State of the Union Address 2013: Views From a Bitter Clinger

obamamyworkLast night, I took a big swig of Maalox, and proceeded to force myself to watch President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) deliver what was possibly the worst, most divisive, most arrogant State of the Union Address of all time.

From the very start to the much anticipated end, the Prevaricator-in-chief wove a web of vagarities, exaggerations, and downright lies, that caused Goebbels, Lenin, and Marx to smile. They are extra crispy where they are…but, they still smiled.

Among the things he touched on, was, of course, increasing the Government’s “revenue”.

For those of you who are low-information voters, that means he wants to take more of YOUR take-home pay.

He went on to engage in more Class Warfare, speaking as if he wished to levy more taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens.

You remember them. They are the ones who hire you and me, so that we may provide for our families.

In fact, he even started channeling Franklin Delano Roosevelt, suggesting that we put Americans to work repairing our bridges and roads, essentially reviving the WPA.

If you were listening to ol’ Scooter last night, you grasped that he truly believes that a Government that intrudes into our lives from cradle-to-grave, is the answer for every single problem that our country faces.

The greatest President of my generation, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said,

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.

and

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

By burdening Americans with more taxes, Obama and the Democrats are intentionally stifling American Entrepreneurs and small businessmen, who are the backbone of our economy.

Obama wants our blessed country to be just another socialist nation.

Heck, last night, he even said that we should be like Rangoon!

Giving the GOP’s resonse last night, Senator Marco Rubio said,

This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs. Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems.

Obama touched on education last night.

He stated that he wants all 4 year olds to be in government-run pre-schools, where they will be fed full of socialist propaganda, and taught to shun good old-fashioned American morals and values.

He didn’t actually say that last part, but, that is exactly what will happen. Our children would be programmed. The State would be their Nanny.

He also stated that he wants to re-design America’s high schools.

Tell you what, Scooter…let’s start teaching American kids to read and write, first. Shall we?

Then, he moved to the two most important (to the Liberals) issues of the night: Amnesty (err…Path to Citizenship) and Gun Confiscation (errr…Gun Control).

Regarding making illegal immigrants American citizens, Obama said,

Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration’s already made, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years. Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship, a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.

Sounds fairly decent, right?

However, you and I both know that’s not what is going to happen. The Liberals will eventually attempt to push through some sort of blanket amnesty, before the Mid-term Elections, in order to manufacture a plethora of new Democratic Voters.

Then, came the most garish and inappropriate moment of the entire night. I thought I was viewing the late Paul Wellstone’s Funeral, all over again.

In their unfettered zeal to take away guns from law-abiding Americans, Obama, and Liberals from both sides of the aisles, invoked the memory of a precious young 15 year old girl from Obama’s hometown of Chicago, who was viciously killed by a bunch of gang-banging thugs. Here’s the transcript. I hope you haven’t eaten recently.

Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource, our children. It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence, but this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans — Americans who believe in the Second Amendment — have come together around commonsense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators…

(APPLAUSE)

Senators — senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

Now…

(APPLAUSE)

If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote, because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. More than a thousand. One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette.

She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

(APPLAUSE)

The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote.

(APPLAUSE)

They deserve — they deserve a simple vote. Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all of the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect.

(Dons Lt. Columbo’s raincoat, raises eyebrow and finger, and says,) Mr. President, may I ask a question of you, sir? How will taking away the guns of law-abidng citizens, stop low-life thugs and criminals from murdering another wonderful young person like Hadiya, or the little children in Newtown?

Answer: IT WON’T.

But, then again, that’s never the goal of a Socialist Government when they confiscate citizens’ guns. Is it?

Joe Wilson was right.

Until He comes,

KJ

The Great and Powerful Obama (Pay No Attention to the Marxist Behind the Curtain)

obamamyworkAs I was sitting at my keyboard, waiting for some sort of divine inspiration, as often happens, something struck me (and no, it wasn’t my lovely bride backhanding me to take out the garbage).

Take a look at everything that President Barack Hussein Obama has been pushing since his misbegotten re-election:

1.) Gun Confiscation

2.) Amnesty for Illegal Immigration

3.) Gay Marriage (even in our National Cathedral)

4.) Fighter Jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

5.) Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense

6.) John Kerry as Secretary of State

7. ) And last, but not least, raising taxes on EVERYBODY

This is HOPE AND CHANGE?

Obama ascended to the throne of the Regime during a period when our nation was experiencing a period of economic recession, by appealing to the masses by promising that if he was elected, the oceans would rise and fall, the sun would come out tomorrow (Hey, that sounds like a song. Oh…never mind.) and everybody would receive a unicorn in their backyard. (Okay. He didn’t really promise that. But, heck, he promised everything else.)

Obama definitely has a mission. But what is it?

I mean, it’s not as radical as Valdimir Lenin’s was, is it?

Lenin endeavored to gain support by broadcasting slogans such as “Bread, Land, Peace and All Power to the Soviets.” To people suffering from famine, this promise hit the spot. Yet in elections for the Russian Constituent Assembly in late November 1917, only a quarter of voters cast ballots for the Bolsheviks. Lenin overturned the results and sent armed guards to prevent meetings of the democratic assembly. This made it virtually impossible for the Russian people to voice their concerns in a democratic way.

The years from 1917 to 1920 became known as “war communism” due to the methods the Bolsheviks used to push their political agenda. In 1918, the party was renamed the Russian Communist Party. Lenin and his communist cohorts endeavored to put Marx’s tenets of belief into practice. This marked the beginning of the Russian Civil War, which lasted from 1918 until 1922. When the war ended, the Soviet Union formed — also known as the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Union included Russia and 15 bordering states.

Lenin was aware that the upper class wouldn’t willingly give up land or wealth, so he created the New Economic Policy (NEP) to legislate redistributing land — taking it from the nobility and giving it to the poor. Upholding the necessary phases that Marx outlined, Lenin initiated the Red Terror, a threatening fear campaign led by the Bolsheviks. His goal was mass murder, which he accomplished through three main methods.

Man-made famine was Lenin’s most successful tool. He knew that if he could break the peasantry, he’d have full control. Lenin engineered famines by requiring peasants to sell their crops to him at virtually no profit, using the rationale that he needed the crops to support his army. The peasantry was so indignant that they reduced crop production drastically, leading to a full-scale civil war. The exact numbers vary, but tens of millions of people starved and millions died.

Lenin also instituted slave labor camps. Anyone who disagreed with Lenin’s rule was sent to work at one of these camps, where millions more suffered and died

And, he executed his detractors to silence their voices. During the Red Terror, hundreds of thousands of detractors were put to death. Victims included members of the bourgeoisie, White Army prisoners of war, socialists, Czarist sympathizers and innocent civilians.

I know. The guillotines have not been set up…yet. And, citizens have not been sent to Siberian internment camps…yet.

However…

With the support of a once-noble political party that has been taken over by Far Left Radicals, and a once-objective Fourth Estate, which has morphed into a government-backed propaganda arm, flooding television, radio, internet, and print sources with Obama worship, misinformation, and downright lies, about both the Lightbringer’s accomplishments and anyone who dares to oppose him (ask Sarah Palin…and Mitt Romney), that the shear audacity of it all would make Goebbels blush, Obama has been able to begin the process of turning “the shining city on a hill” into a third-world barrio, and the transformation of the Greatest Country in the World into just another Democratic Socialist nation, such as can be found in Europe.

Norman Mattoon Thomas, six-time Socialist candidate for president, said the following in a 1944 speech:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened … The Democratic Party has adopted our (Socialist) platform.

And…here we are. So, what now? Do we just give up and say, even so, Lord Jesus, quickly come?

Well…while I look forward to the day the trump will sound, in the meanwhile, I am still living in a sacred, God-given country, whose Founders not only believed in The Creator, but, also acknowledged Him in our Founding Documents.

During his radio program on January 18th, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement of guarded optimism:

I have a sense that it’s gonna be okay. I can’t get specific, and I know it flies in the face of reality. I don’t know anymore than that. I’m not a soothsayer, nor am I a seer. I can’t predict the future. But I’m fairly confident — and it’s not because of the second term tradition that happens to every president. Some scandal or something comes along and distracts them and takes down the president. I’m not putting faith in anything like that.

