The Daily Gouge, Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

On June 25, 2013, in Uncategorized, by magoo1310

It’s Wednesday, June 26th, 2013…but before we begin, as ABC’s Terry Moran warns us…er,…”reports”, in the wake of the SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, Negroes…

…may no longer vote, must ride in the back of the bus and can no longer play Major League baseball.  Yeah…and “reaching out to the Muslim world” should be one of NASA’s top priorities.

As the WSJ notes:

…The Supreme Court’s ruling, which effectively nullifies a provision of the law that was intended to be temporary, simply says the federal government must acknowledge that voting conditions in 2013 are not what they were in 1965. This apparently comes as a shock to the nation’s first black president.

However, we find the reaction of one Minnesota lawmaker, courtesy of Bill Meisen, far more revealing as regards the true abode of racism in contemporary America:

Democratic lawmaker hits justice as ‘Uncle Thomas’

 

winkler

Ryan Winkler: not only stupid and hypocrital, but proof an Ivy League diploma ain’t worth the paper on which it’s printed!

A Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act by calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Thomas,” then saying he didn’t know “Uncle Tom” was a racist epithet. On his Twitter account Tuesday, state Rep. Ryan Winkler called the justices’ 5-4 ruling striking down a part of the law racist, and the work of “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Justice Thomas, who is black, was one of the five justices in the majority.

That tweet was quickly deleted, and Mr. Winkler, who is white and represents some upper middle class suburbs west-southwest of Minneapolis, offered a conditional-tense quasi-apology in subsequent tweets.

screen-shot-2013-06-25-at-21147-pm_s640x271

He said he “didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues. But if such a suggestion is offensive, I apologize.”

However Mr. Winkler, whose website says he has an undergraduate history degree from Harvard and a law degree from the University of Minnesota, seemed to dig the hole deeper in a subsequent tweet, in which he said the racism of the term “Uncle Tom” was disputed and unknown to him. “I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he said.

“Debate about it”?  Between whom; you and Al Sharpton?!?

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, the perfect portrayal of our Poser-in-Chief:

mrz062513dAPR20130625014541

“Oh”, Progressives piously posit, “but he IS doing something!”, as detailed in today’s Environmental Moment:

Obama Unveils Plan to Tackle Climate Change

 

romney-2012-blog-image-virginia-energy

President Barack Obama said Tuesday the controversial Keystone XL pipeline should be approved only if it doesn’t “exacerbate” carbon pollution, as he unveiled a sweeping new plan to tackle climate change. In a closely watched speech at Georgetown University in Washington, Mr. Obama also said he would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to create carbon standards for both new and existing power plants, one of the largest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S.

“The planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,” Mr. Obama said.

human-global-warming

Yeah…like the Stimulus contributed to the economy, and Obamascare to lower healthcare costs!

He continued that “the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”

On Keystone, Mr. Obama said the pipeline’s climate impact would be critical to determining if it goes forward. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because they fear it could lead to damaging spills of heavy crude, and because they fear it would drive the full development of Canada’s oil sands, which produce more greenhouse gases than regular crude during extraction.

greenjobsquit

Mr. Obama called climate change a pressing issue that “demands our attention now.”…Mr. Obama said critics of his plan may warn of his lost jobs and economic damages. He said these were “tired excuses for inaction.”

If wreaking further havoc on an already-failing economy is “doing something”, then all we can say is…

As for those who continue to shill the Progressive line Team Tick-Tock isn’t engaged in an all-out assault on fossil fuels (with coal as their primary target), we’ll borrow a phrase from Sergeant Al Powell in Die Hard and suggest “Why don’t you wake up and smell what you shovelin’?”

But why listen to us, when The Obamao’s own climate adviser makes our case on the record: 

WH Climate Adviser: ‘A War on Coal Is Exactly What’s Needed’

 

Sherrod_Brown_coal

Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, tells the New York Times “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” “Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.

All of which causes Commentary Magazine‘s Jonathan Tobin to ask…

Do Democrats Really Want a War on Coal?

 

obama_coal_energy

…Liberals have been delighted with the idea that the president would use his executive powers to enact measures that have already been turned down by Congress. Though cap and trade bills were defeated by huge margins, Obama is now putting them into effect for all intents and purposes by a vote of 1-0. Yet it is exactly the freedom to act with impunity by a reelected president that should scare many Democrats. Were these issues put to congressional debate and votes, Democrats in coal states could count on using the legislative process to derail any war on coal.

But with Obama acting alone all they can do is stand by and watch in horror. The war on coal may cost American consumers dearly. But it may cost some Democrats their seats in the House and the Senate.

May” cost consumer’s dearly?  It most indubitably WILL!  But since a picture’s worth a thousand words, consider this:

power-plant-closures-6_7_12_600

And that, friends, was back in September 2012; how much longer must Der Obafuhrer’s list be now?

Next up, “THAT Was THEN; THIS Is NOW!”, and the latest on the Schumer-Rubio Open Border bill, as Red State‘s Erick Erickson recalls all…

The Stories They Told

 

1aaamnesty

Republicans (and red state Democrats) used to tell voters amazing things about their opposition to amnesty. Then they got elected and supported legislation that actually weakens border security and puts people on a path not just to legalization, but to citizenship, before ever securing our borders.

1. Rubio: “I would vote against anything that grants amnesty because I think it destroys your ability to enforce the existing law and I think it’s unfair to the people who are standing in line and waiting to come in legally. I would vote against anything that has amnesty in it.”

marco-rubio-self-portrait

2. Corker: “We need a new immigration policy that reflects America’s values. First, secure this border. Allow people to work here but only if they’re legal. No amnesty. Those employed but here illegally must go home and return through legal channels.”

3. Wicker: “I agree that illegal immigration is a major issue that needs to be addressed. However, I oppose amnesty as the solution.”

4. Ayotte: “For the people who are here illegally, I don’t support amnesty; it’s wrong. It’s wrong to the people who are waiting in line here, who have waited for so long. And we need to stop that because I think that’s where the Administration is heading next.”

5. Flake: “I’ve been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership. Border security must be addressed before other reforms are tackled.”

Jeff-Flake-flip-flopped-on-immigration-and-now-there-are-unintended-Mexican-American-voting-consequences

6. Hatch: “We can no longer grant amnesty. I fought against the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill because they granted amnesty to 3 million people. They should have to get in line like anybody else if they want to come into this country and do it legally.”

7. Heller: “I believe it is an amnesty program, a back-door amnesty program for the 12 to 15 million people who are here illegally.”

8. Alexander: “We cannot restore a system of legal immigration – which is the real American Dream – if we undermine it by granting new benefits to those who are here illegally.”

9. Collins: Before 2008 reelection, voted no on McCain-Kennedy amnesty

10. Hoeven: Hoeven said the U.S. needs to secure its borders and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

11. McCain: “Complete the danged fence.”

ARCHIVES ON J.McCAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

“Forget the crutches; my wife’s in a wheelchair.  So I’m going after the blond beer-heiress with the big boobs!”

12. Graham: Amid withering criticism from his constituents, Graham — who is up for reelection next year — began to argue that it was time to approach the immigration problem in stages. On Thursday, he likened the decisive vote to pass his amendment to “having been robbed 12 million times and finally getting around to putting a lock on the door.”

13. Kirk: “The American people believe our borders are broken. It is a fundamental duty of our government to know who is entering the country, making illegal entry nearly impossible. In the coming Congress, we have an overwhelming bipartisan consensus to restore confidence in the security of our borders — before we pursue other immigration proposals.”

14. Murkowski: “With regard to undocumented aliens, I believe that those who illegally entered or remained in the United States should not be granted amnesty. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens sends the wrong message and is not fair to the vast majority of immigrants who abided by U.S. immigration laws. Granting amnesty would only encourage further illegal immigration.”

15. Chisea: Joined most other Republicans, including opponents of the legislation, in supporting a proposal — which was defeated largely along party lines — that would have blocked legalization until the government can prove U.S. borders are secure. Chiesa said he sees border security as a top priority given his law enforcement background, and has yet to decide his stance on citizenship for immigrants without authorization.

Red State Democrats

1. Pryor: “I voted against the president’s immigration plan today because the border security and enforcement measures are inadequate and the bill fails to effectively address the individuals who are already here illegally.” Pryor says it’s time for changes, “It’s time for a new approach. I advocate that we strengthen and implement the enforcement measures in this bill and show we can fully enforce immigration laws.”

2. Tester: He wants secure borders and no amnesty for law breakers.

3. Landrieu: “Sen. Landrieu is a leader in the U.S. Senate fighting against illegal immigration,” Schneider said. “She has fought against amnesty for illegal immigrants and to provide more resources for border security. The new NRSC attack is designed simply to mislead voters about Sen. Landrieu’s record.”

1012611_10151715678999747_592166439_n

4. Donnelly: “Eliminate amnesty because no one should ever be rewarded for breaking the law.”

5. Hagan: Hagan said she supported increased border security and opposed amnesty.

6. McCaskill: Claire does not support amnesty. As a former prosecutor, Claire believes people who break the law should be held accountable, both illegal immigrants and the employers who exploit them for cheap labor. Claire does not believe we need any new guest worker programs undermining American workers.

7. Stabenow: Do you support path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? STABENOW: I voted no, because it went too far and cost us jobs. I do think it’s important to have border security and legal system that is fair and effective. My focus is on our jobs that we’re losing because of failed policies.

In a related item, courtesy of NRO‘s The Corner, Andrew McCarthy reveals the real problem with Schumer-Rubio:

The Immigration Bill (Or Is It the Corker-Hoeven Amendment?): Everything That Is Wrong with Washington

 

Charles_Schumer_insert_c_Washington_Blade_by_Michael_Key

If he’s fur it, we’re agin’ it; it’s really that simple!

I was just watching Senator Ted Cruz’s floor speech in opposition to the atrocious immigration bill and took note of a remarkable exchange between Senators Cruz and Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and mastermind of the legislation. The short YouTube video is worth your time (Schumer interrupts about a minute in). Cruz pointed out that the hefy 1,200-page Corker-Hoeven Amendment was dropped like a stealth bomb late Friday with supporters now pushing for an immediate vote when it is perfectly obvious that no one could possibly have read, studied and analyzed the proposal. As if it were a defense, Schumer insisted that of the 1,200 pages “only” 100 pages are new, and that certainly a senator should be able to read “only” 100 pages of “important legislation” over a weekend.

Let’s pretend Schumer is correct — and he’s not: Senator Corker says it is actually 119 new pages. When a bill is amended in a sneaky manner, as this one has been, no responsible senator could just read 100 new pages. The amendments are interspersed thoughout the bill — it’s not like you could sit and read them as a unit, even if you had the time. Since the proponents are clearly trying to pull a fast one, prudence, as Senator Cruz pointed out, would dictate rereading every line of text, old and new, to search for insertions — and, indeed, news reports indicate that numerous new buy-offs and pot-sweeteners have been inserted.

But there is a larger point: no “important legislation” should be 100 pages long, much less 1,200 (or the even more mind-boggling girth of monstrosities like Obamacare). The United States Constitution is about 4,500 words long — outfits like Cato and Heritage publish it in small pamphlets that can be read in a few minutes. Nowadays, not only are the bills so gargantuan that no one could conceivably master them and predict their consequences; each page produces even more pages of regulations. They can’t even be lifted, much less digested.

food stamps

You cannot have a functioning democratic republic when the laws are so voluminous no one can know what the law is. And that is especially the case when (a) the rationale for passing new laws — according to “reform” proponents like Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Paul Ryan — is that we don’t enforce the laws currently on the books; (b) key parts of legislation consist of commitments to do what previously enacted law already commands; and (c) the president, notwithstanding his oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, claims the power to refrain from enforcing whatever laws he disapproves of. Washington has made a farce of the legislative process and of the once proud boast that we are ”a nation of laws not men.”

In his excellent little book A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia recalls that the emperor Nero would post edicts high up on the pillars — it was a pretense of having the rule of law that barely camouflaged the reality of arbitrary and tyrranical enforcement. That is what we have now. It is what happens when a government gets so big no one any longer recognizes either the limits or why it is essential to have limits.

2013-03-14T174246Z_1_CBRE92D1D7G00_RTROPTP_3_USA-IMMIGRATION-TEMPORARY

Por que?!?

Whatever the merits of the legislation (and who can say with confidence what they are?), the senate process alone is reason enough to vote against it. World’s greatest deliberative body? It is astounding that any lawmaker could vote for this beast and still call himself a conservative supporter of limited government.

To which we can only add a hearty “AMEN”!

On the Lighter Side…

mrz062513dAPR20130625014541gmc11031420130625041700lb0625cd20130624081748bg062513dAPR20130625044530hF738E8FBhFD0BDCB22vd2stc

Then there’s this bitingly accurate bit of satire, courtesy of Sandy Martindale:

1006179_587861291279947_1571086169_n-1

And in the Guns & Ammo section, courtesy of Balls Cotton, allow us to recommend the perfect stocking-stuffer for every anti-Jihadist on your Christmas list:

Company Sells Pork-Laced Bullets To Fight Islamic Terrorists

 

jihawg-ammunition

An Idaho ammunition manufacturer has developed a new line of pork-laced bullets they hope will fight against Islamic terrorists – and keep them from going to heaven. South Fork Industries of Dalton Gardens, Idaho, took traditional bullets and coated them in pork-infused paint to make them “haram,” or unclean, under Islamic law. The company’s website labels the “Jihawg Ammo” bullets as “Peace Through Pork” and a “peaceful and natural deterrent to radical Islam.”

“With Jihawg Ammo, you don’t just kill an Islamist terrorist, you also send him to hell. That should give would-be martyrs something to think about before they launch an attack. If it ever becomes necessary to defend yourself and those around you our ammo works on two levels,” the company said in a press release earlier this month.

The pink and black box bills the bullets as “Freedom’s first choice in defensive ammunition,” and says, “There’s Pig in the Paint.” There’s a related line of gear that feature slogans like “Put Some Ham in MoHAMed” and a target poster that says “Give Em a Spankin with some Bacon.”

Finally, we’ll call it a day with the Wonderful World of Science, and this horrific headline:

Blood-Sucking Monsters in US

 

 

Barackula

And this comes as a surprise to…whom?!?

Enjoy the rest of your week; we’re off until Monday playing in our Dad’s memorial golf tournament.  Until then, don’t you go changin’!

Magoo