It was a great weekend with incredible weather and I didn't watch the news at all. Joyous! I am so sick of the democrat politicians and the liberal pundits crying "racism" over the opposition to the President's and democrat congress policies. Of course, we know they (democrats) were "strategerizing" how they could combat the tea party protests. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said 'combat." That is seriously inflammatory and insensitive to the democrats and liberals. I could care less. They are the masters of spin. The only nutjob arrested for a death threat of a congressman (Eric Cantor) was a huge Obama supporter ($550) and registered democrat. There was a huge pack of lies propagated towards the tea party protesters on March 20, 2010 as congress walked arm in arm across to the Capitol. "Botox Nancy" Pelosi weilding her cartoon sized "hammer and sickle" gavel. No one spit, yelled slurs or was violent. The state run media was all in for the defamation of the tea party Americans. They jumped on the bandwagon with the democrat politicians' strategy to categorize the American protesters as racists. This strategy will ultimately back fire on the liberals and they will see this in example in the November midterms. As the state run media (ITAR-TASS) and the liberals dismiss the first amendment phenomenon, the tea party protesters are growing by the day and getting stronger in membership and becoming financially viable. My wife and I were at the Capitol protest on Saturday, March 19, 2010 was one of the most enlightening days we've had. Everyone was nice, respectful, cordial and patriotic. I wasn't there on Sunday and I have a hard time believing the liberals propaganda. Today, Rasmussen polls had the tea party at 48% and Obama at 44%. Whoops, the slide continues... Next, the garbage collectors will be at 45% and Obama at 38% (Nothing against garbage collectors). Obama is a true to heart radical progressive (socialist) who will end up going down with his ship as he stays the course in which he has initiated and forced on the American people. The American people will fight (inflammatory, sorry) for what they love and respect. We have built an incredible life through hard work, determination and American exceptionalism. It has been accomplished on the backs of our forefathers and family, and of course, the men and women who don our nation's uniform. We will not let that slip away, ever! The accusations of hate crimes at the tea party was a complete fabrication and John Lewis, Andre' Carson and Emmanuel Lewis should be ashamed of themselves and apologize to America. Think of this, don't you think some state run media minion cameraman would have caught one tea partier spitting or using a racial slur? Come on, they would have won a Pulitzer for that. It would have ran longer than the Gitmo photographs. If the democrat politicians and pundits want to accuse people for "fanning the flames," maybe they should look in the mirror. However, this is in the master plan (strategy) that comes over their fax machnes with the heading, "From the desk of Rahm Emmanuel." As patriotic Americans, we will never give up our country.
A group of small business owners are fed up with the Obama administration's move to socialism and have decided to use the free market approach and raise people's awareness with billboards like above. They have been popping up around Atlanta and they would like to take this nationwide. If you would like to contribute, go to the website on the billboard picture.
Breitbart: Pro Reid supporters throwing eggs at tea party protesters:
Fanning the flames, you be the judge:
Video of the week:
Oops, did she say that?:
Opening Day: New starting pitcher For the Washington Nationals: He throws like his Presidency, up in the air without direction.
Stupid statement of the month:
Do you think this video will be in his opponents campaign advertisements this summer?:
Green Piece:
CNN Weather Guy Chad Myers Accuses Climate Scientists Of Corruption
On Tuesday, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers accused climate scientists of corruption, saying that because they “work for the government,” they could lose their jobs if they didn’t say man-made global warming was real. In an interview with CNN’s Ali “Clean Coal” Velshi, Myers responded to a New York Times article that television meteorologists widely believe that man-made global warming is a hoax, in stark contrast to actual climate scientists. After admitting that “man has a lot to do with” the rising global temperatures, Myers went on the attack:
I also think it has something to do — follow the money a little bit. Meteorologists aren’t paid by the government, the ones on TV, the climatologists are. If there’s nothing to talk about, will their jobs really be all that secure? So, follow the money a little bit, I think you’ll find 10% and 15% and every little corner has to do with it.
Myers’ implication of a widespread conspiracy to doctor science for cash seems odd, coming from someone who almost without doubt makes considerably more money than any climate scientist on the planet. The television industry — unlike scientific research — is driven by pursuit of controversy, not accuracy. Myers, who has a bachelor’s degree in meteorology from the University of Nebraska, had been a denier of man-made global warming as recently as 2008, telling Lou Dobbs, “To think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.”
Myers also raised two other classic canards of climate conspiracy theorists — that the sun is responsible for global warming and that climatological models can’t be accurate if meteorological models aren’t. Rather than retreading the reasons those are debunked fallacies, I’ll just direct you to SkepticalScience.com (”It’s the sun” and “Scientists can’t even predict weather“).
Transcript:
VELSHI: All right, let’s go “Off The Radar” for a minute, this is what Chad and I like to do when there’s something going on that he knows about that we all don’t. Tell me about this, a rumble going on –
MYERS: Yeah!
VELSHI: — amongst you folks that give us the weather.
MYERS: Or the climatologists and meteorologists. The New York Times had a little deal going on their blog today, about why do TV meteorologists so to speak not believe so much in global warming compared to climatologists around the world.
VELSHI: Okay.
MYERS: And they said less than 50% of meteorologists on TV believe in global warming. I tell you, I believe the globe is warming. I believe man has a lot to do with it, maybe not everything, but a lot to do with it.
