I think they call this projection:
This Congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly-veiled Social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it, a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last, education and training, research and development, our infrastructure, it is a prescription for decline.He's got a point -- fiscal responsibility would certainly be radical if it were ever practiced.
A day or two ago he declared that government spending "made this country great."
President Obama attacked Republicans for their desire to cut the government spending that "made this country great," while also faulting them for failing to "balance the budget."Moving on. How many lies can you pack into a minute and a half?
Obama said that Republicans have "one message and that is, we're going to make sure that we cut people's taxes even more -- so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great," he argued, "not because it's going to balance the budget, but because it's driven by our ideological vision about how government should be. That's their agenda, pure and simple."
The president should avoid attacking budgets for failing to balance. Senate Democrats have refused to propose a budget of any kind in over 1,000 days. President Obama's budget included $3.6 trillion in new spending this year. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., proposed a plan to balance the budget in five years. The Republican Study Committee has also proposed a plan to balance the budget in five years.
Rush on that:
Wait just a second. Stop tape. Unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law? It happens every term. There's nothing unprecedented about overturning an unconstitutional act of Congress. Can I remind you of Proposition 187 in California? The people of California voted to end welfare payments to the children of illegal immigrants. A statewide ballot initiative and the people of California said we're tired and we're not going to pay for the health care or for other welfare for the children of illegal immigrants. And a federal judge threw it out, said it wasn't constitutional, said the people of California didn't know what they were doing. Don't tell me that judges don't throw out laws. One judge in that case, Prop 187. And there are a number of others, countless examples. How about Obama refusing to enforce federal law in Arizona when it comes to immigration and instead suing the state.This re-defining of "judicial activism" is a rather large lie, even for Obama.
So that's a lie. That is not true. And of course this majority of a democratically elected Congress. He's messing with the history of this again. Let's review. Obamacare passed the Senate late on Christmas Eve of 2009, had a vote of 60-39. All Senate Democrats, two independents voted for it. All the Senate Republicans voted against it. It passed the House on March 21st, 2010, by a vote of 219 to 212. All 178 House Republicans and 34 Democrats voted against it. There was no bipartisan support for this. It barely won by seven votes. There was not an overwhelming victory by a majority of democratically elected Congress. And, in fact, if we're gonna talk about democracy and majorities, I'll again remind you of the polling data on this. Anywhere from 60, depending on the poll, to 75% of the American people oppose Obamacare. Shouldn't the justices pay attention to that?
RUSH: Well, once again I'll reiterate for you that he has totally incorrectly defined judicial activism. Nobody ever accuses judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution. Judicial activism is when judges do not follow the Constitution, when they legislate from the bench, when they write their own law.Much more here.
Update: Obama doubles down:
President Obama elaborated on his claim that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," as he suggested today that the court does not take its responsibilities "seriously" if they do.***
"We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress, on a economic issue, like healthcare -- like I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner [vs New York, 1905]," Obama told reporters during the question-and-answer session of the Associated Press luncheon.
He was responding to a questioner who had disputed his suggestion that a ruling against the law would be "unprecedented." The questioner noted "that's exactly what the court has done through it's entire existence."
Appeals court fires back:
(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the Buzzworthy linkn.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.
Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.