Phyrfight Intel

Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel

“Yesterday, President Obama unilaterally declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, instructing the Department of Justice not to defend the statute in court.

One of the problems with this: The President doesn’t get to decide what laws are constitutional in our system of government.

The idea that the President of the United States can order the Department of Justice not to defend a law, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by a former President, then-President Clinton, should send shockwaves through anyone who is concerned with civil rights and civil liberties.

The President isn’t a king. He doesn’t get to make decrees. He is the chief executive with the responsibility to enforce existing laws – even laws he may not like.

President Obama – a former constitutional law professor – needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

He seems to have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional republic … not a monarchy.”

https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE1102070&SC=3738&email=danielgmiller@mac.com&guid=48172B5F-2BD0-4EC1-929F-D6A026CA1645

If you disagree with the law, change it – but the President doesn’t get to just dismiss it.

From Michelle Malkin

…Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that bringing American union workers into the 21st century in line with the rest of the workforce is tantamount to dictatorship.

Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that by walking off their jobs and out of their classrooms, they are “putting children first.”

If ever there were proof that public unions no longer work in the public interest, this is it. Big Labor dragoons workers into exclusive representation agreements, forces them to pay compulsory dues that fatten Democratic political coffers and then has the chutzpah to cast itself as an Egyptian-style “freedom” and “human rights” movement.

more

From: Erick Erickson

There’s war in Wisconsin. Voters, disgusted with big spending Democrats and out of control unions, handled the whole state over to Republicans. Seizing the voter mandate, Republican Governor Scott Walker is intent on pushing through legislation to end the ability of public sector unions to have collective bargaining rights on behalf of public employees.
Democrat lawmakers in the State Senate have fled Wisconsin for Illinois to ensure there is no quorum in the Senate. While only 17 votes are needed, 20 of the 33 senators must be present for the body to conduct business.
Public sector union members have stormed the state capitol. Teachers have staged a ‘sick in’ putting their union privileges ahead of educating children — bolstering Gov. Walker’s point that union abuse needs to be reined in.
Naturally, Barack Obama has sided with the union goons. His Organizing for America is sending protestors to astroturf Wisconsin in favor of more bloat and corruption. This is as much about saving him politically in 2012 as it is actually defending unionization.
Democrats and unions are comparing what is happening to Wisconsin to the Alamo. It puts me in the unusual position of backing the Mexicans.
— Erick Erickson

“The House voted Monday to extend to December three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act spy legislation.

The measure’s passage, by a 275-144 vote, was expected. The three provisions are expiring at month’s end. Rather than seriously debate or alter them, the House punted — the third failure by Congress in more than a year to address the law’s controversial issues.

The measure now goes before the Senate, which is likely to follow the House’s course on legislation that was hastily adopted following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.”

Here are the expiring provisions the House adopted:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/patriot-act-extended/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

January 26, 2011 (12:31)
A video response to the 2011 State of the Union

Regarding President Obama’s speech on Guantanamo detainees in 2009: “One of the most radical proposals for defying  the constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”

No, Glenn Beck didn’t say it, Rush Limbaugh didn’t say it either, not even that acidic harpy Ann Coulter.

It was said by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her May 21st show in 2009.  Watch the video below or click here.

I wonder what that Kool-aid tastes like when it comes back up on you. That’s not really fair I suppose. She is standing behind her convictions and that is more than can be said for most on that network.

Interesting side note:  It appears that many links to YouTube posts of this video have been removed due to claims of “copy right violations”. No guarantee that this one will be up for long so here is a link to MSNBC’s transcript of the show.

In an op-ed piece yesterday on Politico, Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) tries to make a bizarre connection between Al Qaeda and the tragic rampage by the mentally deranged gunman in Tucson. Her conclusion? Enact more gun control legislation before Al Qaeda strikes again.  I know it sounds like something from the Onion but its absolutely true. Read for yourself.

Now for the  really scary part.  According to her website she is  “Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence. “

from Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights:

“I’ve just received word from inside sources in the U.S. Senate.

Senate Democrats are planning to execute a sneak attack on gun rights as soon as TODAY!

Their plan is to sneak Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill, a routine piece of generally non-controversial legislation.

And they hope YOU won’t notice.

That’s why you and I need to make our voices heard RIGHT NOW!

We need to let them know we’re watching them like a hawk!”

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=019fdf348072f1ef988bc49ffc01f45b&CID=7927217092&ch=B863910850A1AC21D6304EAE6062FCD2

“Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

Introduced by Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) this isn’t really a story about 2nd amendment rights. It’s about health care. Wick states up front that he knows the bill will be killed before it ever has a chance to become law and he’s only proposing this to make a point. If the government can force Americans to buy any other product, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop them from forcing you to buy a gun?

While I see what he’s doing here, and it’s a valid argument to make, I’m still not thrilled with the path he has chosen to make his point.”

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/01/is-south-dakota-trying-to-mandate-gun-ownership/