VELSHI: Sure.
MYERS: The sun has something to do with it, it’s the biggest factor in our world. But climatologists and meteorologists are kind of at odds, you both basically went to the same schools. One wanted to learn about the long-term process, one the short-term process. I believe that meteorologists don’t believe in the long-term, 15-year computer models, because our friends at RightWeather just gave us — this is a ten-day computer model. I doubt this one is even right. So meteorologists are thinking there’s no way we can get 15 years from now right, if we can’t get 15 days from now right!
I also think it has something to do — follow the money a little bit. Meteorologists aren’t paid by the government, the ones on TV, the climatologists are. If there’s nothing to talk about, will their jobs really be all that secure? So, follow the money a little bit, I think you’ll find 10% and 15% and every little corner has to do with it.
VELSHI: Chad Myers throwing it down. I’ll bet you I’ll get some comments on this. Send your comments to my Facebook page, Ali Velshi –
MYERS: The globe is warming, trust me on this one, we know we’re losing ice caps.
VELSHI: So, we know where Chad has come down on this one. All right, you can go to my Facebook Ali Velshi page, those of you out there, I think it’s good to rustle up that discussion about whether the global is warming and who and what you think is responsible for it.
MYERS: Exactly the case for it right there. We know it’s going up, but why?
VELSHI: Fair enough.
Quote du jour:
"The U.S and U.N. is pushing me towards the Taliban." (What? My Marine son is going to Afghanistan to fight for this?)
Hamid Karzai
2 Comico:
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 22, 1788.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
THE SECOND class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations. This class of powers forms an obvious and essential branch of the federal administration. If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations. The powers to make treaties and to send and receive ambassadors, speak their own propriety. Both of them are comprised in the articles of Confederation, with this difference only, that the former is disembarrassed, by the plan of the convention, of an exception, under which treaties might be substantially frustrated by regulations of the States; and that a power of appointing and receiving "other public ministers and consuls," is expressly and very properly added to the former provision concerning ambassadors. The term ambassador, if taken strictly, as seems to be required by the second of the articles of Confederation, comprehends the highest grade only of public ministers, and excludes the grades which the United States will be most likely to prefer, where foreign embassies may be necessary. And under no latitude of construction will the term comprehend consuls. Yet it has been found expedient, and has been the practice of Congress, to employ the inferior grades of public ministers, and to send and receive consuls. It is true, that where treaties of commerce stipulate for the mutual appointment of consuls, whose functions are connected with commerce, the admission of foreign consuls may fall within the power of making commercial treaties; and that where no such treaties exist, the mission of American consuls into foreign countries may PERHAPS be covered under the authority, given by the ninth article of the Confederation, to appoint all such civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States. But the admission of consuls into the United States, where no previous treaty has stipulated it, seems to have been nowhere provided for. A supply of the omission is one of the lesser instances in which the convention have improved on the model before them. But the most minute provisions become important when they tend to obviate the necessity or the pretext for gradual and unobserved usurpations of power. A list of the cases in which Congress have been betrayed, or forced by the defects of the Confederation, into violations of their chartered authorities, would not a little surprise those who have paid no attention to the subject; and would be no inconsiderable argument in favor of the new Constitution, which seems to have provided no less studiously for the lesser, than the more obvious and striking defects of the old. The power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, belongs with equal propriety to the general government, and is a still greater improvement on the articles of Confederation. These articles contain no provision for the case of offenses against the law of nations; and consequently leave it in the power of any indiscreet member to embroil the Confederacy with foreign nations. The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses. The definition of piracies might, perhaps, without inconveniency, be left to the law of nations; though a legislative definition of them is found in most municipal codes.
A definition of felonies on the high seas is evidently requisite. Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the States; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws. For the sake of certainty and uniformity, therefore, the power of defining felonies in this case was in every respect necessary and proper.
The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration. It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!
Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government. The powers included in the THIRD class are those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States. Under this head might be included the particular restraints imposed on the authority of the States, and certain powers of the judicial department; but the former are reserved for a distinct class, and the latter will be particularly examined when we arrive at the structure and organization of the government. I shall confine myself to a cursory review of the remaining powers comprehended under this third description, to wit: to regulate commerce among the several States and the Indian tribes; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the current coin and secureties of the United States; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws of bankruptcy, to prescribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States; and to establish post offices and post roads. The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain. The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission. The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits. What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled, and has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils. And how the trade with Indians, though not members of a State, yet residing within its legislative jurisdiction, can be regulated by an external authority, without so far intruding on the internal rights of legislation, is absolutely incomprehensible. This is not the only case in which the articles of Confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom, by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain. All that need be remarked on the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, is, that by providing for this last case, the Constitution has supplied a material omission in the articles of Confederation. The authority of the existing Congress is restrained to the regulation of coin STRUCK by their own authority, or that of the respective States. It must be seen at once that the proposed uniformity in the VALUE of the current coin might be destroyed by subjecting that of foreign coin to the different regulations of the different States. The punishment of counterfeiting the public securities, as well as the current coin, is submitted of course to that authority which is to secure the value of both. The regulation of weights and measures is transferred from the articles of Confederation, and is founded on like considerations with the preceding power of regulating coin.
The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different States, that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question. The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction. The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency.
Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.cnnnews.com/
http://www.townhall.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment