Posts Tagged ‘ News Item ’

Jumping to conclusions is a fool’s folly. The case of Trayvon Martin.

If you think you know what happened in Sanford, Florida on Feb. 26, 2012, you’re probably not fit to serve on anyone’s jury much less the one in question.  Honestly, none of us has enough facts to judge either of the players in this case.  But perhaps something bigger is at play here and I’m talking even more significant than Zimmerman. Continue reading

Advertisements

Imam assumes most Americans are blithering idiots

Yesterday Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf spoke to CBS’s geriatric news magazine, 60 Minutes and elaborated on his threat that not building his 9/11 Victory mosque was more dangerous than building it.  I know calling it a “victory mosque” is offensive to those of you trying so hard to pacify radical muslims in the vain hope that doing so will keep them from attacking you. Call it a community center if you like, that will not change what it is.

The fact is whenever you listen to someone with an agenda speak, you need to listen between the lines and consider those remarks in the context of previous comments, known positions and affiliations.  Recently some of Imam Rauf’s off-the-record comments were uncovered that illuminate Rauf and his over-arching agenda.  But first let’s cover the recent remarks. Continue reading

BP Rig Disaster Too Perfect

Last month in an effort to draw Conservatives and “moderate” Democrats to support (or at lease not vigorously oppose) his Cap & Trade Bill,  President Obama decided to permit limited oil drilling off the U.S. coast.  Almost instantly environmental groups were responding with outrage.

Environmentalists missed the point.  Being so focused upon the tree bark they can’t see the tree much less the forest.

President Obama never intended to allow significant oil drilling.  It was all a ploy to push through a huge energy tax that will eventually kill domestic oil drilling as well as what’s left of the American coal industry.

Nevertheless, left-wing nuts went crazy.  From where I sit it seems the President could have ignored them until enough back-room deals were cut to pass his so-called Cap & Trade bill, but the pressure mounted.  Then as if an answer to some environmentalist’s prayer; out of nowhere and perfectly timed, an oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico. 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”

What’s truth got to do with it

CBS' Bob Schieffer suggests clamping down on Freedom of Speech in an effort to control violenceTwo of my biggest pet-peeves have always been the hypocrisy of the Left and the fact that historically, governments are loath to yield power.  The two become linked when the Left runs the government and terror comes from frustrated crazies.  The government seems to use every excuse to exploit public fear and encourage public demand for ever greater government “protections” which are really just more restrictions on freedom.  All-the-while they pin as much blame as possible on their political enemies.

If you’re old enough to have travelled in the 1980s and even the 90s you can recall the thrill and exhilaration of travel.  If not, then you may not realize travelling hasn’t always been drudgery, fraught with inconvenience, and invasions of privacy.  But hey, you’re safer.  Yeah, it’s sooo worth it!

Yesterday, Bob Schieffer, of CBS News, scared the crap out of me.  Continue reading

What America Needs Now Is Job Creation

The Administration is using a faulty model

The Obama Administration can talk about saving jobs until they are blue in the face.  They can tell us they created a million new jobs – no wait, why not tell us it’s five million, it doesn’t matter what the number is.  As someone I admire once said, “Facts are stubborn things,”  10.2% vs. the promised 7.8%.  Phony job creation claims do not improve the unemployment numbers.  I don’t know about you, but I am nearly depressed every time I see the latest unemployment figures.  10.2% only counts those actively looking for work.  The situation is so desperate that many people are simply too depressed and despondent to continue looking.  They’re still unemployed but they are no longer counted in the official statistics.  Arriving at the true unemployment numbers can be a bit of an art rather than pure science.  According to the New York Times, true unemployment now stands at 17.5%, nearly a half percent higher than the previous record set in 1982.  And there is no sign the trend has reversed.  It will likely climb ever higher.

In the early 1980s the Reagan administration countered the Carter recession by encouraging new business.  New businesses hire new employees.  The Kauffman Foundation released a study Nov. 5th illustrating this fact.  The study shows that since 2007, two-thirds of all new jobs were created by companies less than five years old.  Contrary to current Washington thinking, these jobs are not public sector jobs, temporary jobs, or welfare entitlements.  Job creation that benefits the nation comes from companies employing people with the express purpose of making money for themselves and their employees.  Making money motivates job creation.  Imagine that!

A maxim that accurately defines the federal government’s role in managing the economy is, if you want to discourage a behavior tax it, if you want to encourage a behavior offer a tax credit.  Instead we have a government that adheres to another maxim, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Or more accurately, nationalize it.

The economy has stopped moving and all we see is from our huge stimulus package are temporary jobs and a continuing rise in unemployment.  Big established companies are receiving billions in bailout money and for what?  Are they hiring?  Are they even maintaining their employees?  No they are only continuing to be mismanaged by overpaid and persecuted CEO’s, corrupt boards, and now, meddling Czars.  It would have done more good to have evenly divided that money between all the unemployed people and sent out checks.  At least some mortgages and car payments would have been paid.

New ventures, small new ventures, are the fuel for the economic engine.  Washington, OBAMA, yo, how about encouraging new business?  Maybe even a bit of protection against foreign threats, definitely low interest loans to start-ups, decrease business taxes, and enact tax credits for companies hiring new employees.  This phoney job creation has to end.  If you don’t want to preside over the Second Great Depression, do something constructive, something that grows jobs and rebuilds the economy.  Stop pursuing new government bureaucracies that only suck more money out of the economy.  Stop seeking more government control that only inhibits the economy.  Do not engage in any action that would slow or stop economic productivity.  Be a positive factor in the economy by protecting and encouraging growth and new business ventures.

Mr. President, look at your models, then look at the actual economy since you took office.  Are your models accurate?  Are they within an acceptable margin of error?  If the answer is no, then you must reject those models and embrace new ones.  Partisan politics are what got us here and you continue to play that game.  We, the people, are sick of it.  You promised change.  We voted for positive change and have only received radical negative change.  You seem more concerned about political ideology than actually helping people find employment.  Employed people pay taxes, unemployed people consume tax revenues.  Want to increase revenues for the government?  Encourage new business, encourage real job creation in the private sector.

It is not working and you must change.  As for those in Congress, your days are numbered.  Change or be changed.  Government cannot create jobs, but they can create an environment conducive to job creation.

David Hamilton, Another Radical Labeled Moderate

hamiltonLast April President Obama nominated Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.  Most Americans simply are not interested, however, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed once out, “[The] Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”  Today Harry Reid is pushing to seal his confirmation.  But should he be confirmed?

If you listen to the main stream media Hamilton is a “moderate.”  What could be better than a moderate?  Moderates should be people politically neutral, not too far left, not too far right.  My impression is that moderates sometimes swing left and sometime right.  But apparently in the new Obama world I would be wrong.  A new moderate is some who swings from extreme left to far left.

I know Media Matters, the left-wing apologists, have defended Hamilton and his “moderate” position, however, I’d just like to throw out a few quick points and back them up.  (Click the case name for a brief.)

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: