Except for mine (of course).
Fox 8 Cameras Roll During Surprise Proposal
The problem with so-called 'stellar nurseries'
13 minutes ago
Liberals: If you think declining to defend DOMA is the right decision, how will you feel when a Republican administration declines to defend in a school prayer case? Or an abortion case? Or on Obamacare itself?Read the whole thing.
There are two very, very distinct issues here. One concerns gays and lesbians. The other concerns the proper relationship among the three branches of the federal government. One is about policy; the other is about procedure. Deciding a procedural question based on what it means for a one-time policy outcome is just bad governance. The questions we should be asking are -- How much power would this really give the president? Is this a particularly new power? (Arguably it's not.) And in any case, are we comfortable with the president having it, even if he or she has radically different views about policy?
Wednesday afternoon, Barack Obama trotted out his favorite “document of negative rights,” The U.S. Constitution, and used it to chart a course that will do away with the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the President, the act signed by Bill Clinton is unconstitutional, and he’s ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to stop defending it in court cases. Holder has agreed and will cease defense of the law, which states marriage is between a man and a woman.
There’s so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start.
First and foremost, the President has no right to declare something unconstitutional. You don’t have to be a “community organizer” turned “constitutional scholar” to know this. Heck, anyone who’s seen even five minutes of Schoolhouse Rock is probably aware of the three branches of government. The Judiciary branch is responsible for determining constitutionality, not the Executive. Pronouncing the law unconstitutional, without due process, is a gross overextension of Presidential authority.
Second, both the President and the Attorney General have sworn an oath to uphold the nation’s laws. It’s not their place to determine which ones they view as being worthy of defense of implementation. If the Legislative branch chooses to pass a law doing away with the Defense of Marriage act, that’s their prerogative. The President can sign it as he sees fit. Otherwise, Holder is there to enforce and support the laws as they exist, not as his boss wishes they did. In refusing to defend the law as written, both Obama and Holder are willfully derelict in their duties.
Finally, since when is Obama so concerned with Constitutionality?
His signature health care law has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate federal judges, yet he’s proceeding with its implementation. If, as Obama seems to believe, the government should stop the defense of unconstitutional laws, why isn’t he abandoning his dream of an Obamacare utopia?
Again and again, Obama has stated his view that marriage is between a man and a woman. For a year during his campaign, and for two years of his presidency, he’s done absolutely nothing to suggest that his opinion has changed. Despite constant complaint from gay rights advocacy groups, he has staunchly stuck to his belief that gay marriage was wrong. So what’s changed?
The obvious answer is 2012.
Over the course of the last two years, the President has seen the voting block that elected him in 2008 dwindle. His support among independents has all but vanished, and the good will he enjoyed during the campaign has evaporated completely. As chaos erupts throughout the Middle East, Obama has been weak, confused, and ineffective. As gas prices skyrocket, his approval numbers fall. According to Rasmussen, Only 26% of likely voters believe the United States is on the right track.
Now, all across the country, public sector unions are on their heels. Big labor has finally come under the public microscope, and to chagrin of high level Dems, it looks like they may actually lose their battle. This means the deepest of the deep left wing pockets are in jeopardy. Should the unions finally be broken, Democrats will face an epic financial implosion.
So, in true Obama form, he’s decided to pander. When your allies and re-election hopes are fading away, it’s time to find a new source of votes. If that means throwing away an obvious core belief, so be it.
Obama desperately wants a second term and it’s becoming clear the administration fears it may not get one. His decision to support a group to which he he’s traditionally turned a cold shoulder should serve as proof of how politically bad things really are for the President.
GETTING “A LITTLE BLOODY:” Video: CWA union thug strikes young female FreedomWorks activist. The activist is Tabitha Hale, whom Helen interviewed at SmartGirlPolitics a couple of years ago. And you’d think someone from the Communications Workers’ union would know better than to strike someone with a camera. But take a look at the video and you’ll see the angry, yet impotent face of today’s labor movement — right before the punch.Video is below and at links.
Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring responds: “I’m not sure how Senator Reid rejected spending cuts that he hasn’t seen yet, but it certainly reinforces the notion that he is willing to shutdown the government rather than cut one penny in federal spending.”