Volume 190
It makes me sick to see President Obama out on his favorite chore, the campaign trail. States where Obama won by landslides are in play. Boxer in California, Murray in Washington, Reid in Nevada, Feingold in Wisconsin and so on. American citizens are completely fed up and against basically, all of Obama's policies and visions. He is a socialist. I don't take that position lightly calling a sitting President of the United States, a socialist. However, what he says and what he does is two different things. I was listening to the "anointed one" speaking at a rally in California, and he is still lying about foreign money after every news agency in the country has reported that the democrats have received twice as much in contributions. Is there no honor? It is so demoralizing to hear the politicians lying, on both sides, without any truth about the issues. I am dedicating this coming week's blogs to the midterm elections. I was listening to John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, said if the republicans (conservatives) do not take back the House, we will lose our way of life concerning liberties and freedoms. It would be irreversible. I am not ready to allow that. Reid and Pelosi need to go away. I pray to God that Sharron Angle beats Harry Reid. Pelosi will lose the Speaker of the House position. I just hope that the republicans do not fall into the same trap they fell into before. I would be elated to see the republicans win the House and a majority of Governors' seats.
In our country today, we have illegal aliens, like Maria Gianni (above), working the phone banks for Patty Murray, D-WA, for OneAmerica Votes. An illegal alien canvassing to legal constituents! Unbelievable! I'm calling ICE. Like they would do anything? This is exactly why we need to take back control of our country. In my state of Maryland, Governor Martin O'Malley is calling illegal immigrants, NEW AMERICANS! Jerry Brown, running for Governor of California, said as soon as he would become Governor, he would sign a bill giving illegals in-state tuition. Do we need any other reasons to shut these anti-American politicians down? I feel so strongly about this particular election. I think this is where the conservative American has to draw a line in the sand. We have to stop Obama. If he could pass a Cap and Trade bill, it would bankrupt America. I am not trying to be a fear monger, it is true, it would be detrimental to the economy. Obama knows this and doesn't care. He is such a ideologue and narcissist, that he believes he should rule the world. This midterm election is a starting point for the conservative movement. After our successful retaking of the House, we immediately start on the 2012 election. Why? Because Obama thinks he will win a second term. I was watching a video with Valerie Jarrett, Obama's inner circle, said that the country was mad and frustrated... at George Bush. Do they just play this, or are they oblivious to the country's dismay towards Obama and his policies.
In Massachusetts, Sean Bialat, a former Marine is giving Barney Frank a contest for the first time in his career. I like this young man. I blame Frank for his part in the financial meltdown. Yet, Barney does not feel he has done anything wrong? Fannie and Freddie were in deep trouble as John McCain and George W. Bush came to Capitol Hill to testify about the fragility of their financial outlook. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others denied the faulty accounting that McCain and Bush professed.
Bottom Line, we do not have a choice in the matter, we as American citizens, have to vote in this election. Otherwise, it is over for the Constitution and Capitalism. Vote early or show up on November 2nd. We can succeed if we stand together. The liberals will cheat and try anything to win. We have the enthusiasm and determination in our favor.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Daft statement of the week:
"This is going to be a difficult election."
Barack Hussein Obama
Congress needs to act on the EPA:
By Lance Brown
It’s less than two weeks until the midterm elections, and high turnover of the U.S. House is all but expected by many analysts. It’s clear that, political beliefs aside, many U.S. citizens are unhappy with the accomplishments — or lack of accomplishments — Congress has logged on a variety of pressing issues.
And whatever happens on November 2, Congress has a lot of work to do — especially in terms of energy policy, creating new jobs, and reversing the economic downturn while getting our country back on the path to sustained prosperity. Regardless of which party emerges with the gavel in January, the new Congress needs to take a close look at our energy policies and work to roll back over burdensome and expensive regulations while finding ways to utilize all of our diverse resources to develop an affordable and reliable energy plan for our country.
Congress has two steps to take to get us on the path to an affordable, reliable energy future — and economic growth. First, Congress needs to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from enacting oppressive and expensive regulations on our nation’s energy industries and consumers. Second, Congress needs to find ways to incorporate our rich variety of resources into an energy plan that benefits the cost and reliability of energy, rather than choosing certain energy sources over others.
On January 2, 2011, the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations go into effect, requiring many energy producers to purchase expensive pollution permits. The regulations will result in a loss of energy capacity and jobs.
The Financial Times reported yesterday that as a result of the EPA regulations, “closures of US coal-fired power plants are set to accelerate sharply during the coming decade” and result in the loss of approximately one-fifth of our coal-fired capacity. Even if plants could afford to comply with the regulations, many plants will simply be unable to make the needed adjustments due to age or other complicating factors. We’ll not only lose the jobs associated with these plants, but we’ll also lose a great deal of capacity of our most affordable and reliable source of power.
The regulations won’t just impact coal — although that would be bad enough, since about half of our energy comes from coal. The final greenhouse gas rule also includes some of our more affordable and reliable forms of clean energy, like renewable woody biomass. This contradicts long-held science and policy that carbon emitted via the combustion of woody biomass is part of a carbon-neutral cycle, since forests are constantly replanted — and contradicts the administration’s goal of incorporating more renewable energy sources into our energy portfolio.
To make matters worse, the EPA doesn’t seem to know or care what kind of impact the regulations will have on the economy. According to U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that “the EPA is not required, and they do not consider, jobs or economic impact when evaluating permits.” And, according to a Congressional aide, as reported by Politico, the EPA shows “no real indication that they hear or understand…concerns” about the impact of the regulations on both traditional and renewable energy production and jobs.
It’s clear, then, that Congress needs to take action to stop the EPA from regulating our traditional and renewable energy sources. I urge all of our U.S. Senators and Representatives to contact the EPA and other members of the administration to tell them to re-think the greenhouse gas regulations — and if necessary, enact laws that will stop the EPA entirely.
Second, once Congress stops the EPA from crippling our most reliable and affordable energy sources and associated energy jobs, our elected officials need to get to work on an energy plan that helps, rather than hinders, the cost and reliability of energy and the growth of jobs and the economy. Congress should not enact draconian and expensive regulations, like cap and trade or a federal renewable energy standard, because these would cause just as much hardship as the EPA regulations. Instead, we should seek to incorporate all of our energy options into a plan that helps us lower energy costs and create jobs. Congress can incentivize the use of renewable energy
and technological innovations, like woody biomass or energy efficiency standards or electric cars, but should not require every state to follow the same renewable energy standards because every state has access to different energy options.
Above all, it’s clear that whoever takes the oath of office in January, they need to work to help us find new, affordable energy options without destroying the energy options that are already affordable and reliable. After all, the people aren’t happy with Congress’s work on energy so far, and enacting laws or regulations that raise energy costs or deter job creation won’t make the people any happier.
Lance Brown is the Executive Director of PACE.
Pathetic Funnies:
Frustrated voters say fix the economy, Stupid
By AFPBoarded-up homes and empty storefronts dot this once prosperous Indiana town where those still struggling to recover from the economic collapse of 2008 have a simple message for politicians ahead of key mid-term elections: fix the economy, stupid.
While the worst economic downturn to strike the United States since the Great Depression may have officially ended in June of last year, some 14.1 million people across the country remain officially unemployed.
That's a strong improvement from the 16.1 million who were actively looking for work when unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in January.
But it's a far cry from where things were a couple years ago when jobs were plentiful, and the unemployment rate hovered around five percent.
Polls show that around 60 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction and about three quarters think Congress is doing a bad job.
Incumbents across the country -- and President Barack Obama's Democrats in particular -- are expected to take a big hit at the polls on November 2.
Roger Fox, 57, laughed when asked if he thinks politicians are doing a good job of handling the economy.
He's been out of work for a year now and would rather place his faith in prayer.
Things are starting to look up, he said as he filled a cart at a busy food bank in Elkhart, Indiana.
"Target called me for Christmas help," he said, referring to the large retailer. "This is the first time in a long time I've had a call for an interview."
Elkhart Mayor Dick Moore is unabashedly optimistic about the economy and credits Obama's stewardship and a massive government-funded stimulus program for averting a much deeper downturn.
"If the rest of the nation underwent the same recovery in unemployment as we have we'd be in good shape," Moore told AFP.
"The problem for us is we have further to go."
Elkhart has become a bellwether for the state of the nation's economy after Obama visited the town four times -- twice as a candidate and twice as a president -- to highlight his economic policies and efforts to turn things around.
The midwestern town of 53,000 is largely dependent on manufacturing, particularly of recreational vehicles, and it was one of the first places to feel the pinch as RV orders dried up in 2008 amid high fuel prices and economic uncertainty.
Elkhart soon had the highest unemployment rate in the country, which topped out at a whopping 22.2 percent in January 2010.
The official unemployment rate has fallen to 15.3 percent -- or 3,341 people in August -- but that's more than double the 6.6 percent posted in January 2008 when there were 3,316 more people in the official labor force.
DeCarla Lane, 37, is among those who want a job but aren't officially unemployed. She was laid off two months ago, but was told she can't collect unemployment insurance because she had only been working for about six months.
They need to do more about jobs around here," Lane said of politicians. "I'm about to lose my apartment. I don't know where to turn to. It's really hard."
Moore, a Democrat in a Republican-leaning state, doesn't think his party has done a good job of "tooting their own horn" and explaining to the public how much they've accomplished despite some pretty tough odds.
"We've done so much in 18 months, it's incredible," said Moore, 76, who watched his parents struggle through the Great Depression.
"It's not going to work as fast as people want, but it's going to work."
Moore estimates that about 40 million dollars of stimulus projects have come to the Elkhart area to help repair roads, rebuild the local theatre, tear down an abandoned downtown foundry, and install energy-efficient windows in city hall, among others.
Elkhart's high profile has helped it draw in new business -- like the Norwegian electric car company Think which plans to build a new plant here -- and established companies are starting to hire back workers.
Things aren't working fast enough for Chelsey Nusbaum, 22, a stay-at-home mother who voted for Obama in 2008 and now thinks she made a mistake.
"I think the president could do more for our economy," said Nusbaum, who has seen too many friends and family members lose their jobs and their homes.
"We're struggling a lot more now than we were. He should be able to accomplish so much more."
Quote du jour:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 70
The Executive Department Further Considered
From the New York Packet
Tuesday, March 18, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.
There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?
The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.
The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.
Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand, while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests.
That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.
This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him. Of the first, the two Consuls of Rome may serve as an example; of the last, we shall find examples in the constitutions of several of the States. New York and New Jersey, if I recollect right, are the only States which have intrusted the executive authority wholly to single men. [1] Both these methods of destroying the unity of the Executive have their partisans; but the votaries of an executive council are the most numerous. They are both liable, if not to equal, to similar objections, and may in most lights be examined in conjunction.
The experience of other nations will afford little instruction on this head. As far, however, as it teaches any thing, it teaches us not to be enamoured of plurality in the Executive. We have seen that the Achaeans, on an experiment of two Praetors, were induced to abolish one. The Roman history records many instances of mischiefs to the republic from the dissensions between the Consuls, and between the military Tribunes, who were at times substituted for the Consuls. But it gives us no specimens of any peculiar advantages derived to the state from the circumstance of the plurality of those magistrates. That the dissensions between them were not more frequent or more fatal, is a matter of astonishment, until we advert to the singular position in which the republic was almost continually placed, and to the prudent policy pointed out by the circumstances of the state, and pursued by the Consuls, of making a division of the government between them. The patricians engaged in a perpetual struggle with the plebeians for the preservation of their ancient authorities and dignities; the Consuls, who were generally chosen out of the former body, were commonly united by the personal interest they had in the defense of the privileges of their order. In addition to this motive of union, after the arms of the republic had considerably expanded the bounds of its empire, it became an established custom with the Consuls to divide the administration between themselves by lot one of them remaining at Rome to govern the city and its environs, the other taking the command in the more distant provinces. This expedient must, no doubt, have had great influence in preventing those collisions and rivalships which might otherwise have embroiled the peace of the republic.
But quitting the dim light of historical research, attaching ourselves purely to the dictates of reason and good sense, we shall discover much greater cause to reject than to approve the idea of plurality in the Executive, under any modification whatever.
Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.
Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from the source just mentioned must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the Executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious. In the legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit. The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in that department of the government, though they may sometimes obstruct salutary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority. When a resolution too is once taken, the opposition must be at an end. That resolution is a law, and resistance to it punishable. But no favorable circumstances palliate or atone for the disadvantages of dissension in the executive department. Here, they are pure and unmixed. There is no point at which they cease to operate. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure to which they relate, from the first step to the final conclusion of it. They constantly counteract those qualities in the Executive which are the most necessary ingredients in its composition, vigor and expedition, and this without any counterbalancing good. In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality.
