Allen West Impersonates Harry Reid

The President Setting Precedence

Why did the President not consult congress before authorizing the US Military to participate in the UN authorized attack of Libya? Simple, he is establishing a precedent.

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the Obama administration. Whether it is defying court orders or having the EPA over step its authority or FCC and net neutrality, the goal is to set precedence.

This allows them to argue that they are just being consistent with precedence if they are challenged on even more divisive issues in the future. Once a court rules that the camel’s nose in the tent is legal or if no one challenges the nose in the tent, then it is much easier to bring in the whole damn camel, flies, hump and everything else. For example if the Individual Mandate in Obama Care is ruled Constitutional, then the government can use the "legality" of requiring a person to by health insurance to require them to buy almost anything.

Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is related to the case at hand but is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law. However, persuasive authority may guide the judge in making the decision in the instant case. Persuasive precedent may come from a number of sources such as lower courts, "horizontal" courts, foreign courts, statements made in dicta, treatises or law reviews. In Civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.

Generally the idea is to set precedents that are not “too” controversial or that are not too impactful on most citizens. The attack on Libya would easily get congressional approval, but by not getting that approval for a popular action, he makes it quasi-legal to take unpopular actions, using the prior action as legal justification.

Walter E Williams - Davis Bacon Sellout

Andrew Wilkow - Individual Rights vs. Collective Responsibility

"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...

HotAirPundit: "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...: "Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down, this is from yesterday Louis Farrakhan with radio ..."



Hat Tip: HotAirPundit

How Do We Get Qaddafi Out?

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

Hat Tip: Mark Levin Show

Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters

The Bully Victim Who Fought Back (Casey Heynes) - Exclusive ACA Intervie...

Stossel - The Department Of Bull

I tend to be more of a hawk on foreign policy and anti-drug, but the rest of the video is great.

Trump on the Somali Pirates: "I would wipe them off the face of the earth."

The Donald Doctrine!

Palin Doctrine Emerges as Arab League Echoes Her Demarche on Libya

Benyamin Korn at the NY Sun details the emergence of the Palin Doctrine

The call by the Arab League for Western military intervention in an Arab state — in this case asking that a UN “no-fly zone” be imposed over Libya – is not only without precedent but it puts in formal terms what Governor Palin stated three weeks ago should have been America’s response to the political and humanitarian crisis now unfolding there.

The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi...Read More

 Hat Tip: NY Sun

Andrew Napolitano - Progressive Disaster

You go judge.

"Fukushima 50" Team Working to Avoid Nuclear Meltdown

I think these workers are such heroes. How many of us would go to work if it meant you have a good chance of dying? I know most of us would like to think we would be heroic but the truth is they are actually doing it. They are truly heroes. I bow to you Fukushima 50 (there are actually 180 of them)

Static Versus Dynamic Scoring

I get tired of hearing people people say this or that tax cut is for the rich. The following is taken verbatim from Freedomworks they explain it more concisely than I could:

Static Versus Dynamic Scoring

When tax cuts are proposed, government economists calculate how much they will "cost" the government--"cost" being the expected decrease in tax revenue for the state as a result of the tax cut--to inform legislators before they vote. Two very different types of calculations exist, "static scoring" and "dynamic scoring."

Static scoring assumes the tax cuts will have no change on the economic behavior of the individuals that are effected. For example, it assumes that if $100 is taxed at 50%, producing $50 in revenue, then a lowering the tax rate to 25% on $100 will produce $25 of revenue, "costing" the government $25 in lost revenue. It assumes the lower tax rate won't encourage anyone to behave any differently than they currently do.

Dynamic scoring ads to the calculations the predictable changes tax cuts have on economic behavior. For example, it assumes that if a 50% tax on $100 produces $50 in revenue, then lowering the tax rate to 25% will produce $25 in revenue, as static scoring predicts, but also that individuals will work more (if it's an income tax cut) or realize more capital gains (if it's a capital gains tax cut, etc.) because they will get to keep more of their money. This changed behavior will produce an extra $100, for example, which is also taxed at $25, resulting in a total of $50 in revenue, and no loss for the state.

The history of economic growth following tax cuts, from the Kennedy tax cuts to the Reagan tax cuts to the Bush tax cuts, repeatedly shows that the static score predictions have been way off the mark (overestimating the "cost") while the dynamic score predictions have been much closer to accurate.