I don’t always agree with Charles, but I think he is on the right track. Basically, Krauthammer is saying that Chief Justice Roberts was more concerned with the reputation of the Supreme Court, that it would be attacked by the Obama regime, than he was about following the Constitution.
There are all kinds of theories being formed as to why Roberts changed his mind and sided with tyranny rather than the Constitution, but this makes a lot of sense.
As Hannity points out, the Justices who wrote in dissent were aiming their anger at Roberts.
Very much worth your time to listen to Krauthammer here:
Appearing on The Sean Hannity Show Sarah Palin has some strong words for Barack Obama and continues to weigh in on John Roberts and the treacherous Supreme Court decision.
Eric Holder’s DOJ is suing Texas over it’s common sense Voter I.D. law. Claims Texas Governor has no right to assert Executive Privilege.
By Gary P Jackson
With President Barack Obama claiming “executive privilege” over thousands of documents that would prove him and his Attorney General Eric Holder complicit in mass murder, it’s interesting to look at what the same Attorney General, who was just held in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress, had to say about Texas Governor Rick Perry back in April and May.
Hans von Spakovsky at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government notes:
As if the DOJ stonewalling of Congress is not bad enough, however, Eric Holder apparently does not believe that executive privilege is either “fundamental,” as he put it, or even legitimate to the operation of state governments. His Justice Department is in litigation with the Lone Star State over its new voter ID law. After the Justice Department objected to this common-sense election reform on the erroneous claim that it is discriminatory and violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts, Texas filed suit in federal district court in the District of Columbia.
Trial is set to begin on July 9. The parties have been waging a discovery battle as the Justice Department has sought to take the depositions of state officials and to obtain voluminous amounts of privileged documents.
In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.
In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”
DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.
The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”
Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.
We have a lawless President and a lawless Attorney General, who runs a lawless Department of Justice.
In Obama’s America the Rule of Law does not apply to him, or any of his henchmen and cronies. It’s completely out of control and never ending.
Obama and Holder use the Justice Department to attack those who oppose their radical agenda, shield their friends [and themselves], and generally oppress the will of the American people.
We must not only defeat Obama, and every single democrat running for every single office in the land, we must demand criminal indictments, and convictions, for Obama, Holder, and everyone else involved in the criminal enterprise known as the Obama regime.
Obama and Holder facilitated the mass murder of hundreds of Mexicans and the capital murder of border agent Brian Terry. [and possibly other federal agents]
Justice will be denied until these people are held accountable.
This morning, during a nationwide conference call, Americans for Prosperity announced a $9 million multi-state effort to repeal ObamaCare.
This includes “a major multi-tiered effort that incorporates a major TV buy, online activism, social media buy, and significant grassroots action in a dozen states.”
The new ad is called “Not A Tax” and will run in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin:
To read AFP president Tim Phillips’ response to the disturbing Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, click here.
Americans for Prosperity is one of the premier groups fighting for Liberty and Freedom. Sarah Palin has spoken at many of their events, including Madison, Wisconsin in support of Governor Walker’s reforms, and the recent Right Online event in Las Vegas.
To learn more about the outstanding work Americans for Prosperity is doing on your behalf, check out their website. To get even more involved, look in the upper left-hand corner of their website and choose the chapter in your state.
Sarah Palin says Barack Obama once said the individual mandate “wasn’t a tax“
Moments after the Supreme Court ruled that it was largely upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, Republicans zeroed in on the court’s decision to allow the individual mandate because it is enforced through a tax.
One of the Republicans to speak out was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee. After the court’s decision was announced on June 28, 2012, Palin tweeted, “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.”
We aren’t able to fact-check whether “freedom” is dying, which is solidly in the realm of opinion.
However, we can check her claim that Obama said the individual mandate, a requirement that people buy health insurance or face a tax penalty, “wasn’t a tax.” That was the basis for the court’s decision to uphold the law.
Did Obama say the individual mandate wasn’t a tax?
Given how unpopular taxes are, it’s understandable why Obama would not trumpet the notion that the mandate was a tax. But has he said it was not a tax?
