Posts Tagged ‘ idiocy ’

Obama believes he can’t be wrong

By Herman Cain

President Obama says very strange things, especially for a guy who presumably wants very badly to be re-elected. As if it wasn’t enough that he last week went off on small business owners for having pride in their accomplishments, this week he actually told a rally audience in reference to the economy – with a straight face – “We tried our plan, and it worked.”

It almost seems gratuitous to start citing all the numbers that obliterate this claim – the 8.2 percent unemployment, the anemic 1.5 percent GDP growth this past quarter, the soaring federal deficit that will top $1 trillion yet again this year. It’s like when the head coach of a 1-15 NFL team tries to make the case that his team is really good. Why sit there and debate him? You just nod your head and think to yourself, “Whatever you say, Coach.” 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”

Idiots at Queens College

It isn’t enough to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome but the academic morons on the Left keep trying to brainwash all the malleable mushy-heads they can reach.  Queens College not only invited a radical Muslim, but an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  Then they defend the decision not by refuting his accused criminal actions, but by calling those who complained racists and xenophobes.

Perhaps the most outrageous item in this story, at least to me, is the title of the cleric’s speech, “How Islam Perfected Thanksgiving.” Upon reading it, I could not help but to think of the Star Trek character, Chekov.  A running gag in the original 1960s TV series was Chekov’s insistence that everything of value was either originally Russian or perfected by Russians.  It appears a similar level of audacious narcissism exists or is emerging in Islam.  If not in Islam, certainly in its groveling academic admirers.

An excellent essay on this appeared yesterday on Redstate. I am reprinting it with a link to the original.

Radical Islam Finds Voice In New York College

by James Richardson

Siraj Wahhaj, a radical Muslim cleric who authorities in 1995 identified an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was last week invited to Queens College to speak on the subject “How Islam Perfected Thanksgiving.”

Wahhaj testified in 1996 for convicted terror plotter Omar Abdel Rahman, who was charged with attempting to bomb New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and the United Nations. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was recently assailed–justifiably so, considering the imam’s history and inflammatory rhetoric–in the press for inviting Wahhaj to an event with local Muslim religious leaders to discuss the Ft. Hood tragedy.

Despite Wahhaj’s altogether sordid and troubling past, the imam was invited with open arms to campus of Queens College by the Muslim Student Association (MSA), whose members just days before attended a College Republican film screening event of an anti-radical Muslim film and reportedly laughed and muttered “good” as beheading footage of American businessmen and the collapse of the World Trade Centers aired.

At a debate following the film, one MSA member said, “If I had enough money I would be part of the jihad army, I would kill all the Jews,” according to one College Republican present. Another spoke of getting a “bomb.”

Following the events of the debate and the invitation to Wahhaj, the Queens College chapter of College Republicans demanded the school’s administrators defund the MSA on the grounds the group espoused radical, anti-American ideology. School officials defended the organization, telling reporters it was a matter of constitutionally-protected free speech.

The MSA “definitely should not be funded by the taxpayers,” Queens College Republicans Vice President Ryan James Girdusky told the New York Post.

But despite the school’s protestations, the Queens College Muslim Student Association has a history of associating with extremist elements of the Muslim community. One of the group’s most committed members, Adis Medunjanin, was last month arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with Najibullah Zazi in New York City as a prime suspect in a terror investigation called “one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country since Sept. 11, 2001” by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Medunjanin, a respected member of the Queens College MSA, was a common fixture in the group’s prayer room, “where he came to worship two or three times a week,” according to the New York Times.

But the most alarming aspect of this is the College Democrats’ conspicuous silence on the matter. Wahhaj’s record of destructive and divisive rhetoric is such that, in an ideal world, both parties would be compelled–out of simple respect for the victims of September, 11th, if by nothing else–to condemn the imam’s radical brand of Islam and the group who so willingly extended an invitation.

Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world.

College Democrats’ are complicit in Wahhaj’s troubling anti-American rhetoric by failing to condemn his presence and ideology, a particularly tone-deaf position as disconcerted New Yorkers cope with the Obama Administration’s reckless decision to award enemy military combatants civilian trails in their back yard.

While school administrators’ insistence that the MSA is a run-of-the-mill student organization may be the politically expedient thing to do, it’s certainly not the right thing to do.

%d bloggers like this: