Blame the Elites

Op-Ed Columnist - The Making of a Euromess - NYTimes.com

There is no way that the fundamental idea of the European socialist nanny state could have any flaws (at least that is what Krugman thinks) -- therefore, there must be a scapegoat other than promising people safety from cradle to grave and taxing them like there is no tomorrow, especially if they ever make more money than some fixed percentage of the average. Oh, thank goodness, there IS a scapegoat! Iis "the arrogance of the elites"! Wow, what a relief, I can't think of any of those over here, and I'm sure that neither Paul nor BO could either! This must be the first time in world history that "the elites" got out of hand.

No, the real story behind the euromess lies not in the profligacy of politicians but in the arrogance of elites — specifically, the policy elites who pushed Europe into adopting a single currency well before the continent was ready for such an experiment.

Common Ground?

Samuel J. Palmisano: Fix the Bridges But Don't Forget Broadband - WSJ.com

I'm not much of a believer in government, but I know that Democrats are. How about trying an experiment. If government "investment" is good, how about investing in something that the vast majority of us might like, is generally environmentally friendly (more than roads at least) and gives us a significant chance of serendipitous positive leverage for the future?

How about 100Mbit broadband to every home and 4G cellular across the entire nation? This would seem to be MUCH simpler than taking on medical care, but if it could be pulled off successfully, maybe THEN we could start doing some federal (or even state) nibbling at the massive health care behemoth.

How? I'd be open to a number of options, but I'd say we essentially make 100Mbit of broadband "a right" -- since it is going into every home, there ought to be some economies of scale, so it ought to be pretty cheap to pay for. With that much bandwidth, only one pipe is needed -- phone, TV, internet. We can decide if we have the technology so Satellite services can play or not.

I believe in "flat" so something like $50 a month in today's dollars for your wired digital services per month, and maybe another $30 for cellular? I'm sure there is plenty of room for massive fights about the particulars, but that is OK -- fighting over something that many of us at least more or less understand is much better than fighting over something that very very few have any clue on.

Patriot Act More Than Remembered

Power Line - Patriot Act Extended

Remember the horror of the Patriot Act? Guess it is just fine now that BO is in power.

Being Stupid

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

As a Conservative Christian, no doubt my IQ is too low to measure, but I can only admire the brilliance of liberal atheists. My lack of intelligence makes it seem miraculous to me that human intelligence can be so easily reduced to a single number, but I guess it is so -- beauty would seem hard to measure on the surface, yet I hear other smarter guys saying a woman is a "10" or a "7.5" all the time.

Being as smart as they are, they must have proven that all races and sexes measure identically on the IQ test by now -- correcting for things like religious beliefs and political leanings of course. I wonder if the effects of having backward religious or political views are identical across races and sexes as well? Like is a conservative black christian female any smarter than a conservative white christian male? I'd think so, it sounds like having less of some group usually means they are smarter -- prone to being "elite" and such.

I guess I'm just too stupid to feel really bad about this.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Op-Ed Columnist - What We Learned From the Health Care Summit - NYTimes.com

Krugman is far more "honest" (in the lefty sense) than most, giving insight into "how in the world do they think as they do"??  I'll translate.

If we’re lucky, Thursday’s summit will turn out to have been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans responding with slander and misdirection.

Translation: The left has the right to ignore all rules -- the Constitution, rules of the Senate, rules of debate and propriety. (why say "we disagree", when you can label the other side "liars") We are all "lucky" if they shove a bill that is very likely unconstitutional through the Senate, ignoring the explicit mandate of the chamber to allow the minority to apply braking to partisan railroading, even after what many would assume would be the instructive loss of their 60th seat in the chamber.

It was obvious how things would go as soon as the first Republican speaker, Senator Lamar Alexander, delivered his remarks. He was presumably chosen because he’s folksy and likable and could make his party’s position sound reasonable. But right off the bat he delivered a whopper, asserting that under the Democratic plan, “for millions of Americans, premiums will go up.”

Wow. I guess you could say that he wasn’t technically lying, since the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate Democrats’ plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The “price of a given amount of insurance coverage” would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid.

Translation: When the left predicts the future, it is holy writ passed from Olympus, when others predict the future, it is a "lie". The left's positions are not only inherently correct, the opposition has positions that are "unreasonable".

In fact, nobody knows the future, even with a Nobel prize. There is a lot of evidence that getting the government involved raises costs (see Medicare and health care cost). Some might validly believe that a bunch of new mandates for insurance companies would raise prices. It did in Massachusetts, now the highest insurance cost state in the nation, and it was one of the main reasons that the formerly all blue state elected Scott Brown. No matter, Krugman has spoken his decree for the future, to disagree is a "lie". 