We could find only one example after Obama was president in which he or a top aide explicitly stated that the mandate wasn’t a tax. (When we asked, the Republican National Committee couldn’t come up with any other examples, either.) The one instance came on Sept. 20, 2009, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Here’s an excerpt:
Stephanopoulos: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
Obama: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
Stephanopoulos: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
Obama: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
Stephanopoulos: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
Obama: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. … What if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
Stephanopoulos: I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Obama: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
Stephanopoulos: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.
Sliced up into brief sound bites, the back-and-forth between Stephanopoulos offers some clear evidence of Obama arguing that the mandate is not a tax, most obviously when he says that the mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.”
Still, it’s worth noting that Obama made the case that the alternative was worse — that not having an individual mandate would be unfair and inefficient. The absence of an individual mandate, Obama argued, means passing on the costs of treating Americans uninsured to people who are insured, which amounts to a “tax” on those with coverage, even though it may not be literally fit the dictionary definition of a tax. In essence, Obama was brushing off complaints that he was imposing a tax by contending that a “tax” was already in place under the status quo.
Our ruling
Palin is correct that Obama “said (the individual mandate) wasn’t a tax.” It’s right there in the video.
In his latest fundraising letter entitled: Let’s Shut it Down Lt Governor David Dewhurst, who has repeatedly thwarted common sense attempts to make it harder for illegals to call Texas “home” is now trying to sound like a border hawk. In the letter he decries President Obama’s “backdoor amnesty” and adds:
We can’t rely on entrenched Washington insiders to do the job. In fact, pro-amnesty groups are spending millions of dollars, attacking Texas with false ads. We don’t need D.C. telling us how to vote, and we don’t need a Senator beholden to their agenda.
Still whining about so-called “Washington Insiders.” You know, those hard core GOP Elites™ like Sarah Palin and Mark Levin. If this Senate race wasn’t so essential, so important, Dewhurst’s nonsense would be great comic relief.
Oh and he reminds readers that he served in the Air Force and the CIA. So you know, he knows EVERYTHING about national security. Hell, maybe he does. Now keeping TEXAS secure is a whole other matter altogether.
This, dear readers, is what good old fashioned industrial grade Texas bullshit looks and smells like.
Texas State Senator Dan Patrick has sparred with Lt Governor Dewhurst on numerous occasions over legislation Dewhurst has killed. For those that don’t know, in Texas, the Lt Governor is much like the Vice President of the United States. The Lt Governor is the President of the Senate. Unlike the Vice President, in Texas, this comes with actual power. I fact, in many ways the Lt Governor has more power than the Governor. One of the things the Lt Governor has power over, is the legislative process. The Lt Governor can champion or kill legislation, and that’s the problem.
Senator Patrick has specifically called out Dewhurst for killing a bill that would have effectively banned sanctuary cities for illegals [in Texas] as well as anti-groping legislation, that would have criminalized some of the more aggressive pat-downs by TSA agents. Both bills had wide support among Texans, with Governor Perry touting the anti-groping bill during the run up to his presidential campaign.
Senator Patrick told the Houston Chronicle that Dewhurst, who is in the pocket of special interests in the homebuilding and retail grocery business, who are for open borders, and rely in cheap labor to maximize their profits: [emphasis mine]
Yesterday, Patrick accused Dewhurst of undermining his anti-pat down bill on the Senate floor. Today, he took his complaints a step further and accused the Lite Gov of kowtowing to the federal government and sinking sanctuary cities legislation.
“Apparently, for political reasons… he came up with this elaborate political play to kill the bill without his fingerprints,” Patrick said, speaking to the drama over the anti-airport pat downs bill that failed yesterday.
When asked about how would affect his relationship with Dewhurst, he paused for a while before answering the question.
“I have to ask myself,” Patrick said, before trailing off again.
After another pause of several seconds — seemingly to consider his words — Patrick said, “We’ve had a good relationship. But someone who will undermine his members and someone who will not stand up to the federal government; you have to ask yourself is that the kind of person that we need in the US Senate.”
If you refer back to Dewhurt’s fundraising letter, you’ll note his last shameless ploy is to bring up human smuggling. [while asking for your money, of course] Now I’m all for stopping human smuggling, but guess what, the coyotes wouldn’t have anywhere to smuggle people to, if the laws Dewhurst has opposed had passed.
While people are angry that illegals are taking jobs, as well as costing Texans tens of billions of dollars for services, people forget that it’s no bargain for the illegals either. Since they can’t legally work, those that don’t steal some poor unsuspecting American’s identification, work off the books for cash. And generally at what most would consider slave wages.
