By Christopher Koeber on 7/30/2009 10:33 PM

So says conservative detective Doctor Zero...

Personal corruption is not the worst aspect of elite disregard for the law. The growth of the modern super-state has been assisted by the State's increasing appetite for circumventing or disregarding legal restrictions on its power, most obviously the Constitution. Things have degenerated to the point where no one even bothers asking how President Obama's trillion-dollar "stimulus" plans, nationalized health insurance, or industrial takeovers can be justified under the Constitution - which is not just a dead letter, but a ghostly outline in the dust where a dead letter used to be. When Texas governor Rick Perry spoke of invoking the Tenth Amendment to resist Obama's federal power grabs, he was dismissed by the media as a hopeless eccentric, as is the Tea Party protest movement. The media very much sees itself as part of the ruling class, and they regard the notion of restraining government "progress" with antiquated laws, written by dead white males in powdered wigs, as ridiculous. Even when the State does find itself on uncomfortable legal terrain, it can always find a more agreeable climate in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution. The Left has been describing the Constitution as a "living document" for many years, and all living things can be taught to perform tricks.

Doctor Zero babbling about how President Obama is supposedly shredding the Constitution by asking Congress to pass laws.



 

Unlike President Bush ...

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts...

Read More »

By Christopher Koeber on 7/30/2009 5:05 PM

So here we have the President of the United States trying to address racial profiling on the national level and get people to look at an issue far too long ignored and yet:

… did you notice that when things went bad on the public relations front for a proud "black scholar" and the country's first African-American president, all of a sudden everybody was Irish? What gives? Are they essentially blaming their race-baiting knee-jerk statements on this one particular singled-out slice of ancestry? If so, this isn't the kind of racial "healing" I was hoping for.

Michelle Malkin implying that President Obama and Professor Gates are using Irish customs to cover up bad publicity.



 

Seriously. Bringing two sides together to address the issue in a civilized manner translates to "the President is playing 'cover your a$$!".

Then we have…

Alternate headline: "Teachable Moment Results In Nothing Much Learned." I'll be away from the computer while The Drink-up That Saved America is happening, sad to say, but we need a thread open so that commenters can document the inevitable media cooing about The One's "brewski diplomacy" or "suds summit" or whatever stupid name they're cooking up for this stunt. No presser or public statement is being planned by the participants as far as I know, but some reporter's bound to corner Gates or Crowley afterwards outside the White House for the obligatory "productive discussion" soundbite.

Allahpundit calling this discussion a stunt.



Yep. Discussing an issue that affects Blacks each and every day is a stunt. A bad, socialist Irish ploy that will allow terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to invade the US and impose government bureaucrats on us all.

...

Read More »

By Christopher Koeber on 7/16/2009 6:37 PM

So I am sent this article in the mail about how “Gay is not the new black” which, in essence, says:

The 40th anniversary of Stonewall dominated Gay Pride celebrations around the country, and while that is certainly a significant moment that should be recognized, 40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people have been through in this country. There are stories some blacks lived through, stories others were told by their parents and stories that never had a chance to be told.

While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated. The 13th Amendment was signed in 1865, and it wasn't until 1948 that President Harry S. Truman desegregated the military. That's more than an 80-year gap.

Not to be flip, but Miley Cyrus is older than Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell." That doesn't mean that the safety of gay people should be trivialized or that Obama should not be held accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail. But to call this month's first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders "too little too late" is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.

Even though that was the core of the article, I can sum it up even further: Blacks had to endure more, so STFU gays.

Nothing is worse than one group of people holding their horrendous treatment over another group with pride; as if that will help either group succeed in their struggles or even reach common ground.

Needless to say, the author...

Read More »

By Christopher Koeber on 7/16/2009 2:49 PM

So he is telling Obama to slow down.

Hopefully when they meet Obama politely tells him to STFU, do your job, and get people the healthcare they need.

By Christopher Koeber on 7/16/2009 2:42 PM

The Republicans love to advocate for local and state rights except when places like the District of Columbia tries to, you know, actually exercise those rights.

By Christopher Koeber on 7/16/2009 2:26 PM

A phenomenally weak majority leader.

Today, Harry whines when others try to do the job for him.

We need someone who:

1. understands the difference between negotiating and appeasement.
2. holds his/her fellow Senators’ feet to the fire.
3. doesn’t recycle debunked talking points in order to seem bi-partisan.

By Christopher Koeber on 7/16/2009 2:06 PM

1. The Wingnut camp are idiots.
2. We need more principle and less bi-partisanship on our side of the aisle.

By Christopher Koeber on 7/15/2009 9:21 PM

What the right is complaining about when Obama cuts useless or bloated programs at the Pentagon.

After repealing DADT Obama needs to start reversing the “Buy Big Guns to Compensate for Lack of Ideas” ideology of the military.

By Christopher Koeber on 7/15/2009 5:23 PM

Apparently, Michelle Malkin and Wingnuts Incorporated think that by forcing Congress to adopt Obama’s healthcare plan the plan will go down in flames:

If socialized medicine is good enough to force on American taxpayers, it’s good enough for Congress. I like this House resolution from Rep. John Fleming requiring lawmakers in Washington to enroll in any government-run health plan it decides to foist on the rest of us.

Except one small problem for the master plan of Malkin and Co; they are already on the evil, socialist, anti-God government-provided healthcare system:

“They're all covered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which is a good menu of plans…”

Try harder, GOP…

By Christopher Koeber on 7/15/2009 12:24 PM

So according to Ed Morrissey Obama has problems nominating competent judges to the Supreme Court:

What do these bad reviews for Sotomayor mean?  It doesn’t mean she won’t get confirmed.  The White House has no intention of closing this show now and admitting defeat, and the Senate Democrats won’t let Sotomayor fail in order to protect their new President.  However, her performance adds fuel to the Republican argument that Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor not because she was the best possible candidate and not because she was a moderate, but strictly for political purposes.  None of this will affect her tenure on the Supreme Court, but it will provide further evidence that Obama has a big problem in selecting people for his administration, and that there seems to be little effort at vetting nominees for important positions.

Really, Ed?

Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court Nomination:

The nomination almost immediately drew criticism, virtually all of it from within the President's own party: David Frum castigated an "unforced error", and Robert Bork denounced it a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who’ve been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years." Hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to begin on November 7, and members of the Republican leadership had stated before the nomination that they aimed to have the nominee confirmed before Thanksgiving (November 24). Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005.

Why does logic, facts, and history hate Ed Morrissey?