Damn!
Barack Obama is reportedly going to buy his wife a $30,000 thank you present, a ring no less. It is apparently a gift to thank her for her support during the campaign.
First the $60,000/year tuition for Sidwell, now this. I thought John McCain LOST, because this sounds like something he'd do for Cindy.
What happened to the one-home "community organizer" they elected? I guess this is the "Change" he was talking about?
John Goodman, head of the National Center for Policy Analysis, breaks down Obama HHS Secretary Tom Daschle's philosophy on health care reform, as expressed in his book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis, thusly:
The main ideas: Medicaid expansion, Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for everyone who wants to enroll, Medicare for the nonelderly as a FEHBP option, a play-or-pay mandate for individuals, income-based, refundable tax credit subsidies (both at work and away from work), a play-or-pay mandate for employers, electronic medical records, a national health board ("to establish a single standard of care for every other provider and payer"…covering every disease from cancer to diabetes and even depression), preventive care, dental health, mental health, long-term care, home care, community health centers and combating obesity.
Not on the list: Health Savings Accounts, although Daschle was once an advocate, and even cosponsored HSA legislation.
Not on the list: Single-payer health insurance, but only because it is not politically practical.
Not on the list: Any way to pay for any of this. (The issue is not, can we afford reform? The issue is, can we afford not to?) I'm not kidding.
As I pointed out at the time it became known that Daschle would be the HHS Secretary nominee, the move has all the hallmarks of an attempt to enact the disastrous HillaryCare plan of 1994, but to do it far more cleverly than the tone-deaf, politically clumsy First Lady was able to do at the time.
Since being booted from the Senate by the voters, Daschle has been a fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he has agitated for a total overhaul of the U.S. health care system that is centered on the implementation of a "private system within a federal framework."
Daschle envisions this nationalized system, which is being described in doublespeak because Daschle, et al know there is little appetite in America for a total government takeover of health care, as being overseen by a health care equivalent of the Federal Reserve which utilizes the power of the government to "ensure harmonization" within American health care. (Yes, he actually said "ensure harmonization.")
As if that wasn't enough, Daschle has pointed to the U.K.'s national health service, with its waiting lists, rationing of care, nonsensical drug and benefit policies, and tendency to leave emergency room-bound patients waiting in ambulances in the parking lot for hours at a time to reduce congestion, as a model to which the U.S. system should aspire.
In other words, he's a perfect choice for the far-left Barack Obama we expected to be getting as a result of the November 4 election.
Hello All,
My last post to you "Hillary and Senate Democrats Invalidate the Constitution!" showed how Obama is flat out ignoring the Constitution by appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I have written a letter to all my House and Senate Representatives imploring them to not support this appointment because of the Constitution and it’s Original Design. I have included that letter and a link so you can very easily do the same. Click on the link, and you will be taken to a site where writing to your Representatives will be just a few clicks away. You will need to tell the site your zip code. Once on the "Action Alert" page, find the "Write Your Elected Officials" section and click on the "Federal" link. Then just cut and paste my letter, or you can add or delete what you wish from it, or write your own and send that letter to all your Rep’s with just one click. YES IT IS THAT EASY! Note: Keep in mind you will need to add you own Address, Not Mine. LOL!
Remember: “Most of the problems we face in America today are because the government “Runs Free” and most of “We The People” run silent. The Constitution only works when everyone gets involved. Shane 2007”
"The Doctrine of Original Intent"
As Always Thanks for being involved, Many Blessings, Shane
"Standing Strong" & "Closing Ranks" and still in the "Hunt For Red November"
"Write to Your Representatives"
Hello Congressperson,
The President elect, Mr. Barrack Obama, Has just appointed Mrs. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I am imploring you to NOT support this appointment on the grounds of the U.S. Constitution where as Mrs Clinton Voted during her term as Senator to increase the Emolument of the Secretary of State. The Constitution states very clearly that:
Article I Section 6:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Our founding father’s debated long and hard over all the principles of the Constitution. I have always believed in the Constitution, it’s principles, and it’s original intent even when I may not like it. They are the foundation and security of this nation, and the reason why we are the strongest country ever in the history of the world. To just ignore one of it’s founding principles would strongly weaken the Constitution and this country.
Please, Stand up for the Constitution and its founding principles and do not support Mrs. Clinton’s appointment as secretary of State.
Thank You, Shane Revill
5917 Harding Street Oscoda, MI 48750
Final thoughts and update on Georgia senate race
Fifty-eight and counting for the Democratic Party in the United States Senate, and should incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss lose to Jim Martin on this Tuesday's run-off election, only one Republican vote would be required to invoke cloture to end filibusters.
A President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress would have a blank check to enact most all of their legislative dreams of the past forty years, and, given the economic crisis, pass it all off as "stimulus" no matter how fundamental the changes the new laws may effect.
This column is an update to our front pager last week which suggested that Jim Martin was on his own, as far as getting any personal help on the ground from the President-Elect.
It remains the case that Obama will not take the "Coverdell" challenge and repeat the mistake made by then President-Elect Bill Clinton in his 1992 appearances in a previous Peach State run-off when Republican Paul Coverdell defeated then incumbent Democrat Wyche Fowler.
However, Obama did make a radio ad touting Martin as favoring his legislative agenda; Donna Brazile reported on ABC's This Week Sunday show that all 20+ Obama campaign offices remain open; and that Obama supporters in adjoining states have been encouraged by text message to come help turn out the vote.
So, turnout matters in run-offs, too?
Yes, we finally heard, forty-eight hours before the vote, that yes, turnout matters. DeVine Law has yet to hear an explanation from an "expert" as to how turnout would ever not matter (unless an election is fixed).
Turnout means votes. We decide elections on actual votes, hence, every winner of every election is the one who had more voters turn out for them.
As if.
Gamecock also learned since our last report that Martin has raised and spent more money Chambliss. The Drive-by dead-tree media article tries to hide this fact by headlining the supposed ominous news that the Republican raised more money from large donors, but for those Americans that can still do math, the facts are discernible.
Finally, more information from our Astute Political Observer (APO) on the ground somewhere between Douglas and Decatur:
Many Georgia Democrats remain animated to vote against Saxby based on his TV ads (that included an image of Osama bin Laden) six years ago against then incumbent Democrat Max Cleland, especially given Chambliss' reported student and medical deferments during the Vietnam War. Cleland is a triple amputee due to injuries suffered while serving in that war.
Dee-Fax issue?
We are also advised that deaths of children abused while under the supervision of the Department of Human Resources (DFCS pronounced dee-fax) while Martin was commissioner have been used by some of his political opponents. Ads have also reported a Martin vote for a "whopping" 30+% tax increase amendment that never became law.
As an attorney that has defended parents as their lawyer children as Guardian ad Litem and before the DFCS equivalent in South Carolina, I never could point to a case where the commissioner was in any way at fault for the errors of case workers.
The tax increase Martin voted for was one cent on the sales tax.
There are many reasons to vote against Martin, but those two are not among them.
Given new data, especially including the news from our APO near the City too Busy to Hate, we have to temper, but not withdraw, our view that Chambliss should pull this election out and remain as red as the clay (pictured above).
Polls show that black turnout (which went 95+% for Martin) will be up to 30% lower than their percentage on Election Day.
The best reasons for voting against Martin were mentioned above: He will be a rubber stamp for the Obama agenda. That will drive GOP turnout and the argument for divided government may persuade some Democrats to pause.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Rove strategy for 2000/2004 was ahead of it's time.
Wanted to get some feedback from members about a theory I have that Karl Rove's strategy for W's elections came around a bit too soon, and might be worth a second look for 2012/2016.
I think McCain ran a campaign that was much more similar in strategy and tone to Dole 1996, than the Rove tactics of 2000/2004. True McCain, at the end had a bunch of Rove disciples on his team. But they only implimented the negative "dirty tricks" side of the equation, while ignoring the other half which is the positive message of "Compassionate Conservatism."
McCain was in a tough place because Bush failed to govern with the "Compassionate Conservatism" he promised. So there were no accomplishments for McCain to point to and promise to preserve or deliver more of the same. McCain was never able to fashion a coherent and easy to understand, positive narrative about why he should be elected. His guys did try to bring down Obama with attacks, just as Rove did to Gore and Kerry.
But attacks alone won't ever win. Rove/Bush also had a positive narrative and even then just squeaked by with two narrow victories. I think Karl was smart enough to see all the pitfalls (demographic shifts, electoral map problems, etc) that would later vex McCain. And he came up with a way to repackage conservatism in a way that did indeed win elections.
People seem to be charting a course for the GOP in 2012/2016. I really believe that the playbook isn't broken, it was just ignored in 2008(at least half of it). Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" does not seem too far from the proposals of Governor's Pawlenty and Samford or the strategies of Michael Steele and Newt.
Why SoCons must retake the GOP and you should join us...
The Only Effective Strategy: Social Conservatism is Conservatism
Every member of Redstate understands what is at stake – we are
fighting for the very soul of this nation. Debates between factions
of Right leaning groups are healthy. They can also destroy a much
needed and previously strong coalition. Believe me our nation has
been systematically deconstructed by her enemies within and without
– and if we on the right can not fight together, we will die alone
(thank you Jack Shepherd, Lost).
All Libertarians will not agree with this, however some will.
All SoCons will not agree with this, but they all should. Every
Liberal NE-type Republican will disagree with this and that is the
point. This approach to reconciling many differences on the Right
in order to reclaim and remake the Republican Party as the Vehicle
of Conservatism will purge us of the virus of weakness and fear
propagated by the spineless moderates who pretend to speak for
us.
