The Mule & The Pig

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

When Judge Vinson in Florida ruled that the whole of ObamaCare was unconstitutional some states took that to mean they don’t have do anything to prepare for the Health Care Armageddon of 2014 (you know where 10 years of taxes pays for 6 years of expenditures in a dishonest bookkeeping maneuver and what the current 734 waivers, mostly to Unions, were for).

The Feds went back to the judge for clarity. <<wink wink nudge nudge>>

He ripped them a new one for stalling on the appeal to the Circuit Court or The Supreme Court and said, effectively “ok, I’ll suspend my judgment but you have to appeal within a 7 days or else” No stalling.

Whoops.

And then Sen. Anthony “The Whiner” Weiner  (D-NY) wants Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the deliberations, gee I wonder why, could it be because there’s a 4-4 split of Liberals and Conservatives and Justice Anthony Kennedy? So he’s just trying to stack the deck more in his favor?

With Justice Sotamayor from the Solicitor General’s Office most recently she would be the more likely to have to recuse herself but she’s a Liberal so that will never happen.

Now that’s the “transparency” the Administration promised! 🙂

That’s so transparent it’s not even an atom thick.

Like the farmer in that old gag about the proper management of mules, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson tried to be polite to the Obama Justice Department. On January 31, he ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional but stopped short of granting the plaintiffs in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services an outright injunction against further implementation. Instead, he awarded them “declaratory relief.” This, as Judge Vinson  explained at the time, is t

he “functional equivalent of an injunction” because there is a presumption that “officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” In other words, the judge was asking them nicely to halt implementation of ObamaCare until the appeals process had run its course. Vinson failed to realize, however, that he was dealing with a particularly vicious specimen of that famously stubborn beast — the government (Liberal Progressive) mule.

And the beast remained true to form. The Obama administration made no effort to halt implementation of the unpopular health care law. In fact, the President and his health care bureaucrats openly declared their intention to move briskly forward with their plans to foist ObamaCare on an unwilling electorate. Moreover, when two states announced that they would treat the ruling as an injunction unless and until a higher court overruled the decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had the audacity to present Judge Vinson with a   motion to clarify: “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of this order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In effect, the DOJ asked Vinson to issue a stay against his own ruling.

The judge was not amused. In his   request to the plaintiffs for an expedited response Vinson wrote, “Because I determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, it was also necessary to declare the entire statute void. The defendants have now, two and one-half weeks later, filed a motion to ‘clarify’ that order.” Florida’s   memorandum in opposition called the motion a “thinly disguised request for a stay,” and asked Vinson to deny it. And this is what most experts expected him to do. Indeed, many legal scholars wondered aloud why the DOJ would deliberately provoke a judge with a well-deserved reputation for irascibility. As Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, put it: “Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding.”

However, instead of taking a two-by-four to the government mule in order to get its attention, Vinson did indeed issue a   stay against his previous ruling: “After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.” This was not, however, an unalloyed victory for the Obama administration. The judge made his stay conditional on the Justice Department’s expeditious pursuit of an appeal to his January ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Noting that it is in the country’s best interests to have this matter resolved quickly he wrote, “[T]he stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court …” In other words, the Justice Department must file an appeal by March 10.

And the wording of Judge Vinson’s order makes it clear that he was not taken in by the pretext behind the DOJ’s motion: “While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused …” He then “clarifies” key points in his original ruling: “The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that ‘essential’ provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void.” He then discusses what he meant to accomplish when he granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs: “This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction’ with respect to the parties to the litigation.” Finally, he points out what he did not intend: “It was not expected that [the administration] would effectively ignore the order… then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.'”

All of which begs the following question: Why, then, did he not apply the two-by-four?! It is already blindingly obvious that this particular beast does not respond to reason. This was clearly demonstrated by the utter contempt with which the administration treated Vinson’s January order. And such behavior is by no means limited to the various ObamaCare challenges. Even as the administration pressed Judge Vinson to force states to implement a health care law he had pointedly ruled unconstitutional, the President and his Attorney General declared their intention to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama and Eric Holder obviously believe that they, rather than the Constitution and the courts, are the ultimate arbiters of a law’s validity. And their behavior in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services suggests that they hold similar views concerning judicial rulings.

