Category Archives: Government Bodies

Obama’s Disingenuous Bi-Partisanship

On Friday, President Obama met with members of the House GOP at their annual three-day retreat in Maryland.  He made some opening remarks and then proceeded to conduct a question and answer session.  Mainstream Media and members of the left described the President’s “performance” as a return to his former campaign self and the three Stooges at MSNBC (Rachel Madcow as Larry, Racist Chris Matthews as Curly and Keith Olberdork as Moe) aired a special, dedicated to their analysis of the President’s appearance in Maryland where they basically declared Obama the winner and described how the President mopped the floor with the GOP – even without his trusty teleprompter.

I witnessed something quite different.  The President is not moving to the center and deciding that he would like to work in a bi-partisan way.  The State of the Union Address revealed that the President plans to move forward full steam ahead.  This meeting with the GOP backs that up as well.  The President was obtuse, answering questions in long rhetorical soundbites that left most wondering what the original question had been.  The President was defensive on many issues and stuttered and stammered to get his footing.

Obama claimed that he is open to GOP ideas.  He has said the same thing all year-long, even as he completely ignored GOP suggestions and he and his administration, along with the Democrats, have claimed time and time again that the Republicans are obstructionist and the party of “no” and have no ideas to offer.  A member of the GOP should have asked the President how the GOP managed to obstruct anything when they do not have enough votes to accomplish that – the Democrats obstructed the Democrats.  Mike Pence pointed this ignoring of GOP ideas out in this exchange with the President:

REP MIKE PENCE (R-IND.): Mr. President, a point of clarification.

What’s in the “Better Solutions” book are all the legislative proposals that were offered . . .

OBAMA: Oh, I understand. I’ve actually read your bills.

PENCE: . . . throughout 2009.

OBAMA: I understand.

PENCE: And so rest assured the summary document that you received is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months.

OBAMA: Well, Mike, hold on, hold on a second.


No, no, no, no, no. Hold on a second guys.  You know, Mike, I’ve read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff. And the good ideas we take.

But here — here’s the thing, here’s the thing, I guess, that all of us have to be mindful of. It can’t be all-or-nothing one way or the other, all right?  There’s eloquence for you.  “No, no, no, no, hold on guys…here–here’s the thing, here’s the thing.  As I said, he stuttered and stammered his way through this thing because he knows he is wrong and lying.  Confidence does not need to be defensive.

You — you — and what I mean by that is this. If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support, Democrat or Republican. And then you’ve got some infrastructure, and maybe there’s some things in there that you don’t like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion, or there’s this provision or that provision that you don’t like. In other words, Mike and the rest of you boneheads obstructing me, even if a bill is total garbage and full of waste, one bright shining light should get you on board to vote for this stuff.  The Porkulus Bill got its nickname for a reason: it was full of pork!  And has been proven an utter failure full of fraud.

If there’s uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn’t get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it’s going to be hard to get a deal done. That’s because that’s not how democracy works. The President of the United States does not know that he is the head of a Representative Republic.  He thinks this is a Democracy.

Something that many analysts did not pick up in the opening statements of the President set off some Marxist/Dictator warning bells.  We already had Obama call out the Supreme Court and attempt to embarrass them at the SOTU and he informed them that he was encouraging Congress to overturn their ruling to uphold the First Amendment with legislation.  The President later informed Congress that he would be issuing an Executive Order to set up the spending committee that would take over the Congressional power of deciding where spending should be allocated and cut.  So we have President getting Congress to take SCOTUS’ power and then the President taking Congress’ power leaving one person holding the bag.  And this brings me to this statement from Friday:

I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in the spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can’t break free from partisan gridlock, if we can’t move past the politics of no, if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as president. I’ve got to act for the greater good, because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

The President just informed the nation that he is going to act for the greater good, which we know means his interpretation of good, even if he has to act without Congress.  We know that Congress will be in gridlock now with the election of Scott Brown and the GOP is aware that they cannot move forward any big government ideas without suffering the wrath of We The People.

Since the Massachusetts wake-up call, Obama’s only concession has been to issue a spending freeze in his 2011 budget.  This concession is not only temporary, but freezes spending at an exorbitant rate while not doing anything to reform entitlement programs like MediCare, MediCaid and Social Security, which are bankrupting the country.  And the next concession that the President will toss out to the little people is moving the 9/11 trials out of Manhatten.  This brings little solace to an American public outraged that non-citizens who took part in slaughtering 3,000 of our fellows were given Constitutional rights.  And the idea that this “circus” trial, that will give voice to these Jihadi terrorists to spill forth their bilge, is just going to be moved to another American city instead of back to GITMO insults our intelligence.

The President is putting on airs of being a willing participant in bi-partisanship, but the actions will prove that this is just another lie.  And so we will have to remind him again in November 2010 that We The People are the government.


Infrastructure For Obama’s Brownshirts

The President has signed another Executive Order that has flown under the radar in the same way that the Interpol Executive Order did a few weeks ago.  This new Executive Order appears to be setting up the infrastructure for Obama’s Civilian Corp. or something I have dubbed for the past year and a half: Obama’s Brownshirts.

This Executive Order, known as “Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors”, sets up the framework for the use of federal troops and combines state and federal agencies within the Department of Defense. This order was signed yesterday and enables the federal and state governments to work together to protect the nation from hazards.  This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but not when considering that the lines defined by the Tenth Amendment are already blurred and when considering that the federal government is busily building a Marxist Utopia.

The Council’s responsibilities include reviewing matters that involve the National Guard of the various States; homeland security; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland security, and civil support activities.  The council will be made up of ten governors selected by the President to serve for two years.  Members from the federal government will be included as well and will be represented by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Homeland Defence and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

The Press release of the executive order is as follows:

The White House Office of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release January 11, 2010

EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Council of Governors.(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).  The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms. (b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.

Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National GuardBureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the variousStates; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; more (OVER) 2(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining toNational Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an ExecutiveDirector to coordinate the work of the Council. (b) Members shall serve without compensation for theirwork on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travelexpenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, asauthorized by law. (c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support, assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may benecessary for the performance of the Council’s functions. (d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order. (e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose, scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate, among members.

Sec. 4. Definitions.  As used in this order: (a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and (b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided inparagraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)). (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair orotherwise affect: (1) the authority granted by law to adepartment, agency, or the head thereof; or(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability ofappropriations.Sec. 5. General Provisions. more 3 (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


Net Neutrality Gains Ground

The federal government does not feel it has enough control yet as it absorbs banks, businesses, healthcare and the like and so it is now going after the internet.  Conservatives like myself have been warning for months about the Fairness Doctrine, which would utterly destroy the radio talk show business.  This is basically legislation that would give the government the ability to decide who runs and owns radio stations and thus, what types of programs can be aired on radio.  Our warnings worked and the government backed away from the Fairness Doctrine, but as we all know, these policies do not go away, they just morph into something else.  Net Neutrality is one of those morphed policies.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

As phone and video services have migrated online, the FCC has struggled to stretch its authority over new technologies. The FCC’s net neutrality proposal, driven by Chairman Julius Genachowski, is the strongest move yet by the federal government to assert control over the rules of the road on the Internet.

Google and AT&T have been embroiled in a battle over the net neutrality proposal, which gained ground last week when FCC Commissioners unanimously voted to move forward net neutrality and will be manipulated in the coming weeks into a policy that will be crammed down the throats of internet users and providers.  This is a forerunner to government control of the internet.  Keep in mind that the President has already granted himself emergency control over the internet and has a Cyber Czar to police the internet.  These net neutrality rules will enforce that power.

Google supports net neutrality because it gives them farther reach.  High speed internet will have to be provided to all areas of America and internet services will be unable to block anything on the internet, specifically Google.  Google, incidentally blocks whatever it pleases or works against conservative websites like Atlas Shrugs.  Google is also in bed with GE, which puts them in bed with the Obama administration.

The Wall Street Journal also reports:

AT&T and other Internet-access providers want latitude to manage traffic on congested wireless networks and freedom to devote a chunk of their wired networks to selling more expensive services. Internet providers are worried regulators are assuming veto power over their efforts to develop new revenue streams from their Internet lines.

Google and other Internet companies fret that phone and cable companies will hobble their efforts to offer competing services online or will try charging them more for better connections to consumers.

Google wants phone and cable companies to deliver all traffic equally, so carriers can’t get in the way of it offering consumers high-definition TV shows or movies on YouTube or phone services like Google Voice.

This would all be a great idea if not for the fact that the government is getting involved.  And anyone paying attention to the FCC knows that its new head thinks Hugo Chavez is great and applauds his revolution.  The FCC also has a board where Democrats outnumber Republicans.  The Progressives are slowly powergrabbing everything they can and we need to wake up and fight it to save our freedom.

Justice Ginsburg And Eugenics

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by the New York Times Magazine this weekend and made a comment about Roe v. Wade that has me thinking this woman embraces Progressivism all the way to its eugenics core.  Ginsburg claimed that the decision was made in Roe v. Wade because the Supreme Court’s majority had a desire to stall “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  The question that Ginsburg was asked when she made this unbelievable comment was, “Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure?  And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?”

Justice Ginsburg’s full response to the question was: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me.  Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have to many of.  So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.  Which some people felt would risk coercing women into abortions when they didn’t really want them.  But when the Court decided McRae, the case came out the other way.  And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”  The McRae case was a decision that prohibited the use of Medicaid or any federal funds for abortions.   The reasoning of Ginsburg seems to be that she thinks the government would want to fund abortions so that poor women could have access to them – not just because she thinks a woman has a right to choose – but because the government thinks babies born to the poor are of a population we do not desire to have grow.

Eugenics is “the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”  This was a science embraced by the Progressive Movement that started around the time of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency.  The idea that Wilson and his administration would fund abortions for the poor is very plausible.  But would the government at the time that Roe v. Wade was decided embrace eugenics?  That would be 1973 and Richard Nixon was president.  I hardly think that Nixon would have supported such a notion.  So what exactly was Ginsburg trying to say with her comment?  Is this possibly something that she would support if it were brought before the Court?  Would she support it just so that poor women would have access to abortions or would she have other reasons as well?  Keep in mind that Ginsburg during her confirmation hearings supported a stance on abortion that would allow for no state restrictions on abortion.  Currently, Roe v. Wade restricts abortion on babies that would be viable outside the womb.  Sounds like Ginsburg and Obama share opinions about abortion.

Ginsburg also stated her support of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice during the interview.  A Justice has never before endorsed a nominee to the court.  It would seem that this interview puts into question the judgement of Ginsburg – a Supreme Court Justice!  If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Court – which I have no doubt will happen – we can expect much of the same from her as well since she will have the loftier judgement of a latina woman.

Sonia Sotomayor Is A Racist

Progressives everywhere feign indignation over the obvious fact being stated by conservatives that President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist as revealed by many of her statements and rulings throughout the years,  Only those who are intellectually dishonest could deny such a claim.  Tom Tancredo, who has endured the label of “racist” for years, was one of the few GOP members to be audacious enough to speak the truth:

The left can deny the facts all they want, but they cannot explain away statements that Sotomayor has made like this one, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  So a Latina woman would give better rulings than a white man according to Sotomayor.  If the tables were turned, Latinos would be crying, “Racist!”  And keep in mind that this statement was made at a gathering of  La Raza Law Journal.  La Raza is a racist group whose name translates as “The Race” with an air of superiority.

Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have both referred to Sotomayor as racist.  Gingrich tweeted: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.’  New racism is no better than old racism.  White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

In a famous ruling that is coming before the Supreme Court – interesting that President Obama did not mention this and instead chose to speak about Sotomayor’s baseball ruling – Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion rejecting a lawsuit from a group of firefighters in Ricci v. Destefano.  She chose to not even deliberate in the lawsuit.  This lawsuit was filed on behalf of white firefighters who claimed reverse discrimination and that their civil rights were violated when results from a test that they passed were invalidated because not enough minorities passed the test to be promoted – only one Hispanic firefighter passed.  The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, battled dyslexia and spent months studying for the test, which he passed, but because no African-American firefighters passed he was denied a promotion. Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointment and liberal, wrote after hearing that Sotomayor rejected the case: “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Being a racist should be enough to keep someone off the Supreme Court bench, but even worse than this is the fact that Sotomayor believes that the Judicial Branch has the ability to legislate from the bench.  She even stated coyly during a speech that the Appeals Courts “create policy” and then quickly tried to cover herself by saying she should not say that since she was being taped.  As a Supreme Court Justice, she will be required to uphold the Constitution and our rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but in a Second Amendment battle in Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor joined an opinion holding that “it is settled law” that the Second Amendment only limits federal, and not state, gun control laws.  Thus she believes that states can take away gun rights.

This woman must come under heavy scrutiny from the GOP!  They must not back away fearing that they might be tagged as racist and lose the Hispanic vote if they fight this nomination.  This is the battleground and this is the time.  Jeff Sessions gave a lukewarm statement that they would be thorough with Sotomayor, but he sounded weak and timid.  The GOP needs to start echoing the leaders outside of Congress like Limbaugh and Gingrich and fight for our Constitution!

The Congressional Circus

The building that should presently house the House of Representatives and the Senate has now become a circus tent covering over a band of buffoons, contortionists and performers.  The Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the presidency, performs acrobatics regularly as she tries to convince the country that the CIA lies about everything and that she is clueless when it comes to interrogation techniques.  Yesterday she performed her regular act before the media at her regular weekly press conference.  She brought along several other Democrat clowns to catch her if she fell.  Deflection seemed to be the word of the day for the Madame Speaker.

There was an outcry across this country when it was revealed that our representatives no longer read the bills that they are required to vote on and when the Republicans demanded that the new energy bill, which is really cap and trade legislation, be read aloud in full before the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Democrats hired a speed reader to handle the task.  This young man promised that he could read one page every 34 seconds which meant it would take only nine hours for him to read the entire bill.  The exercise was begun much to the merriment of Henry Waxman who sponsored the bill, but was never fully completed.

And finally there is Barney Frank who was asked by a Fox News representative if he would call for an investigation of ACORN.  He quickly pointed back to George Bush whose administration had also funded ACORN and commented that no one said that there was any misuse of funds at that time.  When pressed, he quipped that Fox was being very unfair to Bush.  And thus Frank’s high wire act ended.  I know the image of Barney Frank in colorful tights balancing on a thin wire over your head is sickening, but I call them like I see them.

So our Congress is now a three-ring circus and no one really is surprised since we have known for years that Washington D.C. is run by a bunch of clowns.

Omnibus Pork Bill Passes Senate By Voice Vote

According to the Senate website, the definition of voice vote is as follows:  “A vote in which the Presiding Officer states the question, then asks those in favor and against to say “Yea” or “Nay,” respectively, and announces the result according to his or her judgment. The names or numbers of Senators voting on each side are not recorded.”  I added the emphasis so that the American people realize what happened with this vote.  The results are based on human judgement and we cannot go after our representatives in Washington who voted for this crap.  I can understand the value of having voice vote available in instances of post office namings and other side-bar items, but on something this devastating to an already over taxed system!  Talk about disenfranchisement.

And there were a couple of amendments attached to this that most people will not hear about, but I happened to see because I pulled up the Roll Call List.  There was an amendment from Senator Vitter that would have made the automatic cost of living increase for Congress null and void and they would have had to vote themselves a raise each year instead, which would have benefited we the people.  That was tabled.  Also, Senator Sessions introduced an amendment that would have extended the pilot program of E-Verify to make sure illegals were not being employed.  That was tabled.  Of course, both of those amendments and the vote for cloture on the bill were done as most votes are: recorded individually.

Now it is on to our unprincipled leader, President Obama, who will break yet another campaign promise and sign on with over 8,000 earmarks in the Omnibus.  Wonder if any of the Kool-Aid drinkers are waking up yet?