Being on a business trip for a week makes it hard to keep up with blogging. And being on the US west coast helps with the realization that the world doesn’t revolve around Eastern time.

On with the links.

Obama is invoking Reagan a lot these days, trying to promote his agenda. But as Steven Hayward notes, Obama takes Reagan’s words out of the context of the politics and the times in which they were spoken.

Just prior to Reagan, Jimmy Carter worked with the dictatorship of North Korea to send food in return for not pursuing  nukes. In light of the recent (failed) N. Korea missile launch, you have to wonder why we thought it was a good idea to strike bargains with megalomaniacs.

The Hillary Rosen remarks, condemning Anne Romney for being a stay-at-home mom tipped the hand of the Democrats as to what they really think of women who make that choice. (Because, as with everything else from the Left, it’s not about the principle so much as it is the politics). On the Right, some were suggesting that we don’t need to worry about this because it means stooping to their level to respond to "Rosen-gate". But Ben Howe points out that, yes, this issue is worth our time and effort to respond to.

Irony Alert: For the third year in a row, Democrats punt on the budget, while at the same time accusing the Paul Ryan budget of being irresponsible.

Abortion as religion, with Planned Parenthood writing the prayer book.

"Everyone’s going to need healthcare, so Congress can force you to buy it", or so says President Obama in defense of the individual mandate. So my question is: what else is everyone going to need, such that he can force certain choices on you?

I’ll start:

• Everyone’s going to need food.
• Everyone’s going to need a casket.

Post yours in the comments.

The President said something yesterday that just goes against 200+ years of American history, including the notion of the separation of powers and the responsibility of the judiciary. But first, some of that history.

The famous Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison set up what was the primary purpose of the US Supreme Court. From Wikipedia:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional". The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

To repeat, this was the "the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it ‘unconstitutional’." Pretty big deal. And it’s one that the Court has exercised many times in the past. From Answers.com:

Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional…………………………158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional………………………………..935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional………………………………222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws…………………..224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional…………….1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws…………………………224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments……………………………………….1,539

Now, this table of figures is being quoted all over the Internet today, with the source being Answers.com, and the Answers.com page does not have a link back to its source information, so take these figures with a grain of salt. But regardless of the specific numbers, we do know that the Supreme Court has struck down laws as unconstitutional before. That is, after all, the purpose that Marbury v. Madison gave it 209 years ago.

With that in mind, let’s listen in on a statement made to the press yesterday regarding the ObamaCare case before the Supreme Court.

"I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress," President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said to the White House press.

"Unprecedented." Really? "Extraordinary." Is that so? Even if we did not have that table of numbers above, few of us would really believe that, until now, the court has never struck down a law because it is unconstitutional.

And Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy blog has an answer for those sticklers who would say that the President was speaking specifically about "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress".

President Obama can call legislation enacted by a vote of 219 to 212 a “strong” majority if he wishes. But there is nothing in the Constitution suggesting that a bill which garners the votes of 50.3% of the House of Representatives has such a “strong” majority that it therefore becomes exempt from judicial review. To the contrary, almost all of the 165 federal statutes which the Court has ruled unconstitutional had much larger majorities, most of them attracted votes from both Democrats and Republicans, and some of them were enacted nearly unanimously.

[Note: His number of 165 is through 2010, and comes from a GPO document that he does link to, but it doesn’t have a nice table of figures to show that. Kopel’s post is worth reading the whole thing. Also, I honestly titled my blog post before reading his entry. Really.]

The striking down of ObamaCare would not, as the President claims, be a case of "judicial activism"; a term I think he is just employing to try to get a dig in at conservatives and throw some red meat to his supporters. In striking down this law, the justices would not be finding new rights in the Constitution; they would be establishing that the Constitution says only what it says and nothing more. In fact, it is Congress and the President being unprecedented here, insisting that the power to regulate commerce between the States includes the right to compel someone to enter into a contract. "Compulsory contract" is an oxymoron, and the court ought to hold Congress at least to what makes logical sense.

Further, the President already knows that the Supreme Court strikes down laws, because he’s lobbied for it before. From Kopel:

It would not be unfair to charge President Obama with hypocrisy given his strong complaints when the Court did not strike down the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and given his approval of the Supreme Court decision (Boumediene v. Bush) striking down a congressional statute restricting habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees…. The federal ban on abortion, and the federal restriction on habeas corpus were each passed with more than a “strong” 50.3% majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The President is trying to intimidate the Court and garner some modicum of public support by lying about history. This from a guy who was a Constitutional law professor senior lecturer. It’s incredibly disingenuous and outright dishonest. But will anyone on his side of the aisle call him on it?

It has been said that we’ve not had global warming on the scale that we have it now, and therefor this time around it must be human-induced. The Medieval Warming Period, it is said (and reiterated by the IPCC), was merely localized and therefore can’t be compared with today. New evidence, however, shows that indeed the MWP was felt as far away as Antarctica. Not exactly localized.

Taxing the rich rarely lives up to expectations of the amount it will bring in. That’s because the rich have many options of where to put their money. Cause pain in one place, the cash moves to another place. (Some on the Left will inevitably say that this makes the case for a global tax. Well, when our government can’t get by on $4 trillion a year, it’s not the fault of the rich.)

A crowd larger than any OWS gathering protested in San Francisco, but the media ignored it. Why? (Wait for it…) Because they were religious people protesting Obama. Some news is clearly more newsworthy than others. Oh, that liberal media.

Liberals were so absolutely sure that their view of the "living" Constitution was right, they were predicting a near-slam-dunk for them in the Supreme Court over ObamaCare. But exhibit A of how they simply failed to take seriously the arguments against it is Jeffrey Tubin of CNN. He was sure it would be 7-2 or even 8-1 in favor of the ACA, and was just gobsmacked after day 2. Why? The very same arguments used against ACA had been out there for months. But the news wouldn’t give it adequate coverage. Mr. Tubin, you could blame CNN for your ignorance. But then, that would mean you have no responsibility as a journalist to find it out for yourself. Oh, that liberal media.

And finally, something for the "separation of church and state" crowd. A US Army issued New Testament with a letter from the President recommending that soldiers should read it.

Josh Marshall, big time blogger of the Left, seems to think so. In his short summary of yesterday’s SOCTUS proceedings, he complains thusly.

But what struck me more was how the the critical questions from the conservative bloc on the Court grappled so little with the actual economic role of health care provisions in society and the systemic market failure. These would seem to be precisely the issues the Commerce Clause is meant to address. Simply because the problem is serious doesn’t mean every possible solution is constitutional. But again, no real grappling with the practical issues the law was meant to address but rather a hyper-focus on academic and ideological points.

Does the Left really think that constitutionality can be overlooked if we really, really want the law? If so, then we have no Constitution. These concerns he calls "academic and ideological". When did keeping with the law, and the foundation of our laws, become merely academic and ideological?

If celibacy is to blame for the sexual abuse in the Catholic church, how does that explain the continuing abuses in the public schools? (Hint: it doesn’t.)

Here are 4 hard truths of health care reform. (Hint: if they promised something, it’s generally not going to happen.)

"[I]f you come down hard on Limbaugh because he has crossed a line, you must come down hard on Schultz and Maher because they have crossed the same line…." (Hint: Schultz and Maher supporters haven’t.)

New York City Mayor Bloomberg, not content with nannying the well-off on what they can and can’t eat at restaurants, now is denying food to the homeless because it might be too salty. (Hint: That’s not compassion.)

If they had been Republicans, this would have been racist. (Hint: They’re Democrats.)

Is Zionism humanitarianism? (Hint: Yes.)

