Monday, February 4, 2013

Fantasy Wrestling: Barack the Fundamental Transformer v. The Dread Justice Roberts

It could happen--Barack Obama and John Roberts in an epic clash. For institutional, ideological, and personal reasons, the two charismatic heavyweights may be on a collision course. 

Obama is a fierce competitor who climbed the ranks from local Chicago pol to president in just 6 years. He envisions a different American society--more liberal and redistributive, with a government powerful enough to make it happen. His ambitious Second Inaugural prompted even the New York Times to fit into print “Obama offers liberal vision.” 

From preserving every inch of turf held by our overdrawn entitlement society, to game-changing action on guns, global warming, gay advancement, and steeper redistribution, the Man from Hyde Park has big plans. 

The obstacle the First Organizer faces is that different-minded Republicans occupy a quaint, populist outpost called “The House of Representatives.” 

The big changes needed to realize Hope and Change won’t pass the House. After Harry Reid’s recent failure to fillet the filibuster, they have poor prospects in the Senate, as well. But the president declared our challenges require that we act today and he intends to.

Of course, the dusty old Constitution says Congress gets to pass the laws while the Executive bats clean up and enforces them. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says our Constitution isn’t a great model. It’s really old and doesn’t fully embrace human rights—at least not like the South African or Canadian constitutions or the European Declaration of Human Rights do.  Obama appears to agree. 

If the president posted on Facebook his relationship status with the Constitution, he’d have to choose: “It’s complicated.” The warmest thing he’s said about the Founders’ original formula is that it wisely allowed for change as Americans grew more enlightened. 
He’s famously on record talking up the Warren Court as pretty moderate after all, because, for all its constitutional adventurism, it didn’t break free of the basic structure and limits on federal power the founders built into the Constitution, at least as currently interpreted

It’s hard to miss the First Organizer’s yearning for broader interpretations. He aims to blaze a new constitutional path, with a much larger role for Washington in steering national life, and fewer constraints on the president’s hand on the wheel.

A divided, stalemated Congress won’t put up much resistance to executive expansion. A primary check will come, if at all, from the judiciary, where John Roberts presides. A Bush Appointee and veteran of the Reagan and Bush White Houses, Roberts holds more traditional views on Constitutional matters. 

An anecdote reported around the time of Roberts’ confirmation hearing to the high court  illustrates his orientation. As a young staffer in Reagan’s DOJ, Roberts was assigned to analyze a demand from a liberal House member who criticized the president for being “out of touch.” The Representative demanded negotiations with the administration in order to form a “power sharing” arrangement between Congress and the executive. Roberts wrote in a legal memo that it so happens the Framers had addressed that very subject. The congressperson might be interested to check out the drafters’ “committee report” found in Articles I and II of Constitution about the sharing of powers between the executive and legislative branches.  

Conservatives disillusioned by Roberts’ opinion on Obamacare are braced for the worst in future showdowns. But they might have things wrong. 

No one knows exactly how to read Supreme tea leaves, but one school of thought is Roberts feels the burden of preserving the court’s reputation and stature. He stared at liberalisms’ holy grail of social programs, “universal” health care, and the fiercely arrayed forces of national media--from satellite to bloggers in basements--and rather than enter into permanent Armageddon with the information army, he blinked.

But finessing a specific program passed by two branches in a field already half occupied by government dollars is not the same as stepping aside for willful executive overreach. If Roberts is minding the court’s legacy, he doesn’t want to be remembered the Chief who played FDR’s Charles Evan Hughes to Barack Obama, and approved a redesign of the federal role in American life.

Obama clearly will test any restraints on his vision. His DOJ under Eric Holder is not timid about pushing aggressive cases. Already Obama has lost a unanimous First Amendment decision, where the administration tried to police a church’s decision about hiring clergy as well as another unanimous slap down of the EPA arbitrarily abusing homeowners.

Following the Gulf oil well disaster, the administration effectively defied judicial oversight of an unsupported and arbitrary ban on all drilling, returning repeatedly with slight modifications of the ban and forcing the courts to play whack-a-mole with a lawless Department of Energy.

The DC Court of Appeals recently rejected Obama’s unprecedented attempt to declare the senate in recess and force through unconfirmed appointments to the NLRB and other federal offices. That case is headed for the high court. 

As the branches seemed poised for increased tension, there’s some personal history between the two men. Obama was one of the few senators to vote against Roberts. 

