Over the last month, Lex has noted that arguing with Libs is an exercise in futility because 1) they think of themselves as smarter than the rest of the fly over crowd and 2) they are actually dumber than a pallet load hoe handles. Latest case in point is Chuckles Schumer lecturing and hectoring us about the need to get along with Demo-Dopes like himself so that they can continue to run the country into the ground. Then Chuckles dropped this little known fact about the republic on us:
“So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some. But it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.”
I wonder what the Lemming Stream Media would be headlining today had Sarah Palin uttered such idiocy? It wouldn’t be Egypt or the epic smack down, bloody stomping and two shots to the back of the head that a federal judge delivered to P-BOcare yesterday. No the lemmings would be running with how Sarah Palin isn’t smart enough to understand the structure of her own government. But let an arrogant (g)assbag Demo-Dope piece of crap like Chuckles walk all over his Johnson while wearing track shoes in the course of condescendingly informing us (incorrectly) about 6th grade civics, and the lemmings are “Ho, hum if it’s not that way it probably should be. After all, Chuckles is sooooooo smart.” When I hear Chuckles Schumer talk, my mind conjures up a vision of Cliff Clavin of Cheers explaining to Sammy how “with just a few modifications your standard internal combustion lawn mower engine can be converted into a solar powered snowmobile.” Idiot.
Oh and speaking of Egypt, Chuckles thinks its near Canada somewhere, many on the right are calling for the support of Mubarak. The reasoning goes that Mubarak is better than the Islamo-Terror-Fascists who might take over after Mubarak is gone. I disagree.
Just like Ali had to fight Frazier, there is going to be some kind of world wide struggle with Islam sooner or later. We might as well get it over with now. Let the ITF show their hand.
The US has been battling the ITF since 1803. The west has been battling them much longer. Take a look at this and be sure to click onto the video:
http://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/takeaction.asp?id=384
Given their long, long history of perpetual outrage, it is unlikely that the ITF are going to start Twittering and Skyping each other asking, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Oh speaking of the epic smack down, bloody stomping and two shots to the back of the head that a federal judge delivered to P-BOcare yesterday, wasn’t that an epic smack down, bloody stomping and two shots to the back of the head that a federal judge delivered to P-BOcare yesterday? Now we know why 3 branches Chuckles wants to disregard the judiciary.
So the mandate or the tax is unconstitutional. Who knew? Well just abut everyone except Demo-Dopes who had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. Now they find out that congress cannot hide under the commerce clause and tax economic inactivity. That is essentially what the judge said. The feds cannot tax/mandate someone for NOT entering into commerce. If the Supremes let this bag of crap stand, you can bet P-BO will use it as a precedence to tell us all, if we have two cars, one of them must be a Government Motors Volt.
Oh and let me digress back to the top of the page here so I don’t have to go back up and figure out where to slip this brilliant thought in. Who says not raising the debt ceiling is playing with fire? 3 branches Chuckles? We’ve heard this crap before. I’d say let it lapse and see what happens. The argument goes that it is irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling. As if it is somehow responsible to continue to raise it when you already can’t pay. That’s always my first response when Mrs. Lex says we can’t pay the Master Card bill. Well honey, call them up and instead of the $10,000 limit we can’t pay ask them for a $20,000 limit we can’t pay. Then go out and buy yourself something nice. Seems to me more responsible to stop now and work with creditors on a payment plan than to continue borrow more and more.
But hey, what do I know? I have always thought that the judiciary was one of the three branches of government.
1 comment:
From the Griffin…(see http://catholicexchange.com/2011/01/13/145711/) on Obamacare, The US Supreme Court, and the US Constitution….
First, remember this one as reported from The Catholic Exchange…
Erstwhile Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether her proposed healthcare reform bill was constitutional, reacted with shocked incredulity that anything she wanted could be unconstitutional, expostulating, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Then Scrawny Harry doubled down and inserted this language into the pending healthcare bill, “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”…which by the way is also unconstitutional. Of course we know that our president, a law school professor, then signed it.
So to open the 112 Congress the house leaders read the entire constitution and in the same report….”If nothing else, it showed how little respect many members of Congress have for the supreme law of our republic. Fewer than half the members even bothered to be present during the reading” and this “The most bizarre criticism was that of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) who denounced the reading of the Constitution as “propaganda.”
Last night Krauthammer said in effect that although the repeal of Obamacare is extremely important, it also allows a rallying point for voters to focus on the mechanisms to shrink government and overreaching politicians that ignore the constitution and the freedoms in it. The impact lasting for a generation. I think he is very correct. Then Chuckie forgets we have a Supreme Court. Has he also forgotten how the Supreme Court was gored in the 2010 SOTU?
To those that say that healthcare reform is needed I would say we should start with legislation that is pragmatic, affordable, and constitutional. Obamacare is none of the three. So I suspect the US Atty Gen will fight the latest ruling and not because he believes it to be constitutional, but because it does not fit the agenda of the 111 Congress or the president. Essentially I take this to mean that the final back stop is the Supreme Court. Its powers are described in the document that has been ignored. And the ironies of the whole situation are nearly endless. Whichever way the high court rules it has to be grounded in the clarity of the document. An unclear justification for or against will not suffice. The stakes are too high. A manipulated ruling will cast doubt into the future of the constitution.
Post a Comment