So it’s kinda maddening to see Dewhurst talk about human smuggling, when his actions have actually helped facilitate it, in an indirect way.
It’s not just the ban on sanctuary cities that Dewhurst opposes. One of the best ways to stop illegals from getting jobs, their only reason for sneaking across the border, is the e-Verify system. Dewhurst opposes this as well.
Maria Martinez, Executive Director of the Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas wrote this of Dewhurst. Note that he consistently ignores the people of Texas:
Friends,
I can’t tell all of you how important this Senate race is to Texas. I’m sure that you remember how hard we worked during the last 2 legislative sessions in Austin to get a single bill passed to stop or even slow down the effects of illegal immigration.
IRCOT met with Dewhurst’s staff in 2009 urging him to get behind an E-verify bill but were politely shown the door.
In 2011, we brought him the Texas Tea Party Coalition Letter on Illegal Immigration signed by nearly 3,000 Tea Party activists and never heard a word from Dewhurst.
Dewhurst had every opportunity to do something to pass an anti-sanctuary city bill and DID NOTHING. When he could have used the rule to suspend the “blocker bill” and yet chose not to! This was even the most watered down bill that could have been written, and still he allowed it to be killed.
Many of you may have supported another candidate but we so need to defeat Dewhurst and keep him out of Washington where he will again do nothing.
I think it’s important to get the truth out that the very person who has accused Cruz of amnesty is the very one who was part of the “team” that killed all legislation to address illegal immigration in Texas for at least the last 3 legislative sessions.
He must be defeated and I urge all of you to get the word out to your contact lists that Dewhurst is the real enemy on illegal immigration. He must be forced to a run-off.
The Texas legislature meets every two years, so Dewhurst has a long record of defeating legislation that would help curtail illegal immigration in Texas.
You know what’s more despicable than Dewhurt’s shameless pandering on immigration, after spending years fighting with the other side? Back in April Dewhurst accused former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, an opponent in the primary, of pledging to make Dallas a sanctuary city during his tenure.
Dewhurst’s 11th hour conversion on immigration would be laughable if this Senate race wasn’t so essential to Texas and the nation’s future. This election is about replacing the weak, squishy Senator that is representing Texas now. Dewhurst would just be more of the same, if not far worse.
Kay Baily Hutchison is has been hit or miss for Texas, but Dewhurst is the sort that will actively undermine Conservatives in order to take care of special interest groups and cronies. It’s really despicable, the underhanded way Dewhurst operates.
Ted Cruz has consistently said he wants to secure the border and enforce the laws we have against illegal immigration. Check out Ted’s website, especially the section on Dewhurt’s many lies.
Not sure whether to call Dewhurt’s fundraising letter a flip-flop ….
For the first time in our nation’s history a sitting Attorney General has been held in contempt of Congress.
The vote was 255-67 as many democrats chose to run and hide rather than go on the record.
The Congressional Black Caucus had pulled the race card, of course, but clouded the issue saying:
“Contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully and only in the most egregious situations,” said a letter from the 42-member Congressional Black Caucus to colleagues. “The Republican leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action. For these reasons, we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the attorney general in contempt.”
Let me get this straight. We got hundreds of dead Mexicans and one, possible two dead federal agents, and the CBC doesn’t consider this a “most egregious situation“? I don’t even have the words ….
These investigations and hearings have been going on for 18 months. The entire time Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama regime have been doing everything in their powers not to comply.
This evil regime has facilitated mass murder in Mexico and capital murder at home. President Obama has claimed “executive privilege” in order to keep Congress from finding out that he is up to his eyeballs in this murderous scheme.
Being found in contempt is nothing compared to what needs to happen to both Holder and Obama. Both need to be indicted, tried, and convicted for the murder of each and every innocent dead Mexican. And then indicted, tried, and convicted for the capital murder of Brian Terry. [and any other federal agent who is killed as a result of fast & Furious.
Here Darrell Issa hammers John Dingle who shamelessly claims to represent Brian Terry, the murdered border agent:
![sarah-marvelous-eyes-trig[2]](https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sarah-marvelous-eyes-trig2.jpg)
A Time For Choosing 
