Elena Kagan confirmed

Elena Kagan was confirmed yesterday.  Since she is replacing another liberal I cannot get too worked up over it.  Conservatives need to save the big fight in case a conservative justice must be replaced during Obama’s presidency.

The usual RINO suspects voted to confirm Kagan. 

Only five Republicans voted in favor of Kagan’s nomination. Last year, just nine Republicans voted for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s first Supreme Court appointee.

Today’s yes votes included Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the lone Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to support Kagan when the panel recommended the nomination to the full Senate on a 13-6 vote. Other GOP yes votes came from Richard Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass, one of Kagan’s home state senators, voted against her. 

It would be wise for conservatives to start putting pressure on these RINOs now, so that in the event a major appointment battle comes, these bone heads won’t capitulate like they always do.

Via: Michelle Malkin

Queen Michelle’s Spanish Holiday

You know Michelle Obama crossed the line when the liberal New York Daily News says she is acting like Marie Antoinette!

Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama's inaugural address to the nation, and he's referenced it numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.

But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing  summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don't seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her "closest friends." According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.

Reports are calling the lodgings of  Obama's Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, "luxurious," "posh" and "a millionaires' playground." Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.

To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny. […] 

Instead, Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette - the French queen who spent extravagantly on clothes and jewels without a thought for her subjects' plight - than an average mother of two. While she's spent her time in the White House telling parents they should relieve their chubby kids' dependency on sugar and stressing the importance of an organic veggie garden, hopping a jet toEurope to meet with Spanish royalty isn't the visual the White House probably wants to project. Perhaps they've forgotten the damning image of John Kerry, on the eve of the 2004 election, windsurfing off the coast of Nantucket?

Everyone expect POTUS and FLOTUS to take a few vacations while in office. However, the problem with the Obamas vacationing is both quantity and quality. The Chicago Sun Times details the excess. 

Mrs. Obama’s U.S. Air Force jet landed at Malaga on Wednesday; she skipped celebrating her husband’s 49th birthday with him. (Daughter Malia, 12, is at overnight camp.) Mrs. Obama pays for personal expenses — as do her friends who arrived on their own — but that only covers a small part of the expense. Taxpayers pick up the tab for staff and security at the exclusive hotel and most of the expenses for the plane.

First ladies often go on vacations, with and without the president. An issue for Mrs. Obama may be how many: New York in March; Chicago, over Memorial Day; Los Angeles in June; Camp David — sort of an extension of the White House — in July; Maine in July, to highlight Acadia National Park, and now Spain. Mrs. Obama is glamorizing Spain’s coastal resorts before her Aug. 14 first family weekend visit to Florida’s Gulf Coast, to encourage tourists scared away by the oil spill. Starting Aug. 19, the Obamas will spend 10 days in Martha’s Vineyard. 

I have mentions in several past posts that since taking office the Obamas have become tone deaf to the images they put out. I think it is time to revise that from tone deaf to simply not caring. How could the Obama's not realize how unseemly this excess looks, especially given the weak job numbers out today.

When Obama asked for the job, he knew his would be a recession presidency.  As such some of the usual glamour of the job would have to be curtailed (at least until the economy showed strong signs of recovery).  Yet once in office, just like with his economic policies, Obama does exactly the opposite of what is called for. He even steps on the accelerator when going the wrong way.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Daily News

Via: The Chicago Sun Times

Via: CNBC

A $120 license to run a child’s lemonade stand?

Consider this Exhibit A of government run amok. 

The Oregonian: It's hardly unusual to hear small-business owners gripe about licensing requirements or complain that heavy-handed regulations are driving them into the red. 

So when Multnomah County shut down an enterprise last week for operating without a license, you might just sigh and say, there they go again. 

Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair in Northeast Portland. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. 

Turns out that kids' lemonade stands -- those constants of summertime -- are supposed to get a permit in Oregon, particularly at big events that happen to be patrolled regularly by county health inspectors. [MORE] 

This is a perfect example of where common sense has left the building. Because we have become a society that wants to live a risk free and irresponsible life, we elect government to watch out for us at every turn. The trade off is freedom is eroded and commonsense takes a backseat.

Did any of these inspectors ever stop to think that children’s lemonade stands have been around forever and millions of people have not keeled over and died because of them? If past generations have successfully survived the hidden threat of “food-borne illness” from lemonade stands, then I think this generation can pull through just fine. We don’t need government to protect us from every tiny possible danger.

Just this past weekend while vacationing at a friend’s lake house, I stopped by a neighborhood garage sale. Sure enough there was a little girl selling lemonade. I bought a cup. It was the nastiest thing I ever tasted (Hey little girl, where da sugar at?).  Needless to say I did not finish the cup (or let the little girl know that I hated her lemonade).

The whole point in buying the cup was to help this little girl make some money and experience the rudiments of entrepreneurship.  Only the biggest idiot on the planet would expect restaurant level hygiene from a kid working a sidewalk lemonade stand.  Commonsense people, we got to use some commonsense.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Oregonian

Obama’s August Surprise – Mortgage Bailouts!

Rumors are swirling around Washington and Wall Street that Obama may try to help Democrats’ dim midterm election prospects by having Fannie and Freddie forgive principle on underwater mortgages.  Obama would basically accomplish this by executive order and thus relieve Congress from their role as holder of the purse strings. 

James Pethokoukis, Reuters: Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages – one in five – are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help. The actual vehicle for the bailout could be the Bush-era Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, a sister program to Obama’s loan modification effort. HARP was just extended through June 30, 2011.

The move, if it happens, would be a stunning political and economic bombshell less than 100 days before a midterm election in which Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses. The key date to watch is August 17 when the Treasury Department holds a much-hyped meeting on the future of Fannie and Freddie… [MORE]

Irresponsibility doesn’t even begin to describe this maneuver. Fannie and Freddie are already financially teetering; such massive write-downs will have to be passed off to the already burdened taxpayer. Needless to say, it is again spending more money we do not have. Should this surprise take place, Congress should share the blame by passing laws that basically gave away their Constitutional authority to the treasury and executive branch.

This may buy the Democrats some votes in the short run, but can you image just how pissed off everyone who struggled to responsibly pay their mortgage is going to feel about footing the bill for someone else?  The anger that is going to generate against Democrats might be the kind of anger the party may never recover from.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Reuters

Federal Judge Vaugh Walker finds California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

Judge Vaugh Walker’s ruling should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed the trial.  What Judge Walker concluded was that: 

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. 

Here is the full court decision (h/t Legal Insurrection)

Perry v. Schwarzennegger - Trial Court Decision  

This is by no means the end of the story. Judge Walker’s ruling will no doubt be challenged and this case will work its way up to the Supreme Court. This ruling will surely bring renewed focus onto Elena Kegan’s confirmation. How could it not, given the persistent questions regarding her sexual orientation?

On the issue of gay marriage, I think I hold an unpopular opinion among conservatives. In the battle over gay marriage, I believe conservative’s best efforts will only delay the inevitable. I say this because, time and time again when I discuss this issue with 20 and 30 year olds on both sides of the aisle, I find a large degree of acceptance. Unless these 20 and 30 year olds have some sort of epiphany regarding gay marriage, they will eventually undo all the roadblocks currently being put in place by this generation.

Because so many of the younger generation is on board with gay marriage, I have to wonder why gay rights activist insist upon foisting gay marriage on this generation. Time and time again this generation has made it quite clear they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Ten years from now when the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings gain political clout, gay rights activist will have what they want without much of a fight.

Gay rights activists’ current plan to use the court system to push the issue today seems like a risky endeavor. It may very well backfire and create a legal precedent that may take yet another generation to overturn. 

For a deeper legal analysis of Judge Walker’s ruling, skip over to Legal Insurrection blog.

Via: Memorandum

Via: The LA Times

Via: Michelle Malkin

H/t: Legal Insurrection 

VIDEO: Katie Couric caught mocking Palin on day Palin was announced as VP

If the revelations of Journolisters conspiring against Palin weren’t proof enough of the media’s biases, this video adds even more proof.

 

So before Katie Couric ever interviewed Palin, Couric was already in the "I Hate Palin" camp.  Again, we must sit and wonder at the bright lights in the McCain campaign who thought giving Couric an exclusive was a good idea. 

Conservatives4Palin points out just how the network media worked to undermine Palin. 

Conservatives4Palin: It’s not just what was said by Couric in her discussion of Governor Palin, but also the way CBS framed the narrative of Governor Palin’s life in their story. The script covers moose burgers, her kids, her being a former beauty queen and being on the cover of Vogue. Sarah Palin was a sitting governor, and at that time, before the Obama campaign and their allies in the press spent months relentlessly smearing her good name, she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country. She was also responsible for getting the largest energy project in North American history underway after several decades of interminable delays in Alaska. She was a courageous corruption-busting whistleblower who turned in the leader of her own party in Alaska for his corrupt practices. She was a fiscal conservative who made the largest veto cuts in Alaska history, reined in the reckless waste, cut her own expenses, sold the governor’s private jet, let the personal chef go, and put away billions of dollars in savings for Alaska for a rainy day. She was a tough CEO who went toe to toe with the Big Oil companies and fought to get the best deal for Alaskans, the resource owners she represented. And she did all of this as a woman from a modest background who was entirely self-made – without the benefit of a rich or influential father or husband.

But what in this impressive biography did CBS News and Couric choose to focus on? Moose burgers and beauty pageants.

By their choice of the framing of the story, it’s evident Couric and CBS had an agenda here: They wanted to diminish Governor Palin because her impressive record of accomplishments towered over the non-existent record of the guy at the top of Democrat ticket.

Oh so very true. Practically everyone I know who steadfastly believes that Palin is unqualified to be president, tends to be woefully ignorant of Palin’s administrative record and accomplishments. Instead, they are keenly knowledgeable of the cartoon narrative the media has created.

Thankfully the Journolist emails and this Couric video are now getting out and the media’s narrative can now be seriously questioned. Sarah Palin will no doubt use these examples of media bias to benefit should she chose to run in 2012.

Oh and regarding the names Palin chose for her children, are they any weirder than say “Whoopie" Goldberg? I wonder what old Katie Couric has to say about that one?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Conservatives4Palin

VIDEO: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s emotional defense of Ground Zero Mosque

After watching this video, I have decided to keep my eyes peeled to see if Mayor Bloomberg keeps to his words the next time the Christian faith requires the same defense. Somehow, I doubt Mr. Bloomberg will be able to see things so clearly.

While Bloomberg is correct in his words about America defending religious freedom, he like so many liberal elites refuses to understand and believe that the Islamic faith currently has a cancer. That cancer is Islamic extremism. To pretend that this problem doesn’t exist is an invitation to disaster.

What most Americans want is for our elected officials to show some caution when dealing with the Islamic faith. Since peaceful Muslims seem unwilling or incapable of eradicating the extreme elements within their faith, then caution is the order of the day. Treating the Islamic faith with caution may not jive with the sacred doctrines of diversity or tolerance, but attacks like 9-11 make it a necessity.

Missouri rejects ObamaCare mandates by over 70%

The New York Times: Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box. 

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law. 

Granted this is referendum will not stand up in court, however what it does do is send a clear and undeniable message that Washington has crossed the line.  Some on the left maybe tempted to say that these numbers merely represent Republicans coming out in mass for a Republican primary. Well, left wing blog No More Mister Nice Blog dispels that notion. 

That's from The New York Times, which arrives at an odd conclusion about the results:

In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population's attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote's fate. 

Really? I'm looking at election results here and I can't help noticing that there were more "Yes" voters -- voters rejecting the health care mandate -- than there were voters for all the candidates in the top-of-the-ballot GOP race, the primary for a candidate to succeed Kit Bond in the U.S. Senate.

The referendum vote was:

Yes: 667,680

No: 271,102

The total number of votes cast for the nine candidates in the Republican Senate primary (which Roy Blunt easily won) was 577,612 -- 90,000 votes fewer than were cast against health care reform. Which suggests that anti-HCR voters were more motivated to vote in the referendum than to vote in the primary, that virtually all Republicans voted with the anti-HCR majority, and quite possibly that a fair number of Democratic primary voters joined them.

The referendum gathered 90,000 more votes than the combined votes of the 9 Republicans running in the primary. Now that is better bipartisan support than you find in Washington today.

I noticed a few polls last week that were trying to show that support for ObamaCare was growing. If Missouri is any indication of how the actual voting public feels about ObamaCare, then I say those polls are pretty much meaningless. If Republicans are smart they should make repeal of ObamaCare the cornerstone of their 2010 and 2012 elections. Clearly, repeal will resonate with the folks who actually turn out at the polls.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: No More Mister Nice Blog

Via: Hot Air