John McCain became our nominee and Barack Obama became our
president because Centrist Republicans (RINOs) recognize that
according to Game Theory giving yourself the worst of two favorable
options (a democrat president) is better than allowing for the
possibility of your most hated option (a strong conservative and
especially a socially conservative leader who speaks truth and
principle). Liberals who have invaded the seats of power in Our
Party have directed us into this One Party quagmire because what
they fear most is a Morally Solid Leader with a Transformationally
Restorative Vision of America. These Rockefeller Republicans will
do everything they can to deprive our nation of its just heritage
in order to have free reign within bureaucracies and their own
debauchery – which are not so far removed from each
other.
The Only Effective Strategy is to move one step further with
Reagan’s Three Legged Stool and build a Five Tiered Pyramid which
graduates the principles – all of which are essential and none of
which are dispensable.
/\
/ National Defense \
/Limited Government / Economic Liberty
/Personal Responsibility / Moral Foundation \
Libertarians must understand that Economic Liberty is morally
correct because it rests upon Personal Responsibility (which
implies personal freedom but is not geared toward giving license
for all activities) and most importantly a Moral Foundation. This
foundation is what gives the argument for removing government from
our private lives weight. Without it Libertarianism crumbles just
like Capitalism will erode without moral leaders in public and
private life. Free markets are not free simply because we do not
touch them. If we do not slap the Invisible Hand the directs the
market as well as our conscience then Laissez-Faire will fight
handouts. In any other condition the freedom we all treasure will
be taken from us at the barrel of a gun.
Social Conservatives must recognize that our greatest failure
has been the inability to engage the culture at the personal
responsibility level. We must have the courage to lead and take on
the flaming darts of enemies with our shields fighting with our
swords. We must not give up on this Post-Christian country and
instead call out for repentance and restoration. We must be willing
to sacrifice our comforts as required. We must see economic freedom
and inexorably linked to religious freedom, where one falls the
other will follow. We must not confuse Princess Di good works such
as flamboyant demonstrations of large group even government
sponsored Savior Activism, see Bono and Angelina Jolie with Mother
Theresa one-on-one personal commitment caring for the least of
these not in India but in Indiana and all of our neighborhoods.
Most importantly we must see the difference between personal
responsibility and parental control when drafting our laws. And
everyone in this party must agree that all laws inherently contain
moral assumptions.
Moderate Republicans must get the hell out. Your money is no
good here anymore.
If the Conservatives get this part right, the committees,
campaigns, elections and fund raising will follow. There is no
monopoly in the Republican Party, yet. We can still take back the
Elephant bite by bite, but we must remember not to ignore his
presence in the room. We need to have a unified vision for America
that permeates our roots. Then we will see the fruit of our labors
over the next 2-4 years and beyond.
Which way will he go?
There was question in the media about exactly how president-elect Obama planned to deal with the economic crisis. Some have speculated that he would move right with moderate economic policies that would foster growth the old-fashioned way – by creating wealth through the methodical process of wise capital formation and deployment. And several of his appointments including Reagan-era Fed chairman Paul Volcker, Christina Romer, a tax cutter from UC Berkeley, and Tim Geithner at Treasury indicate that he may be prudent in this area.
But for those who are skeptical about a candidate who said he wanted to “spread the wealth around,” Obama’s Saturday November 22 radio address offered some troubling language. Here are excerpts from the address followed by observations:
Excerpt: The news this week has only reinforced the fact that we are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions. Financial markets faced more turmoil. New home purchases in October were the lowest in half a century. Five-hundred-forty-thousand more jobless claims were filed last week, the highest in 18 years. And we now risk falling into a deflationary spiral that could increase our massive debt even further.
Observation: This is Obama talking down the economy. We would never get this from an optimist or a conservative. Ronald Reagan would have said something like: “We have challenges that we will meet with American optimism”. When Obama aides said that the current economic crisis offers an historic opportunity to reshape the economy, they were really talking about reinstating Roosevelt-type New Deal policies which utterly failed to improve the economy of the 1930s. Let’s hope Obama resists temptation. Volcker is a good sign he might. But you never know.
Excerpt: While I'm pleased that Congress passed a long-overdue extension of unemployment benefits this week, we must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. We have now lost 1.2 million jobs this year, and if we don't act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.
There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better. But January 20th is our chance to begin anew - with a new direction, new ideas, and new reforms that will create jobs and fuel long-term economic growth.
Observation: Obama here is setting the table for big government intervention in the economy in addition to the $1+ trillion in bailouts already in effect. “A new direction, new ideas, and new reforms” is nothing more than the same old stuff: Use the government to try and fix the economy. It will not work. He has talked about $500 billion more in economic stimulus. This is just throwing money at a problem that requires patience. Perhaps his appointees will talk him out of it.