So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.

But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform.

Translation: The Democrats could not agree on health care with a 60-vote Senate majority, even with measures like buying the votes of some of their own party with hundreds of millions of kickbacks and voting on Christmas Eve. Now they lost that 60 vote majority due to a vote by the people in the bluest of blue states, but the RIGHT thing for them to do is to ignore that fact and shove the bill through anyway. It is however Republicans that are "arrogant". Whatever Republicans believe about the future is "a lie", what Paul and his cronies believe is the golden truth, pure in purpose and outcome.

To which one might say. Why can't we all just get along?

As the Worm Turns

This would be funny if it were not so sick. The Democrats in '05 were EXPANDING the use of the filibuster to judicial nominees that they didn't like, but any thought that they ought not be able to use that expanded power was a "crisis".

Now they want to remove the power of the filibuster for a minority in the Senate fighting to prevent legislation from passing that the majority of Americans do not want to pass! But wait, now their views are completely opposite, even though in '05, they were on the side of EXPANSION of the filibuster, now they seek to essentially remove it, since any "important legislation" could just be "reconciled".

They give mendacity a bad name.

Explaining BOnomics

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by  320 gallons per year. 

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

Canadian Labrador Premier Chooses US Healthcare

The Canadian Press: 'My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery

I live in Rochester MN, it isn't uncommon to see a Canadian license plate around the clinic. As I'll say over and over again, National Health is only popular with the healthy. Much like if it "positively, absolutely has to get there overnight", it isn't USPS that you send it with, when it is your heart, it is much better to go with the best if you can at all afford it.

Don't expect the Democrats supporting National Health to actually use it if they need it. Consistency is NOT an issue!!!!

BOcare at Ramming Speed

President Obama and Health Care - WSJ.com

If any Republican president was trying to do anything 20% this undemocratic, the MSM would be screeching at the top of their lungs 24x7!

"The President's Proposal," as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them—but by expanding them to everyone.

How does anyone take the thought of a "bipartisan summit" seriously at all when the threat of ramming BOcare through via "reconciliation" is being trumpeted more and more loudly even before the supposed fig leaf of bipartisanship is proffered.

"Broken Government"

Power Line - How to Tell When the Government Is Broken

George calls this one perfectly. When Republicans are having trouble with the reform of something that the Democrats are blocking, the MSM calls that "good government". Reverse it and it is "broken government". Remember that when the Democrats filibustered an unprecedented 10 Bush judicial appointments,  the threat of filibuster was a sacred part of the Senate, not to be touched by any "nuclear option". There were kudos to the "moderate RINO" John McCain and his "gang of 14" in heading off this "crisis".

Now? Oh, now the Democrats can talk of using reconciliation to force the health care bill through (an example of "going nuclear" to get around the filibuster) and the MSM is just FINE with that!

TERRY MORAN, HOST: There's a sense that something is broken in Washington summed up this week by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who announced his retirement. I think it's fair to say he's leaving in disgust. Here's what he had to say.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH, (D-IND.): I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship, and not enough progress. Too much narrow ideology, and not enough practical problem solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done.

MORAN: Is he right, George?

GEORGE WILL: Well, it's hard to take a lecture on bipartisanship from a man who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, the confirmation of Justice Alito, the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Far from being a rebel against his Party's lockstep movement, Mr. Bayh voted for the Detroit bailout, for the stimulus, for the public option in the healthcare bill. I don't know quite what his complaint is, but, Terry, with metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda. No one when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security said, "Oh, that's terrible - the government's broken."

Analyis of the BO Presidency

American Thinker: Another Failed Presidency

If only it was just a bad dream that was over -- but alas, we still have to listen to this guy for nearly 3 more years!

Considering the options though, long live BO! I'd have to disconnect from the media rather than even listen to one second of Biden.

Great BO Video

Some excellent lines. The fact that this bozo could be elected makes one question democracy. We desperately need him to be a "half termer" with a Republican Congress for the second half of his first term. The prospects for taking congress look pretty good,  but the Republicans need a candidate for President!!  Reagan will NOT be running!!

Green Ice Not So Good

Talk of the Games | Ice issues delay men's speed skating 500 meters | Seattle Times Newspaper

I haven't watched any Olympics -- they don't give the Biathlon the coverage it deserves so I boycott it.

Apparently, some Canadian company makes all-electric "green" ice surfacing machines, and they have broken down quite a lot and done a poor job of resurfacing, forcing them to bring in a good old fashioned propane Zamboni that is American made.

Must be somewhat embarrassing to our docile Molson swilling Zamboni drivers to the North.

Signs of the End

Identifying Sure Signs Of The Final Economic Plunge : Neithercorp Press

Is it really going to be financial Armageddon? I certainly don't know, but these guys have some interesting ideas. 

Crony Capitalism

Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day | Washington Examiner

Last week, amid Washington's blizzards, Obama was asked about the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million bonus for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

"I know both these guys; they are very savvy businessmen," he said. "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth." So much for campaign-trail denunciations of "fat cat" bankers and bloated bonuses.

I'm sure they are, I just don't like the idea that now my tax dollars are helping them be "savvy". Probably the smartest thing they did was provide big campaign contributions to BO. 

Remember Dick Cheney and Haliburton? He was CEO, he left, he put all his stock in trust, the stock went down -- no matter, "Haliburton" became a chant for the left. They used to only like guys in office that have never held down a job (like BO), now they seem to be able to remain completely silent while the lobbiests roll up the dollars and the folks that BO bailed out roll in the dough and the praises.

Have politics completely replaces principles on the left?

Palm vs Prompter

'Palm-gate' proves centrists' Palin doubts - CNN.com

I understand that consistency is not an issue for the left -- so it is OK for them to be fine with BO using a teleprompter to say hello. Apparently though, the assumption is that even it is OK for them to have no consistency at all, they assume that moderates are OK as well with BO using a teleprompter to say hello, but are going to be turned off by Palin writing on her palm?

Oh wait, maybe it is the fact that she wrote on her palm, but made fun of BO for using a teleprompter? That must be it ... but BO made a HUGE deal about campaign finance, then bypassed the whole apparatus and raised over $500M for the presidential race alone. It must be that they assume that given the bias in the media, most independents were not aware of the BO hypocrisy, but will have the Palin version rubbed in their faces enough to be turned off by it.

Something like this must explain it. 

No Keynesian Free Lunch

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - A Greek crisis is coming to America

Ferguson is one of my favorite writers. Good column, especially liked this paragraph:

What we in the western world are about to learn is that there is no such thing as a Keynesian free lunch. Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect

DC Pushing 1898 Snow Record

Washington Builds a Mountain of Snow - WSJ.com

For Washington, the winter of 2010, which blanketed the capital with about 45 inches before Tuesday, seems likely to break the record 54.5 inches set a decade after record-keeping began in 1888. "I don't know any staff member that's been around that remembers snowfalls of this magnitude," Mr. Howland said.

While Katrina was widely touted in the MSM as "proof of global warming", DC (and many other places in the world) beaking 100 year records for snow and cold is nothing to be noticed.

The Dead for BO

One always thinks there is a limit, but then, there isn't!

Views of the Truth

Editorial - The Truth About the Deficit - NYTimes.com

Unsurprisingly, the NYTs has the (largely unstated) assumptions behind the linked column:

• Government takeover of medicine will save money.
  
• Taxation has no detrimental effects on economic growth -- taxes can be raised with impunity, and revenue will simply rise. There is no downside.
• The Republican led congress bore no responsibility for the budgets in the black, significant responsibility (along with Bush) for the budgets in the red from '01-'06, but when the Democrats took over congress in '07, they bore no responsibility. Here is their key quote ...
• HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.By the time Mr. Bush left office in early 2009, the government had run big deficits for seven straight years, and the economy was on the brink of another Great Depression.
• Republican's must be inherently evil or incompetent, or both. Certainly the above (largely unstated) assumptions are true, and there is no reason discussing them as we face the deficit question.
  

Liberals vs Voters

RealClearPolitics - The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Good one by Charles, but it pretty much sums up the MSM / Democrat view of the US electorate.

Krugman Vs Krugman

Op-Ed Columnist - Fiscal Scare Tactics - NYTimes.com

Here is Krugman in 2005

And so it has turned out. President Bush has presided over the transformation of a budget surplus into a large deficit, which threatens the government's long-run solvency. The principal cause of that reversal was Mr. Bush's unprecedented decision to cut taxes, especially on the wealthiest Americans, while taking the nation into an expensive war.

Here is Krugman today:

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.

See, not to worry. Deficits in the low 100's of billions in a growing economy under a Republican president "threaten long-run solvency". Deficits in the trillions in a stagnant to falling economy under a Democrat are really no big deal at all. Simple.

No need to ask multiple economists to get multiple opinions with Krugman around, just switch parties and the whole world is different!

That Old BO Magic

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK

When she's good, she's very good ;-)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles -- at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

Worth a read. She has them pegged -- BO has taken the electorate 2 year reality check of the last 40 years after "unsafe selection" (casting ballots for Democrats) down to 10 months.

Assumed Incompetence?

Investors.com - Bare Warning

A chilling spectacle just took place before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Panel Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked, "What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months, high or low?"

And one by one, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller all agreed an attack was "certain."

Seems like that would get a little more notice from somebody? is everyone in the MSM so certain of the incompetence of the BO administration that they discount a 100% prediction of an attack by the heads of every one of our intelligence agencies?

Clear and Present Danger, NEA

This is copied off the NEA recommended reading web site. This is the same guy that did "Rules for Radicals". While in '07, Democrats were pretty much evenly split on 9-11 being an "inside job". A position that makes "birthers" seem downright rational. Our kids are being taught by a union that thinks this avowed radical, founder of the now known criminal organization ACORN,  is "Recommended Reading".Welcome to BO's America!

Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives. 

Given that the left thinks this is the right way to teach our children, can anyone doubt the need for defensive Assault Weapons? A few 45 round mags of .223 can provide an educational opportunity for even the most recalcitrant of radical groups on the difference between rhetoric and reality should they be bent  to "break some conservative necks".  We have been warned.

The  2nd Amendment  MUST be defended to the death  because Alinsky, ACORN, the NEA, and who knows what others have declared war on the Constitution and America as we know it.

Wake up people, radicalism has smelled a little blood in the water and they are ready to rumble!

Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

Reveille for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
Buy It
Rules for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
Buy It
An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!
Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism - two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" in 1971. The "Reveille" title page quotes Thomas Paine... "Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul."
Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910's until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren't starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.
Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that "The end does not justify the means." What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.
Alinsky's goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty. It's all a part of the job, he seems to say.
Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn't mince words...
"Liberals in their meetings utter bold words; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement 'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.' They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.
"The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.
"Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.
"Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action - by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires ...

• "The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
• "He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
• "He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
• "He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
• "The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
• "The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
• "That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism."

Alinsky practiced what he preached. He said, "Tactics means doing what you can with what you have ... tactics is the art of how to take and how to give."
He uses eyes, ears and nose for examples...
Eyes"If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power."
Ears
"If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does."
Nose
"If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place."
Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.
   1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
   2. "Never go outside the experience of your people.
   3. "Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
   4. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
   5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
   6. "A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
   7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
   8. "Keep the pressure on.
   9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
  10. "Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
"The real action is in the enemy's reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action."
Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success...
"Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize"

Michele Bachmann Town Hall

Saw US Reps Michele Bachmann and Michael Burgess today at a fund raiser followed by a Town Hall, all for Allan Quist. Burgess is a Dr from TX and had a real handle on health care, Congress and a whole lot of everything. Michele is vivacious and obviously passionate about her family, MN, and the country. While a less organized speaker, she has "sizzle".

Interesting to note she has raised 5 kids of her own plus helped to care for 23 foster children. Had lunch with a banker at our table, and unlike what the MSM or BO might tell you, neither he nor Michelle displayed either horns nor a tail. The banker said that he disguised his tail as a belt ;-)

Conservative Inconsistency on Court

RealClearPolitics - Thin-Skinned Supreme Court

EJ thinks Republicans are being inconsistent by claiming that BO ought not to have made the statements that he made in his SOTU. Let me try to help:

1. It makes a difference where you raise your issue. Reagan wrote an article, Nixon made the court an issue in a campaign.  BO attacked the court when he was on the podium and they were sitting in front of him and prohibited from responding. That is the difference.
   
2. If you want to make statements against a co-equal branch of government, especially if you are a constitutional scholar, it might be nice to have some semblance correctness in what you say. 

• Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights declare any rights. They restrict the government's rights.
• Congress can't pass laws to circumvent Court rulings. To propose that shows a lack of understanding of the basic operation of the Constitution and Government which BO is pledged to defend, or something far more sinister. It is hard to believe that a Harvard Constitutional scholar
  
• The legislation this ruling was focused on is McCain / Feingold, passed in 2002, not "100 years ago".

Note, conservatives are NOT "always consistent", to be so is humanly impossible. To have a liberal like Dionne talk of the issue though is like having Slick Willie talk of martial fidelity!