“The Obama people keep on wanting more and more and more — more things to pick through, more things for their opposition research to try to make a mountain out of –and to distort — and to be dishonest about,” Romney replied.
“We’re going to put out two years of tax returns. We’ve put out one already. As soon as the most recent year is complete, we’ll put that out. It’s hundreds of pages of documents,” Romney said, noting that the law does not require candidates to release their tax returns.
He also recalled that Sen. John McCain released only two years of tax returns when he ran against Obama four years ago — and “somehow this wasn’t an issue.”
I’m glad Romney’s not playing along and doing everything the democrats are demanding and NOT releasing the demanded tax returns. It’s not required, not necessary, a complete distraction, and was never required of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry. He’s taking a stand against this nonsense and some so-called “conservatives” don’t like it and say he should do what the liberals say and release all requested documents! I’d really like to know why the “anti-Romney-ites” like Bill Kristol, George Will, Nation Review editors, and other so-called “conservative” are siding with the democrats on this? Why let the liberals set the agenda for this campaign? This is SUCH A DISTRACTION ATTEMPT! Remember when the democrats called for Sarah Palin to release all her medical records?! So glad she never did…Can you imagine what they would have done with her personal and private medical information?! I say all these same people demand that the President be as transparent as he claims to be and release all of his medical records, his school transcripts, and yes, his real birth certificate!!!
yes i’m sad to report our “nominee” is slowly BLOWING IT!!! WTF!!! this campaign is served up on silver platter & Mr. Moderate Mitt McCain is letting a commie community organizin’ street thug define him &the campaign!!! unacceptable but NOT unexpected…… we needed a Conservative Fighter who can articulate FreeMarket Capitalism and the correlation to our Liberty & way of life convincingly & effortlessly… a “persuader” and a magnet to our side (another Reagan)… Santorum would’ve fit the bill much better…. not giving up on Mitt (yet) but he aint showing very well – even w/ his successful record & experience! so WTF??!!? guitargods NOT HAPPY nor IMPRESSED!!!!! and he better pick Rubio or Ryan VP! my prediction though is that he will pick SOME OTHER boring sorry sap…. yes very sad so far… 😦
|
‘Screwin’ U.S.A.”
(music by The Beach Boys)
If everybody shared my notion..
Across the USA..
Then everybody’d be votin’..
Democrat all the way..
You’d see em’ holdin’ stimulus baggies..
Be shovel ready too..
Blame Bushy Bushy for this welfare coup..
Screwin’ the USA..
CHORUS:
You’d catch me screwin’ ya with rad czars.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
No limit Chinese credit line.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Solar ruse and windmills.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Cap-n-tax til’ coals green.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
All over social medicine.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
High unemploys here to stay.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Don’t tell the Independents I’m screwin’..
Screwin’ the U.S.A.
I’ve been plannin’ out a Socialism route..
We’re gonna take real soon..
I’m taxin’ down those private insurance boards..
Thanks Johnny Roberts for June..
I’ll be instigatin’ all summer..
Put Mitt in the car roof doghouse to stay..
Don’t tell the Independents i’m screwin’
Screwin’ the U.S.A.
CHORUS:
You’d catch me screwin’ ya with rad czars.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
No limit Chinese credit line.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Solar ruse and windmills.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Cap-n-tax til’ coals green.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
All over social medicine.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
High unemploys here to stay.. (screw from inside to outside USA)
Don’ tell the Independents i’m screwin’..
Screwin’ the U.S.A.
Everybody’s gonna get a screwin’…
I’m Screwin’ U.S.A…
Everybody’s gonna get a screwin’…
I’m Screwin’ U.S.A…
Yeah, I’m enjoyin’ what i’m doin’ 🙂
Screwin’ your precious U.S.A!
In keeping with the Batman theme, let’s take a look at the real Joker
Obama’s marriage-themed fundraising scheme has been met with little enthusiasm from couples and event planners, according to the New York Post. Announced on June 22nd, the initiative asks couples to request campaign donations from their guests instead of gifts. The Obama campaign has touted the donations as “a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl,” but their target audience isn’t buying. The Post reports wedding pros have found the ploy “tasteless and divisive”:
“This is absurd. Republican or Democrat, you shouldn’t bring politics into a wedding,” said Kristin Koch, a senior editor with weddingchannel.com. “We found that nearly everyone found this to be a bad idea.”
Comments on Koch’s website have called Obama’s scheme “‘gross!’ and ‘tacky’—with one writing ‘Hell no!’”
The dems are now trying to use Batman (!) against Romney…Hahahaha….Can the dumbocrats get any more ridiculous…??
http://washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-new-foe-batmans-bane/article/2502274
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”–Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
What is the guy smoking? I guess anyone who’s successful owes it all to state funded public school teachers, so profits should be seized and given to the teachers’ unions and pensions? The madness has no end with liberals who think they are owed what others earned.
Ha ha ha I don’t know which scares me more!
‘No More Mister Nice Guy’
(music by Alice Cooper)
I used to be such a sweet sweet thing..
Til’ Frank Marshall Davis got a hold of me..
I opened doors in the inner cities..
I community organized for free..
I got lots of friends cause they reap my favors..
They wanna be seen, with me,
But I’m gettin’ real shot down (by FOX)
And I’m feelin’ mean…
No more Mister Nice Guy!
No more Romney’s clean…..
No more Mister Nice Guy!
I say Mitt’s rich, his wealth is obscene!
My record bit me in the leg today..
All I can do is lie..
Michelle’s been thrown out the social circles 😦
And Dems all want to hide..
I went church incognito..
20 years sittin’ in those rows..
The Reverend Wright, he recognized me..
And punched me in the nose 😦
He said:
No more Mister Nice Guy!
Cause I know, you ain’t clean……
No more Mister Nice Guy!
He said you’re sick, you’re obscene…..
I got no friends cause they read the papers..
They can’t be seen, campaignin’ with me..
Cause i’m gettin’ real shot down..
The GOP’s gettin’ mean…
But I say:
No more Mister Nice Guy!
Romney committed a felony……
No more Mister Nice Guy!
Mitt’s rich.. his wealth is obscene!……
Yikes!!! This is a frightening analysis!
Former republican senator and 2008 presidential republican primary candidate Fred Thompson explains how Romney can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote and explains how the outcome of the November presidential election will come down to a handful of states called the “swing states” which, by the way, have been the only states Obama has been targeting. Obama has focused his attack ads on Romney only in these swing states and spending tons of money targeting specific groups of voters from these states. Also noted is the fact that Obama has had recent “policy conversions” or recent “initiatives” put in place for targeted groups of voters in these states (blacks, hispanics, single women, students, and public secor employees).
Watch and listen to Fred Thompson’s frightening analysis on the Greta Van Susteren’s show from 7/13/12 (jump ahead to 4:18 mark in the video): http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/former-senator-fred-thompson-on-the-record/
Fred Thompson’s nightmare scenario is also on his website: http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/13/how-romney-could-win-but-lose/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309287/proud-moment-romney-s-naacp-speech-mona-charen
…Naturally, the mainstream press focused on the boos he received after promising to repeal Obamacare though they hardly mentioned the standing ovation at the end.
…Is this not exactly the sort of straight talk that pundits and analysts are forever lamenting the lack of in our politics? Is it not the polar opposite of the interest-group chuck wagon Mr. Obama has been driving for months? It is. And if Romney keeps this up, it will be remembered as a turning point in the campaign.
“The president’s action is completely misdirected,” Mr. Romney said in a statement. “Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”
Republicans are slamming the Obama decision as an executive overreach and a major step toward undoing bipartisan reforms achieved during the Clinton administration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/13/romney-slams-obama-welfare-waiver-move/
The battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney reached new levels of rancor Thursday, with each campaign accusing the other of lying over Romney’s tenure at private-equity firm Bain Capital.
The charges flew at a rapid pace, and by the end of the day the Romney campaign was calling for an apology after a senior Obama campaign official said the Republican presidential candidate may have committed a felony.
Obama official Stephanie Cutter made the claim following a Boston Globe article that said documents show Romney was in charge at Bain for three years longer than he had claimed. Cutter said Romney was either misrepresenting his position at Bain to the Securities and Exchange Commission, “which is a felony,” or misrepresenting to the American people.
Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued a blistering statement in response:
“President Obama’s campaign hit a new low today when one of its senior advisers made a reckless and unsubstantiated charge to reporters about Mitt Romney that was so over the top that it calls into question the integrity of their entire campaign,” Rhoades said. “President Obama ought to apologize for the out-of-control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office he holds. Campaigns are supposed to be hard fought, but statements like those made by Stephanie Cutter belittle the process and the candidate on whose behalf she works.”
Kira Davis is an actress, blogger, mother wife, black and conservative. She has a few words for the NAACP and Rep. Clever, who said Mitt Romney shouldn’t have criticized ObamaCare during his address to the NAACP Convention yesterday and that he wasn’t sure who was advising Romney from the “African-American perspective.”
“I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that white people needed advisers before they address black people.”
“Heaven forbid Mitt Romney go into a room full of black people and address them as…Americans!”
“I’m just checking because I thought the NAACP was dedicated to fighting racism, not perpetuating it.”
Proverbs 13:13
Whoever scorns instruction will pay for it,
but whoever respects a command is rewarded.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+13&version=NIV
“Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” she continued. “I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.”
“Good for her”
– John Voight
However, it seems the backlash surrounding Jane’s opinion has become so vehement that she has reportedly been “scared into silence.”
Mrs. Pitt has not only been the victim of vulgar and hate-filled attacks, but she has also received death threats which have left her very frightened.
The tweets reportedly included: “BRAD PITT’S MOM WROTE AN ANTI-GAY PRO-ROMNEY EDITORIAL. KILL THE B***H” and, simply, “Brad Pitt’s mom, die.”
Obama Still Struggling …
We’ve written often about tricks media companies can use to juice their polls. There is the obvious Democrat bias of polls surveying adults or registered voters as opposed to likely voters. But perhaps the most pernicious is how they “weight” their partisan sample. Now, polling companies need to weight their sample, so that it reflects the overall electorate. But, the latest WaPo/ABC poll has a particularly skewed sample; it assumes that only 24% of the electorate identifies as Republican.
Now, Republicans haven’t made up 24% of the electorate since probably 1856, when the party was first founded. Even in the Democrat wave years of 2006 and 2008, the GOP made up over 30% of the electorate. Traditionally, Republicans make up 34-38% of the voting universe.
The latest WaPo/ABC poll basically spots Obama a couple goals before the results are even tabulated. Even with this “thumb on the scale”, though, Obama’ reelection looks very shaky.
Overall, the poll shows Obama and Romney tied at 47% nationally among registered voters. Worse for Obama, 54% of voters in this sample–which undercounts Republicans–disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy. This sample gives Romney a 5-point lead on better “handling the economy” and a 10-point lead on better “handling the deficit.”
One can only imagine the results if this poll were screened only for “likely” voters and the partisan breakdown was something approaching reality. No wonder the media are now obsessing that Romney’s campaign needs a “staff shake-up.” His current staff is winning.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/10/WaPo-ABC-Again-skew-poll-obama-still-struggling
Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking… they’re recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.
Wisconsin GOP Rep. Reid Ribble, who said he’s also been followed by a cameraman when shopping for groceries, said the home videos cross a line.
“I feel it’s totally inappropriate,” said Ribble, a freshman facing a competitive race for reelection. “It was disturbing to me that they would put that online. I don’t understand any political benefit that can be achieved with that.”
In Ribble’s case, of his northeastern Wisconsin home appeared online June 18. The soundless video — which lasts 38 seconds — is taken from a car sitting just outside the house. The shot pans across the large home, showing it from several different angles.
DeaNa Ribble, the congressman’s wife, said it is deeply unsettling.
“I’m more creeped out about this than Reid is, just because I’m home more,” she said. “If they so much as put a foot on private property, I will be the first person to call the police.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78217.html#ixzz20A69l7zo
With the economy threatening to fall into another recession and job growth plummeting, Obama came before the American people today demanding taxes be raised on those making over $250,000 a year, including what he admitted would include 3% of small businesses. Even if that 3% is correct, which is disputed, that 3% means a tax increase on 900,000 small businesses.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/09/Obama-Tax-Flip-Flop-Left-of-Pelosi
For Immediate Release
July 6, 2012
Rep. Andy Harris Statement on June Unemployment Report
WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Andy Harris released the following statement today regarding the Department of Labor’s unemployment report for June 2012:
“Today’s disappointing June unemployment report shows yet again that President Obama’s economic policies aren’t working,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “President Obama’s failed economic policies have led to 41 consecutive months of unemployment being above 8 percent. Instead of working with the House majority to create tens of thousands of American jobs through projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline, he has wasted taxpayer dollars on politically connected companies like Solyndra. The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills- it’s time for the President and the Senate to start working with the House to actually put jobs and economic growth at the top of their agenda.”
###
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Representative Andy Harris”
Subject: Rep. Andy Harris Statement on June Unemployment Report
For Immediate Release July 6, 2012
Rep. Andy Harris Statement on June Unemployment Report
WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Andy Harris released the following statement today regarding the Department of Labor’s unemployment report for June 2012:
“Today’s disappointing June unemployment report shows yet again that President Obama’s economic policies aren’t working,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “President Obama’s failed economic policies have led to 41 consecutive months of unemployment being above 8 percent. Instead of working with the House majority to create tens of thousands of American jobs through projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline, he has wasted taxpayer dollars on politically connected companies like Solyndra. The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills- it’s time for the President and the Senate to start working with the House to actually put jobs and economic growth at the top of their agenda.”
###
P.S. To reply to this email, please go to– Email Me.
Contact Information Washington, D.C.
506 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5311
Fax: 202-225-0254Bel Air District Office
15 Churchville Road
Suite 102B
Bel Air, MD 21014
Phone: 410-588-5670
Fax: 410-588-5673Salisbury District Office
212 West Main Street
Suite 204B
Salisbury, MD 21801
Phone: 443-944-8624
Fax: 443-944-8625Kent Island District Office
100 Olde Point Village
Suite 101
Chester, MD 21619
Phone: 410-643-5425
Fax: 410-643-5429
Get ready to pay up. Investment (capital gains and dividends) taxes and Obamacare SURTAXES going waaaaaaaay up. How exactly is it fair that people’s retirement money is going to be taxed and funneled into a medical entitlement program for everyone else? This battle has been raging since 2009 but now we have the power to do something about it. Vote the Bum out in November and let’s repeal the Pelosi-Reid crap and replace it with a program that allows people to choose service from competitive private providers.
—
Conservative governors tell feds they won’t implement law.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/states-rights-war-over-obamacare/
… Sunshine State Gov. Rick Scott is leading the charge. He told The Washington Times over the weekend, “Florida will not implement Obamacare.” Palmetto State Gov. Nikki Haley is standing firm as well. “We’re not going to shove more South Carolinians into a broken system,” her office said of the health care law’s planned Medicaid extension to those over the poverty line, according to the Nation magazine. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who heroically took on Badger State labor unions and won, says the November election is central for repeal. “I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately will end the implementation of this law at the federal level,” he said. Until then, the cheesehead governor isn’t taking action to implement any of the law.
Republicans control 32 governorships. At least 24 of these state leaders have announced they will not implement Mr. Obama’s and Chief Justice Roberts’ Affordable Care Act or are on the fence about what parts of it to implement and what to ignore. The list of those saying in clear language that they will refuse to implement Obamacare in their states includes Ohio’s John Kasich, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Kansan Sam Brownback, Georgia’s Nathan Deal and Alaska’s Sean Parnell. Those who are pushing back against certain parts or are supporting legislative repeal are New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Arizona’s Jan Brewer, Mississippi’s Phil Bryant, Tennessee’s Bill Haslam, Alabama’s Robert Bentley, Idaho’s Butch Otter, Iowa’s Terry Branstad, Texan Rick Perry, Virginia’s Bob McDonnell, Utah’s Gary Herbert, Wyoming’s Matt Mead, Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett and Maine’s Paul LePage. These states represent over 117 million Americans. This overwhelming show of defiance to a federal dictate sets up a states’ rights war not seen in decades.
The response was a little wobbly across the Potomac River from the capital, where the Old Dominion’s Mr. McDonnell capitulated, “Virginia will evaluate the steps necessary to comply with the law” – although he hopes it’s repealed. He needs to seek more advice from Ole Virginny’s rock-solid Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who filed suit to contest Obamacare the day it became law. Others surrendering were New Mexico’s Susana Martinez and North Dakota’s Jack Dalyrymple. A handful of holdout state executives are still deciding what to do. …
Re-electing Obama means higher taxes – permanently
It’s official: Obamacare is Obamatax.
The Supreme Court saved Obamacare but at the expense of exposing it as simply a massive collection of taxes – 20 taxes at least. Obamacare was supposed to reduce the cost of health insurance but it has six taxes on Americans who already have health insurance. Your insurance will cost more to pay Mr. Obama’s tax hikes.
Obamacare was supposed to “bend the cost curve down” but it has a tax on medical devices. What medical devices? Braces for your kids. A stent for your heart. A wheelchair. All the cool stuff you see in hospitals will now cost more in order to pay Mr. Obama’s tax on medical devices.
Obamacare has a tax on lifesaving drugs. Great – now our drugs will cost more. Obamacare raises taxes on making new drugs by $2.3 billion a year. And you will pay it.
Obamacare promised that you would be able to keep your insurance. Not if you have a Health Savings Account – that is hit with new tax penalties. Just try and buy over-the-counter nonprescription drugs pre-tax with your HSA – not anymore. Your Flexible Spending Account is now going to be taxed so that parents who use these insurance accounts to take care of special-needs children will find part of their own life savings taxed away to Washington. And if you have insurance that Washington bureaucrats have decided on your behalf is too good, then you pay part of the $32 billion Mr. Obama is adding in new taxes on those with “too much, too good” health insurance.
Obamacare even has a tax on charitable hospitals.
Seven of the Obamacare taxes directly hit middle-income Americans. So much for Mr. Obama’s promise to never raise “any form” of tax on anyone earning less than $250,000.
There is a tax on tanning services. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg won’t let you have soft drinks he doesn’t approve of. Obamacare taxes you 10 percent if you want a tan and cannot get a free ride to the sun on Air Force One.
Twenty taxes comprise the total that raise the cost of health care, trash your present insurance and ability to save for future health needs.
What if you get really sick and have very high medical bills? In the past, you could deduct high medical bills from your taxable income when they were above 7.5 percent of your total income. Mr. Obama thinks that is being too nice to sick people and raises the limit to 10 percent. Perhaps the theory is that taxing sick people will lead to fewer sick people.
Much focus has been placed on one of the 20 tax hikes. That is the tax hike on Americans who fail to submit to the “mandate” that you buy health insurance chosen for you by the government. You may buy any color Model T you wish as long as it is black. You may have any health insurance package the government picks out for you.
Is this mandate a tax? Well, the tax on your failure to cooperate is collected by the Internal Revenue Service. The rules are written in the Internal Revenue Code. The tax is paid on your 1040 federal income tax return. And the Congressional Budget Office takes the money and counts it as tax revenue pouring into the general fund.
Common sense tells us that if the government takes stuff from you by force, it is a tax. It certainly isn’t a voluntary contribution.
Four justices of the Supreme Court looked at Obamacare and said the whole thing was an unconstitutional power grab by Washington. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., however, announced that the federal government can do anything – anything at all – if it goes through the nicety of using the bludgeon of a tax hike to force you to submit. Do this – or we tax you $1,000. Do this or the government takes $10,000. Do this or the government takes everything you have. All perfectly constitutional, according to Justice Roberts.
In total, the tax hikes in Obamacare total somewhere between $500 billion and $800 billion over the next decade. Some taxes were delayed to make this number look smaller. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and the tax increases become permanent, then in the first 10 years of full implementation, tax hikes will approach $1 trillion.
So if Mr. Obama is re-elected, we know one thing. The 20 tax hikes that are Obamacare will be permanent tax increases raising the cost of your health care, drugs and health insurance.
And this collection of 20 tax hikes are in addition to the tax increases Mr. Obama’s election would trigger as the Republican tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 lapse. The marriage penalty returns. The per-child tax credit falls from $1,000 to $500. Tax rates increase for all Americans. The death tax jumps up to 55 percent of your life savings over $1 million. The capital gains tax jumps to 23.8 percent. The tax on dividends triples. The cost in Year One of a renewed contract for Mr. Obama: $500 billion. It will be $5 trillion over the next decade.
A vote for Mr. Obama is a vote for more than $5.5 trillion in higher taxes over the next 10 years. A vote for Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress will repeal all 20 of Obamacare’s taxes and extend all the lapsing tax hikes so Congress can reform the tax code without a tax increase.
There is, too, a dime’s worth of difference between the parties – 55 trillion dimes.
Be careful of the lamestream media spin on the “facts” all you “fact-checkers”!!!
Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler will not fact check any facts published by his own paper. Kessler announced in his article that he won’t be awarding any “Pinocchios” to the Post’s claims that Romney outsourced jobs during his Bain days.
On July 3, John Nolte astutely pointed out there was no outsourcing of jobs while Romney was at Bain Capital. Romney has demanded that the Washington Post retract its deceptive June 21 story, but the Post refuses to do so.
“The Fact Checker does not check the facts in the reporting of Washington Post writers or columnists,”Kessler writes, “We generally confine ourselves to checking the rhetoric used by politicians and interest groups.”
Even as Kessler refuses to fully fact check his own paper, he does say that Barack Obama is misleading people on what the Post’s story says. As Kessler wrote, “there is little in the Post article that backs up the Obama campaign’s spin.”
That seems to be central to this issue. If Kessler can say Obama is misleading people over the claim that Romney was responsible for the Bain outsourcing, then the Washington Post article is misleading as well.
Pretty inspiring to see the former most powerful man in the world willing to roll up his sleeves and get splattered with paint while he helps some of the least fortunate make their lives better. They are a wonderful example of generosity and compassion. Below, a video of highlights from their trip to build a cervical cancer clinic in Zambia:
Hell yeah!
—
“What will be next? If you don’t buy a certain type of green car, they will tax you. If you don’t buy a certain type of food, they will tax you,” Rep. West said.
“Well, I got a great idea: I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one,” he added.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-west-mocks-mandate-lets-force-everyone-to-buy-a-glock-9mm/
* choking *
—
A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The spokesman also confirmed the fuel — which does not require engine modifications — costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.
Chin up, people! The Obamacare ruling is a surprising setback to liberty but it’s one that can be righted through good choices at the voting booth. Some decry America’s future but that is misguided. I believe in America. America is worth fighting for. The Constitution is not dead. The current leaders are just making choices I strongly disagree with. Each of us can make a difference. My goal is to set a good citizenship example by getting completely out of debt and to grow my business and employ others so they may provide for their families. Yes, there are a million or more people who would exchange liberty for socialism in order to reap benefits they didn’t earn, but their quality of life will never be above peanuts. Let them party like it’s 1999 and I’m going to work like it’s 1776.
‘And I’m also a Jackass’ …
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/anderson-cooper-gay-comes-154527163–finance.html
Here are some important dates ahead:
July 11, 2012: House of Representatives Will Vote to Repeal Obamacare
July, 2012: Insurance Companies Send Rebate Checks to Consumers
August, 2012: Additional Preventative Services for Women Covered
October, 2012: Electronic Medical Records Become Implemented
November 6, 2012: Election Night — A Referendum on Obamacare
January 1, 2013: States Get Additional Medicaid Funds
January 1, 2014: The Heart Of Obamacare Becomes Law If Not Repealed
The Obama campaign has seized on remarks made by Romney adviser Eric “Etch-A-Sketch” Fehrnstrom this morning on MSNBC, to the effect that the individual mandate in Obamacare (and Romneycare) is not a tax. Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message–and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney’s will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives–who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call “Obamatax”: Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/02/Mitt-Quit-Now-If-You-Wont-Fight
Not much to say on this other than recount the facts- Obama and minions claimed it was not a tax. White House lawyers argued in oral arguments before the Supreme Court that it was not a tax. Four liberal Justices supported it no matter the tax characterization. The Chief Justice said it boiled down to a tax and declared it permissable. WTF!!!???
—
The individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama argued in 2009 in a contentious interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”
Many pundits noted the irony, therefore, when Obama’s solicitor general argued before the court that Congress has the authority to require that individuals purchase health insurance based upon the Commerce Clause and its authority to “lay and collect taxes.” While Roberts rejected the argument that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, he accepted that the penalty imposed for not purchasing health insurance is a tax.
Another irony is that some Democrats, in anticipation that the court would strike down the law, had already been arguing that the court has become too political and partisan. Will they still make that argument now that the Ccourt ruled in their favor?
Whether or not to repeal the individual mandate legislatively is now destined to become an issue in the 2012 election.
“If we want to get rid of ‘Obamacare,’ we are going to have to replace President Obama,” Romney said in a press conference after the court’s decision.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-full-of-irony-surprise-77385/
“2 OUT OF 3, I’M GLAD”
(music by Meat Loaf)
“GIMME FIVE BRO!” 🙂
Roberts you can rationalize all night..
But your rulings ain’t constitutional nowhere..
The States told you everything they possibly can..
There’s nothing left inside but anger & fear..
And Roberts you can proclaim you’re right..
But that’ll never change the way we feel..
Your anti-Liberty decisions are really piling up outside..
We wish you would’ve just ended it here…
Pelosi poured it on but we spit it out..
States sued to show how unconstitutional was obamacare..
Because of your uninspired words, we’ll never be too hoarse to shout!
But this is cold and you got it so wrong..
Patriots are crying icicles instead of tears..
And all Obama can do, is keep on telling you:
I want you, (I’ll taunt you)..
I need you, (I’ll squeeze you)..
and there ain’t no way I’ll ever not out maneuver you..
Now don’t be sad 😦 don’t be sad..
Cause 2 out of 3 ain’t bad..
The TeaParty’s mad.. yes they’re mad..
But with 2 out of 3 I’m glad… 🙂
You’ll never convince us, Arizona cops overreached..
They never proved discrimination, on Sheriff Joe’s streets..
We know you were lookin’ for a way your court wouldn’t get mocked..
But it ain’t your job to police Lib thrills..
What about protecting our Constitution from gettin’ rocked!
Why lie? why tell us something we all know that it’s not?
No matter how you try.. you’ll never be able to sell us something..
Something we know is rot!
There’s only one country that we will ever love..
Founded so many years ago..
Now we know in November we’ll have to drive a stake through obamacare’s heart..
And then we’ll never go back..
And we’ll remember how you screwed us on that summer morning..
You shocked us, and left us for dead..
And though attorneys had pleaded & begged you not to close that door..
You packed your bags and turned right away..
And all Obama could do…
He kept on telling you..
He kept on telling you..
He kept.. on.. telling you:
I wanted you.. (I taunted you)
I needed you.. (I squeezed you)
There ain’t no way I’ll ever not out maneuver you..
Now don’t be sad 😦 don’t be sad..
Cause 2 out of 3 ain’t bad..
Tea Party’s mad.. of course they’re mad..
But with 2 out of 3 I’M GLAD 🙂
BO has a Full Coverage ‘SCOTUS-CARE PLAN’ 🙂
Proposed 10% state income tax CUT?
Proposed property tax credits?
Can anyone imagine a liberal Democrat ever proposing the same tax reductions as a Republican like NJ Governor Chris Christie? He is a man among men!
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Christie-legislature-tax-cut/2012/06/30/id/444082
Possible expansion of gunwalking into Honduras too? And now the Brady campaign steps in.
Hmm…something wicked this way comes…
Issa Reveals Wiretap Docs from DOJ Mole on Fast and Furious
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/235715-issa-reveals-sealed-wiretaps-from-doj-mole
Yes she did, although I doubt she intended to do so. In a speech today to a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the First Lady explained her concept of citizenship by likening it to the ministry of Jesus. Her explanation corroborates the same point that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have been making for months about the intrusive nature of the HHS contraception mandate, emphasis mine:
“It’s kind of like church,” Obama said. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.
“We see that in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church,” she said. “He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day. He was out there spreading a message of grace and redemption to the least, the last, and the lost. And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives.”
Obama, who is not a regular churchgoer, said citizenship like the practice of faith is “not a once-a-week kind of deal.”
“Democracy is also an everyday activity,” she said. “And being an engaged citizen should once again be a daily part of our lives.”
Yes, indeed He was. So do churches to this day, ministering to the sick and the poor, “the least, the last and the lost” that Mrs. Obama references here. Furthermore, Jesus did not limit His ministry to just those disciples who followed Him, but ministered to many, including Romans, in the course of His evangelization.
However, her husband and Kathleen Sebelius don’t see it that way. They only allow for activities within “the four walls of the church” to be classified as religious expression exempt from government regulation, and only that activity which excludes those other than believers as participants or recipients, too. The USCCB and its allies in the Fortnight for Freedom campaign have repeatedly argued exactly as the First Lady does — that the provision of charity, education, and health care to the greater community is an integral component of religious expression, for Catholics and those of other denominations, just as was Jesus’ ministry of healing, evangelization, and assistance to the poor. In fact, Mrs. Obama makes that case as eloquently as I’ve seen it made during this debate.
Now that the First Lady has acknowledged that ministry is not limited to the four walls of the church and that it necessarily involves spreading the message of grace and redemption to more than just the choir, can we expect her husband and the Secretary of HHS reach the same conclusion?
No one is safe from the Reaper…
—
President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.
Some fear the administration’s proposal is an effort to increase enrollment in the state-run insurance exchanges mandated under the president’s controversial health care law.
The Supreme Court’s health-care ruling reaffirmed limits to Congress’s authority.
…What must not go unnoticed is the fact that with parts of its decision today, the Court reaffirmed certain important core principles. The Court reminded the federal government that it has limited and enumerated powers. While the federal government is supreme in its sphere, it is not permitted to operate outside of its constitutionally defined role.
The Court expressly rejected the federal government’s assertion that it could use the Commerce Clause to force citizens to engage in commerce for the sole purpose of regulating them. A majority of the Court held that the commerce power reaches only those who are currently engaged in commercial activities. It does not reach those who are not engaged in commerce, even if those very same people are likely to engage in commerce in the future. Thus, the Court explicitly adopted the activity/inactivity distinction that opponents of the law had championed and that liberal commentators had ridiculed.
Some will suggest that this is no victory at all, given the Court’s ruling that the money one must pay for failing to obtain insurance can be supported as a use of Congress’s taxing power. However, by confining within the taxing power the ability of Congress to adopt such schemes, the Court has greatly limited Congress’s ability and political appetite to attempt them in the future.
Now everyone will know that when Congress does something like this, it is without question a tax increase. Is there any doubt that if PPACA had been presented as a middle-class tax increase, it would have failed?
Because the American people have made clear that elected officials raise taxes at their peril, it is unlikely will we see this particular gambit repeated.
Another thing to note is that Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the taxing power is limited. He noted that it could not be considered punitive because the amount citizens are required to pay for not having insurance is far less than they would have to pay to obtain insurance. He strongly suggests that, if Congress were to require citizens to pay an amount greater than the costs of insurance, that would constitute a penalty, and thus would be unconstitutional. …
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304392/victory-defeat-kenneth-t-cuccinelli-ii
|
The Chief Justice rewrites ObamaCare in order to save it.
Thursday was destined to be an historic day for American liberty, and it was, though the new precedent is grim. The remarkable decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is shot through with confusion—the mandate that’s really a tax, except when it isn’t, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren’t. One thing is clear: This was a one-man show, and that man is John Roberts.
The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court’s conservative bloc, but he also said that the mandate fell within Congress’s power to tax, joined by the Court’s liberal bloc. In practice this is a restraint on federal power without real restraint—and, worse, the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it. The ruling will stand as one of the great what-might-have-beens of American constitutional law.
The novel question raised by ObamaCare’s command to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty—the first-ever purchase mandate in U.S. history—was whether Congress could create commerce in order to regulate it. In his 1-4-4 opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes that construing the Commerce Clause as the Obama Administration argued “would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding.”
Note that this rejection of federal compulsion, which the four conservatives supported albeit in dissent, is the same one that the liberal legal establishment spent years deriding as frivolous and beyond debate: Of course Washington has carte blanche to do whatever it wants to do. “That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned,” the Chief Justice writes, before going on to envision it himself by grounding the mandate in Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole. The result is that Washington has unlimited power to impose new purchase mandates and the courts will find them constitutional if Congress calls them taxes, or even if it calls them something else and judges call them taxes.
That was true with ObamaCare. The Pelosi Democrats explicitly structured the mandate as a regulatory “penalty.” Congress voted down a direct tax in 2009. Supreme Court precedents going back to the 1920s and 1930s define penalties and taxes as mutually exclusive and critically different.
Every lower court that heard the health-care cases rejected the taxing argument. Administration lawyers devoted only 21 lines of their reply brief to this argument and it barely came up at oral arguments. The Chief Justice in effect revised the statute in order to find it constitutional.
But if the mandate is really a tax, why doesn’t the law known as the Anti-Injunction Act apply, which says that taxes can’t be challenged legally until they’ve been collected? The Chief Justice actually rules that the mandate is a tax under the Constitution and a mandate for the purposes of tax law.
In their brutal (and, in a rarity, jointly signed) dissent, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito write that the Chief Justice’s logic “is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. . . . One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression.” They score the Chief Justice for carrying “verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”
Justice Kennedy dissented angrily from the bench, and it is to his credit that he defended the federalist system of shared powers that is the hallmark of his years on the Court. The particular tragedy is that four Justices would have overturned not merely the purchase mandate but all of ObamaCare as unconstitutional. Only John Roberts prevented it.
One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.
The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court’s institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties. If this was a play to compete with John Marshall’s legacy, the result is closer to William Brennan’s.
The Court did rule 7-2 against ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid, the supposedly voluntary federal-state program that once covered only the poor. The majority included liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who held this expansion to be unconstitutional because the feds commandeered state resources.
The problem is that this also involved rewriting the law. The majority merely created an opt-out that Governors and states could elect to preserve some measure of independent control, instead of telling Congress to start over. Still, this is the first time the Court has found a law enacted under Congress’s spending power to be unconstitutionally coercive.But this and even the five votes limiting Congress under the Commerce Clause pale against the Chief Justice’s infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. It turns out we also needed John Roberts to write his appendix.
A version of this article appeared June 29, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Roberts Rules.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577494400059173634.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/28/congress_votes_holder_in_criminal_contempt
The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in civil contempt, in addition to criminal contempt. Twenty-one Democrats voted with Republicans for civil contempt. Civil contempt will allow the Oversight Committee to proceed with their quest for documents in front of a judge, rather than simply relying on the U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. to assess the charge. …
After 18 months of investigation and non-responses to Congressional subpoenas about Operation Fast and Furious, the House of Representatives has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt. The vote was bipartisan with 17 Democrats voting with Republicans. The final vote tally was 255 yeas, 67 nays and 110 members didn’t vote. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Democrats walked out of the vote in protest. Holder is the first sitting attorney general to be held in contempt and the first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt. The criminal contempt charge will now move to the U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. for review.
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa offered to delay or cancel the contempt vote today, so long as Attorney General Eric Holder delivered 1300 documents as part of compliance with a 22 part October 2011 subpoena regarding Operation Fast and Furious. After a series of last minute meetings and efforts to prevent the vote, Holder failed to deliver those documents and the House proceeded as planned.
“The Terry Family wants to know how this happened and they have every right to know. And the House needs to know what happened,” Speaker John Boehner said. “No Justice Department is above the law.”
Holder responded by listing the things he sees as positive developments during his tenure as attorney general and said, “As a result of the action today taken by the House, an unnecessary battle will ensure.” Holder also called the vote “a disservice to the American people.”
Debate about the contempt citation on the House floor before the vote was tense, with accusations of a “political witch hunt” being hurled from the mouths of Democrats toward Republicans. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the vote “heinous” while Democrat Steny Hoyer said it was an “irresponsible day for the House of Representatives” and that “this investigation has been extraordinarily superficial.”
“Let me be crystal clear about what my motivation is here, we have a dead border patrol agent. We have more than 200 dead Mexicans.” Republican Jason Chaffetz said. “This is not about Eric Holder, this is about the Department of Justice and justice in the United States of America……I want all the facts, that is what we are asking for today, the facts.”
Issa made it clear that he will continue to investigate Operation Fast and Furious, despite Holder’s continued refusal to cooperate and has issued an official statement.
“Today, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. This was not the outcome I had sought and it could have been avoided had Attorney General Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.
“The Congressional inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, and the cover-up by Justice Department officials of wrongdoing, has been a fair and fact based investigation. False and partisan allegations by the White House and some congressional Democrats about the Oversight Committee’s efforts were undermined by the votes of 17 Democrats. These Members resisted the pressure of their own leadership and the Obama Administration to support this investigation on the House floor.
“Claims by the Justice Department that it has fully cooperated with this investigation fall at odds with its conduct: issuing false denials to Congress when senior officials clearly knew about gunwalking, directing witnesses not to answer entire categories of questions, retaliating against whistleblowers, and producing only 7,600 documents while withholding over 100,000.
“I greatly appreciate the ongoing efforts of Senator Chuck Grassley, his staff, and other Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have pressed the Obama Administration for the full truth. Senator Grassley began this investigation and has been a full partner throughout it. I must also recognize the hard work done by many of my colleagues here in the House – without their efforts the Justice Department’s stonewalling would have succeeded.
“My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico. Unless President Obama relents to this bipartisan call for transparency and an end to the cover-up, our fight will move to the courts where we will prevail in getting the documents that the Justice Department and President Obama’s flawed assertion of executive privilege have denied the American people.”
Update: The Romney camp recently released the following statement.
“Governor Romney supports the vote to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of congress.”
In a Bipartisan Vote, Attorney General Holder Found in Contempt of Congress
Washington, DC – Today, in a bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives held U.S. Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to provide any documents that the Department of Justice previously indicated it could and would produce. It took the Department of Justice ten months to admit that their February 2011 denial to Congress of reckless conduct was false. In addition, the Wall Street Journal has reported that the government official whose office led Operation Fast and Furious may face criminal charges for leaking sensitive information in an attempt to smear a whistleblower.
“Since the White House is now refusing to even negotiate with Congressional leaders to provide information to Congress, this contempt vote unfortunately became necessary,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “The American people and slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s family are entitled to receive the answers they deserve about what went wrong with this reckless operation.”
###
Mail
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacare—sets the stage for an historically unprecedented confrontation between Roman Catholics and the federal government over whether Catholics remain free to exercise their religion in the United States of America.
The court’s decision leaves untouched the “preventive services” provision in the legislation under which the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that will require virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.
On June 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States—representing dioceses from Los Angeles to New York, from New Orleans to Chicago, from Miami to Seattle, and from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco—unanimously approved a document that cited their “vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate.”
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong, and because the individual mandate in Obamacare will force virtually all individuals in the United States to purchase a government approved health-care plans, Obamacare—as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday—will require all Catholic laypersons in the United States to buy health insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith.
The HHS regulation will also require Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to purchase health insurance plans that violate the Catholic faith.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a Catholic who has been ordered by her archbishop not to take Holy Communion until she recants her position in favor of legal abortion and goes to confession—has given most employers until Aug. 1 to comply with this regulation. She has allowed religiously affiliated non-profit organizations (such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities) that do not currently cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients an additional year–until Aug. 1, 2013–to comply with the mandate and then violate the teachings of their faith.
Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions—including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University—have filed lawsuits against the sterilzation-contraception-abortifacient mandate arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Since the Catholics filed their lawsuits, President Obama has boasted about the contraception mandate in public speeches.
In their unanimous declaration against the HHS regulation, the Catholic bishops said Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate not only falsely defines Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools and charitable organizations as not “religious,” but also violates the “personal civil rights” of individual lay Catholics and members of other denominations who share the same moral convictions.
“The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said the unanimous Catholic bishops. “They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.
“This, too,” said the unanimous bishops, “is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.”
The unanimous Catholic bishops expressed their “thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders.”
“With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one,” the bishops said.
For the American Catholic bishops to unanimously endorse a statement describing the HHS sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation as “an unjust and illegal mandate” is significant because the bishops have also recently restated the Catholic teaching that “unjust laws” cannot be obeyed.
“It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty said in “A Statement on Religious Liberty” published April 12.
“An unjust law cannot be obeyed,” said the statement. “In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.”
“The Christian church does not ask for special treatment, simply the rights of religious freedom for all citizens,” said the statement.
Earlier this year, in a column published in his archdiocesan newspaper, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who formerly served as the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that the HHS regulation showed that the “state is making itself into a church.” Unless something is done to stop it, the cardinal warned, the HHS regulation will mean the destruction of Catholic institutions in this country.
“What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded?” Cardinal George wrote. “A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.”
The cardinal rebutted those who said the Catholic bishops were somehow interfering with the separation of church and state. Quite the opposite was happening, he said.
“The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state,” wrote Cardinal George. “The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.”
Previously, Cardinal George had warned that he believes martyrdom is coming for Catholic bishops in this country. “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square,” the cardinal said in 2010.
Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, reflecting on Cardinal George’s words, conceded there might be “some hyperbole” in them, but warned Americans not to dismiss them “too quickly. The “highest levels of our federal government,” Bishop Sheridan said, are trying to push a “Communist understanding of ‘freedom’” on Americans of faith.
“While there may be some hyperbole to Cardinal George’s predictions, they should not be dismissed too quickly,” wrote Bishop Sheridan. “Attempts to push religion out of any meaningful place in public discourse are already being made–and at the highest levels of our federal government. The language of “freedom of religion” is being morphed into an affirmation of “freedom of worship.” It is freedom of worship that we are promised will be upheld by our government officials. In other words, it will certainly be permissible for citizens to pray in their churches or synagogues, but expressions of faith–especially when these are brought to bear on public policy–will not be welcome.
“This was the Communist understanding of ‘freedom’ when it came to people of faith,” wrote Bishop Sheridan. “There were a number of Christian church buildings that remained open in Moscow during the reign of Communism in Russia; and expressions of faith within the walls of those churches were tolerated. But any attempt to teach the faith or live it in the public square was met with harsh rebuke.”
Last Thursday, the Catholic Church began “A Fortnight of Freedom” to protest government attacks on religious liberty. The Fortnight pointedly began on the vigil of the Feasts of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher—both of whom were beheaded by King Henry VIII in 1535 for refusing to take an oath affirming Henry himself as the supreme authority over the church in England.
The Fortnight of Freedom will end on July 4, when the Catholic bishops hope that at 12:00 noon Eastern time Americans all across the nation will go out and ring bells to deliver the message that they want America to remain “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Click here to read the bishops’ unanimous statement, “United for Religious Freedom.”
Click here to read the bishops’ statement, “Our Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-kennedy-our-view-entire-act-us-invalid-its-entirety
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in commenting on the dissent in the Obamacare case said, “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.” He made his remark inside the Court on Thursday.
In the written dissent, it states, “we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.”
President Barack Obama’s signature legislation – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — including the controversial individual mandate requiring that virtually all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty, was ruled constitutional by the U.S Supreme Court (5-4) on Thursday.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberals on the court while the three conservatives and swing-vote Kennedy dissented.
Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer agreed that the penalty Americans will face if they do not abide by the mandate is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing powers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy dissented.
The dissenting opinion reads, “In our view, both these central provisions of the Act — the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion — are invalid.”
The dissenting justices further said, “What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power – upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.”
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/roberts-labels-obama-a-tax-rai.php
Got good news and bad news for you, Mr. President. The good news is that Chief Justice John Roberts just saved your legacy and, perhaps, your presidency by writing for the Supreme Court majority to rule health care reform constitutional.
Bad news is he declared you a tax-raiser.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote in an opinion that said the Constitution’s commerce clause could not be used to save the bill.
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts concluded.
Republicans would have preferred the court overturn the health care bill, an act that would have underscored Obama’s biggest liability — the perception among voters, including those who like and trust him, that he has been ineffective.
But you can count on them to use Roberts’ bill-saving justification to label Obama a tax-and-spend liberal.
“I’m sure they’ll nail us on taxes and I’m sure it will work,” said a senior White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. “But, given the alternative, that’s a bitter pill I’m ready to swallow.”
Was today’s Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.
If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.
Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.
Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn’t think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-did-scotus-just-do_647932.html
| Stocks held their sharp losses across the board Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of President Obama’s health care overhaul. |
| The Supreme Court has upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. |
Good for her! She lost her job but did so with honor. The liberals have done a great job creating a dependent voter base…
| Though none of its reporting is factually correct, the Washington Post still refuses to retract or correct its reporting. And here’s the most galling part: This refusal means that Obama is cleared to continue running ads that make provably false claims about Mitt Romney and Bain. Are you starting to see how this works?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/27/Wapo-refuses-to-retract-romney-bain |
| if you have your head UP YOUR ASS!!!
Obama’s Perverse Plan for Permanent Recession |
Really? Is the National Security Advisor the “Leaker”?!
GOP Eyes National Security Adviser
As Leaker, Calls for Outside Probe
- Republican senators urge Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether the White House is responsible for recent leaks, as they call National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon a likely source.
- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/26/gop-senators-press-holder-for-special-prosecutor-into-potential-national/
| yes a picture says 1000 words….
Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez shake hands – Telegraph |
| “Obama is a radical communist” remember this profit??……http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89612/ |
|
And they thought two immoral behaving people would stay faithful and loyal to each other for the long haul? Homosexuality is not God’s model for sexual behavior and try as humans might, homosexuals will not enjoy the fruits of a loving marriage. The only way to be blessed is to put God first and try to live in rightkeeping with God’s word. Sexual immorality is not in rightkeeping with God. You know it’s true deep down inside.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/06/after-gay-marriage-comes-gay-divorce/53829/
| President’s policies are bent on shattering rule of law … http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/21/obamas-socialist-designs/ |
| Following Supreme Court ruling to strike down part of Arizona immigration law, Obama administration officials suspend program in Arizona that allowed state and local law enforcement to help enforce federal immigration law. |
This week we are likely to see the next act unfold in the ongoing saga of the Fast and Furious investigation as the full House considers whether or not to take any further action regarding the Attorney General’s reticence in handing over documents related to the program. One result of this has been some sadly predictable tongue clucking and accusations from the anti-gun lobby on the Left. The rationale invoked in these screeds is curious at best, but given how common it’s become we should probably take a look at a couple of prime examples. . .
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/24/missing-the-point-on-fast-and-furious/
These fools are keeping us safe?!?
The TSA’s bungling reached a new low yesterday when a JFK Airport terminal had to be evacuated and hundreds of passengers marched back through security screening all because one dimwitted agent failed to realize his metal detector had been unplugged, sources told The Post.
The stunning error led to hours of delays, two planes called back from the runway and infinite frustration for furious passengers.
“The truth is, this is the failure of the most basic level of diligence,” a law-enforcement source said.
Jeffrey Kuhner at Washington Times:
President Obama is gradually transforming America into a socialist authoritarian state. This is the real meaning of his recent decision to grant backdoor amnesty to young illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama is behaving like a Latin American strongman, who asserts arbitrary power and ignores the rule of law. He is assaulting the very pillars of our constitutional republic.
Last week, the administration announced that it will stop deporting young illegal aliens. The policy shift affects as many as 800,000 illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama’s order lifts the fear of deportation. It also grants them work permits. Mr. Obama has waved his magic wand and converted the immigration status of countless aliens, flipping them from illegal to legal residents.
The order applies to those who entered America before the age of 16 and are younger than 30, who have been living here for at least five years, have no violent criminal background, possess a U.S. high school diploma or have served in the military. The policy change is a blatant attempt to bribe the Hispanic vote prior to the November election – a key constituency Mr. Obama must win.
Yet, the order is more than crass partisan politics. It is an ominous usurpation of centralized power – a naked attempt to entrench an imperial presidency. Mr. Obama lacks the legal authority to grant amnesty. He is not a monarch or tyrant with unlimited discretionary authority. Rather, he is confined by our constitutional system of the separation of powers and checks and balances. The Constitution is crystal-clear: Congress has the sole power to craft immigration policy. Mr. Obama’s actions are flagrantly anti-democratic.
His goal is simple: to destroy the American nation. For decades, our supposed betters have encouraged open borders and unlimited Third World immigration. Corporatist Republicans seek to import cheap labor; liberal Democrats want to import millions of potential voters. The middle- and working-class, however, have been decimated. Their wages have eroded, crime has skyrocketed, border states in the South are overwhelmed, and hospitals, schools and welfare services have been strained to the breaking point. Illegal immigration is slowly bankrupting America.
Now Mr. Obama has established a magnet for millions more to come. Aliens know they can wait out Uncle Sam – eventually, amnesty will be granted. U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law and our constitutional republic are being sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism and the creation of a Democrat-ruled one-party state. The administration has whetted the insatiable appetite of leftist Hispanic activists. The logic is inexorable: If a path to legalization can be paved for young illegal immigrants, then why not all 12 million to 20 million aliens in America? Mr. Obama clearly hopes to galvanize the Hispanic community and to build a permanent liberal ruling coalition by massively expanding the Democratic base. Today, it is piecemeal amnesty. Tomorrow, it will be wholesale legalization. The American electorate will be transformed, thereby entrenching Obamaism for decades to come. In short, Mr. Obama is slowly erecting a leftist state.
This is what nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savagehas been warning for years. The combative conservative’s show, “The Savage Nation,” reaches 10 million listeners every week (full disclosure: I have been a guest host on his program). Almost alone among major conservative commentators, Mr. Savage has been sounding the alarm about Mr. Obama’s creeping dictatorship. His latest blockbuster, “Trickle Down Tyranny,” (Harper Collins, 2012) is a must-read. Well-written and concise, the book provides a detailed, comprehensive account of the administration’s rampant corruption and numerous abuses of power.
It has one overarching, central theme: Mr. Obama is a radical leftist carrying out a Venezuela-style revolution. Mr. Savage calls the president a “fiscal Marxist” and a “new Hugo Chavez” determined to dismantle American capitalism and constitutional democracy. Mr. Savagediscusses almost every one of Mr. Obama’s power grabs – Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform, the de facto nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler, the drive to create a “green economy” through administrative fiat, the numerous policy “czars” who have Cabinet-level powers but no accountability or congressional oversight, the National Defense Authorization Act, which enables the president to detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely under suspicion of being a “terrorist,” the push to censor the Internet, the illegal war in Libya, the massive expansion of government through out-of-control spending and record deficits, and the administration’s criminal involvement in gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
According to Mr. Savage, Mr. Obama’s aim in the U.S. is similar to Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin in Russia: to create the Union of Socialist States of America – the U.S.S.A. The president is a Leninist bent on forging a new world order based on economic collectivism, world government and an internationalist ruling class. The key to achieving his dream is to eradicate the American nation. This is why for years Mr. Savage has been pounding the importance of “language, borders and culture.” The ultra-left’s mission is not only an economic revolution, but a cultural one: transforming America into a bilingual, multicultural socialist empire. Mr. Savage understands that the battering ram is massive, unlimited immigration, thereby smashing our historic and demographic core.
Such profound social engineering requires state coercion and centralized rule. We must be compelled to abandon self-government in favor of soft tyranny. This is why Mr. Savage darkly warns that our freedoms may vanish in a second Obama term: “We will very likely not survive as a free nation after four more years under Obama’s rule,” he writes.
Mr. Savage is right. Mr. Obama is a dangerous demagogue, who believes he is above the law. Like many leftists, he is obsessed with amassing power. His amnesty order marks a major step toward an arbitrary statist regime that willfully tramples on the Constitution. The U.S.S.A. is being born.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/21/obamas-socialist-designs/
“Many of those same attendees said the star speaker of the weekend was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who received and a standing ovation. Ambassador Charles Cobb, who served as ambassador to Iceland from 1989 to 1992, said Rice was “spectacular” and described her as a “very bright, sophisticated, articulate lady.”
“Husband-and-wife donors from Los Angeles who did not want to be identified said Rice’s message was one of “America needing to take charge.”
‘”We can’t stand by and let things happen,” the wife said. “If we do, someone else will take that leadership role.”
“They both described her address as an “impassioned plea” for the country to “stand up and take charge.”
“Donor Kent Lucken, an international banker in Boston who moved back to his home state of Iowa for six weeks before the caucuses to help Romney, said “she rocked it.”
0bama wants your birthday, anniversary and bar mitzvah money too… What a scoundrel
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/22/Obama-wedding-registry
Williams is just another race hustler who thinks he’s got a free pass to make unbased comments. Sorry bro, you’re the racist and now you’re suspended!
Speaking of racism, time to take down “African Americans for Obama” at the official campaign site…
Such a positive and uplifting message. Believe in America! MittMittMitt!!!
Romney campaign “100 Days” ads aim at swing states
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/22/romney-campaign-100-days-ads-aim-at-swing-states/
Presidential elections are won in states like these. Usually a challenger doesn’t have the kind of resources to produce a tailored array of ads, especially positive ads, until the convention. Romney’s fundraising has given him an advantage over the usual rhythms of the cycle, and his team appears to be putting those resources to good use.
On June 13, the CBS Evening News devoted a story by David Martin to the Afghanistan death count reaching 2,000, as Martin interviewed a mother of a fallen Marine. CBS was alone. There was no story last week on the Afghanistan death “milestone” on ABC, NBC, the PBS NewsHour – or even on the MSNBC programs found in Nexis, including Rachel “Our Military’s In a Perilous Drift” Maddow.
But the networks were all more aggressive when the 2,000 mark arrived in Iraq on October 25, 2005. The Big Three networks devoted 14 morning and evening news stories to the death toll from October 24 through the end of October, and another 24 anchor briefs or mentions. They used the number to spell “disaster for this White House.”
CBS offered five reports and ten additional briefs or mentions of the 2,000 figure. David Martin filed a sad story on the 2,000 mark in both wars, the only sign of consistency among the networks. (The 2012 Martin report aired in the last five minutes of the program and never included the word “Obama.”)
(**CONTENT WARNING: BELOW VIDEO NOT SAFE FOR WORK**)Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is desperate. With even Roll Call recognizing that President Obama is fighting an uphill battle for re-election, Orszag is floating a trial balloon: mandatory voting. His call for forced voting comes in an op/ed for Bloomberg News: |
| “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” — President Obama, March 28, 2011 Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations — granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits — thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing. Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused. When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. . . . But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’s exclusive Article I power to legislate. With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano. This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for. The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons — a class of 800,000 — who, regardless of individual circumstance, are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria. This is not discretion. This is a fundamental rewriting of the law. Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.) It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law. It is shameful that congressional Democrats are applauding such a brazen end run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness. As for policy, I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the Dream Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on the Dream Act poster child, the straight-A valedictorian who rescues kittens from trees. First, offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can hide just long enough, their children will one day freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for yet more illegal immigration. But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.” Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs. |
U.S. Border Agent Brian A. Terry, shot and killed on Dec. 14, 2010, near Rio Rico, Arizona, while trying to catch bandits who target illegal immigrants.
The family of slain U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry strongly criticized President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder for withholding information about Operation Fast and Furious, the botched gun-walking program that allowed thousands of guns to end up in the hands of drug cartels; two of the weapons were found at the crime scene where agent Terry was killed in December 2010.
In a statement released on Wednesday, the Terry family said, “Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation of Fast and Furious.”
Operation Fast and Furious, a Justice Department program, began in September 2009 and allowed nearly 2,000 guns to flow into Mexico with the intent of tracking the guns to drug cartel leaders. The operation was halted when two of the guns in the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
After nearly a full day of debate by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on holding Holder in contempt of Congress, the committee made the Terry family’s statement a part of the congressional record. Before the hearing, President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege to protect some Fast and Furious documents from being released.
The Terry family attorney Pat McGroder issued a statement to the media regarding the Obama administration’s actions.
“Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound the tragedy,” the statement said. “It denied the Terry family and the American people the truth. Our son, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation.”
“For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability,” the Terry family statement continued. “The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation of Fast and Furious.”
Publius Prime 