Star One Smart Blog's

Finally, we get some common-sense progress on cutting off one of the two big attractions to illegal aliens who flood this nation. Upholding Arizona's E-Verify or Else helps staunch the attractant of a paycheck provided to illegals by businesses; the other attractant being 'the streets are lined with GOLD!' sentiment that stem from the free benefits provided by Democratic 'entitlement' programs.

The New York Times harrumphs...Let's hope this is a clear signal that SB1070 is valid.

Good news for Arizona. Congrats! on your win.


Tennessee, let's get your program up and running TODAY.

---

Democrats reached for the sky, grabbed at the rainbow and come back to earth empty-handed. That's right, ObamaCare was too good to be true, or at least too lame to be constitutional. The entire shebang got tossed to the curb today...

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Attorneys for President Barack Obama's administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

A victory only temporarily, true; but this is the 2nd strike against this monstrosity. First, the measure was repealed in the people's House (nassty old leftist Harry Reid is trying his best to keep it off the floor of the Senate, to stifle any more debate). Now a 26-state win that forces the best and brightest minds in the nation to finish it off.

Let's look ahead to the Supreme Court, shall we? I call a 5-4 decision against BHO. And if we're good, we also get limitations of any further commerce clause overreaches.

If that happens, then the lefty's whinings will be music to my ears, and bring a smile to my stone face.

---

(Obama gobsmacked-face spotted at POWIP)

This direct statement, issued by Democrat Ike Skelton (D, MO), chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, before Obama had finished his address...

"Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way,"

"Instead of focusing on solutions to help America's families wade through the wreckage of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Washington has wasted valuable time wrestling with partisan politics in an effort to rush through drastic reforms that do not directly address our most immediate needs."

Ouch, and without a band-aid.

NOT TRUE replaces YOU LIE!

Very noticeable and much more significant was Supreme Court Judge Robert Alito's reaction, as seen in this composite photo from the video below...


As reported by AP, and seen in this video...

WASHINGTON -- The man in the House chamber openly disagreeing with President Barack Obama as he spoke to Congress wasn't an over-the-top Republican or a seething Democrat. He was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito.

Obama had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true."

I would've preferred another resounding "YOU LIE!", but Joe Wilson was "stonefaced" during this speech.

Obama had it coming: there is a separation of powers, and he should not have run his piehole about a Supreme Court decision. Good for Justice Alito! A good man, there.

Did Obama tell much truth? A fact-check article written by Calvin Woodward finds some truth-stretching and avoidance, including

• Obama's proposed three-year 'government spending freeze' would only save less than 1% of the deficit. He's proposed spending more than he'll ever save.
• His 'bipartisan special commission', denied by the Senate but created by his own executive order, won't have any effect. His executive order is 'toothless'.
• More unbelievable spins on his Health Care debacle. Obama's claims that we'll be able to keep our current doctors and plans doesn't mention that these plans, pinched by his newly-created taxes, would be free to limit services or 'pinch benefits'. Oh, and Medicare recipients (you old retired duffers) would find your benefits cut.
• Obama bashes lobbyists, but fails to bash his own lobbyists. He just hates organizations like the NRA (a collective of "Community Organized" citizens who would spend to stop Democrats) and others who exist to protect the Constitution, but lurvs him questionable lobbying organizations such as the SEIU and ACORN (collectives of "Community Organized" citizens who would spend much cash to elect more and more Democrats (the LOOTERS), who then push for more and more taxes to pay for handouts to their voting base (the MOOCHERS). No U.S. Constitution will be allowed to stand in the way.
• How many jobs created or saved, Mr. Prezzidint? YOU LIE! You've likely caused job loss; you can't prove otherwise. Unless of course you've hired more government employees (oh, and you have done that).
• Obama actually stood up there calling for 'more openness' ("to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.". This would've been perfect opportunity for anyone in the audience to scream "WHAT ABOUT THE C-SPAN CAMERAS IN THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE, MR. PREZZIDINT????///??" But, strangely, the crowd was silent.

I could barely stand watching VP Joe Biden sitting up there, with his improperly medicated random eye twitches and random movements and gestures. Nuthouse, you're missing an inmate.

And Nancy Pelosi?

Worshipful, awestruck gazes. Just, wow.

This President doesn't need an intern to bring the pizza. Just send for Nancy, and close the doors.

---

Update:
Best written work I've yet seen on Obama's failed SOTU speech: The Daily Caller

Since the original intent of McCain - Feingold was to silence groups like the NRA, the decision overturning one of the left's primary tools fueling it's own takeover of government and it's unchallenged expansion is a victory for American citizens and gunowners that's especially sweet.

Here's the NRA-ILA's formal response...

"NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

"The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA.  While the author of this measure had singled out NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

"NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us.  The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians.  This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.  Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

"The case originally centered on the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like NRA during elections.

"NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, “This decision today returns sanity to our political system.  The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”

"NRA-ILA has been in the forefront of defending the First Amendment so we can protect the Second Amendment.  This ruling is clearly a victory for our continuing efforts to educate voters on where politicians stand on our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms." [emboldenings mine -ed.]

Yes we can. Yes we have.

Enjoy! The cryings from the (lefty) politicians and the wailings from the (lefty) bloggers, and their wholly-owned denizens in the media! You'd think they'd taken a second body-blow this week. You'd think they were despondent, and that Obama feels this loss quite personally.

Oh, but he does...

Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Read About It: Fox News

...when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

When the case was reargued before the Supreme Court in September, Stewart was replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan, realizing that the court was shocked by Stewart's statements, said that pamphlets, not books, could be banned.

When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here's what she said: "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last?

And what else is a blog post, if it were printed on paper, other than a pamphlet? Obama would be happy to silence all dissent. He's not liking these repeated face-slaps. Without the bothersome dissenters, the 'phampleteers', he wouldn't have to parade about the nation with such a long, defeated face.


Oh, and especially sweet is the furor of SEIU (one of the Unions that now have some needed competition in the political arena of words).  Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary and Treasurer...

"Our democratic process was meant to protect the people not profit margins and today's decision makes the need for an effective system for public funding, effective disclosure regulations, and other reforms of federal elections all the more pressing.

"We look forward to working with concerned individuals, officials and groups to remedy to the greatest degree possible the unfortunate consequences of this Supreme Court decision, through legislation and other appropriate means."

Suck it, SEIU.

Yes, I am celebrating this weekend. Both victories: the fall of "Ted Kennedy's Seat" and the fall of "McCain - Feingold". Both slaps in the face to leftists; both victories for the little people.

We needs keep the momentum strong throughout the entire year, 2010, to the November elections. And strong to 2012, to throw the primary bum out.

Time to throw all the bums out. All of 'em, including that McCain fellow, who helped author this crap in the first place.

---