Archive for June 18, 2010

according to this report:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a television interview in Ecuador this month that the Obama Justice Department “will be bringing a lawsuit” against the controversial Arizona immigration measure signed into law earlier this year.

The Lonely Conservative has this to say:

You’ve gotta love Jan Brewer. She’s sticking to her guns, and she has public opinion on her side.

Doug Powers hanging at Michelle’s place notes something:

You can’t help but wonder what the cost to taxpayers of this lawsuit will be, and how much fencing and additional border security the money could have paid for. Then again, if the Obama administration gave a damn about border security, drug smuggling and illegal aliens in general (known to the DNC as “potential voters”), they wouldn’t be filing the lawsuit in the first place.

The weekly standard can count:

While this might help Democrats with Latino voters, the law is supported 60/40 overall. This can’t be a fight Democrats want to have before Election Day, right?

While Captain Ed is amazed by the method of letting this out:

Wow … just wow. What a tremendously incompetent manner in which to announce the decision. The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans. I’m not sure if that’s Hope and Change, the New Transparency, or Smart Power.

Gov Brewer is not amused either:

“This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” said Brewer, who recently set up a legal defense fund to combat challenges to the law. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous.”

“If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation,” Brewer added.

And that not the only promise not kept reminds Nice Deb

He was supposed to let her know what he decided on sending National Guard troops to AZ to protect the border. The two weeks were up, yesterday, revealing yet another empty promise from Obama

Nice Deb, being nice wouldn’t do that.

The Big question is why on earth would a US president be suing a US state of a law that mimics US law that a majority of American support? Repeat after me. If you start from the idea

Advertisements

When is a tax not a tax?

Posted: June 18, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , ,

When the democrats decide tax is a bad word.

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.

That is until the Administration has already decoyed the voters and needs to win in court:

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a “tax” or “penalty,” because either way, it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner” by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate

Ed Morrissey comments:

Suddenly, the health-insurance mandate is a tax. I guess someone must have given Obama a Merriam-Webster dictionary as a gift.

I remind the American public. We collectively did this to ourselves!

…this morning I accompanied my newly unemployed wife to the unemployment office to start the paperwork process and this afternoon I have to do something for a friend. I hope to get some more stuff up later in the day.

Meanwhile judging by the hit count most of you have missed my latest examiner column so feel free to go check it out.

check out the first paragraph from The Brad Blog’s report on the ruling concerning Allan Greene’s election in SC:

The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Board rejected Judge Vic Rawl’s protest to the results of last week’s U.S. Senate primary, despite no evidence presented that the results were accurate, and despite Alvin Greene having not even shown up to the protest hearing.

Let that rolls through your head. A statewide election takes place, the democratic party doesn’t like the results and appeals based on the fact that…they didn’t like the results, and what is their argument? No evidence presented that the results were accurate.

Poor Brad, maybe he doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t simply overturn an election that your man has lost by 20 points because you don’t like your chances in the fall. It is YOUR burden to prove that the election was fixed, not the other way around. The people have the right to be wrong, or foolish or horror of horrors have an opinion contrary to the democratic leadership!

The argument that there was “no reasonable explanation” for the results is an argument that our friends on the left would make for the election of any republican. You want to overturn a 20 point election how about some actual you know evidence? From the CNN story:

The forensics expert hired by Rawl said it was possible the voting machines were tampered with and theorized that a hacker could have uploaded a “malicious code” into the machines to alter the results. But Rawl’s team had no evidence that any machines were meddled with.

Hay who needs physical evidence that the machines malfunctioned? We are liberals we know what the result should be.

Now I’m a big fan of paper ballots and I don’t like touch screen voting myself, but if you are going to overturn an election you need more than theory and to the credit of of the democratic party officials that wasn’t enough for them. CNN again:

Ludwig, Rawl’s campaign manager, rejected the theory that Greene picked up votes because he has an African-American sounding name in a state where the majority of Democratic primary voters are black.

After all it’s not like the democrats use race as a club during elections do they? Nah we’ve never seen that done before. As we might say live by the race card, die by the race card.