Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Angela Corey

There were just 14 women you could publicly and properly call a "bitch."  Now there are 15.

What Lib's Have Wrought

Oh My

Marc Miller


   At The Cinema                           


If you don't have kids at home, there's every chance you missed UP!  Over a year ago my daughter was telling us that it's her favorite movie of all time; could not believe we hadn't seen it. "It's always on cable."  On Comcast maybe, but since then I've kept a lookout for it on Verizon.  All they've offered is PPV, and I refuse to give them any more money than I already do.  Finally Mo-Sup just went ahead and paid for a three day rental from Amazon, which we then watched on ROKU.

I'll stop short of calling UP the best movie I've ever seen, but only until I still feel that way a year from now.  It was nothing I expected.  Daughter asked, "Well what was it you expected?"  I said it was like listening to someone on radio for years.  You conjure up an image in your mind, but cloudy; nothing you could draw on paper.  When you finally do see a picture, he looks nothing like what you imagined.  That's UP. 

Pay the $2.99 and try it.  It's a movie for times like these.  No messages, just visually breathtaking and ... the way you were.  And way fun.  Juice- are you listening?

Here's yur rule of law


Res Ipsa Loquitor

Excerpts from Why the President's ObamaCare Maneuver May Backfire

Whatever the reason, the president does not have the power to stop the implementation of a law. If there is one bedrock constitutional legal principle, it is that the president must "faithfully execute" federal statutes. He cannot suspend laws he dislikes on policy grounds or because he fears their political consequences.

This not only comports with what the founders intended and prescribed in our founding documents and constitution, it makes sense to anyone who attended school before, say, 1992. But, having said that the Journal blithely states—

Mr. Obama, however, has made a habit of exercising an unlawful suspending power, refusing to enforce selected federal laws, including various provisions of the immigration laws against young, undocumented aliens; work requirements enacted as part of the 1996 federal welfare reform law; and the testing accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law.

One might expect the next lines to describe Obama's upcoming Impeachment trial in the Senate; but no—so much for "bedrock principle"

One key problem with suspension power—aside from the fact that it destroys the balance of power between the two political branches—is that, when skillfully exercised, it sidelines the judiciary. The Constitution requires that a party commencing litigation must have what is commonly called "standing," i.e., the party must have suffered or will suffer a legal injury that a court can redress. A determined president can head off litigation by effectively rewriting federal statutes in ways that do not create individual injuries so no party has standing.

So, he can't ignore the constitution, but does; and now, instead of reading about his impending removal, we get wailers in hair shirts. WTF?

Res Ipsa LoquitorWhat really caught my eye of course (if you know me) is the " must have what is commonly called "standing" part.  Like everything else in law these days, this rule is subject to a purely political interpretation.  The best current example being the, oh, 965 lawsuits filed against Obama for not having standing to become president— natural born citizenship!  Hell, there are good arguments made that he isn't even a naturalized citizen.  

The federal courts, including the SCOTUS, have dismissed every suit on the grounds the plaintiff lacked standing.  Huh?   Every citizen of the United States has standing to show direct harm caused by this illegally seated poseur. A good many can cite mental anguish as well as monetary damages.

As demonstrated then, this is what we're reduced to.  A rule of law that is subject to politically convenient application.  Even the WSJ finds it impossible to conduct a cogent examination of this man without getting caught up in double speak.  Am I wrong?