday, December 19, 2011
COLLEGE - the next bubble
"One of the oldest economic maxims, 'if you subsidize something, you get more of it' has created the next trillion dollar-plus bubble for which American taxpayers will be on the hook. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education discovered that published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, while median family income rose 147 percent. What is driving those costs? The idea that every high school graduate should attend college, and that government -- meaning taxpayers -- will guarantee loans made to those students. ... [A]s college tuition costs increase, the government makes more funding available to students to pay for them. The more funding available -- guaranteed by the taxpayers, so that colleges never face the possibility of a loan default -- the more they can raise their tuition costs without ever having to worry about getting stiffed. ... If college tuition, aided and abetted by government subsidies, continues to almost triple relative to family income, at some point the amount of debt incurred to obtain a college degree will surpass the additional income one may derive from it. Considering that any attempt to reign in government's role in facilitating these runaway costs is inevitably characterized as 'depriving needy students of critically needed funds,' the trend is likely to continue. Or at least it will until the bubble pops, exactly like the government-abetted housing bubble did. Are Americans ready for another trillion dollar bailout precipitated by irresponsible government?" --columnist Arnold Ahlert (my emphasis)
Mr. Ahlert sees clearly the problem of Government subsidies. We had all better start listening!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)