The best thing about all these stories about the Democrat Party and their idiocy is that it gives the chance for me to post a new bumper sticker idea I have. It’s after the jump below.
Let’s get started with the vapid chowder-heads from California:
‘We don’t look at either of these gubernatorial races . . . as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts,” insisted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday, as New Jersey and Virginia voters gave Democrats a thumping. Unfortunately for the White House, its opinion no longer counts.
First thought on Tuesday’s elections: There’s a lot of firing going on in America, and now that includes politicians. Seems only fair and will likely continue. I don’t think voters in New Jersey and Virginia were saying, “Oh the Democrats are awful, and we hate them,” nor were they saying, “Republicans are wonderful, and we love them.” The voters were being practical, and thinking policy: “Will he raise my taxes?” In Jersey, they fired the incumbent governor because they couldn’t imagine the state getting off its current trajectory (high unemployment, high taxes, high spending) with him there. And they’re certain they have to get off their current trajectory or they’re sunk.
Both states hired new governors. The good news for the GOP is that they hired Republicans. The bad news is that if the Republicans don’t make progress, they’ll fire them too.
Second, it’s too simple to say this was a vote against Obama. Yes, he went to Jersey three times and draped himself like a shawl around the Democratic incumbent. But the crowds showed and nobody booed and everyone had a good time. What happened actually is more interesting. They just didn’t listen to him. Mr. Obama told Jersey to vote for Jon Corzine, and they didn’t. They don’t hate him, they’re just not hearing him. That’s new. They’re warning him: Hey you with the health-care obsession, shape up or you’ll get shipped out!
President Obama came into office insisting that his administration would press hard and fast to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But after nine months, analysts and diplomats say, the administration’s efforts have faltered in part because of its own missteps.
click for larger
And finally we have this comment from the president regarding the crazed man who killed and injured dozens while yelling ‘ALLAHU AKBAR’ at Fort Hood yesterday:
“We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts,” Obama said in a Rose Garden statement otherwise devoted to the economy.
I feel so much better with this guy leading our nation.
So, in closing, remember when voting in the next few years, we can begin to fix all our nation’s problems by remembering to do the following… (more…)
Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year’s census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.
The proposal by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was aimed at excluding immigrants from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state. Critics said Vitter’s plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it’s long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, regardless of whether they are citizens. A separate survey already collects the data.
The plan fell after a 60-39 procedural vote made it ineligible for attachment to a bill funding the census.
It is pretty clear to me that you have a voting record of 60 casting a vote that violates their oath of office or at the least, encourages us not to enforce the law they swore to support and defend:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
There’s a reason we call them “illegals” isn’t there?
The White House says that Republican wins in two governors’ races were not referendums on the president.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday that voters went to the polls in Virginia and New Jersey to work through “very local issues that didn’t involve the president.” The presidential spokesman said voters were concerned about the economy.
“I don’t think the president needed an election or an exit poll to come to that conclusion,” Gibbs said.
Hundreds of tons of weaponry, ten times the size of the Karine A shipment of 2002, were seized in an overnight raid Tuesday by the Israeli navy, some 100 nautical miles west of Israel, officials said. The ship seized was sailing under an Antiguan flag.
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says…
Big Hollywood has already posted a couple disturbing videos of young school children singing/speaking praises to President Obama, but when eleven more dropped in our email box it came as quite a shock. What seemed like an aberration now appears to be a troubling pattern.
I knew that there is a manifest, marked distinction, which ill men with ill designs, or weak men incapable of any design, will constantly be confounding, that is, a marked distinction between change and reformation. The former alters the substance of the objects themselves; and gets rid of all their essential good, as well as of all the accidental evil, annexed to them. Change is novelty; and whether it is to operate any one of the effects of reformation at all, or whether it may not contradict the very principle upon which reformation is desired, cannot be certainly known beforehand. Reform is, not a change in the substance, or in the primary modification, of the object, but, a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and, if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was. – Edmund Burke
I think the big mistake we made was believing that Obama believed in and supported the Constitution. The need for all the unvetted and unapproved czars Obama has surrounded himself with proves his weakness and inability to the do job he BS’d his way into.
I make Bush look like an amateur when it comes to ignoring our nation's laws.
It is my belief he studied and taught constitutional law in order to circumvent and to ignore it as he saw fit:
Last week’s announcement that “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg slashed compensation for executives at seven large financial firms by an average of 50% stunned Wall Street, stoked the fires of populist resentment, and troubled economists. Will this government-mandated pay cut drive the most talented professionals away from these companies, endangering their recovery? Does it augur further politicization of economic decisions?