And indeed the crisis has been years in the making, but it has evolved out of Obama’s ideology – decades of massive government waste, corruption at Fannie Mae, and laws like the Community Reinvestment Act that forced private banks into the role of social engineers.
Excerpt: I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 - a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office. …We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels…
Observation: Obama plans to create these 2.5 million jobs using the government as an employer, creating huge new deficits. He can easily create 5 million or 10 million jobs in this way if he is willing to take on enough debt. But it will not improve the economy in the long term. Only private growth will do that.
The whole idea of “rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges” is classic socialism and is exactly the route that FDR took between 1933 and 1938 with make-work government jobs building roads and bridges and other public projects. It did not work. The unemployment rate was higher in 1938 than it was in January 1933 when Roosevelt took office.
“Modernizing our schools” is just another term for throwing more billions into the pot for the public school bureaucracy and the teacher unions, which then will contribute it back to the Democrat party. The public schools have been failing for decades now. Why give them more money?
Meanwhile Obama’s plan to finance “wind farms and solar panels” with government cash is nonsense. Think ethanol. The whole pie-in-the-sky ethanol program, touted for years by environmentalists, has turned out to be hugely inefficient, has pushed up food prices by diverting large amounts of the corn crop to fuel, requires tens of billions in government subsidies, and never even has been shown to produce more energy that it consumes. In other words, ethanol production is voraciously consuming three critical things – food, energy and capital, while its government subsidies hide its real effects. Wind farms and solar panels will be no different.
Excerpt: These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my administration will bring to Washington - a government that spends wisely, focuses on what works, and puts the public interest ahead of the same special interests that have come to dominate our politics.
Observation: Obama talks about “investments”, but most government spending is not “investment” because it relies on taxation, which is the nationalization of private investment capital. Private capital in private hands is true “investment”.
To learn more about “investment”, just go to the states where the economies were collapsing long before the financial crisis hit and you will find Democrats in control with their big government spending programs and high tax levels. New York State, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Michigan all voted overwhelmingly for Obama and have had the worst economies in America for years now. Obama’s own Democrat-dominated state of Illinois is 45th in job creation of the 50 United States.
In Obama’s big economic rollout on Monday, November 24, he called for more government spending including a tax cut for the “vast majority” of Americans in the middle class paid for by the nation’s “wealthiest”. Let’s hope Volcker and Romer talk some sense into Obama.
Here is an excerpt from the article 'Irrationalizing Employment Growth' in the National Review of September 14, 2004, by contributing editor Tom Nugent restating a well-established fact that increasing taxes on upper-income citizens harms the economy:
In particular, Democrats continue to press the idea that the first four Bush years have turned in the worst rate of job growth since the Hoover administration. The president’s detractors, however, should be made aware that Hoover raised taxes on the wealthy (just as Kerry proposes) and encouraged the Smoot Hawley tariff to protect farmers from foreign competition (just as Kerry wants to protect U.S. workers from outsourcing). These policies are given the blame for the Great Depression, which hit during Hoover’s one term as president back in the 1930s.
So not only has Obama talked about “taxing the rich” but he is protectionist as well, which will hurt our economy just as Smoot Hawley did. He campaigned on renegotiating free-trade agreements with South Korea, Mexico, Canada, Colombia and the Central American region. Pray that Volcker and Romer can get to him to leave these pacts alone and to encourage free trade.
Regarding Obama’s plan to genuinely cut taxes for the middle class: The Democrat party has relentlessly taxed the middle class over the last 50 years. Real tax reform would permanently encode significantly lower tax rates for the entire middle class. Obama won’t do this. He already has plans to increase the Social Security tax and increase taxes in many other ways.
Obama has sent so many mixed signals that even normally level-headed Fox News headlined its story about Obama’s November 25 press conference like this: 'Obama Promotes Fiscal Restraint, Big Spending'
Huh?
What we do know is that the Fox headline is half right. Obama probably is going to do one thing to restrain spending and that will be to cut the military substantially as Bill Clinton did. Clinton went farther however, gutting out intel agencies too, which led to 9/11. In the wake of the Mumbai, India terrorist attacks of November 26, we must realize that vigilance it crucial. Whether Obama plans to remain vigilant economically or militarily is another story. Time will tell.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/clinton-turns-from-obama-critic-to-top-envoy/
Clinton turns from Obama critic to top envoy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/pakistan-warns-india-of-troop-redeployment/
Pakistan warns India of troop redeployment
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/orthodox-leader-seizes-own-obama-moment/
Orthodox leader seizes own 'Obama moment'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/online-retailers-are-holding-their-breaths/
Online retailers are holding their breaths
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/afghans-wary-of-taliban-us/
Afghans wary of Taliban, U.S.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/six-degrees-of-imran-khan/
BREITBART: Six degrees of Imran Khan
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/01/bombay-tragedy-beware-of-innuendo-on-pakistan/
DAVIS: Bombay tragedy: Beware of innuendo on Pakistan
To be or not to be on National Inauguration Day?
That is the question that is being kicked around by few folks in various parts of the nation. Will he or will he not use his full name to include, of course, the Muslim one ‘Hussein?’
In the past Obama opted not to be referred to using his middle name. Apparently it was a sensitive issue.
The Los Angeles Times brings up food for thought in their article Obama's inaugural oath
The article points out that no problem existed when President Bush swore in as George Walker Bush, and later added that 'W' has become his presidential nickname so affectionately given to him by the left -- not to mention, a major motion picture was also titled appropriately as W.
Well, by golly, then Barack should be able to use his full name that includes the common Muslim name. Americans just need to embrace the multicultural aspects of our nation. If it seems a little odd and, dare say, foreign to American ears where most are used to hearing more common American names that is something that will have to be gotten over. And quick, too. Because progress is in the making and the world will stop being mad at us when we finally decide to shake off that pesky regressive American-Anglo tradition. Terrorist everywhere will lay down their arms at such a gesture. Who knows, those who are already in cities waiting to unleash the next Mumbai will have a change of heart and finally love us.
Stripped of such evil intent, the "Hussein" in Obama's full name shouldn't be taboo. Nor should the idea of an openly Muslim citizen deciding to seek the presidency. That point was made eloquently by former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he endorsed Obama. "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" Powell asked. "The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing he or she could be president?"Most Muslim Americans believe in and are pursuing the American dream, and as Powell also noted, they are sometimes dying for it. Last year, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a survey concluding that American Muslims are "largely assimilated, happy with their lives and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world." The survey also found that "Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries."
By larger margins? I bet if that same question was presented to American 'majorities' there would be a flat our rejection and repudiation of the cowardly, devilish, Islamist murders.
Here is some more scoop from the Pew Forum that the LA Times conveniently left out.
[Continuation of the same information] However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified.
I don't know about you but that has mainstream written all over it. We truly are ONE people with all the same beliefs, desires and loyalties as the next.
There is some agreement: "Many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks."
I believe that puts them right in the middle of mainstream Hollywood and other bizarre elements of the Left.
Redeeming all the Clinton Administration Folks From their DC Sins
Podcast Show Notes
Obama claims change comes from him, so he can surround himself with old time Washington hacks.
More Charlie Rangel corruption. (Hat Tip: Red State.)
Georgia ackowledges the need for strong marriages.
One woman's decision not to be an abortionist. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)
The perfect holiday gift: Planned Parenthood gift certificates. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
A university pro-life club threatened. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)
Homeschool harassment. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)
30 Marines beat back 250 Afghani Insurgents. (Hat Tip: Right Wing News.)
A message from a brave injured soldier. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)
A union president fingered for corruption.
A burglar breaks into the wrong house and other second Amendment news.
Music by Admiral Twin via the Podsafe Music Network.
Part I--Hillary's Lesson
This is a nightmare in the making.
This has big support at The U.N. and you can bet dollars to donuts that the about-to-be-crowned King Of The USA with The Speaker Of The House at his side will be right there in line, hats in hands with 'hope' and 'change' for the USA.
From the article linked below...............
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year."
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".
Lawyers call for international court for the environment
This actually gets started, then it's open season on any business world-wide. I'll bank on the lunacy getting to the individual level faster than you can cause a Haz-Mat scene by breaking one of those stupid twisty light bulbs being mandated already.
This is another step towards a one-world government.
Cheers !
Kenneth L Solomon............Typical Bitter Jewish God-Clinging Gun Owner And Barking Mad Insane NASCAR Fan...............Please support the Jamie McMurray Foundation For Autism Speaks.
President-elect Barack Obama
plans to nominate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his
secretary of state on Monday.
Hillary's nomination will be made in the face of the Constitutional
prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause
2):
This issue has been discussed quite a bit in the blogoshpere
during the last couple of weeks. One of my favorite Constitutional
scholars, Professor Eugene Volokh -- the Gary T. Schwartz Professor
of Law at UCLA School of Law, has written about Hillary and the
Emoluments Clause.
Professor Volokh concludes "it is beyond dispute that Senator
Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of
State." I agree.
The problem has been faced before. Rather than abide the plain
language of the Constitution, Presidents Taft in nominating Senator
Philander Knox to be Secretary of State, Nixon in nominating
Senator William Saxbe to be Attorney General, Carter in nominating
Senator Ed Muskie to be Secretary of State, and Clinton in
nominating Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be Treasury Secretary, all
decided not to let the U.S. Constitution stand in their way.
