Tag: Obama

The most divisive president in U.S. History.

Romney: “A Better America Begins Tonight!”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Last night, “inevitable” Republican Nominee Willard Mitt Romney won primaries in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Minutes after he delivered the following speech, New York was added to his delegate count.

“After 43 primaries and caucuses, many long days and more than a few long nights, I can say with confidence – and gratitude – that you have given me a great honor and solemn responsibility,” Romney told supporter at the Radisson hotel in downtown Manchester.

“To all of the thousands of good and decent Americans I’ve met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance,” Romney added. “To all of you, I have a simple message: Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight.”

Peppering his speech with such terms as “destiny” and appealing to traditional American notions of hard work and sacrifice, Romney steered clear of any political issue except the stuttering economy and the enduring pain of strapped Americans.

At one point, he paid homage to the campaign slogans of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in their bids to defeat an incumbent president during economic turmoil.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one?” he said, as the crowd cheered “NO!”

“Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more AT your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Are you paying less at the pump?”

“It’s still about the economy,” Romney added, bluntly. “And we’re not stupid.”

Romney also attempted to reintroduce himself to a national electorate that may not have been following the twists and turns of the Republican primary. He talked about his business successes, his wife, and his father – adding that he would bore the country with tales of his grandchildren.

“You might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true,” Romney said. “You might not have heard that our business helped start other businesses, like Staples and Sports Authority and a new steel mill and a learning center called Bright Horizons.”

In what is essentially the crux of his campaign going forward, he added, “After 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery.”

“The Legacy” faces an uphill battle.

Per gallup.com:

Barack Obama’s job approval rating has increased in recent days and now stands at 50% in Gallup Daily tracking for April 21-23.

The 50% approval mark is notable because all incumbent presidents since Eisenhower who were at or above 50% approval at the time of the election were re-elected. Obama’s job approval rating has typically been in the mid-40% range for the last three months.

Obama reached 50% briefly earlier this month, but that soon dissipated, perhaps due to mixed news in the government’s April 6 unemployment report after largely positive reports in the prior two months. In recent days, Obama appears to be more solidly around 50%, averaging at least 49% approval in each of the last four individual nights of Gallup polling.

One possible reason for Obama’s recent rise is the decline in gas prices, which some analysts believe could indicate that prices have peaked. Rising gas prices have often been associated with a decline in presidential approval ratings.

Obama’s increased approval coincides with his taking a lead, 49% to 42%, over Mitt Romney in Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters’ 2012 presidential election preferences. That marks a shift from last week, when Romney held an edge in Gallup tracking.

The seven-percentage-point Obama advantage in April 19-23 Gallup Daily tracking, based on interviews with more than 2,100 registered voters, also represents the largest lead Obama has held over Romney in Gallup polling on 2012 election preferences, dating back to last August.

Obama’s lead is owing in large part to his improved standing among independent voters. In April 11-15 Gallup tracking, Romney was up, 45% to 39%, among independent voters. Now, Obama holds a 45% to 43% edge among this group.

Democrats and Republicans still overwhelmingly back their own party’s candidate, although Obama may have improved slightly, and Romney declined slightly, among their respective parties’ loyalists over the past week.

The biggest challenge Romney faces…is himself.

His political history turns off voters.

In Ohio, 63 percent of Romney voters say that they are voting against Obama, with just 29 percent voting for Romney. And in Florida, a majority of Romney voters (52 percent) are voting against Obama as well.

So, you’re saying to yourself, “what difference does that make, KJ?”  At least we will be rid of Obama!

That’s true.  And, at this point, one would think that a finger-painting chimp could beat Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

The problem is, what happens if Mitt does pull it off, and becomes our 45th president?

If Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids, will Romney be the second coming of Reagan or Bush on steroids? (Not W…H.W.)

Why is it so hard to elect a Conservative?

Last night Mitt declared:

A better America begins tonight!

Wonderful, Mitt.  What’s your platform?  What’s your plan?

Americans want to know.

Obama: From Cairo to Arab Spring

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

On June 4, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama, spoke the following words of reconciliation to representatives of the Muslim World, who were gathered at the University of Cairo in Egypt:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Fast forward to April of 2012, where Michael Hirsh, writing the following post for nationaljournal.com, seems to believe that Obama’s predilection for reconciliation with the Muslim World is something new:

In an article in the current National Journal called “The Post Al Qaida Era,” I write that the Obama administration is taking a new view of Islamist radicalism. The president realizes he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively “moderate” Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. (The Muslim Brotherhood officially renounced violence decades ago, leading then-dissident radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri to join al Qaida.)

It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists. “The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama’s savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

Some of the smarter hardliners on the Right, like Reuel Marc Gerecht, are coming to realize that the Arab world may find another route to democracy–through Islamism. The question is, how will this play politically at a time when Obama’s GOP rival, Mitt Romney, is painting the president as a weak accommodationist?

According to a senior advisor to Romney, the campaign is still formulating how to approach the new cuddle-up approach to Islamists. But the spectacle of an administration that is desperately trying to catch up to the fast-evolving new world of the Mideast fits into the Romney narrative of a president who “has been outmatched by events,” the adviser said. “Obama came to power with a view of the region that would make progress in the Arab world and get the Iranians back to the table. He would deal with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and the key to that was dealing with settlements. Instead it’s been chaos.”

The president may have no choice but to preside over chaos at this point–a chaos that may not be the disaster that critics say and may in fact be the Arab world’s only path to modernity — but it won’t play well in the seven months between now and election day.

No choice?  It seems to me that this may have been his choice all along.

Ted Nugent and Franklin Graham Have Something in Common?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics5 Comments

Legendary Rocker “The Motor City Madman” Ted Nugent, and Evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the great Reverend Billy Graham, have something in common.  The administration does not want them near our “Best and Brightest”.

Per Foxnews.com:

The U.S. Army has nixed Ted Nugent from the lineup at a Fort Knox concert scheduled for late June, after the outspoken rocker made controversial remarks about President Obama.

The decision comes after Nugent met with Secret Service officials Thursday — the Service said at the time the issue had been “resolved.”

But the Army went on to cancel Nugent’s performance set for June 23 at the Fort Knox annual summer concert.

“Co-headliners REO Speedwagon and Styx remain scheduled to perform,” a statement on the Fort Knox Facebook page said. “However, after learning of opening act Ted Nugent’s recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation.”

Organizers are offering refunds, though the statement said they may find a replacement for Nugent’s act.

Nugent, who recently endorsed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said during a recent National Rifle Association convention that the Obama administration was “vile,” “evil” and “America-hating.”

He also said that if the president is re-elected, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Nugent later said his remarks were not a call to violence.

Obama and his minions have a habit of “banning” those who say something that they don’t like, from speaking to the troops.  Remember this from The Washington Post of April 22, 2010?

The Army has withdrawn an invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a special Pentagon prayer service next month because of his controversial views on Islam, said Col. Thomas Collins, spokesman for the U.S. Army.

Colins said Graham’s remarks were “not appropriate. We’re an all-inclusive military. We honor all faiths. … Our message to our service and civilian work force is about the need for diversity and appreciation of all faiths.”

Graham issued this statement: “I regret that the Army felt it was necessary to rescind their invitation to the National Day of Prayer Task Force to participate in the Pentagon’s special prayer service. I want to express my strong support for the United States military and all our troops. I will continue to pray that God will give them guidance, wisdom and protection as they serve this great country.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation objected to Graham’s scheduled appearance at the prayer event, largely because of his past remarks about Islam as an evil religion. “Lady liberty is smiling today,” said Weinstein, MRFF president, who sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, objecting to Graham’s scheduled appearance. Weinstein said the invitation offended Muslim employees at the Pentagon and would endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists.

Weinstein said the foundation’s DC attorney, Victor Glasberg, was planning today to go to court to seek a restraining order against the entire prayer event as unconstitutional. Last week, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. “We congratulate the Pentagon for making the right decision, but it’s a shame that it had to be made under duress.” Weinstein said the Pentagon plans to replace Graham with “a more inclusive” interfaith figure.

Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, was invited to speak at the event by the Colorado-based National Day of Prayer Task Force, which works with the Pentagon chaplain’s office on the prayer event. The task force organizes Christian events for the National Day of Prayer. Graham is president and CEO of both Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian international relief organization in Boone, N.C., and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Charlotte.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion.” In a later op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Graham wrote that he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but “as a minister …. I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.”

Last month, in a video interview with On Faith’s Sally Quinn, Graha, repeated some of those remarks, but also said “I am not on a crusade against Muslims. I love the Muslim people . . . I want them to know that they don’t have to die in a car bomb, don’t have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it’s through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone.”

The MRFF claims to represent 17,000 members of the armed forces — 96 percent of whom are Protestant or Catholic. “Those who hate us really hate us today,” said Weinstein. “But those who love us really love us.”

Collins said the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon “will continue as scheduled under the administration of the office of the Pentagon Chaplain.”

It’s no secret that the 44th President of these United States is thin-skinned.  In fact, it’s become the stuff of legend.  As we head toward the General Election this November 6th, it could very well be his Achilles’ Heel.

Now, it’s up to Mitt Romney to take advantage of it.

Spinning Obama’s Supreme Court “Gaffe”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

You can take a president away from Chicago Politics, but you can’t take the practice of Chicago Politics away from a president.

Per foxnews.com:

Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he’s “confident” the law will be upheld, but cautioned the “unelected” court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a “fantasy” to think “every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

“Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law,” he said.

The president’s challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates’ next round of primaries — Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.

Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.

Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that “departs” from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.

“That will not be an activist court — that will be a court following the Constitution,” Romney said.

Now, the Obama Administration is spinning faster the turnstile at Disney World.

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Former Obama Law Student Thom Lambert wrote the following article, My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review, which was posted on foxnews.com:

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.

Okay.  So how do Obama’s Law Professors feel about his shorthand?  One of them seems to be spinning as hard as the Administration.

President Obama’s former law-school professor said yesterday the president “obviously misspoke” when he challenged the authority of the US Supreme Court to overturn his historic health-care law.

“He didn’t say what he meant. . . and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it,” Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe told The Wall Street Journal.

Tribe, who called Obama one of his best students, tried to downplay the president’s remarks by insisting everyone already knows he wants the law to survive.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done, except by public confusion,” Tribe said.

By the way…

Lawrence Tribe is an American constitutional scholar and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School. A longstanding proponent of liberal jurisprudence, in 2001 Tribe helped found the American Constitution Society a supposed liberal counterweight to the conservative Federalist Society and was long considered a possible Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic administration.

This situation has me singing an old Blood, Sweat, and Tears song:  Spinning wheel got to go ’round…The Attorney General is singing too:

“The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Methinks Justice Kagan has spilled the beans to her former boss and things aren’t going to go Obama’s way when the Supreme Court’s decision is given.

In the meantime…pray.

The United States of America Vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

The man who swore to take an oath to protect American citizens seems more concerned with protecting those here illegally.

Reuters.com reports that

The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Where was the concern of the Obama Administration when a good, hard-working American was gunned down by an illegal in Arizona.  Remember this story?

Police say Robert Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning, March 27th, 2010, by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family’s 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

Reached by phone early Tuesday at his family’s ranch, Andy Krentz, Krentz’s oldest son, said his father was a churchgoing man who routinely went out of his way to help those in need.

“My father was a very good family man,” Krentz told FoxNews.com. “He supported his kids, supported his family. He went out of his way to help anybody we could without regarding to who they were. It didn’t matter who they were.”

Sue Krentz, Krentz’s wife, said she was “pretty overwhelmed” by her husband’s death, which coincided with her parents’ deteriorating health.

“This is icing on the cake,” Krentz said.

Yes, it was. The public outcry was deafening.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday, April 23rd, 2010, a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were “overreacting” and that she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Do you realize that there are parts of Arizona where Americans are not allowed to travel because of the danger of violence from Mexican Drug Lords?

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park — have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

“Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns,” the website reads.

On another page titled “Border Concerns,” the website warns that visitors should be aware that “drug smuggling routes” pass through the park.

“If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene,” the website reads. “Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States.”

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

Excuse me, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General…Before you attempt to embarrass and verbally crucify a fine public servant like Sheriff Joe, why don’t you take care of those in Arizona who are in violation of our country’s laws and endangering the lives of American citizens, first?

Your priorities seem to be just a wee bit out of order.

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

Obama Vs. the Supreme Court: Falls Count Anywhere

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

The day after Wrestlemania XXVIII, President Barack Hussein Obama did his impression of “The Rock”, as he called out the Supreme Court.

Does ol’ Scooter know something that we don’t?

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism” that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court’s deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.

Known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “Obamacare,” the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.

Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.

Obama’s advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president — who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law — made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

AFP reporting on yahoo.com continues the story:

Obama’s comments will be seen as a warning shot to the court, one of the three branches of the US government, and could draw complaints from critics that he is trying to influence the deliberations.

Gee, DiNozzo.  Ya think?

The health care case is the most closely watched Supreme Court deliberation since a divided bench handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, and could have far reaching political implications.

Obama also argued there was a “human element” to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

And, with additional taxes levied on the American people, in order to finance Obamacare, small companies will begin to fold, and an already bad economy will become worse.

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Without the mandate, they say, the costs of insuring an extra 32 million Americans would be prohibitive to the private health insurance industry.

The Affordable Care Act is highly polarizing in US politics as the election approaches and Obama is yet to get a political dividend for the huge expenditure of political capital required to pass the legislation.

If the court upholds the law, and he wins reelection in November, the legislation will likely stand for years, as it will be fully implemented by 2014, two years before his second term draws to a close.

But Republicans running to replace him in the November 6 election have all vowed to repeal ObamaCare.

“I think it’s important… to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,” Obama said.

“The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

“There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.”

Before you start breaking out the hankies over Scooter’s noble sentiments concerning his wonderful, heaven-sent Affordable Care Act, remember what the Congressional Budget Office reported recently:

President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare’s projected net worth is far off from its original estimate — in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

When the final CBO report was released before the law’s passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

I pray that the Supreme Court puts a stake in the heart of Obama’s vampiric National Healthcare Monster.

This nation’s health…and our pocketbooks…simply cannot afford it.

Moochelle’s Vegas Trip: Let Them Eat Arugula!

On By kingsjesterIn Uncategorized4 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama has had a testy relationship with Las Vegas during the three years of his reign…err…presidency.

Boston .com has the story:

President Barack Obama has a Sin City problem that won’t go away.

Obama is counting on Nevada’s support for re-election next year. He easily won the Las Vegas Valley in 2008 and will probably win the largely Democratic, urban center again next year.

But some Nevada state officials and residents of this economically ravaged state have been fuming over comments they perceived as rants against the tourism industry since he first made them two years ago, and Republicans are hoping that fury will point voters in their direction.

The friction resurfaced as Obama visited a Las Vegas neighborhood Monday as part of a nationwide tour to sell his jobs plan. The stop came as Republican presidential candidates, business titans and former Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman maintain that Obama has twice disparaged Las Vegas tourism — this Western swing state’s largest employer.

The jabs are notable because casino-dependent Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and Obama can’t afford to have voters blame him as his Republican rivals try to convince the nation that they would do a better job of turning the stalled economy around. Nevada’s unemployment remained steady at 13.4 percent last month.

“He said it more than once,” said former Nevada Gov. Bob List, a national Republican committeeman. “You can’t un-ring the bell. You have to live with what you say. It just shows a lack of understanding of the engine that drives the state.”

The feud began in 2009, when Obama admonished corporations using federal bailout money: “You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.” A year later, Obama warned families against gambling away college tuition: “You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

The call for financial responsibility didn’t sit well with some Las Vegans, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Nevada all lashed back at the time. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Obama’s most prominent ally in Congress and Nevada’s senior senator, told Obama to “lay off Las Vegas.”

With Obama campaigning for a second term, the president’s critics are eager to call the outcry to mind.

“Perception is reality,” said Republican Rep. Joe Heck, who represents southern Nevada. “After those statements were made, we had conventions call and pull out, so it did in fact cost Las Vegas business.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won Nevada’s caucuses in 2008, pointed to Obama’s Vegas statements while campaigning here last week. He reminded voters of them in a statement sent out before Obama landed in Nevada Monday.

“My guess is it did not help when he talked down Las Vegas as a convention city, did it?” Romney told dozens of supporters gathered at his campaign headquarters in Las Vegas last week.

Obama tried to make amends Monday during a fundraiser with business leaders at the Bellagio casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

“I love coming to Vegas,” he said. “The only people who love coming more is my staff. I would not be surprised if some of them missed the plane accidentally.”

But the president did not allude to the tensions when he later spoke on a residential street in Las Vegas. In all, he spent only three hours in Nevada Monday.

Amanda Hulsizer, 31, said she appreciated that Obama stopped by her street, but she said he hadn’t completely redeemed himself for his earlier comments.

“You don’t only blow money in Las Vegas, you can just as easily blow money in California at Disneyland,” she said after the president’s speech. Her husband lost his job on the Las Vegas Strip.

Las Vegas saw 3.3 million visitors in August, 2.8 percent more than the same month last year, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. But gambling revenues were down 6.7 percent for the same period in Clark County, home to the glittering Las Vegas Strip and the vast majority of Nevadans.

Just like his promises, it seems that all of Obama’s opinions come with an expiration date, also.

ABCnews.go reports that.

It’s spring break for the Obama daughters and mom has taken them West for the week. Michelle Obama and her daughters visited Mount Rushmore Wednesday to see the monument where four U.S. presidents are immortalized in stone on the soaring mountainside.

Now the Obamas have arrived in Las Vegas for a private family visit.

At the depths of the recession, President Obama seemed to disparage Las Vegas visits, at one point warning hard-pressed Americans, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

There is lingering dismay in the Las Vegas travel and tourism industry but, during the political campaign, Obama has been a frequent visitor on official and political trips to the swing state of Nevada.

The first lady’s private schedule with Sasha and Malia in Las Vegas is short. They travel on to California for publicly announced events, including a San Francisco political fundraiser Friday, the Saturday commissioning of a new Coast Guard ship in Alameda, and then a chance to meet music sensation Taylor Swift.

Michelle Obama is to present Swift with an award at the Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards in Los Angeles.

Bless Taylor Swift’s big ol’ Christian heart.  I know she’ll be gracious in accepting the award from Moochelle.

“You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.”

The president told corporations that they couldn’t…but, evidently, it’s okay if his family does.

SCOTUS Dissects the Individual Mandate. Wishbone, Anybody?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Conservative Judges on the Supreme Court performed an oral dissection on the Individual Mandate found in Obamacare, yesterday.

Reuters.com has the story:

The Obama administration faced skeptical questioning from a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by conservatives on Tuesday during a tense two-hour showdown over a sweeping healthcare law that has divided Americans.

A ruling on the law’s key requirement that most people obtain health insurance or face a penalty appeared likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two conservatives who pummeled the administration’s lawyer with questions.

But Roberts and Kennedy also scrutinized the two attorneys arguing against the 2010 law, which is considered President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

The two pivotal justices on the nine-member court asked highly nuanced questions on Tuesday, the second of three straight days of oral arguments. They seemed torn on whether it would be more of a break from past cases to strike down the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or to uphold it.

Aggressive in their questioning of both sides, the justices fired off hard-hitting queries about the limits of the federal government’s power and whether it could even extend to requiring eating broccoli and buying gym memberships or cars.

While conservative justices took aim at the insurance mandate, liberal justices supported it.

The administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, told the justices that Congress, in passing the law, was trying to address the troubling problem of shifting costs from people who are uninsured to those who purchase coverage, arguing “the system does not work” and lawmakers were addressing “a grave problem.”

At stake is the power of Congress to intervene in one of U.S. society’s most difficult problems – soaring healthcare costs and access to medical care. Annual U.S. healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 per person.

So, what happens to the American Taxpayer if the Supreme Court rules that the Individual Mandate is Constitutional and it goes into effect in 2014?

Per heritage.org:

In essence, the mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance will raise taxes on families. When fully implemented in 2016, the individual penalty for not complying will reach up to $695 per person (for up to three people or $2,085 per household) or 2.5 percent of taxable income.[5] Many healthy but uninsured individuals will now be forced to buy insurance plans under the PPACA. This added cost–whether as new premiums or as a penalty for not purchasing insurance–is a de facto tax increase for these individuals.

Employers also have a new mandate to provide health insurance for their employees. Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit will pay a fine of $2,000 per employee (excluding the first 30) or $3,000 per employee receiving the premium tax subsidy.

As with the individual mandate, families will feel the bite of these tax increases in two ways:

If an employer begins to offer insurance, the wages of those employees to be covered will drop by the amount that the newly provided health insurance plan costs the employer.

If the employer fails to offer coverage, it will pay the tax, and the employee’s compensation will fall by that amount.

Either way, workers’ total compensation does not change; only its composition changes. But because workers will be forced to take more of their compensation in the form of health insurance, their cash wages will fall, and they will have less flexibility to use their earnings as they wish. Even though their total compensation will not change, lower cash income will negatively affect middle- and low-income families.

Heckuva job there, Barry.

This important moment in our country’s history continues tomorrow.  Here’s the schedule:

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)

The Issue: If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well. The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force. The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position: that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)

The Issue: Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades. In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs. But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments. Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio. For this case, it will release an audio tape of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. For more timely reports on the arguments, check the Foundry [at heritage.org], where reports and pod casts will be posted soon after the sessions’ closings.

SCOTUS will not hand down their ruling on Obamacare until June.  Until then, all Americans can do is watch, wait…and pray.

The Supreme Court Tackles Obamacare: Buyer, Beware

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

The United States Supreme Court begins hearings this week on Obamacare, Obama’s National Healthcare Monster that was shoved down Americans’ collective throat by the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the then-Democratic-controlled Congress.

I have an inkling that the Administration is a wee bit concerned as to how SCOTUS is going to rule.

Yahoo.com reports that

Neal Katyal, who as acting US Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s flagship health reform in lower courts, has warned in an interview with AFP of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law.

Q:) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

A:) The case that’s coming before the Supreme Court which challenges Congress’s Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly a significant case. It’s rare for a president’s signature initiative to come before the Supreme Court and be challenged as unconstitutional.

Q:) The requirement for each individual to have health insurance coverage is central to the president’s reform. Can the law survive without that measure?

A:) It’s a hard thing to imagine that the law, that all of the rest of the law would survive if the individual mandate is struck down, because Congress when they passed the Affordable Care Act, said: ‘We want to get rid of discrimination against those who have pre-existing conditions to make sure that insurers are going to insure everyone at a fair cost’. And if you get rid of the provision that says everyone has to carry insurance, then you’re really effectively undoing the logic of the ban on discrimination of those with pre-existing conditions.

Q:) In what way could the individual mandate by judged “unconstitutional”?

A:) The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.

Excuse me, when something is mandated, doesn’t that mean you HAVE TO do it?

Todd Gaziano details SCOTUS’ schedule at heritage.org:

Six hours of oral argument will be conducted in four sessions, spread over three days. That’s what the Supreme Court has allocated for the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

The arguments begin Monday, as attorneys representing 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and a few of its individual members square off against U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr. and one of his deputies. Other attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court will join the fray on two issues. Here’s the schedule and the line-up for the arguments.

Monday, March 26, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument).

The Issue: Is the challenge to the Obamacare mandate ripe for a court challenge?

The 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that courts may not hear most cases to block tax collections until the challengers first pay the tax and seek a refund. The individual mandate in Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014, and one court ruled that no one may challenge it until they pay the penalty for not buying insurance in 2015. The United States no longer takes that position; it thinks the AIA doesn’t apply to the mandate penalty because it is not a tax. The challengers argue there are four other reasons why the AIA doesn’t apply.

Since the administration agrees with the challengers on the AIA, the Court appointed a private attorney—Robert A. Long, Jr.—to argue the other side. Long will present the first 40 minutes of argument. He’ll be followed by Verrilli, who has 30 minutes allotted. Gregory G. Katsas, representing NFIB and the states, will have the final 20 minutes to argue that the AIA creates no obstacle to challenging the mandate.

Tuesday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. (two hrs. of argument)

The Issue: Does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel individuals to purchase particular financial instruments?

While Monday’s session will be largely technical, Tuesday’s session is the main event. Verrilli will argue that the Constitution’s Commerce and the Necessary and Proper Clauses give Congress all the authority it needs. Verilli will also argue that the mandate penalty is a “tax” for constitutional purposes. The challengers are represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the 26 states, and Michael Carvin, speaking on behalf of NFIB, who will each have 30 minutes before the justices. Clement and Carvin will contend that, in imposing the mandate, Congress exceeded its authority, and that the penalty is not a constitutional tax. In addition, they will argue that if the mandate is allowed to stand, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to require citizens to buy anything or do anything.

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)

The Issue: If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well. The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force. The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position: that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)

The Issue: Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades. In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs. But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments. Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio. For this case, it will release an audio tape of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. For more timely reports on the arguments, check the Foundry, where reports and pod casts will be posted soon after the sessions’ closings.

By the way, since its passage, Obamacare has turned out to be a heck of an investment for the Obama Administration.  That is to say, it’s worth has more than doubled since its “birth”:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Have you ever bought a used car whose repair bill turned out to be more than its net worth?  Well, that’s what Obama and the Democrats gave us with their passage of Obamacare.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will  take this lemon off of our hands.

Flashpoint: Sanford, Florida (March, 1968, Again?)

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Racial division has once again reared its ugly head in America.  And this time, the President of the United States has used a horrible situation as an opportunity to shamefully pander to potential voters.

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama weighed into the controversial killing of a black teenager in Florida in very personal terms on Friday, comparing the boy to a son he doesn’t have and calling for American “soul searching” over how the incident occurred.

Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, dressed in a “hoodie” sweatshirt, was shot dead a month ago in Sanford, Florida by a 28-year-old white Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said in his first comments about the shooting, acknowledging the racial element in the case.

“Obviously, this is a tragedy,” Obama told reporters. “I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

The case has rippled across the nation and prompted rallies protesting the failure of the police to arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, and, more broadly, a pattern of racial discrimination black leaders cite in Sanford and elsewhere in the country.

Obama, the first black U.S. president, made his remarks at a White House event to announce his pick to lead the World Bank, waiting briefly after the announcement to take a reporter’s question about the incident.

Martin’s parents thanked the president for his words.

“The president’s personal comments touched us deeply and made us wonder: If his son looked like Trayvon and wore a hoodie, would he be suspicious too?,” they said in a statement.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows people to use deadly force in self-defense.

Similar laws are in effect in at least 24 states including Florida, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Calls are mounting to repeal them. Earlier this week, a Florida state senator said he was drafting new legislation to drastically change the law in Florida.

A South Carolina state representative said on Friday he had introduced a bill to repeal his state’s law. Bakari Sellers, a black Democrat and gun owner, said he wanted to prevent an incident like the Trayvon Martin shooting happening in his state.

“I’m six-five and a black guy,” he said. “I just know that it could have been me.”

Obama said the “Stand Your Ground” laws should be studied.

“I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident,” he said.

“Every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

And, of course, what would a national racial crisis be without the Rev-rhuuuund Jack-soooon hogging the nearest camera?

