Levin defends Palin: ‘I’m getting sick and tired of these smears by Krauthammer against her’

It seems an American Thinker article by Tom Rowan has inspired quite the backlash against Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Earlier in the day, it was Rush Limbaugh. However, Limbaugh’s late-afternoon colleague on the airwaves Mark Levin weighed in as well.

The article, which takes on the respect and influence Krauthammer has earned from many on the right, was the focus of a segment on Levin’s Thursday night show. Levin’s particular criticism was Krauthammer’s stance on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who he says isn’t “schooled” on enough issues for his taste.

“[I] raised this the other day myself and I actually raised it a few weeks ago – these attacks on conservative candidates, these attacks on Sarah Palin – particularly coming from the ‘All-Star Panel’ on Fox,” Levin said. “Great admiration for Fox, great admiration – many of my friends work there. But this isn’t about Fox. This is about some of the folks there. … The gentleman points out that Charles Krauthammer who is extremely thoughtful and measured in his words, even-tempered and so forth is all but that when it comes to Sarah Palin and very few of his arguments are substantive.”

However, Levin asked where she is wrong on the issues.

Read more here.

How to Avoid Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

The Obama administration has finally come up with a way in which you can avoid the individual mandate under ObamaCare. The individual mandate uses the police power of government to force people to obtain health insurance. Up until this point in our history, the government forcing any individual to obtain any product or service is unprecedented. There is simply no Constitutional basis for this action. Think about it – could the government force you to buy an umbrella to protect you from the rain? This little concept is something known as liberty; a foreign concept to Democrats who believe in the rule of the mob.

But back to ObamaCare. So according to the Obama administration, you DO have a choice … a way in which to avoid this individual mandate. It’s simple. Just earn less money.

See how easy that was?

No, this is not an article from The Onion. No it is not April Fools day .. though many days in this administration seem to be. Barack Obama’s solicitor general earlier this week defended ObamaCare in federal appeals court saying that if Americans don’t like this individual mandate, they can choose to earn less money.

. . .During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Hotel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

At a time in which we are desperately trying to turn our economy around, the Barack Obama administration seems determined to penalize wealth and success. Why will people continue to work hard and earn more if there is little incentive to do so? You will get more of the behavior you reward. The opposite is also true. I am starting to get the sneaking suspicion that Barack Obama believes that government-approved mediocrity is the way to go.

In TX school district, say ‘Amen’ and go to jail

Clinton appointee Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery lowered the gavel on Medina Valley Independent School District in Texas, prohibiting traditional prayer at graduation. Judge Biery’s order is so strict students are forbidden to use words like “prayer” and “amen.”

Agnostic parents Christa and Danny Schultz filed a lawsuit because they were worried that if their son Corwin were to be exposed to prayer at graduation the lad would “suffer irreparable harm.” Therefore, in the interest of shielding the youth from exposure to permanent injury, Judge Biery declared the graduation a prayer-free zone.

Ayesa Khan, the attorney representing the Schultz family, “was delighted in the judge’s decision.” According to Ms. Khan, concern over exposure to religious prayer caused her client “a great deal of anxiety.” So much so that young Schultz had previously “gone to meet with the principal to try and talk in a civilized way about long-standing problems.” Khan said Corwin claimed the “school district … continued to thumb its nose,” which implies that school administrators allowed students to publicly express their faith and use disquieting words like “prayer” and “amen.”

According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Biery “left the door open for individual expression of religious belief” by granting immunity for wearing religious garb, kneeling toward Mecca, and making the sign of the cross. Despite the limited dispensation, the district still seeks an emergency ruling to overturn the judge’s prayer-restrictive edict in time for graduation.

The attorney general believes that “Part of this [ruling] goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” saying the judge “wanted to turn school administrators into ‘speech police.'” Abbott said he’s “never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” and maintains that the ruling “seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”

Apparently, “trampling” the Constitution is justified if it spares an agnostic from anguish.

Much to Schultz’s relief, in addition to offensive words like “prayer” and the always stress-producing “amen,” the speakers at the commencement ceremony are also restricted from uttering banned phrases such as “join in prayer,” or asking guests to do the unthinkable and “bow their heads.”

In fact, if the ruling stands, it may be in the graduates’ best interest to leave iPods loaded with songs like Kid Rock’s “Amen” and “I Say a Little Prayer for You” home for the day.

Speakers are also prohibited from committing the ultimate offense, which is uttering the words: “in [a deity’s name] we pray.” Since everyone knows the deity who customarily fits between the brackets, there’s no need to risk arrest by mentioning His name here.

To further protect Schultz’s anti-religious sensibilities, Biery ordered the school district to “revamp the graduation program” and replace words like “invocation” and “benediction” with less-objectionable written terms.

In any case, this is serious business, because if the ruling isn’t overturned and if someone dares violate the order, school officials face legal trouble. Judge Biery hopes to spare Corwin Schultz angst by ordering the ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”

Stunned that “one kid can come in and change what’s been a tradition since Medina Valley started,” student Abigail Russell lamented that “at graduation, [she] would love to be able to speak from [her] heart.” That’s a commendable sentiment, but if things go Corwin’s way, Ms. Russell will have to come up with an innocuous secular speech, or possibly wear her mortarboard to jail.