At a State of the Union address, Obama famously derided and criticized his robed hostages for their decision in the Citizens United case. A few weeks later, Roberts said in a public speech that political attacks on the court raise the question if justices really belong at the SOTU. 

Then there was healthcare, and Obama’s aggressive statements to influence the court. He won that  round. Roberts found a way to see it the president’s way. 

Was it judicial subordination and an omen? Or was Roberts playing a strategic game to build capital for even bigger fights.

A lot depends on the answer.

Eat More Chicken and Your Skin Will Thicken

My friends at Campus Reform are on top of it, as usual. They always expose the thin-skinned idiocy of campus liberals and give me lots of column fodder in the process. Thanks guys. The next round of waffle fries is on me.

Campus Reform is reporting that Chick-fil-A, the popular fast food restaurant chain, has now been dubbed a "symbol of hate," by a professor at Eastern Illinois University (EIU). Lisa Moyer, who teaches in the Family Studies Department at EIU, apparently made the comment with a straight face, although some have suggested that the term "straight face" reinforces heterosexist oppression. Regardless, her comment reinforces my belief that it is always a mistake to choose a major ending in the word "studies."

Moyer made her strangely uninclusive remarks in response to questions about a faculty resolution at EIU.

The resolution proposed expelling a Chick-fil-A restaurant from campus in order for the university to be more inclusive. Because of the franchise's alleged opposition to homosexuals, some faculty decided that getting rid of them would promote diversity by producing complete uniformity of thought on issues related to sexual orientation. Talk about queer reasoning!

Moyer, in typical liberal fashion, has projected her hatred of Chick-fil-A onto the restaurant itself and has characterized their company logo as a symbol of hate. I suppose it's now in the same category as a burning cross or a Nazi swastika. In her recent interview with Campus Reform, she elevated hypersensitivity to a Zen art by arguing that her efforts to censor this "symbol of hate" are justified because Chick-fil-A makes a lot of students, particularly in the LGBT community, "feel uncomfortable.” (See for additional details).

Although the Faculty Senate resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus was defeated 3-6, the LGBTXYZPDQ community won anyway. That is all because the discussion resulted in the school opening an office for LGBTQ outreach. When they win they win and when they lose they still win - so long as they keep reminding everyone they feel uncomfortable and need special protection.

So I've been thinking about it and I've decided that our LGBTQIA Office here on my campus makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, the rainbow is a symbol of hate. So, next week, I plan to introduce a resolution to ban them from campus. I expect the resolution to be defeated because it is idiotic. I'm just hoping I get a special office as a consolation prize - simply for being a narrow minded bigot.

Make no mistake about it: the best way to get money in higher education is to be a thin skinned bigot. African American centers reward racial hypersensitivity, Women's Centers reward gender hypersensitivity, and ABC-LGBT-XYZ-PDQ Centers reward unmitigated religious intolerance.

So what exactly is the motivation for all of this thin-skinned hyper-ventilating? Just follow the money. At the end of every rainbow flag, there's a pot of gold - and usually a few burned out professors smoking pot as well.

It is true that Chick-fil-A initially came under fire last summer after CEO, Dan Cathy, indicated personal opposition to same sex marriage. But that wasn't the real issue. The real outrage was over Cathy's personal donations to pro-family conservative groups such as the Family Research Council. The attempt to organize a boycott of the chain was simply an effort to cut off the flow of money to those organizations.

So those of us who support traditional marriage must borrow a page from the pink play book and do the same. If you are donating to a school that houses one of these LGBTQ outreach centers, then shame on you. Give your money to a pro-family "hate group" instead. They tend to be more inclusive anyway.

Oh, yes, and buy more chicken with the money you save from those withheld donations. It'll keep you from having a cow whenever you encounter a divergent viewpoint.
Op-ed:                                                                        Obama shooting skeet...phony all the way
By: Diane Sori

On Saturday, the White House released a photo of Barack HUSSEIN “Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time” Obama, supposedly shooting skeet on August 4th, his birthday, at Camp David. And why release it now in the middle of the battle over his wanted gun control was done strictly to sway public opinion in an attempt to try and show that he understands the concerns of gun owners.

As if skeet shooting is what concerns we gun owners.

Obama must really think all gun owners are stupid to believe that his 'supposed' (and I say 'supposed' for a reason) shooting of some clay pigeons would appease our concerns about his wanted 'for the sake of the children' measures to curtail our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If he really cared about America's children he would use his power as president to enforce the over 20,000 existing gun laws already on the books, stop revolving door prisons, and have our healthcare system stop giving sociopaths and crazies a little pill, pat them on the head, and then release them back into society...guess what...that just won't cut it anymore.

As Chris Cox, the chief lobbyist for the NRA stated after the photo was released, “He (Obama) clearly doesn’t get it. But in his effort to pursue a political agenda, he apparently is willing to convince gun owners that he’s one of us, that he’s a Second Amendment supporter. Skeet shooting, whether you’ve done it or not, doesn’t make you a defender of the Second Amendment.”

How right he is and NO way will some doctored photo-shopped photo pull the wool over our eyes.

That leads me to the 'supposed' photo in question. There are two main proving points that this photo is NOT for real...the smoke and the lack of recoil.

And really, there are some things that are just obviously wrong with this photo that even a novice could see before getting down to the realities of the smoke and lack of why is his head pointing downward (as in below the sight-line) when to shoot skeet you look up and fire at the top of the arc, as in the barrel is pointed to the sky NOT at the horizon level...why is the shotgun stock placed with a gap between his shoulder and the top of the butt as it's now against bone and the recoil would give him one hell of a nasty bruise...why is he aiming straight on when he's trying to hit a moving target, he should be twisting with the target right or left and up or down...why is he NOT wearing, as most skeet shooters do, either a shell bag, a vest or both, and where is his baseball style cap with a bill to keep the glare of the sun out of his eyes as he's tracking the target...why is the light on the top of his right arm different than in the rest of the photo (the light on the top of his left arm is from a studio light, see the photo above)...why is the 'color temperature' (a measure of a light's color used to keep colors in photos looking accurate and natural) different from the background...why, because he was photographed in a studio, cut and pasted on the background with the smoke airbrushed in total 'green screen' job.

But the crux of this fraud is the secondary smoke coming from just behind the sights and the fact that there's NO visible recoil movement. This is all the proof that's needed to prove this photo is a phony all the way.

First, the smoke...the simple truth is that we live in an era of smokeless powder and the discharge from Obama’s shotgun has way too much smoke coming out of it. Modern shot-shells simply do NOT produce that much smoke, though they do produce some but that varies with the load. Some will try to counter this by saying that this might be because of a 'special' powder load but why would anyone use a powder load that produces so much smoke...they wouldn't, especially someone who obviously has never fired a shotgun before.

Also, the smoke plume from the ports is a giveaway as it’s physically impossible to have a large smoke plume from only one side, with nothing ejected from the other set of ports. If the photo was real there would be equal smoke plumes from both sets of ports, because a ported shotgun barrel is simply a hollow tube with two sets of holes drilled in it, one on each side of the vertical center-line, equally distant from the end. As the wad passes them some of the powder gas escapes through the holes. There is nothing to direct the gas to one set of holes and not the other, so the gas must escape from both sets of holes equally.

Photo-shopped...the perfect looking but physically impossible smoke plume is airbrushed on!

Second, as for the recoil, remember defensive loads are not light loads. Target loads, such as are used in skeet, are light loads. The entire shotgun moves in recoil, NO matter if the load is light or heavy. Ported shotguns, especially with the light target loads and open chokes used in skeet, move straight back into the shoulder with little or no muzzle rise (that’s the purpose of the porting). The recoil impulse continues after the load exits the barrel because of inertia. The picture of Obama shows smoke jetting from the muzzle and ports, which means the shot is at about the center point of the recoil cycle. It should show his body recoiling, especially with him being as slight (puny actually) as he is.

So there you have it...proof positive, I hope, as to why this photo is NOTHING but a phony all the way. Barack HUSSEIN Obama (our 'poser-in-chief') and his minions might try to fool we gun owners but he forgets we're smarter than him...much much smarter than him. We know why this photo was made and we know how he intends to use it. And isn't it a hoot that the White House has issued a warning NOT to photo-shop the picture to have fun with it (people are doing it anyway) when the entire of Obama's life is NOTHING but one BIG lie complete with photo-shopped pictures to 'prove' that lie.

Just a thought...anyway, happy skeet shooting Barack HUSSEIN “we do skeet shooting all the time” BIG phony.