Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, March 11, 2010


In reaction to Barack Obama's chastising the U.S. Supreme Court at the last State of the Union address, Sam Alito mouthed the words "not true", displaying his view that Obama's perception of the Citizens United decision was a mis-characterization.

While speaking at the University of Alabama law students recently, Chief Justice John Roberts responded to a question about Obama's comment at the SOU.

What started it all...

Of course, Obama's White House mouthpiece responded between his "umms". Via the New York Post:
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Roberts’ criticism. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections -- drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."
Perhaps one of the most mis-understood rulings, the Citizens United case arose when David Bossie's group attempted to market a film about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 election. The ruling overturned a law that said Citizens United could not do so. In other words, Gibbs' account IS a mis-characterization of the decision.

Now, the WSJ is reporting that Harry Reid, of all people, is throwing boulders from the balcony of his glass house:
Now, Harry Reid has entered the ring. Yesterday, at a meeting with liberal bloggers, the Senate Majority Leader took a swing at Roberts.

“Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.
As Majority leader of the most corrupt congress in the history of the United States, Reid once again lowers the bar on himself when it comes to hypocrisy - and you didn't think it was possible.

h/t to Gateway Pundit


Unbelievable, even for this congress. The current impasse on the Obamacare monstrosity involves the requirement that the House pass the Senate Bill as it is currently written so that the Senate can then pass with the "Byrd Rule" or Reconciliation. The House is balking due to the abortion language - the Senate Bill has verbiage that would allow taxpayer-funded abortion.

What to do, what to do? Enter Louise Slaughter and her "Slaughter Solution". Via the Washington Examiner, the National Journal reports:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Just to clarify, in order for the Slaughter Solution to be used, the House will have to consider the Senate Bill as "passed" even though the only way for that to be possible would be if the House passes it, which it does not have the votes to do. This is all beyond surreal.

Not only is the notion that the spirit of the Byrd rule is a source of much controversy, which should make it the Democrats' last option but because they're even having difficulty going that route, the head of their Rules committee in the House is literally proposing a rule that would necessarily require this law to be passed by sending it through an alternate reality.

Again, Democrat Robert Byrd in 2001 recounting his conversation with Bill Clinton in 1993 in which an adamant Byrd apparently told Clinton that using Reconciliation to pass health care was unequivocally NOT in the spirit of his Rule.

h/t to Free Republic


This is truly an awesome story. An international Muslim conspiracy to kill a Swedish cartoonist for drawing an unflattering depiction of Mohammed was thwarted thanks to bloggers who collaborated while remaining anonymous to each other. Based on the success of internet bloggers in bringing Jihad Jane to the attention of the FBI, it would seem that the latter has some every day Americans at its disposal. It should take advantage of this newfound weapon in the fight against Islamic terror.

The Jawa Report has posted the account of one of the people involved in the Jihad Jane takedown:
I initially started on youtube with a channel dedicated to performing arts. Due to some disturbing comments I received on videos of Middle East Performing Arts by some so-called fanatical muslims posting comments such as, "if this were my sister I could kill her" or "if I ever if I ever see this girl I will rape her", I decided to open up a new channel and investigate further where this blind hatred for women in Middle East Performing Arts came from.
An informal, anonymous, and unsanctioned sting began to unfold. The account continues....
One thing lead to another and the next thing I knew, I was dealing with fanatical's such as JihadJane/FatimaLaRose whose real identity was later revealed as Colleen LaRose. I noted this woman's dedication to Osama Bin Laden and her extreme hatred to the U.S. and all those who were not muslim wishing death upon us as well as favoriting and commenting on every terrorist video on youtube posting comments such as "you are doing a good job". Over the course of approximately 1 1/2 years we exchanged comments on youtube in reference to her fanatical beliefs, at times me becoming her main rival which drew attention from others who were monitoring her, mainly the Youtube SmackDown group who were responsible for removing many terrorist vids from youtube.
The Youtube SmackDown group is dedicated to exposing internet Jihad and appears to have served as reinforcements for this individual who found him/herself engaged in a smackdown with Jihad Jane. They also maintain a blog as well.

Be sure to read the whole thing at Jawa.

Another VERY interesting angle to this story is where Jihad Jane became radicalized. She claimed that her conversion to Islam came as a result of her meeting a Muslim man while on vacation in Holland. That would be the same Holland where Freedom Party candidate Geert Wilders is surging - the same Geert Wilders who Glenn Beck accused of representing a fascist movement in that country.

Read more about Jihad Jane here.


It should be obvious that unlike John McCain, Lindsey Graham is not up for re-election until 2014. He's pairing up with New York corruptocrat Chuck Schumer to re-visit the issue of Immigration Reform. Three years ago, the American people stood up against the proposed bill because it didn't secure the borders first.

Now this:
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. are set to appear Thursday at the White House for a meeting with President Obama in which they are expected to seek his guidance on charting a path forward.

The reform effort blew up in 2007 after more than a year of work when Republican critics branded the effort as "amnesty" and the tide of public opinion turned strongly against the bill.

Graham, in fact, was booed at a Republican gathering in his state in 2006 for his work on comprehensive reform with Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Sen. McCain is conspicuously absent from the current talks; Graham remains at the table as the lone Republican supporter.
What I find particularly interesting is that Schumer and Graham very much want to get another Republican on-board with the effort. The most likely candidate would normally be John McCain. However, unlike Lindsey Grahamnesty, McCain is not only up for re-election in 2010 but he's in the middle of a very hotly contested primary against a candidate in J.D. Hayworth. Immigration enforcement is what the latter is running on as evidenced by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's endorsement.

The fact that McCain is silent on the issue tells you everything you need to know. If he truly believed Grahamnesty's latest foray into immigration reform was the will of his constituents, he'd be right there with his buddy Lindsey, pushing for it as well.

If this effort for Immigration reform was about border enforcement, it would be an entirely different debate. Instead, Lindsey "RINO" Grahamnesty is letting the people know that he is more interested in ramming a three year-old bill down their throats than he is in doing what they want. In the twisted minds of politicians, avoiding impasses at all costs by compromising principles is better than standing on principle and getting nothing done. Lindsey has said as much in the past.

Frankly, I'd love it if congress just shut down and went home.

h/t to Free Republic
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive