Sane and Insane

Should the Supreme Court today pay fealty to our Owners’ Manual, The Constitution of The United States, Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) may learn the answer to the question he couldn’t answer, “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?”

Mr. Leahy not only proclaims an obvious “right” clearly unenumerated and unknown heretofore, Leahy fumbles badly claiming that an example of such a Congressional prerogative is evidenced by federal speed limits on federal highways.

In fact, the federal government cannot and does not set speed limits. Its only way to influence what limits states set, for speed, drinking age and nearly every other facet life in which the federal government involves itself unnecessarily in our lives is by controlling funding, the federal tit if you will that we should be weaned from.

For as long as one can remember The Washington Post has painstakingly identified the ideologies and political biases of Supreme Court justices in both its “news” reporting and its opinionating. The Post has even scolded Justices for erecting facades, claiming faith to the “rule of law” while disguising political preferences. Virtually every WaPo article refers to the Liberal wing or the Conservative wing or Justice Kennedy – the Swing-vote – from one wing to the other.

Now, along comes Justice Antonin Scalia to opine from the bench that President Obama’s recent extra-constitutional usurpation of the duties of Congress is, well, unconstitutional and The Post in Justice Scalia’s partisan discredit to the court is outraged that he plays to character.

The Post’s response is a hoot: Shut up! It’s our job to characterize your ideology. It’s our job to define you. How dare you speak truth to power!

As WaPo bleeds readers, it should only look at itself to understand why.

Today, the Supreme Court staked out its position on the November election for president and urged a vote for Mitt Romney.  In Arizona el al. v. United States the court ruled in favor of illegal immigration, or, at least, in favor of non-enforcement against it . . . the current practice of the United States and the preferred policy of “progressives” and “liberals” and scofflaws throughout the land.

But, every cloud has a silver lining, or so they(*) say.  The silver lining here is that the anti-Obama, pro-law enforcement right will be energized to turn out, even more than they were yesterday.  It’s simply a matter of offsetting the illegals’ votes enjoyed and encouraged by Democrats at all levels of politics.

(*) Who the hell are they?

This morning, on Chris Matthews’ interminable “progressive” slamfest – yes, we watch so you don’t have to – David Maraniss tells the story of young Barry Obama, then a 6th grader at Punahou, the exclusive prep school in Hawaii that no child should attend, who entered a school tennis tournament, tennis being “his first sport.” Having seen him throw out the first pitch at “Cominsky Field” and shoot baskets with real basketball players he should return to tennis.

As MaranASS tells the story, as Barry approached the board to see where see was seeded and who he’d play next, his coach admonished him:  “Don’t touch it Barry, you’ll smudge it.” As Barry tells it, he and “all of his friends” knew what the coach was saying, his color would rub off.

First, given that Punahou is famously multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, and “liberal,” that it would employ a bigot is utter nonsense.

Second, anyone who has ever participated in a tournament sport knows that brackets are maintained on a white board, – ooh, that’s sounds racist – call it a dry erase board and updated with an erasable pen because things change! Of course it would smudge if a snotty little brat touched something he wasn’t supposed to!

If it’s true that young Barry took coach’s comment as racist, young Barry was as ill-prepared for school as he is for the presidency.

That MaranASS didn’t question the veracity of the story or the storyteller suggests that he went to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard law.

Jerry Sandusky’s peers have concluded their deliberations and determined his guilt . . . 45 times over.   He abused the trust gifted to him; he violated the most fundamental duties of adult responsibilities to children; and, he is a despicable. (End.)

For your sanity, don’t entertain Linda Kelly, the Republican  Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Oh My God! Her statement post-verdict was painfully narcissistic in a self-focused America. Our president, Barry O’Kelly couldn’t have been more self-congratulatory . . .

It is not always agreeable to agree with Abbe Lowell, an able if sometimes unpleasant criminal defense attorney.  And frankly, even Attorney General Eric Holder could have successfully defended the loathsome former DEMOCRAT presidential candidate John Edwards, Mr. Lowell’s most recent successful defense.  But, to give credit where it’s due, Mr. Lowell in Prosecutor’s bad decisions, properly cites the United States Department of Justice for horrendous bad judgment and unprofessional performance that spans two administrations, from the injustice served on Senator Ted Stevens (R. AK) to the recent acquittals of Roger Clemens and Mr. Edwards.

Sadly, because Mr. Lowell is a creature of Washington and a close confidant of the discredited attorney general, his prescription to cure what ails is exactly what ails:

He whines that, “Pointing out prosecutorial indiscretion is easier than finding a solution for it.” And that there, “is little accountability  for Justice Department attorneys who make bad choices . . ”  And, of course he defends his friend Mr. Holder with an ad hominem assault on Republicans in a “Congress [that] would rather threaten the attorney general with contempt in an election year than tackle a real problem of wasted law enforcement resources.”

Eric Holder has struck out again! But, in this instance there is joy in Mudville!  Perhaps if he brought cases not against obnoxious sports personalities or obnoxious political personalities but instead brought cases against criminals, he’d at least record a save.

One case comes to mind: Two New Black Panthers videotaped, batons in hand threatening “white folks” if they dared to not vote for a half black man who needs them more than ever.  Oh? Really? He dropped that case despite the evidence on tape?

Strike three! Yer out!

Incuriosity and ignorance among those in the Mainstream Media is frustrating at best, infuriating often, and pernicious in the body politic.

Just watching the Sunday morning palavers can lead one to distraction.  Fox News contributor Juan Williams faulted Republicans, for example, for the failure of the Bush Administration 2007 immigration bill to leave the Senate. Never mind that one third of Democrat senators opposed the bill in a Democrat controlled body.  Instead, Juan should celebrate “bipartisanship” as his Messiah, Mr. Obama does if he picks off as few as one Republican in pursuit of his manifesto.

If Juan’s “performance” isn’t pitiful enough, one needs only to watch Howard Fineman, lick-spittle for all things Democrat, who declared on Chris Matthew’s show – yes, several of us watched so you don’t have to – that Richard Nixon was the cause of our involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Fineman is apparently channeling John Kerry, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts who looks French and “famously” served in that “war” and who declared participation in a covert operation in a non-combatant country (since discredited) allegedly ordered by President Nixon in December, 1968 more than a month before there was a President Nixon!

For the record Mr. Fineman, U.S. involvement in Vietnam began under John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D. MA) and escalated under Lyndon Baines Johnson (D. TX) and was inherited by Mr. Nixon seven years after its launch.