Even with Warren Buffett’s new tax policy idea, wherein he’d pay a higher tax rate, the continuing deficit dwarfs it.

Once again, the issue is not that we’re taking in too little in taxes. We can’t take in enough to cover the deficits. We must start cutting spending in a serious way.

So says two high-ranking government officials who would know.

In a stark warning ahead of next month’s Budget, the Chancellor said there was little the Coalition could do to stimulate the economy.

Mr Osborne made it clear that due to the parlous state of the public finances the best hope for economic growth was to encourage businesses to flourish and hire more workers.

“The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,” the Chancellor said. “The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”

What should George Osborne do to provide a tax cut?

Tax the rich more to allow the income tax rate to be lifted to £10,000Borrow more and worry about reducing national debt in future yearsWe can’t afford any tax cuts

Mr Osborne’s bleak assessment echoes that of Liam Byrne, the former chief secretary to the Treasury, who bluntly joked that Labour had left Britain broke when he exited the Government in 2010.

He left David Laws, his successor, a one-line note saying: “Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left”.

Mr Osborne is under severe pressure to boost growth, amid signs the economy is slipping back into a recession.

Conservatives have been saying this for a generation. Government spending bankrupts us all. The private sector is where economic growth comes from. Government spending may give us something of a jolt (if any), but the cost associated with it is far more than if the government would just get out of the way and let the engine run.

If Samuel L. Jackson voted for Obama because he’s black –  using as his reasoning, "’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple." — then is it OK for white folks to vote for white guys just because they’re white? Could those white folks expect the non-reaction to their reasoning as Jackson got for his?

Albert Mohler takes Nicholas Kristof to civics class.  The Constitution protect freedom of religion as a basic right, not only when it’s convenient.

"Actor Sean Penn criticized Republican presidential candidates during a visit to Venezuela on Thursday, saying that right-wing policies in the United States aim to benefit the wealthy." No, we want to make as many people as possible wealthy, as opposed to Venezuela’s socialism, which is making as many people as possible poor.

Stoning Christians on the Temple Mount. No, not Jews. One more guess.

Germans are discovering that, when they need their solar energy most, during December and January, it doesn’t help that they don’t get much sunshine then.

Sign of the Times: "For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage" Perhaps Rick Santorum isn’t as kooky as some are making him out to be.

Revenge is not a proper motivation for proposed legislation. It makes you do foolish things like this.

A state lawmaker says turnabout is fair play when it comes to restricting abortion:  she wants to ban vasectomies for men.

Democrat Yasmin Neal of Jonesboro is protesting a bill that would restrict most abortions in Georgia to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

She says it’s only right, if Republicans are truly serious about "thousands of children" being "deprived of birth."

She tells Channel 2 Action News, "The Georgia General Assembly at this point is trying to legislate and dictate what women can do with their bodies. We’re just trying to do the same thing in reference to the men."

Is Ms. Neal really that unaware of the issues that concern the pro-life movement? Worse, is she that blissfully ignorant of the biology of it all? Have her parents had that "birds and bees" discussion with her yet?

Let me make this plain, if you, too, think the two procedures are equivalent.

A vasectomy prevents a sperm from leaving the man. This is equivalent to a tubal ligation for a woman, which prevents eggs from getting to the uterus. A sperm, or an egg, if cared for properly in a proper environment, will never, ever be anything other than a sperm or an egg. Pro-lifers do not consider a sperm or an egg human life, and the movement is not trying to pass laws prohibiting either procedure.

An abortion, on the other hand, occurs after the sperm has fertilized the egg. For pro-life people, this is, indeed human life. (The question of whether or not it is life is really the only question that matters, and if it is, it should be treated as such.) And if it is life, then we as human beings have limited rights when it comes to killing it.

Because here’s the thing; a fertilized egg, if cared for properly in a proper environment, can become President of the United States, a great doctor, a wise counselor, or even a revenge-filled lawmaker from the state of Georgia.