“The Congressional inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, and the cover-up by Justice Department officials of wrongdoing, has been a fair and fact based investigation. False and partisan allegations by the White House and some congressional Democrats about the Oversight Committee’s efforts were undermined by the votes of 17 Democrats. These Members resisted the pressure of their own leadership and the Obama Administration to support this investigation on the House floor.
“Claims by the Justice Department that it has fully cooperated with this investigation fall at odds with its conduct: issuing false denials to Congress when senior officials clearly knew about gunwalking, directing witnesses not to answer entire categories of questions, retaliating against whistleblowers, and producing only 7,600 documents while withholding over 100,000.
“I greatly appreciate the ongoing efforts of Senator Chuck Grassley, his staff, and other Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have pressed the Obama Administration for the full truth. Senator Grassley began this investigation and has been a full partner throughout it. I must also recognize the hard work done by many of my colleagues here in the House – without their efforts the Justice Department’s stonewalling would have succeeded.
“My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico. Unless President Obama relents to this bipartisan call for transparency and an end to the cover-up, our fight will move to the courts where we will prevail in getting the documents that the Justice Department and President Obama’s flawed assertion of executive privilege have denied the American people.”
“I absolutely reject” the notion that the individual mandate is a tax.
“… for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
“That’s not a tax increase…”
“… you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
And now, the latest from Mister Smith Media…
Though there are people far more qualified to debate the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, we’d be remiss in not mentioning it all.
Via Doug Powers:
Yikes. Obamacare upheld almost in its entirety:
“The mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.”
“The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.”
“The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The mandate survives “as a tax.” That should help the middle class dig out of the recession.
Here’s the thing – this is a defeat for conservatives in many ways. That said, any chance Obama had of seeing voters sit on the sideline because they can’t get behind Romney is gone.
It also gives Republicans running in 2012 a new talking point – not only is this a massive expansion of government power, but it is being implemented via a massive tax.
Doubt that this will be a rallying cry? Team Romneycare has already raised $200k since the decision mere minutes ago.
In the meantime, here’s a friendly reminder that the President himself insisted that the individual mandate is not a tax.
Transcript via ABC News:
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Well Mr. President, you now have no choice but to accept that notion. You’ve just implemented one of the biggest tax burdens in American history. Own it.
Meanwhile, expect the Tea Party to be back in business in the coming months.
We’ll see you in November.
‘Cause everybody knows, the more people that are on food stamps, the more likely they are going to vote for the guy who gives them their freebies.
Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle. Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.
The good news is, you can pick up drinks and cigs for the party using your EBT card. If the clerk refuses to allow it, just have them fired.
This ‘throw a party for food stamps’ initiative comes on the heals of a report that has the Obama admin running ads urging people to sign up for food stamps because “they make you look good“.
Clearly the one in seven Americans already on food stamps is not enough for the President. He wants more. He wants you to think it’s the norm. He wants you to think it’s cool.
But most importantly – he wants your vote. Because who’s going to get the food stamp vote – the candidate who wants to get America back to work, or the candidate who wants you to forgo work in lieu of food stamps and 100 weeks of unemployment checks?
Don’t call Obama the ‘food stamp President’ though – that’s racist code don’t ya know?
Allen West said it best when he stated that Republicans don’t want to get rid of welfare safety nets, they just don’t want to see the safety net become a hammock.
Let’s hope voters get out of their hammock in November.
The AP has just called the Republican Senate primary for Wendy Long. She has defeated U.S. Rep. Bob Turner and Nassau County Comptroller George Maragos in New York’s 20th District.
Readers were introduced to Ms. Long back in February when she first announced her plans to run against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
According to a Capital New York report at that time, Long stated that she “was seeking to replace Gillibrand in order to return the country to its roots of limited constitutional government.”
… she attacked Gillibrand as “our former moderate upstate congresswoman” who entered a “political witness protection program” upon being appointed to the Senate, and “emerged as the most doctrinaire liberal in the Senate.
“Senator Gillibrand has been a compliant ‘yes’ vote for the liberal orthodoxy in Washington,” she said. “That is, unless she’s complaining that the orthodoxy isn’t far left enough.”
Gillibrand should never be accused of moderation, having voted along party lines at a rate of 97%. Long concurs, labeling Gillibrand as an ‘extremist’.
So what makes Long a better option for her district?
“I’m basically running on the economy and jobs and the skyrocketing national debt and the failure of Gillibrand and other members of the liberal establishment to get the budget under control,” she said of her campaign platform.
She also mentioned the Keystone Pipeline, and the “heavy hand” of government regulation.
In a letter to Republican county leaders she wrote:
“I am the most effective advocate to take the fight to Gillibrand on behalf of all of us New York Republicans and Conservatives,” Long writes. “I look forward to calling on the many friends that I have made in my work in politics and the law at the highest levels, both in New York and nationwide, for their support in my campaign. I have signed on the best talent in the country to run my campaign. I understand the monumental task of running against a Democratic incumbent in the state of New York. We will have to run fast and fight hard, but we can win. We need to use new messages and new strategies to win New Yorkers who are used to voting “D” over to our side.”
Can she send the nation’s most liberal Senator packing in November? It will be an uphill battle, as Gillibrand has greater name recognition and a sizable war chest.
The video below, courtesy of United West, is stunning…
It appears as though a group of Christians staged a protest outside the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival, and that protest turned ugly. Those holding signs are seen being physically assaulted with bottles, eggs, stones, crates and several other objects. The police, rather than diffusing the situation, turned the other way as things escalated.
The video is over 22 minutes long, and a majority of the swearing and violence seems to come from younger American Muslims. While the video is shorter, the editors claim the assault took roughly 30 minutes before the police stepped in – to exchange words with the Christian group. After the exchange, the hostile group continued their assault.
After the second barrage, the police instruct the Christian group to leave despite their assertion that they have a right to be there.
First Amendment anyone? What is the police and media reaction if this were a group of Occupiers being assaulted?
If this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA.
In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians.
The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.
We are but infants in the blogging game. But we’re celebrating anyway!
Six months ago, we started this blog with one very loud opinionated blogger and three followers. Today, we still have that loud opinionated blogger, but we’ve expanded to about four followers (Thank you Mom!) … (Dad, seriously, could you at least consider following?).
But that isn’t about to dampen our spirits here at the Mental Recession, as we celebrate our 6-month Blogiversary. Thus far, we’ve posted exactly 501 times during that span, and experienced over 162,000 page views in all, an average of over 27,000 per month.
Most importantly, we’ve had a lot of fun doing this. And we hope you have too. Please consider hitting the ‘Donate’ button on the right side of the page, and help support this site – we badly needs some upgrades to keep expanding.
And without further ado, here are the Top 6 Posts in Mental Recession History…
Bonus – Top 6 Referring Sites…
And special thanks to the following people for either helping to promote some of the work done here at The Mental Recession, or for providing advice and inspiration in continuing on this path…
Tabitha Hale, Michelle Malkin, Doug Ross, John Ruberry, Anita MonCrief, Maggie Thurber, Warner Todd Huston, All-American Blogger, Brian Garst, Tucker Carlson, John Brodigan, Caleb Howe, Bill O’Connell, Alexa, Smitty and the Other McCain, Melissa Clouthier, Nice Deb, Fausta, Sarah Rumpf, Noel Sheppard, Ali Akbar, Matt Sheffield, Ken Shepherd, Jon Henke, Accuracy in Media, Breitbart, NewsBusters, the Daily Caller, and many, many more…
Thanks, and we hope to see you here in another six months!
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has directed that flags on state government buildings be flown at half-staff on Wednesday, June 27th in honor of a New York soldier who died in Afghanistan on June 22.
Major Paul C. Voelke died in Mazar E. Sharif while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Georgia, Major Voelke was from the Town of Monroe.
“I join with all New Yorkers in mourning the loss of Major Voelke and I send my deepest sympathies to his family, friends , and fellow soldiers,” Governor Cuomo said. “We will be forever grateful for his service and his dedication to our nation.
Governor Cuomo has directed that flags on all state buildings be lowered to half-staff in honor of and in tribute to our state’s service members and those stationed in New York who are killed in action or die in a combat zone.
The Albany Times Union calculated that the New York State Police were forced to spend nearly $100,000 on overtime pay for troopers, to essentially run a baby sitting service for Occupy Albany protesters. The report came about through a FOIA request and an estimation of the average cost of an hour of overtime in the department.
Superintendent Joseph D’Amico explains that he was unwilling to compromise the safety of other areas by pulling officers over to the state-controlled Lafayette Park, where protesters were intentionally seeking arrest by remaining past curfew.
Amusingly, one of the movement’s more prominent protesters, Bradley Russell, a local professor at the college of St. Rose and the State University of New York, feigned disbelief and predictably placed the blame on the police:
“Holy cow,” said Bradley Russell, 40, an anthropology professor who led protesters to tempt arrest in Lafayette Park. “As the vast majority of any arrests that came from any of our actions inside or outside the Capitol were dismissed, the entire police effort amounted to the governor trying to stifle our First Amendment rights, and that was clearly a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.”
The charges were dismissed for no other reason than David Soares, Albany County District Attorney, acted purely in the interest of politics as opposed to upholding the law, stating that he would not prosecute the protesters.
Albany County Republican Chairman Don Clarey explains that Soares is the crux of the problem:
“Soares is the root of the problem, because he refused to enforce the law he swore to uphold. It was catch and release, so the State Police had to protect state property at the behest of the governor. The state should make David Soares pay the overtime.”
The Occupy Albany movement simply went out of their way to get arrested, violating curfew on state property and knowing full-well that the DA would not prosecute them for trespassing and disorderly conduct- as he should have.
Even the Times Union acknowledged that the protesters “could have held drum circles to their hearts’ content in Academy Park” where they were undisturbed for over two months, but instead went to Lafayette Park, “daring the police to arrest them”.
Bottom line, the police did what they had to do to babysit a group of petulant media whores, while DA David Soares enabled the troublemakers by refusing to do his job.
Thus far, the DA’s office has no comment.
Unreal – In Response to Supreme Court Decision, Obama Administration Punishes Arizona Law Enforcement
How can an alleged law scholar respond to the Supreme Court of our nation by ignoring their rulings, or essentially finding other ways around what they have decreed as legal?
The court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld a key provision which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop. Clearly, the Obama administration was not pleased with the Supreme Court ruling, which makes me believe it may have been more of a victory than was assumed at first glance. And being not pleased, the administration does what it tends to do when they don’t get their own way – they reverted to a child-like petulant nature.
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that they are discontinuing agreements made with Arizona police to enforce federal immigration laws. In other words, they pouted, stomped their feet, took their ball and went home.
The Department of Homeland Security is suspending the program it uses to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers in Arizona so they can double up as immigration agents.
The move affects only Arizona and it was made in direct reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration laws.
Further, DHS 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.
Read that again.
HOMELAND SECURITY will be IGNORING PHONE CALLS regarding individuals who are IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Doesn’t that defy the very definition of ‘homeland security’?
Can you just imagine?
“Excuse me Ms. Napolitano, we’d like to report an individual who has crossed our border illegally, ignoring the sovereignty of our nation, someone who may represent a threat to our security…”
Napolitano, with fingers inserted firmly in ears responds with, “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you…”
Additionally, the DHS is limiting resources to a state police force trying to enforce a federal law that the federal government wasn’t enforcing in the first place. Presumably, they would be continuing this program had the Supreme Court struck down the entire law, leaving only one interpretation – Obama is only willing to enforce a law if he agrees with it.
This is a stunningly amateurish temper tantrum of a response to the Supreme Court’s decree that police officer’s can check the immigration status of people in the process of breaking the law. And it leads to the question, with this and the administration’s adamant opposition to voter ID laws, why is President Obama so protective of people that are willing to break the law?
Oh yes – votes. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to illegal votes.
Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer crushed the President with this statement:
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
It seems like on a nearly daily basis, we are discussing how the Obama administration has managed to hit a new low. At some point, you’d think the President would hit the bottom of the barrel, but he simply keeps breaking through and digging even deeper.
Will the President find a way to circumvent the law again if the Supreme Court strikes down his signature achievement on Thursday?
Brewer points out why the actions of this President need to be taken very seriously:
“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”
Will you continue to stand for this America? Four more years of this imperial Presidency?