As President-elect Obama joins the company of Presidents Taft,
Nixon, Carter and Clinton, he will probably ask Congress to lower
the salary of Secretary of State back to what it was before Hillary
took office so that Hillary can take the appointment without a pay
increase that while she was in the Senate. Such a charade has come
to be known as "the Saxbe fix."
But many legal scholars believe that the Saxbe fix does not cure the Constitutional problem, because the language of the Emoluments Clause is clearly an absolute prohibition: No senator or representative, period.
Professor Volokh has also shared the thoughts of Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, author of Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional?, 46 Stanford L. Rev. 907 (1994), on the Saxbe fix:A "fix" can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.
Unless one views the Constitution's rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but "standards" or "principles" to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
I wouldn't bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn't stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution's actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don't know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.
It is sad to see President-elect Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, show such a lack of respect for the Constitution.
Perhaps Senate Democrats will stand on the same principals as the 10 Democrat Senators who voted against Senator Saxbe's fix. Back then, Senator Robert C. Byrd said, "the Constitution wasexplicit and 'we should not delude the American people into thinking away can be found around the constitutional obstacle.'" What will Bryd say about a Hillary fix?
Tough questions take toll on Obama vision and press patience
[This blog was inspired by an excellent comment in Walter Todd Huston's excellent column.]
Originally published with complete transcript at The Minority Report.
The Drive-By Media will not suddenly become critics of President-Elect Barack Obama, like they did with President Jimmy Carter (some of the anti-Southern bigotry was vile), but, they will slowly turn on him due to how he reacts to any semi-tough question from their kind trying to actually do their job.
The most recent case in point was from Ed Henry of CNN, that dared question what "change" is reflected by a bunch of Clinton retreads. Will Ed the Reporter get "plumbed" like Joe the Plumber, the last citizen to dare question the wisdom and veracity of the President-Elect?
And then there is the "vision" (Shouldn't the one with the vision defer to others for the acknowledging of same?) arrogance he fell into after being backed into a corner:
OBAMA: But I understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from ME. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing it.
This is the question that got Obama all testy.
HENRY: Sir, you talked about John McCain was going to come back to Washington if he won and would just move people into different chairs. We got Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates --
OBAMA: Wait, wait, wait! Hold on! Ho'don! Wait a minute! Hold it. You hear that? First of all, that's not the topic. We're not talking about my cabinet because I haven't made those appointments yet.
HENRY: We're talking about Paul Volcker. He's been around a long time, so he's somebody who knows the ways of Washington. But what do you say, you know, to your supporters who were looking for change?
OBAMA: Actually Paul Volcker hasn't been in Washington for quite some time. Uhhh, and that's part of the reason he can provide a fresh perspective. Austan Goolsbee, uh, from my understanding, you've never worked in Washington.
GOOLSBEE: Been on vacation.
OBAMA: This is about as fresh a face as you can get.
RUSH: So you see, that's not the topic, you can't ask me about that. That's not the topic. This isn't Open Line Friday. This is not the Rush Limbaugh show where you get to ask the host anything you want. You're going to stay on topic or you're never going to get back in here wait, wait, wait, wait, wait hold on hold on hold on hold on wait, wait, wait, you hear that? See, he was looking for sympathy from others in the press corps. You hear that? You hear his question? You hear how unfair this is?
Now, a couple observations. Look, I'm not trying to nitpick, but I need to set this up because of the bite that's coming next. This sound bite and throughout this whole press conference, other than when he lost his cool with whoever this reporter was, "That's not the topic! Not the topic! We're not talking about my cabinet."
And eventually he did go -- let me see if we have that bite. Yeah, I think we've got the bite. I just got this and I haven't had a chance to read the transcript, but he did go on and answer the question, and it was lame. It was a lame answer.
He said, "How can you expect me to have new faces? I mean all these people are from the last Democrat administration, that happens to be the Clinton administration. I have to get people in here who know what they're doing." So he really fumbled the answer, and I'm being told it is Ed Henry. Ed went in there in a disguise, I guarantee you, because he wants to be let back in.
OBAMA: When it comes to the people that we've pulled together -- because I know this has been sort of conventional wisdom floating around Washington, uh, that, well, you know, there's a recycling of, uh, people who were in the Clinton administration, although Paul dates before that --
RUSH: Listen, now.
OBAMA: -- the last Democratic administration that we had was the Clinton administration.
RUSH: Yeah?
OBAMA: And so it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever.
RUSH: What?
OBAMA: And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.
RUSH: Now, this is awfully sly, but how many hundreds of thousands of people are there in government that he could have chosen that are brainiacs that might have some decent ideas that have no ties to the Clinton administration? They're all over the place.
This answer is so lame. "Where else am I going to get my staff. I've gotta raid the only Democrat administration we've had in the last 20 years, where am I going to get my staff?" Then there's this, and this is even better. This is even more telling, because here Obama tells us what his role in all this is going to be.
OBAMA: What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking.
RUSH: Yeah?
OBAMA: But I understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from ME. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing it. I think when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like you'll say this is a cross section of opinion, uh, that in some ways, uh, reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks it orthodoxy in all sorts of ways, and that's the kind of discussion that we're going to want.
We want ideas from everybody. What I don't want to do is to somehow, uh, suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration, that you're somehow, uh, barred from serving, uh, again, because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running.
RUSH: All right, so he finally gets a tough question, and he's flailing around. If you listen to his answer, he's flailing around all over the place.
From the diaries by Erick
The
Associated Press is worried that Americans might accidentally
imagine that the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency could
make people think that blacks in America really can get ahead. The
AP is so worried that it sought out a race hustler to deny that
blacks can make it here no matter what happened on November 4.
As the AP reports it, apparently young Kari Fulton "cringed" when Barack Obama won the past election. She "cringed" because she heard a white guy say that Obama's election put a dent in the charge of racism in America. And why did she "cringe"? Why, it's because "racism is still very much alive and well" she told the AP.
And how does young Kari know this? At 23 she never lived through Jim Crow. She doesn't remember the days when there were few blacks on TV and blacks in music were segregated to separate genres, not mixing with white singers. She wasn't around when black CEOs didn't exist and no blacks roamed the halls of Congress or the White House without pushing a broom. So, how does this 23-year-old girl know that "racism is alive and well"? Because she is a black activist, that's why.
Fulton, 23, was part of a group of young black activists from across the country who worked to register and turn out young black voters in the presidential election. The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation brought the group together shortly after the election to learn about converting their enthusiasm into ongoing political activism.
You see, the AP presents us the opinion of young Miss Fulton because she works for a black-centric activist group. I'm sort of wondering if the AP thought that a race hustler at any age would stick a knife in her livelihood and admit that the need for her activism is less extant?
I wonder what a buggy whip manufacturer would have said in the early 1900s when asked if people would still need buggy whips in the future? Do ya think he might have said, "Why sure. We'll ALWAYS need buggy whips!"
Of course, the AP is right to say that the problems that blacks in the US face aren't going to magically melt away because we've elected the first black president. But to pretend that nothing has changed regardless of that election is also just as specious. Worse it is an insult to the real discrimination that past Americans suffered through.
The AP then details a series of statistics that shows that blacks have less success than whites in America today. Naturally, these stats cannot be denied. But to assume at this stage of our nation's history that it must all be because of white racism sadly excuses their own culpability for these problems. In an era when blacks fill spots in every walk of life at the highest levels (now including the presidency) to put their general lack of success solely on "racism" shows a serious lack of introspection.
Not once does the AP bring up the real problem that blacks have in their cultural habits as one reason why they are doing poorly by comparison.
No where does AP mention how Rap "music" celebrates the lowest societal behavior, no where does AP mention the "don't snitch" attitude that keeps blacks from interacting with authorities, and no where does the AP mention the sordid disinterest of black fathers in the upbringing of their own children. The AP also does not explore the serious lack of interest that many blacks have in education. Not to mention the serious crime problem that black communities are mired in. All these are areas in which blacks not only have the power to affect, but can expect the hearty assistance of government AND their white neighbors.
No, instead of having a truthful discussion on race and the plight of blacks in America, the AP allows race hustlers to dump all blame on "white racism."
Certainly a Barack Obama presidency won't solve the problems of America's blacks, but neither is it something to dismiss so easily. Worse, ignoring the serious problems that blacks impose on themselves is no way to make things better, either.
Sadly, the AP is only too happy to accept the word of race hustlers like our Miss Fulton instead of engaging in a serious discussion of the problems that face us all.
(Photo credit: powershift07.org)
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
Any limits at all?
I voted for John McCain. I held my nose because Obama was worse. Now the election is over and I would like to ask a question. How much loyalty do Republicans owe John McCain?
Republicans have been more than loyal to him than he has been to us. He fought against the Bush tax cuts. He fought for a very unpopular immigration amnesty bill. He destroyed Republican fund raising with his anti free speech campaign finance reform. He has spent so much time over the past 8 years on television news shows trashing Republicans and reaching out to Democrats that he was considered for Kerry's VP.
The threat of a primary opponent is all we have to keep any of our own Republican elected officials in line. If it is going to be business as usual and John McCain decides to go back and carry the water for the Democrats, then something should be done.
So, how loyal should we be? Are we obligated to keep EVERY candidate just because they currently occupy a Senate seat and run under the Republican banner? Once elected can they do ANYTHING they want? What is the point of winning an election only to have your candidate surrender to the opposition the minute he gets to Washington?