Lost in the arguments over economics and political theory, however, is a more basic question: Was this action constitutional?
On top of all the other obstacles facing President Obama in his quest to pass health reform is this one: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse?Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers– that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program will expire on December 31, unless Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner exercises his authority to extend it to next October. We hope he doesn’t. Historians will debate TARP’s role in ending the financial panic of 2008, but today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund.
We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC’s shrinking insurance fund had available. But TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline (Citigroup) and even to force public capital onto banks that didn’t need it. This stigmatized all banks as taxpayer supplicants and is now evolving into an excuse for the Federal Reserve to micromanage compensation.
TARP was then redirected well beyond the financial system into $80 billion in “investments” for auto companies. These may never be repaid but served as a lever to abuse creditors and favor auto unions. TARP also bought preferred stock in struggling insurers Lincoln and Hartford, though insurance companies are not subject to bank runs and pose no “systemic risk.” They erode slowly as customers stop renewing policies.
TARP also became another fund for Congress to pay off the already heavily subsidized housing industry by financing home mortgage modifications. Not one cent of the $50 billion in TARP funds earmarked to modify home mortgages will be returned to the Treasury, says the Congressional Budget Office.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
[...]
David B. Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer with Baker & Hostetler, told CNSNews.com that Hoyer’s argument was “silly,” adding that if the general welfare clause was that elastic, then nothing would be outside of Congress’ powers.
“Congressman Hoyer is wrong,” Rivkin said. “The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that’s true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything.
Then for the “general welfare” maybe we should re-elect no one for the next two or three elections. I am pretty sure that exactly the opposite of what the authors of the Constitution meant.
The Obama administration will order seven companies that received the most government assistance to cut salaries of top executives by 90 percent on average, a person familiar with the situation said.
The Treasury Department’s announcement will come this week, the person said on condition of anonymity. Total compensation, including bonuses and other benefits, for the 25 highest-paid executives must be reduced by about 50 percent, the person said.
Radical leftists shouted down Geert Wilders at Temple University last night.
The good little indoctrinated leftists chanted, “Hey Hey, HO, HO, this racist bull—-’s got to go.” They forced the university to shut down the event early.
They beclown themselves. Muslims are not a race.
And Temple University looks foolish for allowing this to happen.
I would wager Temple would come down hard on anyone who interrupted a Leftist Queer or Radical Islamist or Domestic Terrorist.
I think the big story here is how little the Patriot Act has changed given the fact that we have a large majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate and how liberal the leadership is.
We’re retaining the roving wiretaps. We’re retaining the telecom immunity — the fact that the telecom industry is not going to be subject to prosecution for helping the Bush administration. We are retaining the lone wolf provision, which means you don’t have to show that a guy is a member of a group, a terror group, in order to wiretap him.
All the major provisions are retained. And as you said, the Obama administration behind the scenes is supporting the minimal — it’s supporting the idea of no changes.
And that’s a tribute to the Bush administration. Remember, this was passed a month-and-a-half after 9/11 in the heat and the fury of that time. It totally restructured the way we go after terrorism domestically, and it got it right.
Eight years afterwards, in retrospect, with liberals in the House and Senate, it is remaining almost intact. We have not had a second attack in the eight years and we have not had any significant scandals or abuse of these powers in violating the liberties of Americans. It is really quite a remarkable achievement.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis
There is nothing more un-American than what Obama is promoting with the UN:
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt–a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression. (more…)
My country is in an unusual position this week. Former president Manuel Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras, still claiming to be the country’s legitimate leader, despite the fact that a constitutional succession took place on June 28. Amid all of the claims that are likely to be made in coming days, the former president will not mention that the people of Honduras have moved on since the events of that day or that our citizens are looking forward to free, fair and transparent elections on Nov. 29.
The international community has wrongfully condemned the events of June 28 and mistakenly labeled our country as undemocratic. I must respectfully disagree. As the true story slowly emerges, there is a growing sense that what happened in Honduras that day was not without merit. On June 28, the Honduran Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya for his blatant violations of our constitution, which marked the end of his presidency. To this day, an overwhelming majority of Hondurans support the actions that ensured the respect of the rule of law in our country.