It is to be hoped that, having been given a second chance to comply with a ruling from the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, the Obama administration will depart from its usual pattern of mulish obstinacy. However, yesterday’s statement from the DOJ’s Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs contains an unmistakable note of defiance: “We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case.… There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act.” This is nonsense, of course. The only “clear and well-established” precedent associated with ObamaCare involves the stubborn refusal of the Obama administration to remain within its constitutional limits. Will this obstinacy end without a firm application of the two-by-four to the government mule’s occiput? We’ll know in seven days. (David Catron)

This would be the same mule that refuses to drill for Oil or really let anyone else do it either. It interferes with their “green” agenda.

Wants to regulate what you eat. What Light bulbs you can buy.

Wants to favour “green” energy that cost vastly more than conventional energy. New York Times 2009: Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm.

And wind and solar power are generally more expensive than the fossil fuels they are meant to supplant. If carbon dioxide penalties made coal power more expensive, as some environmentalists argue is inevitable, the relative cost of renewable energy might decrease. But consumers will still pay more.

Candidate Obama 2008:

The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington.

The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election.  People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.

This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is.  If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes,  there is going to be  some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson.  You can be the master of Washington.  You’re not gonna get that done.

Now put that with the “persuasion” of the Left for Obamacare. Where if they just talk about it endlessly you’ll give in and agree with them.
When people to this day still don’t, They weren’t “persuasive enough”.
They crammed it down your throat, you gagged, they crammed it down again and then put a ball gag in your mouth. But don’t worry, they will “persuade” you eventually. 🙂

Now that’s transparent isn’t it?

This is the Mule that Wants to SPEND EVEN MORE! even with a $14 Trillion Dollar debt!!

They are like a kid with a sever sunburn that howls every time you touch them, in this case any of the Liberal spending or government spending at all.

So the Left new tact is to claim we aren’t actually broke! it’s just that the rich are too greedy!

The New York Times: It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. (But we, the Feds don’t!)

So the $14 Trillion Debt is a scare tactic meant to crush the Liberal’s Utopia Sand castle that the tide of both public opinion and economics is washing away and impose a Corporate Oligarchy that will crush the “middle class”.

Uh….yeah…<<<looking for the guys in he white coats that go on backwards!>>

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Channeling Your Inner Banana II: The Indoctri-NATION

June 26th I wrote a blog entitled, “Getting in Touch with your Inner Banana” (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/) in which I espoused about the coming more than just leanings of Banana Republic Dictatorship that our current President seems to aspire to.

Well, it’s Time for a sequel.

But first a word about his friends in the Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media).

The TV networks have aggressively demonstrated their dislike of Arizona’s state law “cracking down on illegal immigrants,” a law that “pits neighbor against neighbor.” An MRC review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive).

The soundbite count was also tilted over the last three months — 216 to 107, or an almost exact two-to-one disparity. Network anchors and reporters sided against defenders of border control and championed sympathetic illegal aliens and their (usually American-born) children. In 120 stories, they never described “immigrants rights activists” as liberals or on the left.


Between them, the three networks described the Arizona law as “controversial” on 27 occasions, despite its popularity in opinion polls. The Obama administration’s decision to sue file a lawsuit against Arizona to crush the law was never described as “controversial.”

These are the Journo-Lists who profess to be “journalists” that are fair and objective. They are anything but.

They are toadies for their guy and their ideology. Nothing more, Nothing less than full on indoctrination.

The networks highlighted the “army” of protesters against the Arizona law and ignored their sometimes radical connections. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006, none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they’re breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.

On May 30, ABC anchor David Muir asked, “Will an army of protesters be heard?” Reporter Jeremy Hubbard began his story for World News: “In their most massive numbers yet, a deluge of adversaries rally and rail against what could soon be the law of the land in Arizona.”

Network correspondents routinely mourned how illegal aliens didn’t feel welcome in Arizona, and felt they had to move back to Mexico or other friendlier states. On July 8, NBC reporter Lee Cowan sympathized with Marcial Bolanos, who didn’t think Arizona was a good place any more. “He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?” Hugo said “Yeah.” The networks didn’t apply this blatant emotional appeal on behalf of families who’ve lost loved ones in crimes committed by illegal aliens.

You get one sob story after another, emotional appeals about heartless Arizonans who want to destroy “immigrant” (not illegal immigrant) families and friends.

Only Fox as far as I can see ever mentions Richard Krentz, the farmer who was murdered on his own land by drug smugglers as a victim. they even talked to his widow. If they do mention him, it is only in passing.

Take ABC News:  Ranchers have seen cattle slaughtered and pulled apart by hungry people stealing across the border, and one resident, Robert Krentz, may have been shot dead by an alleged illegal immigrant as he patrolled his land last month.

They tracked the killers all the way to the Mexican Border, by the way.

Then the media always follows up with their own lies, damn lies and statistics.

The U.S. Border Patrol says apprehensions along the Arizona-Mexico frontier are up 6 percent from October to April.

The Arizona Republic went on to report that, “according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency’s Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol’s nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.”

So it’s no big deal. Nothing to see here. But then again, he was white, so not much sympathy there. 😦

In 18 of 120 stories, the networks mentioned the public opinion polls, in which broad majorities favor the Arizona law. One poll question the networks didn’t ask was if it might seem odd for the Obama administration to sue Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws, but would not sue cities that vowed to ignore immigration laws, which call themselves “sanctuary cities.”

A Rasmussen poll found 54 percent favored the Justice Department suing “sanctuary cities,” and 61 percent favored cutting off federal aid to them. But the three networks haven’t used the words “sanctuary city” since 2007, when it was a hot topic in the Republican primary debates. It was never mentioned, so was never described as “controversial.” (MRC)

So upwards of 70% of the American People are for Arizona, but the Ministry of Truth Mainstream Media is not. So they continue to hammer the propaganda home.

Just like the media of a dictator.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken after the judge’s Tuesday ruling, finds that 59% favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their state, marking little change from earlier this month. Just 32% oppose such a law.

Support for the building of a fence along the Mexican border has reached a new high, and voters are more confident than ever that illegal immigration can be stopped.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters now believe the United States should continue to build a fence on the Mexican border. That’s up nine points from March when the Obama administration halted funding for the fence and the highest level of support ever.

Support for the fence is strong across all demographic groups. But while 76% of Mainstream voters think the United States should continue to build the fence, 67% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

So what you have is a Mainstream Media that reports the news the way they want to hear it and the way they want you to think about it.

It’s Propaganda.

********

AMNESTY II

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration  is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads. (see below)

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn’t mean the agency has embraced the policy and “nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” he said in an e-mail statement. “We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.”

He said the Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

“This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan,” Mr. Grassley said.
The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of “deferred action” – or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone – would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ ”

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that’s been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers.

“I don’t know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law,” he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

“I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress’ participation. I will just say that to you for what it’s worth,” Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

“The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system –  threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

Mind you this Memo was 11 Pages long!

Grassley says it is “ridiculous” to think a memo containing this kind of detail was drawn up without specific direction from someone in the administration. “Bureaucrats don’t write memos like that for the fun of it,” he said.

This is not a school grade writing exercise, after all.

And the memo seeks to out ‘touchy-feely’ ’emotional’ exemptions. So if you want to object to them you’re just a heartless, mean and cruel, uncaring bastard.

Sound familiar? 🙂

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.

Don’t mind us, we just write 11-page detailed judicial memos as way of just chewing the fat, nothing to see here.

Given the backroom secrecy that has been “transparent” in this administration shouldn’t the fact that they are even discussing ways to circumvent Congress worry you?

Yes, they should.

Much like the “promises” made about Health Care reform which we know now from sworn testimony to be false.

So doesn’t that sound like he and his apparatchiks are getting in even more touch with their Inner Banana (Dictatorship)?

It does to me.

Beyond the confines of the courtroom, however, that question is all that the controversy over S.B. 1070 is about: Do we as a country want to enforce the immigration laws or not? It’s time to answer that question.

And is the Government of The People, By the People and For the The People going to perish under a propaganda and legal parsers onslaught with the willing compliance of the touchy-feely Fifth Column Ministry of Truth Media? 😦

That is the question.