The Jawa Report: Ironic Statement Of The Day

The Jawa Report: Ironic Statement Of The Day
And a nice illustration of liberal hypocrisy:

Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling on the Justice Department to investigate so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws following the fatal shooting of an unarmed Florida teen. [...] "These laws seem to be encouraging vigilantism by allowing individuals to use deadly force as a first resort," Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
Schumer asked Holder's department to probe whether the laws "are creating more violence than they are preventing," and whether potential murders are "going unprosecuted" because of them.
Senator Schumer had no comments about the $10,000 bounty the New Black Panthers have put on the head of George Zimmerman. The racist group hopes to increase the bounty to $1,000,000 through donations, mostly from black entertainers who support the call for vigilante justice.

H/T @Publicrelations

Anyone have Spike Lees address?

Does Janet Understand The Nature of the Enemy?

Napolitano: No War Here

William Kristol

It's worth reading (don't worry, it's short) Janet Napolitano's op-ed in USA Today.

As if to confirm Dick Cheney's claim that the Obama administration doesn't understand we're at war, Napolitano never uses the word...war. Nor does she mention Islam, Yemen or Nigeria -- nor any of the details of the incident, nor the particulars of the government failures over the last few months.

Lots of op-eds ghost-written for cabinet secretaries are stupid. But this one may outdo them all in its vagueness and avoidance of substance, in its managing to be at once bureaucratic and cloying, and in speaking to the American people as if they are children. She attempts to reassure, and fails.

By the way, since this was a plot hatched overseas by people whom our intelligence agencies are listening in on and trying to bump off -- is Napolitano really the appropriate lead official? It's revealing who the White House put out Sunday -- Napolitano and press secretary Robert Gibbs. For the Obama White House, it's all spin and TSA procedures. Do we still have a CIA director? I'd heard Panetta wasn't getting along with the White House...but is he even in the loop?

He has GOT to be kidding.....

Obama to shift focus to budget deficit.......

Full story at Wall St. Journal:

"He has scheduled a "fiscal-responsibility summit" on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country's surging long-term debt crisis."

"It's important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying."

Hmmm, they propose either spending cuts or higher taxes "once the economy turns around", of course. And since that is supposed to happen ON ITS OWN, per the CBO, here is their excuse to raise taxes. Because, all of this spending is necessary.

Just ask them.

What a load of crap.

Where's my bourbon and duct tape.....

I Had To Do It

and I'm not running for President, I was just getting a background check to get a security clearance to enter the shipyard to check floor flatness. I went down to the Viginia Vital Statistics Building and had a copy of my birth certificate in my hand in 15 minutes. Every day, normal average Americans are required to produce their birth certificates to gain employment, or to access secure sites to perform their jobs. It's no big deal. Happens all the time. So why is it such an issue with the B. Hussein Obama campaign? Why can't this Marxist half-wit grasp the concept?

The following is an excerpt from Frank Salvato's column at Family Security Matters:

The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.

Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.

The FEC’s mission statement reads:

“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”

So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?

In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.

In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:

“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”

Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?