Underlying all the rhetoric about a military overthrow are facts. Simply put, coups do not leave civilians in control over the armed forces, as is the case in Honduras today. Neither do they allow the independent functioning of democratic institutions — the courts, the attorney general’s office, the electoral tribunal. Nor do they maintain a respect for the separation of powers. In Honduras, the judicial, legislative and executive branches are all fully functioning and led by civilian authorities.
Coups do not allow freedom of assembly, either. They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant. And on Nov. 29 our country plans to hold the ultimate civic exercise of any democracy: a free and open presidential election…
We are, of course, disappointed with the position of the United States [as are the people of the United States for the most part - ed.] and the European Union, both longtime friends. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the United States, the European Union and the rest of the international community to prove our commitment to democracy and the Honduran people’s love of freedom. Coercive action directed at our nation will only harm less fortunate Hondurans, whose hospitals, schools, roads and other institutions rely greatly on our friends’ generous assistance, for which all of our citizens are immensely grateful.
I have said from the moment I was sworn in as president of Honduras that I do not intend to remain in office one second more than what our constitution mandates. On Jan. 27 I will hand over leadership responsibilities to the ninth president of our 27-year-old democracy. Such actions are in keeping with the desire of the majority of our people: the strengthening of our democracy.
The writer is president of Honduras.
Obama is on the side of Chavez and other dictators in opposition of a nation following its constitution, go figure…, he’s against our constitution as well.
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
“The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example,” he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to “crawl and archive” all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to “social media” and to public comments “received by the president or immediate staff.”
Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be “unprecedented” and “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration.”
An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama “will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.”
1) Create a false center. In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama positioned himself between the Left’s calling for a single-payer system and the Right’s agitating to end employer-based health insurance. Presto — he’s the very definition of a centrist. Anyone advocating almost any position can benefit from the same insta-centrism. 2) Scorn ideology. Obama warned against “the usual Washington ideological battles.” Message: He has no philosophical commitments himself. He’s pushing a Great Society redux only as a matter of practicality. Superficial pragmatism is the ideologue’s best friend. 3) Talk about your openness to ideas from opponents. The more you do this, the less you have to adopt any of their ideas. “I will continue to seek common ground,” Obama said. “I will be there to listen. My door is always open.” While he does all this common-ground seeking, he will be whipping up the Democratic votes to pass a massive, liberal reordering of the health-care system. But he’ll be listening! 4) Embrace empty symbolic measures as a show of reasonableness… 5) Make lawyerly distinctions too subtle for most people to notice. Never underestimate the power of the cagey formulation. Obama said people won’t be “required” to change their current arrangements if they like them. That sounds reassuring even though it leaves open the likelihood that millions will have to change insurance as a result of his plan. (Caution: May require the aid of experienced policy hands and professional speechwriters.) 6) Say things just because they sound good. Why not? Obama always says he’ll reduce costs even though the Democratic plans do little or nothing to reduce costs. That’s his sound bite, and he’s sticking to it. 7) Dissemble as necessary. Don’t hesitate to brazen it out as needed. The House plan authorizes the secretary of health and human services to include abortion coverage in the public option. But Obama insists reform won’t cover abortion, and accuses his opponents of lying when they say it will. Shamelessness has its advantages, especially if a compliant press will overlook it. 8) Make the price right… 9) Never admit any cost or downside to what you are proposing. Even an unparalleled genius of an orator has trouble selling things people don’t like. So don’t do it. Obama stipulated the new taxes will fall on insurers and drug companies. And, oh yeah, don’t say “taxes.” They are “revenues” and “fees…” 10) Couple attacks on your critics as unworthy hacks with calls for civility… 11) Be sure to say something like “this is the time…” 12) At least once a speech, keep talking over the applause… 13) Load it up in a teleprompter. And repeat as necessary.
One of the clearest messages from the Town Hall forums during the August congressional recess was that people want Congress to be covered by the same health care reform plan they impose on the rest of us.
Members of Congress presently get health insurance coverage through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which offers enrollees nearly 300 choices among a variety of plans, coverages and costs.
The FEHBP covers federal employees and retirees, as well as Members of Congress, though the latter have additional perks of office that make their health coverage far better than that available – or affordable – for the vast majority of working Americans.
Public anger may explain why the White House is now insisting that Congress has not exempted itself from the Public Option, most notably in this new “Reality Check” video on the White House web site featuring former ABC reporter Linda Douglas, who now flaks for Obama as communications director for the White House Office of Health Care Reform.
The problem is, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Moffitt, the White House assertion is “incorrect.”
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution
Next, let’s admire our Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s and Team Obama’s stellar work:
Roberto Micheletti: 