It must be confessed that these observations apply with principal weight to the first case supposed that is, to a plurality of magistrates of equal dignity and authority a scheme, the advocates for which are not likely to form a numerous sect; but they apply, though not with equal, yet with considerable weight to the project of a council, whose concurrence is made constitutionally necessary to the operations of the ostensible Executive. An artful cabal in that council would be able to distract and to enervate the whole system of administration. If no such cabal should exist, the mere diversity of views and opinions would alone be sufficient to tincture the exercise of the executive authority with a spirit of habitual feebleness and dilatoriness.
But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.
Responsibility is of two kinds to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.
``I was overruled by my council. The council were so divided in their opinions that it was impossible to obtain any better resolution on the point.'' These and similar pretexts are constantly at hand, whether true or false. And who is there that will either take the trouble or incur the odium, of a strict scrutiny into the secret springs of the transaction? Should there be found a citizen zealous enough to undertake the unpromising task, if there happen to be collusion between the parties concerned, how easy it is to clothe the circumstances with so much ambiguity, as to render it uncertain what was the precise conduct of any of those parties?
In the single instance in which the governor of this State is coupled with a council that is, in the appointment to offices, we have seen the mischiefs of it in the view now under consideration. Scandalous appointments to important offices have been made. Some cases, indeed, have been so flagrant that ALL PARTIES have agreed in the impropriety of the thing. When inquiry has been made, the blame has been laid by the governor on the members of the council, who, on their part, have charged it upon his nomination; while the people remain altogether at a loss to determine, by whose influence their interests have been committed to hands so unqualified and so manifestly improper. In tenderness to individuals, I forbear to descend to particulars.
It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the Executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy, as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.
In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom, than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department an idea inadmissible in a free government. But even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council, though they are answerable for the advice they give. He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office, and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him at his sole discretion.
But in a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the chief magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself.
The idea of a council to the Executive, which has so generally obtained in the State constitutions, has been derived from that maxim of republican jealousy which considers power as safer in the hands of a number of men than of a single man. If the maxim should be admitted to be applicable to the case, I should contend that the advantage on that side would not counterbalance the numerous disadvantages on the opposite side. But I do not think the rule at all applicable to the executive power. I clearly concur in opinion, in this particular, with a writer whom the celebrated Junius pronounces to be ``deep, solid, and ingenious,'' that ``the executive power is more easily confined when it is ONE'' [2]; that it is far more safe there should be a single object for the jealousy and watchfulness of the people; and, in a word, that all multiplication of the Executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty.
Little consideration will satisfy us, that the species of security sought for in the multiplication of the Executive, is unattainable. Numbers must be so great as to render combination difficult, or they are rather a source of danger than of security. The united credit and influence of several individuals must be more formidable to liberty, than the credit and influence of either of them separately. When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others. The Decemvirs of Rome, whose name denotes their number [3], were more to be dreaded in their usurpation than any ONE of them would have been. No person would think of proposing an Executive much more numerous than that body; from six to a dozen have been suggested for the number of the council. The extreme of these numbers, is not too great for an easy combination; and from such a combination America would have more to fear, than from the ambition of any single individual. A council to a magistrate, who is himself responsible for what he does, are generally nothing better than a clog upon his good intentions, are often the instruments and accomplices of his bad and are almost always a cloak to his faults.
I forbear to dwell upon the subject of expense; though it be evident that if the council should be numerous enough to answer the principal end aimed at by the institution, the salaries of the members, who must be drawn from their homes to reside at the seat of government, would form an item in the catalogue of public expenditures too serious to be incurred for an object of equivocal utility. I will only add that, prior to the appearance of the Constitution, I rarely met with an intelligent man from any of the States, who did not admit, as the result of experience, that the UNITY of the executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our constitution.
PUBLIUS.
1. New York has no council except for the single purpose of appointing to offices; New Jersey has a council whom the governor may consult. But I think, from the terms of the constitution, their resolutions do not bind him.
2. De Lolme.
3. Ten.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Lance Brown
AFP
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Right Change
No comments:
Post a Comment