…I just think that it is going to be an event or series of events that reorients people in the way they’re looking at Obama. I do think that’s gonna happen, and it’s not gonna happen because I sit here and tell people who he is and what he’s like. I’ve been doing that for four years, and so have a lot of other people. Now, I’m not saying the four years have been wasted. We’ve built the foundation.

When the event or events happen that bring about this reality that I think is gonna occur, having this foundation, people saying, “Oh, yeah! You know what? Maybe they were right” is gonna happen. “You know, I should have listened to what Limbaugh or somebody else was saying.” Maybe it is a little overreaching, going too far. It’s rooted in a belief that a lot of people — and I don’t know how many and I don’t know if it’s a majority.

But certainly a lot of people voted for Obama having no idea what was really going to happen. Now, that could be blind faith. I try never to tell myself stories. Constantly. I never tell myself feel-good stories. I try to remain grounded in Realville where I’m the mayor every day. But I do believe that a lot of people will see this. We saw the first wave of this, by the way, when the paychecks went out and the take-home pay was smaller because the tax cut on payroll taxes was restored.

There’s gonna be more as Obamacare implements. At some point, all of these economic policies are going to hit. At some point the government, the Federal Reserve or somebody, is gonna run out of tricks to delay what’s coming. What’s coming is gonna eventually happen. Reality will eventually triumph here, and when it does I think it’s what’s gonna constitute this.

I’m not saying sit back and ignore everything else and don’t oppose Obama. I’m saying nothing like that. I don’t want anybody to get nervous here. I’m not gonna do that. I’m not waving the white flag and I’m not surrendering. I think the Republicans are. I think you better get used to the fact there isn’t going to be any serious legislative opposition to Obama for the next year. If there is and I’m pleasantly surprised, cool.

I agree with Maha Rushie. It is rough out there…and going to get rougher. 

However, by the Grace of God, and the indomitable will of the American people, we can turn this around.

Never give up. Never surrender.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Propose “Pathway to Citizenship”…and the Voting Booth.

illegalsmarchIn preparation for Obama’s In-Your-Face Second Term Blitz, word has escaped that our Manchurian President and his minions are going to tackle the “issue” of Illegal Immigration…and create a lot of Democrat Voters.

The New York Times reports

President Obama plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.

Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats will propose the changes in one comprehensive bill, the officials said, resisting efforts by some Republicans to break the overhaul into smaller pieces — separately addressing young illegal immigrants, migrant farmworkers or highly skilled foreigners — which might be easier for reluctant members of their party to accept.

The president and Democrats will also oppose measures that do not allow immigrants who gain legal status to become American citizens one day, the officials said.

Even while Mr. Obama has been focused on fiscal negotiations and gun control, overhauling immigration remains a priority for him this year, White House officials said. Top officials there have been quietly working on a broad proposal. Mr. Obama and lawmakers from both parties believe that the early months of his second term offer the best prospects for passing substantial legislation on the issue.

Mr. Obama is expected to lay out his plan in the coming weeks, perhaps in his State of the Union address early next month, administration officials said. The White House will argue that its solution for illegal immigrants is not an amnesty, as many critics insist, because it would include fines, the payment of back taxes and other hurdles for illegal immigrants who would obtain legal status, the officials said.

The president’s plan would also impose nationwide verification of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow highly skilled immigrants to stay; and create some form of guest-worker program to bring in low-wage immigrants in the future.

A bipartisan group of senators has also been meeting to write a comprehensive bill, with the goal of introducing legislation as early as March and holding a vote in the Senate before August. As a sign of the keen interest in starting action on immigration, White House officials and Democratic leaders in the Senate have been negotiating over which of them will first introduce a bill, Senate aides said.

“This is so important now to both parties that neither the fiscal cliff nor guns will get in the way,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democrat who is a leader of the bipartisan discussions.

A couple of years back, the following allegorical story went viral.  You may have seen this already, but it explains illegal immigration as succinctly as anything I have come across:

Let’s pretend I broke into your house.  When you discover me there, you insist I leave.  But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Former Texas Democratic Representative Barbara Jordan was a big believer in assimilation. During her time on Capitol Hill, she chaired the US Commission on Immigration Reform.

In their 1997 Report, which they dedicated to Rep. Jordan, published after her passing, they wrote the following principles:

We believe these truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality:

*American unity depends upon a widely-held belief in the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; and representative government;

*Lawfully-admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality—without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion—truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values;

*Ethnic and religious diversity based on personal freedom is compatible with national unity; and

*The nation is strengthened when those who live in it communicate effectively with each other in English, even as many persons retain or acquire the ability to communicate in other languages.

As long as we live by these principles and help newcomers to learn and practice them, we will continue to be a nation that benefits from substantial but well-regulated immigration.

The great Michelle Malkin recently added,

Those principles have been abandoned, scorned, and sabotaged. You have not heard an iota about them from Washington. It is the erosion of Americanization and the ascendancy of the collectivists that helped create the conditions for Election Day.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for even greater GOP losses at at the ballot box.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for the furtherance of American decline.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The GOP Pushes Amnesty. The Base Pushes Back.

The Republican Party has figured out why Mitt Romney lost the election. No, gentle reader, it’s not because some of us mean old Conservatives stayed home because Romney was a Moderate.

Nope. The Republican Brain Trust has decided that the reason Romney lost, is because Republicans haven’t bought into the fight for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In fact, the GOP Elite have all declared that they’ve “evolved” on the issue.

“Evolved? ” Into what? A Democrat?

Gee Whiz, GOP. Just rename yourselves The Democratic Party II, and get it over with.

Victor Davis Hanson, writing for nationalreview.com, makes an excellent point:

Imagine, for a minute, that the Republican leadership did attempt to negotiate the “grand bargain,” a platitude as constantly voiced as it is never defined. If Republicans were willing to grant DREAM Act–like amnesty, what exactly would they ask for in exchange? The completion of the border fence? Employer fines? E-Verify? Deportation of millions of “unDREAM” illegal immigrants who do not meet the above criteria?

For all practical purposes, “comprehensive reform” means granting amnesty but also leaving the border fence uncompleted, having a guest-worker program, and issuing green cards to millions of illegal residents. If we were to deport the tens of thousands of Mexican nationals in our prisons, or the hundreds of thousands on some form of public assistance, does anyone believe that would win over the Latino leadership? The Reagan-era (1986) Simpson-Mazzoli Act (which required employers to verify immigration status, and which also amnestied about 3 million illegals) led to greater influxes from Mexico, did not stop calls for more amnesties, and certainly did not swell Latino support for Republicans.

Among most Mexican-Americans that I know there may have been just as much outrage at Romney for advocating legal immigration based on skills and education rather than family ties, as there was furor for his talk of “self-deportation.” Is it not hurtful (and seen as racist) to prefer that someone immigrate from Slovakia with an engineering degree and some capital rather than from Oaxaca with no money and without a high-school diploma? Under the present system, a Mexican national who is an unskilled worker can massage citizenship far more easily by virtue of ethnic clout and kindred ties to a Mexican-American than can a South Korean dentist or Greek doctor or Hungarian capitalist. Why would Mexican-Americans not favor such a system, and why would they not resent Republicans who advocated legal immigration based on higher education and specialized skills? Are the new Republican centrists to win the Latino vote by avoiding talk about basing legal immigration largely on criteria other than ethnic and family affiliations?

A couple of years back, the following allegorical story went viral.  You may have seen this already, but it explains illegal immigration as succinctly as anything I have come across:

Let’s pretend I broke into your house.  When you discover me there, you insist I leave.  But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, expect for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Former Texas Democratic Representative Barbara Jordan was a big believer in assimilation. During her time on Capitol Hill, she chaired the US Commission on Immigration Reform.

In their 1997 Report, which they dedicated to Rep. Jordan, published after her passing, they wrote the following principles:

We believe these truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality:

*American unity depends upon a widely-held belief in the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; and representative government;

*Lawfully-admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality—without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion—truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values;

*Ethnic and religious diversity based on personal freedom is compatible with national unity; and

*The nation is strengthened when those who live in it communicate effectively with each other in English, even as many persons retain or acquire the ability to communicate in other languages.

As long as we live by these principles and help newcomers to learn and practice them, we will continue to be a nation that benefits from substantial but well-regulated immigration.

The great Michelle Malkin adds,

Those principles have been abandoned, scorned, and sabotaged. You have not heard an iota about them from Washington. It is the erosion of Americanization and the ascendancy of the collectivists that helped create the conditions for Election Day.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for even greater GOP losses at at the ballot box.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for the furtherance of American decline.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now.  Republicans in the House and Senate, and in the Halls of Power in Washington, need to quit playing political games.  The safety of America is at stake .

The Democrats promised that the border would be secured, if Reagan signed off on Amnesty in 1986, and did not keep their end of the bargain.  GOP, what makes you believe that you can trust them in 2012?

If you feel you must, work out your “Pathway to Citizenship”, later. They are not going to vote for you anyway, GOP.

SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

P.S. I’m not “evolving”. While I am striving to be a better Christian man every day, God loves me just the way I am.

Until He comes,

KJ

Anticipation…It’s Makin’ Me Wait…

Sitting here on a Sunday night, wondering what to write about, I realized that this is the week that could provide a double “death blow” to Obama’s sorry excuse of a presidency. And now, I probably won’t sleep a lick tonight.

The Washington Post reports that

The Supreme Court this week will conclude its term by handing down much-anticipated rulings on health careand immigration, President Obama’s remaining priorities before the justices. It is a finale that cannot come quickly enough for the administration, which has had a long year at the high court.

In a string of cases — as obscure as the federal government’s relationships with Indian tribes and as significant as enforcement of the Clean Water Act — the court rejected the administration’s legal arguments with lopsided votes and sometimes biting commentary.

The administration’s win-loss record will sting a lot less, of course, if the court upholds the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. That decision on health care, which will define the term, could come as early as Monday and almost certainly will be announced by Thursday.

The court also will decide the fate of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, which the Obama administration challenged in court before it could take effect. The government’s argument that the law conflicts with the federal authority to decide immigration policy got a sour reception from the justices, but the government hopes for at least a split decision on other aspects of the measure.

The administration’s ungainly portfolio at the Supreme Court this term has drawn attention from all points on the ideological spectrum.

Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the government is to blame for “outlandish claims of federal power” that the court was correct to reject.

Adam Winkler, a liberal law professor at UCLA, recently wrote that the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been “unusually hostile to the Obama administration.”

His conclusion: “This is the year of the Supreme Court’s Obama smack down.”

It might also have something to do with the (bad) luck of the draw. It is the job of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. to defend the actions of Congress and the executive. In some of the government’s high-profile losses in Verrilli’s inaugural term, the administration was defending decisions made long before Obama took office.

But whatever the reasons, the losses so far cannot be blamed on the conflict between an increasingly conservative court and a progressive administration. For instance, the authors of the Indian cases that went against the government last week were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s choices for the court.

At least so far, 5-to-4 decisions that have divided the court along ideological lines have split fairly evenly between wins for liberals and for conservatives. And there has been a string of high-profile losses in which the government has failed to win the vote of a single justice — liberal or conservative.

The New York Times has their own Liberal Spin on the fate of Obamacare…and it appears to this humble blooger that these Yankees are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Late on Tuesday, March 27, halfway around the world, President Obama began one of the most suspenseful waits in recent presidential history.

After a blur of nuclear security meetings in South Korea, Mr. Obama settled into the Air Force One conference room to read a summary aides had written of that day’s arguments before the Supreme Court back in Washington. The justices had asked deeply skeptical questions about his health care law.

Mr. Obama’s most profound policy achievement was at much higher risk of defeat than his aides had expected, vulnerable to being erased by the margin of a single justice’s vote.

Since then, Mr. Obama and the White House have put on brave faces, insisting that the law and the mandate at its center will be upheld when the court rules this month. In private conversations, they predict that the bulk of the law will survive even if the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance does not.

But even if the White House is a fortress of message discipline, it cannot disguise the potential heartbreak for Mr. Obama, who managed to achieve a decades-old Democratic dream despite long odds and at steep cost.

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview.

On the day the ruling comes out, one Obama adviser joked, “I might have to clean out my sock drawer.”

In grappling with what the court may do, Mr. Obama and his advisers now appear to be far past the denial stage (when they dismissed constitutional challenges) but nowhere near acceptance (they still believe the law will be upheld.) Instead, they have quietly entered a surprising new state that might be called Learning to Live Without Universal Coverage.

Former advisers are emphasizing the many aspects of the bill that are not connected to the mandate, like the subsidies to buy insurance. Some aides even argue privately that losing the mandate could be a political boon, because it would rob Republicans of their core complaint against the law.

But that position is uncomfortable for a deeper reason, one that goes to the core of who Mr. Obama wanted to be as president. Earlier in his term, he refused every chance to settle for the more limited health care overhaul that the Supreme Court may now effectively deliver, making epic sacrifices to win something far broader.

Or, geniuses, they could toss out the whole cotton-pickin’ abomination…if we’re lucky.

Obama and Romney Vie for Illegals’ Votes

I knew a fellow named Jose several years ago.  Jose’s family had immigrated from Puerto Rico to Milwaukee when he was 6 years old.  When we met, he lived in Northeastern Mississippi with his wife and 3 children.  Jose had a good job at Fed Ex.  Then, he got laid off.

After he lost his job, Jose became a handy man to make ends meet.  He mowed yards and painted houses.  He wound up with a solid business.

One time, when he was painting a room for me, I asked Jose about illegal immigration.  A grimace came over his usually smiling face.  He said that he resented these people sneaking into this country, while he and so many others, came in the right way.

Then there’s George.  George is a 3rd generation Hispanic American.  George served in Vietnam, and now lives outside of Detroit, after retiring from GM.  George can’t speak a word of Spanish.  A few summers ago, George was riding his Harley all the way to Arizona to visit a buddy whom he served with.  My bride and I were dating at the time.  Since George is married to her cousin, he spent the night at my place.

We talked all afternoon.  While we were talking, I asked George what he thought about the “newcomers”.  He said they needed to become citizens, period.

He was right.

However, I don’t think that he meant the way President Barack Hussein Obama wants to git-r-done.

The Obama Administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Obama said the measure would “lift the shadow of deportation” from immigrants, some of who have made “extraordinary contributions” by “serving in our military and protecting our freedom.”

“That we would treat them as expendable makes no sense,” Obama said.

“They study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods … they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds … and in every single way but one: on paper.”

Obama was briefly interrupted by a reporter during his statement, a rare breach of protocol that caused the president to lose his temper.

“Excuse me sir, it’s not time for questions, sir, not while I’m speaking,” Obama said.

Later in his statement, Obama, pointing his finger at the reporter in front of the live TV cameras, said: “And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I prefer you to let me finish by statements before you ask a question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people. I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question.”

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the “prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children” argued that those covered by the order “only know this country as home.” It said these people “lacked the intent to violate the law.”

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

Never fear, Americans.  Mitt Romney will save us from this unconstitutional abuse of power!

Err…ahhh…never mind:

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney suggested Friday that he was open to helping young illegal immigrants but said the new policy announced Friday by the Obama administration to suspend their deportations complicates efforts to find a permanent solution.

“I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,” Romney told reporters after a rally in New Hampshire. “I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution,” noting the new policy “could be reversed by subsequent presidents. I’d like to see legislation that deals with this issue.

His comments represented a sharp change in rhetoric from the Republican primaries, when Romney repeatedly sought to outflank his rivals with a hard line on illegal immigration.

I have a question for Scooter and Mittens…

What part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural born or naturalized American citizens. In fact, their entry into this sacred land is no better than that of someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking. This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way. Illegal immigration reminds me of the amorous boyfriend who wants everything a young woman will give him, but will leave her at the first mention of marriage.  This is not a civil rights issue. Illegals do not have the same rights as American citizens. With our rights, come the responsibilities of being an American citizen.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, expect for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

But, hey…I guess that’s just me.