Comments on: GOP govs, stimulus strings, and the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment

By: When Republicans Don’t Take the High Road (updated) « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:57:49 +0000

[...] case for Traditional Marriage: a response to Maura Flynn Michelle Malkin: Bad taste award and and GOP govs, stimulus strings, and the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment The Other McCain: Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment Teh Resistance Blog: [...]

By: Yes, Sex Sells: Media Gives More Attention to Sanford’s Affair Than Illegal Firing of Inspector General Getting Too Close to Truth Behind Obama’s Cronies « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:39:37 +0000

[...] and cronies scandal and Obama’s Americorps scandal — and the First Lady’s meddling and GOP govs, stimulus strings, and the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment NEOAVATARA: Obama’s Hypocrisy On Americorps The Sundries Shack: From Little ACORNs… Frugal [...]

By: Sobering Up After the Obama Drunkfest | The Great Illuminator

Sobering Up After the Obama Drunkfest | The Great Illuminator — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:26:12 +0000

[...] himself as such. Just ask Joe the Plumber. Centrist Democrats and the GOP can either go along, not go along or outright [...]

By: Palin Joins The Stimulus Rejection Parade « Beltway Snark

Palin Joins The Stimulus Rejection Parade « Beltway Snark — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:11:54 +0000

[...] who voted it in and they don’t like what’s being asked of them. Now if that Sanford Amendment could be done away [...]

By: HOTAiR: Video: Saint Sarah Palin announces she’ll reject $515 million of stimulus money « Saint Sarah Palin

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:57:12 +0000

[...] She also promised to work with the legislature if they decide they want to invoke the stimulus’s “Sanford Amendment” and accept the money. Exit question: Er, is the “Sanford Amendment” constitutional? Survey [...]

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Palin announces she’ll reject $515 million of stimulus money

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:50:32 +0000

[...] also promised to work with the legislature if they decide they want to invoke the stimulus’s “Sanford Amendment” and accept the money. Exit question: Er, is the “Sanford Amendment” constitutional? [...]

By: Elm Creek Smith

Elm Creek Smith — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:15:50 +0000

On February 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
—
According to a Justice Department memorandum Hate Groups consist of people “overly concerned with the First, Second, Fourth Amendments and paranoid about privacy and due process”.

“[O]verly concerned with the First, Second, [and] Fourth Amendments?” Who decides what “overly concerned” means? Are they going to include just about every member of the Obamedia with their concerns about the First Amendment, e.g. the ACLU? Why shouldn’t we be “paranoid” about privacy and due process?

I’d like to see that memorandum. Gotta link?

Hope is not a plan; not all change is good. The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST!!!

ECS

By: WarEagle82

WarEagle82 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:19:33 +0000

“What is this “KON-STI-TOO-SHUN” you speak of?”

The entire act is so unconstitutional that it makes my head spin! The presence or absence of this idiotic clause really isn’t the only, or even the most, unconstitutional aspect of the bill.

On February 19th, 2009 at 9:39 am, Truesoldier said:
Quick question, if the CRS deems that the provision is unconstitutional and the bill has already been signed into law would that make the whole law (i.e. the anti-stimulus package)unconstitutional?

By: Mark Sanford, are you going to take the porkulus money for South Carolina or not? | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:12:00 +0000

[...] The AP has a story declaring that GOP South Carolina Mark Sanford will take stimulus money “despite misgivings.” On Fox News this morning, Sanford expressed a more nuanced approach — asserting that he’ll be going through the plan “with a fine-tooth comb” to determine what funding would be worth accepting given “the strings attached.” [...]

By: cheapseat

cheapseat — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:56:05 +0000

on a related note, the california legislature finally got the one rino vote they needed to have a bipartisan tax and spend orgy. last night on the news someone suggested the california legislature could eliminate it’s 42b dollar shortfall w/o raising taxes by allowing offshore drilling. but no bipartisan vote on that theory, as the environitwits and their stooges in the democrat party won’t consider econ 101, they hope we will all change to windmills on our cars, and solar panels on our houses. hell they won’t even allow windmills out in the ocean. so to my california socialists, happy tax increase day. it’s bipartisan government in the age of obama.

By: Brian72

Brian72 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:26:13 +0000

You know Michelle if you could have worked the name Gov. Sarah Palin into the headline and story there would be many more comments already. Don’t you read HotAir.com like everyone else?

There are some commenters that say they are conservatives going around conservative websites and saying that Sarah Palin’s trip to DC for the Alfalfa Dinner was to lobby for the stimulus bill.
That is a lie, never came from her. She said veto the bill, send it back to the Congress and have them READ IT FIRST!
What a novel idea from the most unqualified person ever to run for dogcatcher, huh?

By: Truesoldier

Truesoldier — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:55:53 +0000

Thanks for the info.

By: pianoman

pianoman — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:36:41 +0000

On February 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

According to a Justice Department memorandum Hate Groups consist of people “overly concerned with the First, Second, Fourth Amendments and paranoid about privacy and due process”.

When government forces are harnessed to negate those precious amendments, there is no such thing as “overly concerned”.

As the “good” Barry once said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

By: onlybeef42

onlybeef42 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:22:30 +0000

Looks like Perry is taking the money here in Texas too.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-perrystim_19tex.ART.State.Edition1.4c4218f.html

Makes sense as he is very moderate. He only considered rejecting the money because the moderate Senator Hutchison, who will challenge him in the RINO primary for governor, voted against the bill.

By: granite

granite — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:21:20 +0000

On February 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am, mizzoujgrad said:

If Sanford takes any of the money he deserves the spanking.

Why rail against the bailout, only to go meekly along with it once the legislation passes?

Good points.

Either shut up from the beginning; or, stick to your word.

Sort of like what Tom Peters, I believe, had said, “Under promise and over deliver.”