Republicans to introduce legislation which would stop the EPA from implementing cap and trade
When the cap and trade bill fell by the wayside in the Congress last year, Barack Obama decided to implement “Plan B” in order to pass his radical agenda. While claiming that there was “more than one way to skin a cat” Barack Obama looked to the EPA to implement his cap and trade proposal through fiat while at the same time circumventing the Congress because he could not get this issue passed using the one and only constitutionally provided means for passing legislation.
But now the Congress is fighting back against this affront to their constitutional authority as 11 Republicans are getting ready to introduce a bill which will require the EPA to get Congressional approval before moving forward with new cap and trade rules. Read more…
Dick Durbin says that Barack Obama should implement healthcare reform even though it has been ruled unconstitutional
Providing us with a glowing example of the disdain and the contempt with which liberals hold the restrictive power of the constitution, Dick Durbin went on the record as stating that the president should continue to implement the healthcare reform law even though it has been ruled unconstitutional.
Many of us on the right have made the argument that liberals feel as if the end justifies the means and that because of this they are willing to ignore the constitution and even court rulings if it means implementing laws which they feel are in our best interests even if those laws do not meet the criteria outlined in the constitution, and the fact that Dick Durbin has gone on record as stating the president should ignore the Florida court ruling is proof of this position.
Calling it a “third front” in the war against Obamacare, Lindsey Graham has introduced legislation in the Senate which would allow any state to opt out of any portion of Obamacare if they saw fit to do so. This would, in effect, give the states the power of nullification and could possibly render Obamacare dead if a majority of the states were to opt out.
Graham was clear that if a majority of states opt out of Obamacare’s mandates and penalties, then, “The bill would fall and we’d have to replace it with something that makes more sense.”
There are currently more than half of the states challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law and one can speculate that if the Supreme Court were to uphold the law that these same 26 states would then opt out of the legislation if this bill were to pass. So it appears on the surface that if this bill were to pass that Obamacare would be all but dead.
But the question is: In light of the recent Senate vote against repealing Obamacare–even after the law has been deemed unconstitutional–what are the chances that this opt out bill would be passed by the Senate? I have to believe that the odds are not good, but possibly better than the outright repeal legislation was. With all of the Republicans united on the opt out bill, the Republicans would have to flip four Democrat votes to their side in order to pass this bill. There is a chance that adding an opt out amendment to the healthcare reform legislation would be more appealing to some Democrats in conservative leaning districts then an outright repeal, which would have been seen as a direct condemnation of the president.
This bill could provide Democrats with enough cover to vote for a measure that would ultimately kill Obamacare without taking a vote which would directly put them at odds with the president, and this would provide the Republicans with the result they have been looking for all along. This appears to be a shrewd move by Lindsey Graham and it will be interesting to watch this play out.
The Senate votes on Obamacare repeal
Earlier this year the House voted in favor of repealing Obamacare in its entirety sending the bill to the Senate for a vote. Harry Reid had vowed to block this bill from ever making it to the Senate floor for a vote but today the bill made it to the Senate floor and the bill failed along party lines by a vote of 51-47.
There never really was a chance that the Democrat controlled Senate would vote to repeal Obamacare but Harry Reid did not want vulnerable Democrats forced into voting in support of the unpopular and unconstitutional legislation. But today the Republicans successfully forced the vote and now we have ALL of the Senate Democrats on record as supporting the Obamcare legislation which was recently ruled unconstitutional by a Florida judge. Apparently the constitutionality of the legislation is of no concern to the Democrats.
Ward Bird is a free man!
Yesterday Ward Bird–the New Hampshire man who was jailed for defending his property–had his pardon hearing and today the Executive Council and the governor voted on whether or not to grant him his pardon. The Executive Council (which holds a 5-0 majority) pushed for a full pardon which would expunge Ward Bird’s record but Democrat Governor John Lynch overrode this decision. So the Executive Council held a second vote on commuting Ward Bird’s sentence to time served and the governor approved the verdict–sometime either later tonight or tomorrow morning Ward Bird will be a free man.
While this is not a full victory for Ward Bird because he will no longer be able to practice his second amendment right–he turned down two plea bargains to avoid jail time because he would have lost his second amendment right and he felt he did nothing wrong–at least Ward Bird will finally be reunited with his family.
I think there would have been a chance at a full pardon if a recent revelation about Ward Bird’s past record had not been known. Back in 2002 Ward Bird and a few of his buddies had a few drinks and began shooting at a nearby tree stump, but one of Ward Bird’s shots went through the window and into the house of a neighbor. Ward Bird pleaded the charge down to a violation and the owner of the house dropped the charges when Ward Bird agreed to pay for the damages.
I have to be honest; with this revelation I think it was very hard for anyone to totally wipe Ward Bird’s record clean. After all, he acted careless and irresponsible by drinking and using his firearm and he was damned lucky that nobody got hurt, and it is pretty hard to defend someone who has neglected to act responsibly with a weapon in the past. But it still brings up the question of whether or not Ward Bird’s sentence fit the crime he was found guilty of and it also has made me question how wise the idea of mandatory minimum sentencing is.
It still seems to me that Ward Bird’s original sentence did not fit the crime, and the judge that sentenced Ward Bird to the mandatory three years felt the same way as he stated that he didn’t feel Ward Bird deserved any jail time. I have always been a supporter of mandatory minimum sentencing because I felt that it kept liberal judges more honest; by this I mean, mandatory sentencing would force a liberal judge to sentence a person who deserved jail time to jail time instead of letting that person off easy–maybe with just a slap on the wrist. But this case has made me realize that there are times when a judge must use his judgement (go figure) and look at any extenuating circumstances surrounding a case before he or she hands down a sentence–not every case is as cut and dried as one might think.
Ward Bird is now about to be freed and so justice has been served, at least on one level, because he never should have been jailed in the first place. Ward Bird can still seek to clear his record if he still feels he was wronged, but at least now he will be able to do it from home. I have the feeling he will let it go now that he is a free man.
UPDATE: The Republican controlled Executive Council voted 5-0 in favor of a pardon but were over-ruled by the governor who favored the commutation. Ward Bird and his wife are happy with his freedom, but still disappointed that he didn’t receive a full pardon. Ward Bird will be able to apply again in two years for a full pardon.
I have been covering the story of Ward Bird–the New Hampshire man jailed for defending his property–for quite awhile now as updates became available, and at long last we should know his fate today. Yesterday Ward Bird finally had his pardon hearing and during his closing argument he made his case with a one sentence plea for freedom when he simply stated, “God as my witness, and on the honor of my family and my friends in this room today, I did not point or wave a firearm at Christine Harris, and that’s all I have to say.”
Governor John Lynch and the Executive Council now hold Ward Bird’s fate in their hands and will rule on his case later today. I have to believe that in light of one incident in Ward Bird’s past that the chances are he will receive a commutation of his sentence rather than a full pardon; he will gain his freedom but lose his right to keep and bear arms because the felony conviction will still be on his record.
I will have a post later tonight when we learn how this case has been resolved.
Obamacare: 28 food service unions are granted healthcare waivers
The list of organizations which the Obama regime is granting healthcare reform law waivers to is turning into a who’s who list of Obama supporters. We have already learned that several teachers unions as well as several chapters of the SEIU have been granted healthcare reform law waivers which allow them to cap off how much insurance plans will pay off on a yearly basis. What do the teachers unions and the SEIU have in common? They just happen to contribute to the campaigns of Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular.
And according to this article 28 chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union are also among the 700+ organizations which have asked for and been granted healthcare reform law waivers. And, much like the teachers unions and the SEIU, would you care to guess who is a main beneficiary of campaign contributions by the UFCW? None other than Barack Obama–and other Democrats as well; you are not really surprised by that are you?
The UFCW’s political action committee spent $673,309 in independent expenditures promoting the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
That PAC–the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Active Ballot Club–also contributed $1.8 million to Democratic federal candidates in 2008 and $1.7 million to Democratic congressional candidates in 2010.
Barack Obama has been kowtowing to unions since the beginning of the healthcare reform debate, promising to exempt union offered healthcare plans from the “Cadillac plan” tax while at the same time taxing the very same “Cadillac plans” for non-union employees and this seems like nothing more than another attempt at placating what is probably the Democrats’ biggest special interest group.
It now appears likely that the House will investigate all of these healthcare waivers and I think that on the surface it appears as if Barack Obama is engaged in a quid pro quo with these special interest groups–if you have donated to Barack Obama and have a big enough lobby there is a very good chance that you will not be subjected to the same healthcare reform law requirements that all others must follow and I think that it is about time that this matter is looked into.
A Florida judge rules that Obamacare is unconstitutional
In what is being called the biggest blow yet to Barack Obama’s signature legislation, a Florida judge has ruled that the entire healthcare reform law is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual healthcare mandate was unconstitutional, a verdict which was also reached by a Virginia justice late last year, but this decision goes even further because Judge Vinson declared that because the healthcare mandate was so vital to the overall law, and because the healthcare mandates were inseparable from the law as a whole, that the whole healthcare reform law is unconstitutional.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he wrote, “This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications
And Judge Vinson continued: Read more…
A Republican lost opportunity: Why is the 2012 presidential election off to a slow start?
I have recently been thinking about how the 2012 election season compares to the 2008 election season and to me there just doesn’t seem to be the activity here in New Hampshire that there should be at this point in time. In other words, it seems as if the 2012 presidential election is off to a slow start. Although I am fully aware that many people are probably not ready to begin yet another campaign so soon after the midterm elections were completed, the fact is that it is time to start focusing on the next critical election, and the likely presidential candidates are going to have to declare in the very near future. I consider this my 2012 election “kick off” post and I hope that the likely presidential candidates are soon going to leap into the fray, but as of yet they seem unwilling to do so.
Back home again
I got home late last night after a week on the road for work in Boulder Colorado. The job went well, the view of the mountains was amazing, and the weather was great–mid 40s until Friday when it hit about 65 degrees–meanwhile back home the weather wasn’t quite so nice with the temperatures in the single digits with another snowstorm mixed in. As “interesting” as some of the people in Boulder were (and I do mean interesting) and as great as the weather and the views were there was still something missing and you all know what it is–my family. Today we are reunited again!
I tried to keep up with the blogging and making my rounds throughout the blogosphere as best I could but now I am home and looking forward to rejoining the battle in full. I apologize for not visiting all of the blogs as regularly as usual and thank you all for the well wishes, I truly do appreciate them.
In my going away post I left you with a John Denver video so why not do it again?
Hey it’s good to be back home again!
America's Watchtower 