I am curious to know what the limits, if any, are of loyalty to McCain or anyone else in the Republican party.
Obama’s National Security “Triumvirate” has Relegated Joe Biden to Nothing More than a Constitutionally Mandated Sycophant, a “Yes Man” whose Opinions will likely be Disregarded
Was Joe Biden’s nomination for Vice President – a pick elicited first by the criticisms of Hillary Clinton, then John McCain, for Barack Obama’s relative foreign policy inexperience – a shallow attempt to dispel the disparaging ‘naiveté’ narrative? Will Vice President Cheney, a man who has expanded the powers of the Office of the Vice President more than any VP in recent memory, be succeeded by a wall moth? Survey says: Yes.
In all but confirmed leaks, Obama is set to name his national security team – Gates, Clinton, Jones – on Monday. Obama’s highly anticipated announcement, notwithstanding any surprises, stands to seal the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman’s proverbial foreign policy coffin, and not a moment too soon, I might add (see: This whole ‘time table’ thing is boring me. Let’s partition Iraq!).
By way of Ben Smith, a spokeswoman for Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, the retiring Armed Services Chairman, sends word of Warner’s praise for Obama’s national security “triumvirate:”
The triumvirate of Gates, Clinton and Jones to lead Obama's 'national security team' instills great confidence at home and abroad; and, further strengthens the growing respect for the president-elect's courage and ability to exercise sound judgement [sic] in selecting the 'best and the brightest' to implement our nation's security policies.
If Gates, Clinton, and Jones are, in Warner’s eyes, the “best and brightest,” what does the loquacious six term senator from Delaware represent? A necessary nuisance, more than likely. Obama’s soon to be named ‘triumvirate’ has relegated Biden to nothing more than a constitutionally mandated sycophant, a “yes man” whose opinions (and yes, he has many) will likely be disregarded by the above-mentioned heavyweights.
Biden, who once urged a paraplegic state senator to stand to his feet at a rally, earned a reputation as the wordiest man in Washington, but became increasingly muzzled by his Obama handlers after a series of significant – and humorous – gaffes. As if muzzling him for the cycle wasn’t bad enough, it seems his frequent off-the-cuff comments – a welcomed break from the drudgery that was my life for the last year and a half – have permanently landed him in the dog house. Let’s just hope his handlers forgot to re-muzzle him; we all need a laugh from time to time.
Obamania reaches new heights!!!
To my Conservative Friends:
I am often amused at the lengths the media and the public has gone to immortalize this guy, but this has got to take the cake.... Before the guy steps foot in the oval office, before he writes a bill, passes a budget, does a single, solitary thing, they are fawning and bowing to the Messiah....
Do you want to eat your holiday bird on Barry's face??? If so watch this:
This guy has become a rock star, now he must become a President... Can you imagine the size of this guys ego!!!!
I was not born yet when JFK was President, but I don't think he received quite as much adulation before he even did anything in office... Barry, when you objectively look at it, has not done a thing to date... As a Community organizer, as a state senator or a US senator... Can the libs point to one piece of major legislation or cause that he stood for that was ground-breaking???? .... Crickets.... I thought so...
The only problem is, Barry now has a real job with real responsibilities. If Paris screws up, maybe a few Starbucks go under or she is on the cover of the Enquirer for all to mock... If Barry messes up, the country and the world could suffer the consequences...
So lets get serious people... The man is the President of the United States, not Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam!!!! So I wish him success to run this country.
Otherwise, we'll have to find other uses for those commemorative plates!!!
Just my thoughts...
Visit GOP Mike's Blog for more witty, Conservative articles and commentary..
After the first amnesty fiasco McCain said "He heard our voices" and wouldn't make any moves on immigration reform(amnesty) until all borders were secured etc etc etc. Many of us, myself included, weren't sure if that was believable given his hiring of Juan Hernandez but given what we were up against in the election many took him at his word. Well the borders aren't secured, the fences basically non existent and our failed nominee for president has agreed to work with Obama to cram through so called immigration reform. If this is true, and I tend to believe it is, then we are in for another battle. Our country CAN'T and shouldn't HAVE to pay the costs this reform will heap on us. At this time in our country's economic situation it would be nothing but a whole bunch more nails in our financial coffin. With all the work we need to do to turn this country around I can't believe they want to add this divisive and costly issue to the list. Also, if this is true I personally will do and encourage to do all that can be done to make sure it's McCain's last term in the Senate. That may not be possible but I'll make damn sure he hears about it every chance I can. He's just another lying kool-aid drinker from Washington who could care less about his word or about that representative portion of our democracy!
I'm sorry but this just pisses me off to no end. I see my kids and grandkids left with nothing, with the only "Change" being the two dimes and a nickle they'll have left when the government gets done with them. It's "Change" alright, Change America into a third world country!
