OPINION AT LARGE
After 53 days of oil gushing out of the Gulf of Mexico's floor, BP, the Coast Guard and experts still do not have a sound way to stop the flow. Barry O said that the federal government was on the job from the first day. I'm sorry, but, I don't believe that for one minute. The President has taken a lackluster approach like he does with many pressing and important issues. Admiral Thad Allen is a stand up guy, hopefully, his hands are not tied by the Obama administration. BP is in over their heads with this one. Doing anything a mile down has to be a first for any oil company. John Gibson of Fox News, detailed Obama's itinerary for the last 2 months. Oilbama has not been completely focused on the Gulf tradegy. Paul McCartney, the Joans Brothers, Desmond Tutu to name a few have visited the anointed one, not to mention, flambouyant galas like the Ford Theatre, vacationing in Chicago instead of being President and paying his respects to the fallen heroes. There isn't anything this President has done that I've agreed with. I was astonished when the President used profanity when adressing the Gulf oil spill and BP. I don't think a President using profanity is very Presidential. Can you imagine if President Bush skipped the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington Cemetary or was playing golf as many times as Barry has? The state run media would have a field day. But not with Oilbama. He is the chosen one. Lately, I am witnessing the liberal journalist starting to turn on Obama or at least, start to question the President. Kristen Powers, a democratic strategist, said that Oilbama should fire Rahm "Twinkle toes" Emanuel and some others to revamp his Presidency, and at this point, for his Presidency to survive. When that oil hits the shores and ends up in the loop current, Obama will be blamed for this no matter how much he blames BP. November is approaching fast, so I want to coin a phrase from the notorious Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and say that a perfectly good tradegy should not go to waste. I see a paramount turn of events come electon day. The American people are fed up with the Fed. This isn't the direction we want to go forth for the country. Spending run amuck, social policies that are not in our best interest, a non-existent foreign policy and OilBama and his sycophants are still trying to sell healthcare. What are they thinking? This is what happens when the American people elect an incompetant, Socialistic, novice who has never ran a business or has been responsible for a payroll or balance sheet. However, he is stellar at spending other people's money. As I've said so many times before, get involved, join a conservative group, help with a political campaign, this is our future and our we must think of our children. Come November, take our country back.
The Crying game:
Oilbama has been talking tough all week, trying to shore up his abyssmal (dis)approval ratings.
Here are the top 10 Oilbama tough-guy lines:
10. “See what I have on here? These are my ass-kicking pants. Stop calling them mom jeans.”
9. “Time to open a can of whupass! …Oh, but not this can; it isn’t certified organic.”
8. “I am here to kick ass and chew arugula, and I’m all out of arugula because of the high prices at Whole Foods.”
7. “Let me be clear: Your ass is mine!”
6. “Got your organic whupass now, but it’s in a jar, not a can. Time to open it! Errrr… Hmm, let me just run it under some hot water and pound it against a counter a few times and then it’s whupass!”
5. “My name is Barack Obama. You spilled oil in my gulf. Prepare for finger pointing.”
4. “I ain’t got time to bleed… but I probably have enough time to finish a round of golf.”
3. “I’m here to kick ass and take names. Mainly to take names. Please fill out this census form.”
2. “Watch out: It’s not only my close personal friends I throw under a bus.”
And the number one Barack Obama tough guy line…
“You’ve messed with the wrong president, and polls show quite clearly I am the wrong president
Subject: Both Obamas surrendered their law licenses
Take the time to read this (and it's been verified).
[Ed. note: this is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler, TX
Ed. note: this is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony!) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.]
Big surprise !!!
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a lawyer . He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.
A Voluntary Surrender is not something where you decide Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it? and forget to renew your license. No, a Voluntary Surrender is something you do when you ve been accused of something, and you voluntarily surrender you license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2. Michelle Obama voluntarily surrendered her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady who dont actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing... A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) served as a professor in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. He did not hold the title of professor of law, said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law .
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the US Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech???
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Polls we can live by:
26% Strongly approve of President's job performance
43% Strongly disapprove
Presidential approval index rating -17
46% Somewhat approve
53% Somewhat disapprove
AARP'S FALL FROM GRACE
I find this very interesting reading, so let's keep it going if you agree. It only takes a few days on the Internet and this will have reached 75% of the public in the U.S.A.
Seniors need to stand up for what is right, not what the politicians want or big Corporations want.
This was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.
THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF 'THE SITUATION' BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
Dear Mr. Rand,
Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.
While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialistpolitics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!
We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.
This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.
Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.
I DON'T choose to welcome them.
I DON'T choose to support them.
I DON'T choose to educate them.
I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.
American home invaders get arrested.
Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?
Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?
We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.
We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.
I am disappointed as hell.
I am scared as hell.
I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!
ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD.
2 Comico:
Quote du jour:
He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet.
Benjamin Disraeli
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 50
Periodic Appeals to the People Considered
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 5, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
IT MAY be contended, perhaps, that instead of OCCASIONAL appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, PERIODICAL appeals are the proper and adequate means of PREVENTING AND CORRECTING INFRACTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. It will be attended to, that in the examination of these expedients, I confine myself to their aptitude for ENFORCING the Constitution, by keeping the several departments of power within their due bounds, without particularly considering them as provisions for ALTERING the Constitution itself. In the first view, appeals to the people at fixed periods appear to be nearly as ineligible as appeals on particular occasions as they emerge.
If the periods be separated by short intervals, the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date, and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions. If the periods be distant from each other, the same remark will be applicable to all recent measures; and in proportion as the remoteness of the others may favor a dispassionate review of them, this advantage is inseparable from inconveniences which seem to counterbalance it. In the first place, a distant prospect of public censure would be a very feeble restraint on power from those excesses to which it might be urged by the force of present motives. Is it to be imagined that a legislative assembly, consisting of a hundred or two hundred members, eagerly bent on some favorite object, and breaking through the restraints of the Constitution in pursuit of it, would be arrested in their career, by considerations drawn from a censorial revision of their conduct at the future distance of ten, fifteen, or twenty years? In the next place, the abuses would often have completed their mischievous effects before the remedial provision would be applied. And in the last place, where this might not be the case, they would be of long standing, would have taken deep root, and would not easily be extirpated. The scheme of revising the constitution, in order to correct recent breaches of it, as well as for other purposes, has been actually tried in one of the States. One of the objects of the Council of Censors which met in Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784, was, as we have seen, to inquire, "whether the constitution had been violated, and whether the legislative and executive departments had encroached upon each other. " This important and novel experiment in politics merits, in several points of view, very particular attention. In some of them it may, perhaps, as a single experiment, made under circumstances somewhat peculiar, be thought to be not absolutely conclusive. But as applied to the case under consideration, it involves some facts, which I venture to remark, as a complete and satisfactory illustration of the reasoning which I have employed. First. It appears, from the names of the gentlemen who composed the council, that some, at least, of its most active members had also been active and leading characters in the parties which pre-existed in the State.
Secondly. It appears that the same active and leading members of the council had been active and influential members of the legislative and executive branches, within the period to be reviewed; and even patrons or opponents of the very measures to be thus brought to the test of the constitution. Two of the members had been vice-presidents of the State, and several other members of the executive council, within the seven preceding years. One of them had been speaker, and a number of others distinguished members, of the legislative assembly within the same period.
Thirdly. Every page of their proceedings witnesses the effect of all these circumstances on the temper of their deliberations. Throughout the continuance of the council, it was split into two fixed and violent parties. The fact is acknowledged and lamented by themselves. Had this not been the case, the face of their proceedings exhibits a proof equally satisfactory. In all questions, however unimportant in themselves, or unconnected with each other, the same names stand invariably contrasted on the opposite columns. Every unbiased observer may infer, without danger of mistake, and at the same time without meaning to reflect on either party, or any individuals of either party, that, unfortunately, PASSION, not REASON, must have presided over their decisions. When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them. When they are governed by a common passion, their opinions, if they are so to be called, will be the same.
Fourthly. It is at least problematical, whether the decisions of this body do not, in several instances, misconstrue the limits prescribed for the legislative and executive departments, instead of reducing and limiting them within their constitutional places.
Fifthly. I have never understood that the decisions of the council on constitutional questions, whether rightly or erroneously formed, have had any effect in varying the practice founded on legislative constructions. It even appears, if I mistake not, that in one instance the contemporary legislature denied the constructions of the council, and actually prevailed in the contest. This censorial body, therefore, proves at the same time, by its researches, the existence of the disease, and by its example, the inefficacy of the remedy. This conclusion cannot be invalidated by alleging that the State in which the experiment was made was at that crisis, and had been for a long time before, violently heated and distracted by the rage of party. Is it to be presumed, that at any future septennial epoch the same State will be free from parties? Is it to be presumed that any other State, at the same or any other given period, will be exempt from them? Such an event ought to be neither presumed nor desired; because an extinction of parties necessarily implies either a universal alarm for the public safety, or an absolute extinction of liberty. Were the precaution taken of excluding from the assemblies elected by the people, to revise the preceding administration of the government, all persons who should have been concerned with the government within the given period, the difficulties would not be obviated. The important task would probably devolve on men, who, with inferior capacities, would in other respects be little better qualified. Although they might not have been personally concerned in the administration, and therefore not immediately agents in the measures to be examined, they would probably have been involved in the parties connected with these measures, and have been elected under their auspices.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Bernadette Craig
Edward Wynns
http://www.youtube.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
www.quotations page.com
Mike Lucksvich
