« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Morning Briefing for June 25, 2012

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 25th, 2012 at 04:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

RS MB CleanMasthead

RedState Morning Briefing

June 25, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

———————————————————————-

1. The False Narrative of the Grand Bargain on Tax Hikes

Over the past few months, there has been a daily trickle of establishment Republicans coming out before the media in hostage style confession statements to declare that they would accept tax increases as part of a “grand bargain” to cut the deficit. The latest member was Lindsey Graham, who stated his newfound opposition to the taxpayer pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, which he considered to be too ideologically intransigent. Tom Coburn continues to work with the “Gang of 6” in an effort to “raise revenue.”

The media has extrapolated on Graham’s narrative, suggesting that Republicans are too unyielding to compromise and that they would even chase Reagan out of the party if he’d be president today. Buttressed by Jeb Bush’s comments concerning Reagan’s place in today’s Republican Party, the media is chastising us for being so stridently opposed to tax increases – even in the event of a “grand bargain” of $10 of spending cuts per $1 of tax increases.

The problem with this narrative of the grand bargain is that no such agreement exists. Nor will it ever materialize.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Obama for America stiffing Durham, NH for… $30,000. Wait, WHAT?

The very short version: President Barack Obama is scheduled to make a campaign speech on Monday, in the town of Durham, NH. This will cost the town an estimated sixteen to thirty thousand dollars in additional overtime for cops and fire officials and whatnot. The town is taking the position that while they’d be happy to eat the cost for a Presidential visit, a campaign stop by the President is a different story; the town also claims that they’ve asked previous campaigns to foot the bill for overtime/costs. Obama for America has declined to do this, claiming that the Secret Service wants the extra security in place (this is fast becoming OfA’s favorite excuse for bad visuals); the town is now contemplating symbolically dis-inviting the President. If passed, then hi-jinks will then presumably ensue.

No, really, that was the really short version.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Gasland’s Josh Fox Can’t Be Bothered with Facts

Oscar®-nominated filmmaker Josh Fox, he of the burning water tap, loves to scare people with the provocative word “fracking” and misleading images and claims of its potential to damage the environment, specifically groundwater.

To wit, this screenshot of a cute little animated .gif at Fox’s website gaslandthemovie.com.

It clearly depicts fractures from a horizontal gas well invading a freshwater aquifer. Scary! Now, consider the detail of that portion of the cartoon which depicts the fractures extending vertically up into the shallow water-bearing zone.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Is YOUR Democratic politician going to the Democratic convention?

Because we’re getting quite a list going of Democrats who are too frightened of being associated with the President to want to go to an Obama-dominated convention (or, as Michelle Malkin rather elegantly put it, the upcoming “Tarheel trainwreck“). So far…

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • commonsenseobserver
  • commonsenseobserver

    It’s, of course, the Romney campaign’s home territory. They’d better watch out.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Juvenile Sentencing Cases (5-4) – Court rules life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional – Justice Kagan gives opinion

    Montana finance case summarily reversed court upholds Citizens United

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Arizona – 9th circuit is upheld in part, reversed in part; most of the key provisions of SB1070 are invalidated by the court. If I read correctly, court does not enjoin section 2(b) requiring police officers to check immigration status of all persons arrested. The rest of the Arizona law is invalidated by the court as preempted by Federal law.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Reading the tea leaves if he were the Senior Justice for Healthcare, he would most assuredly have assigned this task to Justice Ginsberg and taken health care himself. This leads me to believe that Justice Roberts will be the Senior Justice on healthcare and will either deliver the decision himself or give it to Justice Scalia. This can’t be great news over at the Obama reign even if Arizona is almost a complete win for the Reign.

  • commonsenseobserver

    But I guess Roberts settled for the best he could, rather than risk the entire 9th circuit ruling being affirmed.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    That this ruling would not preempt other challenges to Section 2(C) (like one coming that it it racial profiling).

  • acat

    It provides legal protection for the police departments in Arizona who were already checking immigration status on a routine basis.

    It ends any attempts by urban departments to operate “sanctuary cities”.

    It affirms that the problem is, in fact, Federal – and that means the problem must be dealt with by electing conservatives to Congress. To help with that, it makes immigration and border enforcement into a nice wedge for GOP candidates to peel off Dem / Labor supporters.

    Mew

  • acat

    on what procedures they need to have in place to proactively scuttle a “racial profiling” challenge.

    Mew

  • gekster

    From what I understand, the parts thrown out were the ones covered by the Feds.
    Is there something more that I’m not seeing.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    The 10th amendment basically states that the states retain all their rights except those that give up to the Federal government by joining the Union. The ability to make laws over naturalization and thus immigration are among those they give up in the Court’s opinion. Like acat says it is a Federal issue; the court reaffirms that. I really have no qualms with the decision.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Justice Kennedy is almost certainly not the senior justice in the majority for healthcare; no way his ego takes this one and not health care. The only judges senior to Kennedy are Roberts and Scalia.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    It is a Federal issue both by Constitution and common sense. Could you imagine the chaos if each state had different immigration laws? What was legal in California, New Mexico and Florida was illegal immigration in Arizona, Texas and Montana? This screams to the people if you don’t like Obama’s stench filled immigration by fiat policy, the best solution is to stuff his blessed assurance into a U-Haul along with all his crap with a “Chicago or Bust” sticker on the back.

  • acat

    I don’t speak for all of Chicago, but .. a lot of us DON’T want him back!

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Court ruled mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional for juveniles.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Listen, this is totally inside baseball, but, I finally got around to making the pasties from your recipe and they were delicious. Especially the crust — I had never used lard before — always shortening.

    But I had a question. Do you precook the meat or let cook inside the crust? They were a little dry and I think it is because I precooked the meat. Was afraid they would be too greasy if I cooked the meat inside the pasty. Thanks for any tips.

  • acat

    Let me guess, you were concerned it wouldn’t cook all the way through and you’d be serving raw meat? Yeah, I thought that, but decided to risk it.

    Turns out, it gets hot enough to cook *completely* (i.e. well done) and the juices (the oils, specifically) are necessary to prevent the veggies drying out too much.

    Glad you enjoyed ‘em!

    Mew

  • westcoastpatriette

    Yum

  • lineholder

    The Court opinion?s looming specter of inutterable horror??[i]f ?3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,? ante, at 10?seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States? borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive?s refusal to enforce the Nation?s immigration laws?

    A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court?s holding? Today?s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with ?the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.? 1Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed.1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded?as reflected in the innumerable proposals that never left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision?perhaps inserted right after Art. I, ?8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause?which included among the enumerated powers of Congress ?To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.? The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

  • funwithknives

    I cook Med Rare, a little crusty on the outside, and in they go.
    After cooking I let ‘em sit in Broth for 20 or so.

    Now my gut is rumblin’ and it’s all on you guys. Have pity, would ya’ ?

  • westcoastpatriette

    cooking and eatin’. Yum. Now, go get yerself some lunch.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    1. I can’t click on lineholder’s diary under the Reco Diaries, although I can under the Member Diaries. Where all the others under the Reco list appear in the same underlined type, hers is not the same and doesn’t link. Weird.

    2. On the MB page only, the comments, Reco Diaries, Member Diaries, Red Hot, etc. all show up following the MB comments rather than out to the side as they appear on other diaries. I don’t recall it being different until recently.

    3. The FB like, Tweet and Google +1 icons block the first line or two in a diary whether I’m on IE at work or Firefox at home. Does anyone know how to fix this? I’m having to guess what at least a half dozen words are these days.

  • lineholder

    “The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

    Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police ? but that won?t change President Obama?s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

    From Obama admin to SCOTUS, the state of AZ, and any citizens concerned about protecting and preserving the rule of law….

    “Take that you commoners….we’ll play this by our rules…OR ELSE!”

  • acat

    “Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

    Mew

  • lineholder

    I’d be surprised if any of the members of SCOTUS respond positively to the actions of the Obama admin on this ruling.

    Wonder if it will cause any members of SCOTUS to think more thoroughly about what the Obama admin and DHHS mean when they say that they have ‘contigency plans” if O-care is stricken down?

    All in all, it speaks of a degree of arrogance on the part of the Obama admin that very blatantly places themselves as being above the rule of law.

  • checkmate2012

    Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act? Giving trained AZ police ICE-like authority to assisit ICE?

    I was wondering about this in light of SB1070 ruling. If you read the AZ Phoenix MOA signed on 10/19/2009, DHS can suspend the MOA with a phone call but must provide written termination to the Phx PD.

    THis admin is at war with our country!!! Turn a blind eye to the border, don’t respond to calls from states will illegals that commit crimes and then remove their certification to help ICE- Arg :(

    http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm

  • acat

    Changing this balance would be a much more significant “re-making of America” than anything else Obama has managed to achieve….

    I cannot believe that Kagan or Sotomayor, who each have a pleasant 20+ years of influencing D.C. ahead of them, would let anyone – even Obama – shift the balance to reduce their power…

    This is going to leave a mark.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    The ruling today SCOTUS supported the stipulation in the AZ law that provides for illegal immigration checks through ICE by law enforcement personnel in AZ.

    Homeland Security has just announced that they will be ignoring the majority of calls coming from AZ law enforcement personnel, except in situations of when a felony has been committed.

    Technically, acat is right….the Obama admin is doubling down in support of Obama’s continued position to fail to enforce the law on illegal immigration…and the announcement came today AFTER SCOTUS announced it’s ruling on the law…and it is a defiant act of contempt in the face of the ruling made by SCOTUS.

    No one is going to tell this admin what they can and/or can not do. Not we the people. Not Congress. And now, not even SCOTUS.

    They’re above the law, you see. The rule of law is for “commoners”, not elitist power brokers like themselves.

  • checkmate2012

    can defy the Rule of Law, I’d suggest AZ take all of their incarcerated to the White House lawn and let them loose! What will they do to the entire state of AZ, that they haven’t done already??

  • lineholder

    they may very well just blow it all off as another “means to an end for the sake of the cause”.

    But if there are Justices who might have been riding the middle somewhat, trying to give this admin the benefit of the doubt….I would almost bet that goes away as of now.

    And realistically speaking, acat, I think the Obama admin knows that O-care is a lost cause for them….even if the law is upheld by a unanimous vote. The public is very much so against it…Obama can’t run on it…it gains him nothing in the election in November to try to do so…but illegal immigration, OTOH…they believe this could let them extend another four years of power.

  • checkmate2012

    Does anyone ever recall a first lady announcing her trip with an entourage to lead the US olympic team?

    She needs to pay the taxpayers for every dime, including AF2, for her expenses.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ase

  • gekster

    This just started popping up on my screen about an hour ago,
    wants a username and password.
    Any knowledge of this out there?

  • checkmate2012

    weird. I used my laptop name and password and it went away.

  • gekster

    Hint, you really shouldn’t give out info to things you don’t know about.
    It could cause spamming or worse.
    Just some friendly advice.

  • earlgrey

    Exactly what has to happen before the Democrat brand is damaged.

  • checkmate2012

    my bad. So you can still post tho’ so it seems even after pressing cancel. I’ve not gotten it since but think I’ll do a shut down. Thx.

  • gekster

    But just who is doing the tracking and why is the question.

    Obama?
    Getting a list of us VRWC nuts?
    And for what reason.

    Wait.

    Listen, here that.

    Is that a helocoptor out there.

    Now where did I put that tinfoil hat.

  • westcoastpatriette

    must be on their hit list.

  • gekster

    ntnt

  • checkmate2012

    inserting youtube vids into my post and darn it didn’t work! I guess inserts for comments are different for diaries? Thanks for the help and assumed it would be the same for a diary. Dumb me again.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    nt

  • gekster

    I guess it’s a different animal.

  • checkmate2012

    My diary looks stupid so I’ll plead ignorance now :)

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    For people who think they have had their civil rights violated by the implementation of Arizona SB1070 Section 2(B).

  • earlgrey

    I just assumed I was the only one.

  • gekster

    there is a section on httml.
    There might be something in there to help with the vid.
    If there is, you can go back and edit it in.
    Hope that helps.

  • gekster

    In tools (or control panal) select internet options,
    select the ‘Security’ tab,
    then select ‘Restricted sites’.
    Select ‘Sites’ and print this into the space next to ‘Add’.
    http://www.sitemeter.com/

    Click ‘Add’ and then Close.
    Then click ‘OK’.

    Havn’t gotten it since.

  • checkmate2012

    n/t

  • checkmate2012

    It worked for me. If it is a RS thing, they should tell us like you said.

  • checkmate2012

    to under 100 for a comment TITLE and should fit in the space. The one above is 47 characters.

    The comments are more like a diary sometimes and limit the ability to pick and scroll. Say it in the comments section, not the title.