Posts Tagged ‘ Executive ’

Well, Mr. President, you can stop looking

May 27 2010 WASHINGTON - MAY 27: U.S. President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference at the East Room of the White House May 27, 2010 in Washington, DC. Obama announced an extension on the moratorium for deepwater oil drilling for six months. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)  Content © 2010 Getty Images All rights reserved.I called it.  On May 6th I predicted the Obama administration would use the Gulf disaster to shut down domestic off-shore drilling.  As sure as the sun rose this morning Obama shut down all off-shore drilling.  Making America even more dependent on foreign oil, specifically, Middle Eastern oil.  (Funny how nearly everything this administration does somehow works in the favor of our enemies, while doing harm either to us or our traditional allies.)

The President is looking to kick some ass

Yesterday I listened as the news replayed a sound bite from the President.  Seated comfortably before NBC’s Matt Lauer, President Obama tried to screw up his best indignant tone as he remarked, “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.” Now I’m not going to harp on how presidential or not his language was.  It’s not germane to my point.  Rather I’d like to make my own observation. Continue reading

The Reluctant President

“…whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

It was a remark casually tossed into a Q&A session at the close of the two-day nuclear security summit in Washington, D.C.  The President was responding to a question about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he whined, “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”

Initially, the mainstream news barely noticed until conservative bloggers began criticizing the remark.  The New York Times mentioned the quote in an analysis of Obama’s foreign policy that basically brushed aside previous blunders as a normal part of the learning curve.  FoxNews had several articles on the quote but they tended to simply chronicle the reactions of Senator McCain or pundits.  I heard the remark last night and caught Karl Rove’s respond on some talk radio interview I randomly caught while surfing the radio.

I’m not blogging about this because I merely wish to jump on the right-wing hate-obama-express, but rather because I have a different interpretation.  Are Conservatives who say Obama feels burdened by America’s position as a superpower accurately gauging the President’s remarks or is the NYT’s closer to reality when they portray the remarks as “realpolitik.”  I like to think of myself as a realist in life, work, and politics so when Peter Baker employed that word I had a reaction.

Continue reading

Conspiracies, Terrorists, and Nutjobs

Any good conspiracy should be plausible, but the same is not true of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories can be as off-the-wall as the Truthers or Birthers, meaning the motives and execution of the “conspiracy” doesn’t have to be plausible. However, any real conspiracy should have plausible motives, method, execution, and objectives. As a thinking person I have to weigh conspiracy theories on these factors and if they don’t add up I must examine the timing and the motives of those promoting such conspiracy theories as well as the group accused of hatching the conspiracy. Continue reading

Obama Flunked High School Civics

Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama

I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.

The most amazing moment came, though, when the President flatly admitted that he doesn’t care how Congress passes the health bill as long as they do.  President Obama told Bret Baier of Fox News, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.  What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform.  And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” In the parlance of the web, WTF?!  So what is he saying?  I believe he’s saying, it doesn’t matter how they pass it, as long as I get to use that new pen I bought for the signing. He sounds to me like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class.

Slaughter House Rules

When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed.  Really?  Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution.  Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law.  I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon.  The House and Senate bills are not the same bill.  The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill.  According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.

As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.  It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional.  However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.)  The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt?  But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.

The Constitution Assumes Democracy

Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto.  I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill.  Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses.  But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress.  When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.

Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote.  Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with.  I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.

The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law.  The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.

If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect.  It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done.  To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.

This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom.  If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!

The Idiot quote of the Year

Comes from Nancy Pelosi.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

2009, Year in Review

Today we will finally put 2009 behind us.  Truly a historic year, how it will finally be remembered is debatable at this point.  History rarely frames events with the same level of importance we assign them in the moment.  Will 2009 be the counterpart to 1989?  1989 marked the fall of communism and the beginning of democracy in Eastern Europe.  Will 2009 be remembered as the fall of free markets and the beginning of dictatorial government in the United States?  Or will the extreme arrogance of Democrats now holding both the Executive and Legislative branches of government result in their demise?  Perhaps 2009 will go down as the year overly ambitious liberals buried themselves.  I’m just asking asking the questions.  Now, let’s briefly review some of the year’s historic events.

Continue reading

Obama’s approval rating keeps dropping, sort of like the economy


The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama’s combined approval index rating to be at -18.

Here’s what the poll said:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.

Source:

I certainly hope that 53% of Americans who voted for Obama and the press, who are still “in the tank” for him, learn the importance of properly vetting a candidate. It makes you wonder where their heads were.

I wonder what the left-wingnuts are feeling like after realizing they’ve been deftly herded by sheep-dog Soros and his media machine.

The press, if they still have an independent backbone in them, might get a lesson as well when they realize the readers, who the press are supposed to serve, will never be able to trust them to do their job of providing America with some in-depth reporting. However, seeing how the media houses are stacked to the rafters with lemming-like liberal reporters, I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for that to ever happen.


Baa-a-aaaa

Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize In Oslo

Oslo, Norway
December 10, 2009

President Obama was in Oslo today to humbly accept the Nobel Peace Prize. A record number of nominations, in all 205, have been made for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Institute said

The tally includes 172 individuals and 33 organisations, besting the 2005 number of 199 nominations.

Apparently, you don’t have to actually do anything to be eligible for nomination. The Nobel web-site only says:

%d bloggers like this: