The high cost of being an anti-abortion attorney

/2 Comments/in /by

A longtime prolife activist who is a licensed lawyer in Kansas and has been admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court is arguing before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that those who influence court-related decisions should be held accountable for their statements.

The issue being raised by Bryan J. Brown, now of ArchAngel Institute, follows his rejection by the Indiana Board of Law Examiners for permission to practice law in that state. The decision followed reports from a state organization called the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program that included comments from outside evaluators who were critical of his Roman Catholic beliefs.

Brown is not challenging his rejection by the IBLE, but he is calling for a court decision that those outside evaluators be held accountable for their statements, especially regarding his faith.

His concern is that his case is becoming a test for a strategy that could be used to remove a prolife perspective from the legal profession – and ultimately the judiciary since judges almost invariably spring from that field.

“JLAP is set up to break down conservative attorneys in the name of advancing their mission – diversity. I am no anomaly, I am just the first to feel their blades,” he told WND.

Read More at WND by Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

Obama’s Approval Hits All-Time Low Among Poor, Says Gallup

/1 Comment/in /by

A week that began with President Barack Obama going on national television to pitch his vision for a debt-limit deal in terms that pitted “millionaires and billionaires” against “everyone else,” ended with the president receiving his lowest-ever weekly approval ratings in the Gallup poll from the poorest Americans (those earning less than $2,000 per month) and from one segment of the middle class (those earning between $5,000 and $7,499 per month).

In fact, according to Gallup, Obama enjoys no more approval among the poorest Americans today than he does among the richest—and he enjoys significantly less approval among middle class Americans earning between $5,000 to $7,499 than he does among the richest Americans as measure by the income brackets reported by Gallup (those earning $7,500 per month or more).

Over the last seven weeks, Obama’s approval rating has dropped 11 percentage points among the poorest Americans—and 14 points among middle-class Americans earning between $5,000 and $7,499.

Among the poorest Americans, the president’s approval started at 54 percent in the week of June 13-19 and dropped to a record low of 43 percent last week (July 25-July 31). Over the same period, Obama’s approval dropped from 52 percent to a record low of 38 percent among those middle-class Americans earning between $5,000 and $7,499 per month.

Seven weeks ago, according to Gallup, Obama was doing far better among the poorest Americans and those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month than he was doing among the wealthiest (those earning more than $7,500), who in the week of June 13-19 gave Obama a 44-percent approval rating.

 Read More at CNS News  By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com

How Obama Will Bankrupt the Auto Industry (and Taxpayers)

/4 Comments/in /by

On this lovely, but exceedingly hot, Sunday afternoon, with computer-in-lap, I am enjoying the benefits of wireless Internet technology as I sit in the passenger’s seat of my five-year old SUV purchased from CarMax. My husband and I enjoy road trips just about as much as we enjoy the steamy-hot cups of java that we sip along the way. For the majority of the Bush 43 years, a cup of Starbucks cost more than a gallon of gas, but now both are essentially the same, meaning this road trip will more than likely be the last we can afford to take – until America puts a Republican president back in the Oval Office.

Proponents of President Obama’s new vehicle cafe standards might argue that his policy makes it affordable to get back out on the road in this day of almost $4.00 per gallon of gasoline. While vehicles that sip gasoline like we sip our coffee on road trips sounds enticing, do not be fooled; this sipping will come at a cost quite unaffordable to most Americans.

Consider the $40,000 Chevy Volt that was declared the Motor Trend 2011 Car of the Year for its advanced engineering that allows the car to run as a series hybrid, parallel hybrid, or as an electric vehicle. Sounds nice – until you realize the car’s price tag is higher than the average per capita income of $39,000, and the cost of electricity is on the rise.

General Motors may indeed deserve credit for Volt’s technology, but GM’s partnership with Motor Trend’s publisher, Source Interlink, calls into question if the Volt received the award standing on its own four wheels, or “Government Motors” had a little help from its Uncle Sam – and now must convince taxpayers that our “investment” was worthwhile, as well as set the stage for the next phase of this administration’s back door approach to “Cap and Trade.”

The administration assumes its new cafe standards of 54.4 miles per gallon by 2025 will somehow spur economic growth when auto makers begin to crank up the assembly lines to make automobiles most of us cannot afford. In the first two months of this year, out of 268,308 Chevrolets sold, the Volt accounted for one-fifth of 1 percent, or 602 — indicating that most American’s are not interested in the 4 cylinder sardine can on wheels — even if it is the “car of the future” as described by Obama.

Read More at Floyd Reports  By Susan Stamper Brown, Floyd Reports

The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order

/1 Comment/in /by

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the “Budget Control Act of 2011″ (“BCA 2011″) were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of “bi-partisan consensus “to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.

First, the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process” in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” As two of America’s leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is “inseparably connected” with that of “raising a revenue.” Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress — vested with the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts,” — kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.

To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.

However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process.” Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to “determine” that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments,” subject only to congressional “disapproval.” For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.

Read More at Floyd Reports By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, Floyd Reports

Obama: Still the Alinskyite

/1 Comment/in /by

Here’s my take on the puzzle of Obama’s leadership style. Obama is still every inch the Alinskyite organizer. He talks about uniting, even as he deliberately polarizes. He moves incrementally toward radical left goals, but never owns up to his ideology. Instead, he tries to work indirectly, by way of the constituencies he seeks to manipulate.

“Leading from behind” is classic Alinskyite strategy. The idea is for the organizer to find out what the people he’s organizing want, give them enough of that to gain authority and control, then slowly and quietly push the group in his ideological direction, all the while making it seem as though the plan is what the people themselves have asked for. Obama used to literally lead from behind, by stage-managing his group’s protests from the back of the room, while the ostensible leaders took charge on stage. That is what Alinskyite organizers do.

Alinskyite organizers are tough when facing down the “enemy” (their word), but subtle, stealthy, and incremental when dealing with the members of their own group. Above all, they are never openly ideological. Everything is portrayed as pragmatism.

The trouble with Obama’s Alinskyite leadership style is that he’s trying to adapt it to the presidency, a role it was never designed for. When he tries classic Alinskyite polarization, he’s treating people he’s supposed to be leading as his enemies. When he tries to bring about leftist results under the guise of a neutral pragmatism, he disappoints his base, which desperately wants him to turn his eloquence to the task of persuading the country of their principles.

Obama is a bad negotiator because Alinskyite’s don’t negotiate, they intentionally polarize. As for their own groups, here they try to placate all factions and hide their own goals. That about describes Obama’s performance on the debt deal, which included a dollop of both of these stances.

Read More at National Review  By Stanley Kurtz, National Review

Senator Jim DeMint Talks About the Debt Ceiling Deal and His New Book

/0 Comments/in /by

Jackson: On the show today our favorite Washington conservative warrior, Senator Jim DeMint is back. We’ll discuss the fallout from the debt ceiling deal, the danger of Congress’ new Super Committee, and his new book, The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me. I’m your host Brad Jackson and you’re listening to the August 4, 2011 edition of Coffee and Markets.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us on the show today. It’s great to have you here.

DeMint: Well, it’s good to be back. Thanks for having me.

Jackson: Obviously the last couple of weeks in D.C. have been quite a rollercoaster with the debt negotiations. How do you think it ended up? I know this isn’t the plan that you preferred and not one that I think a lot of conservatives preferred, but how do you think this deal ended up going for folks?

DeMint: Well, I think everyone is glad just to have it over with. But I felt that this was a point where we really needed to begin to solve the problem. The problem is our debt not just our debt limit. And we’re on a course now to borrow another $10 to $15 trillion over the next 10 years, and no one is going to lend us that amount of money, and this deal unfortunately doesn’t really cut any spending, based on where we are today. Now when they say it cuts spending, what they mean is it reduces the levels of increases that are planned. It certainly doesn’t reduce any debt. We’ll continue to add about $1 trillion a year to our debt. So, I’m very concerned because I don’t think America can borrow $10 trillion or $5 trillion, and I think even the $2.4 trillion that we’re talking about borrowing before the next election could put us in trouble.

Read More at Red State Posted By Brad Jackson, Red State

The Next Crisis is at Our Doorstep

/0 Comments/in /by

For weeks now, I’ve been warning about a market collapse. Among the numerous items I pointed out were:

1) The US economy rolled over in a big way in Q1
2) The Euro Debt Crisis was spreading to Italy and Spain
3) China was showing signs of economic contraction
4) Mutual funds were overly invested in stocks
5) Historical patterns forecasting a collapse
6) Signs that the Fed had lost control of the markets

And on and on.

Meanwhile the mainstream financial media’s consensus was that everything was just fine and that at worse the “recovery” was slowing just a bit. The Euro issues were contained. The US debt issues weren’t a problem. And the Fed would be able to get the economy roaring in no time.

Well here we are and the markets are an absolute bloodbath. Other than hopes for QE 3 there really isn’t much to be bullish on. Indeed, we are very likely heading into the REAL Crisis in short order.

That Crisis will be a Crisis of Faith in the US Fed’s ability to contain and/or solve the problems of the financial system.

For 80+ years, the US financial system has operated under the belief that the Federal Reserve could handle any problem. This belief was put to the ultimate test in 2008 when the Fed faced off against the biggest Financial Crisis of the last 80 years. And the ONLY thing that kept us from the brink was the belief the Fed could fix things.

Read More at Zero Hedge By Phoenix Capital Research

DID GOP BREAK ‘PLEDGE TO AMERICA’ DURING DEBT VOTE?

/4 Comments/in /by

Penny Starr at CNSNews.com pointed out this morning that House Republicans may have broken one of their most vocal promises from their 2010 campaign Pledge to America pitch when voting for Budget Control Act yesterday. The debt-limit bill, which is expected to save the U.S. from default for the first time in it’s history, was passed in the House yesterday with GOP support despite not being posted with the text online “for at least three days” before the vote.

“Explaining the Republicans’ vision in a response to President Obama’s radio address on Oct. 30, 2010—just before the election—Rep. John Boehner explained that ‘Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them.

‘The American people are in charge of this country, and they deserve a Congress that acts like it,’ said Boehner. ‘Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them–something they didn‘t get when the ’stimulus’ was rushed into law. We should put an end to so-called ‘comprehensive’ bills that make it easy to hide wasteful spending projects and job-killing policies. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view–not written in the Speaker’s office, behind closed doors.’”

Starr finds that the summary of how the Republican Congress has fulfilled the Pledge on the House Republican Conference’s Web site, reads on the section regarding the three-day rule: “A Three Day Waiting Period on all Non-Emergency Legislation.” The words “non-emergency” or “emergency” do not appear anywhere in the text of the original Pledge for America as published by the House Republicans.

Read More at the Blaze By Christopher Santarelli, the Blaze

Boehner Should be a Goner

/9 Comments/in /by

Boehner and McCain vied for “Pansy of the Week,” and Boehner won. Despite the polls that revealed overwhelmingly that America wanted no increase in the debt ceiling, Boehner caved like a Hollywood stage chair. As the saying goes, “His ass is grass.”

America deserves a budget that is tighter than a camel’s butt in a sandstorm; however Boehner’s bill essentially doubles the national debt in a decade, thus the Democrats lust for spending is not hampered in the least. The payout to the lien holders, the American taxpayers is over ten years, a deal I dare you to try to cut with the IRS if you owe back taxes.

Any ten year plan for spending by government is a fool’s folly, because America’s back will be broken from the weight of debt long before then. We are clicking off $5B a day in debt service alone, and not even addressing the principal. Why didn’t Boehner just approve America for a reverse mortgage, because that’s what old people do when they don’t plan on leaving the kids and grandkids the house in the will.

Boehner’s deal does not shrink government at all. He had a chance to finally force government to rein in spending, and he dropped the ball. He negotiated with Obama, a guy who is too lazy to scratch his own butt, a guy who hasn’t presented a budget in over eight months. Obama relies on white people to do his work for him, because Obama is incompetent and indolent.

If there were ever a president who needed the credit card cut, as Sheila Jackson implied, “It’s this [black] president.” Obama runs America finances like a hood rat; spending all the money before he even gets his check. Hood rats spend like there’s no tomorrow, because they don’t think about tomorrow.

Read More at The Black Sphere By Kevin Jackson, The Black Sphere

Tax Warning: Will Barack Obama Do to America What Leftists Already Have Done to Illinois…and England…and…?

/0 Comments/in /by

Now that the debt-limit fight is basically over (the Senate will join the House in approving it later today), we need to immediately prepare for the next stage in the fight to stop big government and restore economic liberty.

President Obama and other leftists clearly have signaled that they want the new “super committee” – which will recommend $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction before Thanksgiving – to be a vehicle for “balance” and “shared sacrifice.” But if you look in a Statism-to-English dictionary, you learn that “balance” is a code word for higher taxes and “shared sacrifice” means class-warfare taxation.

I’ve already explained that a truly balanced approach requires nothing but spending restraint. And I’ve explained why Obama’s class-warfare taxation is misguided.

Today, let’s look at three real-world examples. We’ll start with the President’s home state. Early this year, using sneaky maneuvering, Illinois politicians raised the state’s income tax rate. I warned that this would drive jobs and businesses out of the state. That was an easy prediction, of course, and we’re already seeing results.Here’s a blurb from a Chicago Sun-Times story.

It’s becoming a habit around here — another day, another stalwart of financial services in Chicago threatening to leave town. On Thursday, it was the Chicago Board Options Exchange suggesting that higher corporate taxes in Illinois could cause it to take jobs out of state. The CBOE’s warning came a day after CME Group Inc. said the same thing. CME owns the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. The options market, with its headquarters and trading floor at 400 S. La Salle, employs about 580 people, not including traders who use its facilities. A CBOE spokesman said in a statement that “economic realities” could force a move.

Because the CME and CBOE are so high profile, I suspect Illinois politicians will provide some sort of one-off tax holiday or back-door subsidy to prevent this from happening. That won’t solve the problem, of course, which is that high tax rates inexorably will undermine the state’s competitiveness and that ordinary people will pay the highest price.

Read More by Dan Mitchell