LATimes.com obliged him:

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson said Friday that he’s grateful the rest of the country has sat up and taken notice of the tragic slaying of Trayvon Martin. But he can’t help but wonder: Why has it taken so long for everyone else to recognize the chronic injustices that African Americans face?

“We’re surprised that everyone else is surprised,” Jackson told the Los Angeles Times. African Americans have tried for decades to get the rest of America to understand their plight, he said, particularly their beliefs that justice is still elusive in many parts of America, especially the Deep South.

Then along comes the Trayvon Martin case, and facts that are not in contention: Volunteer neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman pursued and then gunned down the unarmed 17-year-old last month, and never faced arrest because police said there was no evidence to contradict his claim that he fired in self-defense.

“I hope that this will be a transformative moment,” Jackson said.

Jackson was speaking Friday morning from the Chicago offices of his Rainbow PUSH Coalition. He had just returned from duties in Belgium and Switzerland. He was in Geneva on Wednesday as part of a delegation of religious leaders trying to find a way to end the violence in Syria. Jackson was preparing to get back on a plane for a flight south so he can add his voice to the growing protests in and around Sanford, Fla., where Martin’s shooting took place.

Jackson said the Martin case is getting plenty of media attention overseas, attention that is both embarrassing to white America and humiliating to black America.

Moreover, he said, the failure to make an arrest in the case takes away the nation’s “moral authority” to address injustices in other countries when it fails to do the same within its own borders.

Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.

“As long as he is outside of the court system, the protests will intensify and spill over into other dimensions,” Jackson said. “His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court.”

So, here we are.  It’s March, 1968 again, all of the sudden…except its different this time.

Embarrassingly different.  There was an Al Sharpton-led rally in Sanford, Florida, last Thursday evening.  Enterprising entrepreneurs were in attendance.

Nation of Islam representatives were on scene in Sanford, too, peddling merchandise and trying to enlist new recruits. James Muhammad, the assistant regional minister of the Nation of Islam’s seventh region, told TheDC that he and others from his organization were on scene because of “injustice.”

“The reason is our love for our people and our intolerance for having our children shot down outside of the law of justice,” Muhammad said.

Those with Muhammad at the event were selling copies of the Nation of Islam’s official publication — The Final Call — which Louis Farrakhan publishes. Farrakhan, a radical and divisive figure, has predicted “retaliation” will be coming “soon and very soon.”

For a buck, rally-goers could purchase copies of the paper from Muhammad’s associates — with the headline “JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON! Demands for arrest, criticism of police grows in case of Florida teen killed by White community patrol captain.” That statement is incorrect, however, as Zimmerman is not White. He is Hispanic, and according to a statement his father gave the Orlando Sentinel, he has a racially mixed family and black relatives.

Muhammad said there’s an underlying hatred of black people in this country. “It’s deeper than the chief of police, it’s deeper than the mayor,” Muhammad said. “It’s deeper than the government. It’s deeper than the president. The reality of it is there is an underlying atmosphere of racism in this country, where the administration of justice is inconsistent and the enforcement of law is inconsistent based on your ethnicity, based on your race.”

Others sold t-shirts emblazoned with puns about how Martin was not armed when he was shot. When Zimmerman shot him, Martin was only carrying a bottle of ice tea and a pack of Skittles, so slogans on the shirts joked about how dangerous someone armed with candy could be.

Rally-goers could buy Trayvon buttons and pins, too, while other attendees passed out signs to the crowd.

A lot of people were self-righteously proud back in 2008, when they assisted in electing a black man as President of these United States.  However, they failed to pay attention to another black man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, who proclaimed on August 23, 1963:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I am privileged to be a Facebook friend of Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, a great Christian lady and Pro-life Activist.  She was on the Glenn Beck Fox News Television Program one evening, sitting with “Uncle” Ted Nugent.  It was great.  The Nuge and Alveda were wonderful together.  He told her he loved her.

Her uncle would have been proud of her that day.

What do you think he would say about the race-baiting prologue pitifully overshadowing the tragic death of a young man?

I believe that somewhere, he’s sadly shaking his head.