I can honestly say that I am incredibly embarrassed concerning our Campaigner-in-Chief. He is not a President, he doesn't act Presidential and he exudes himself as a Chicago style political machine thug. For the last week, he has knowingly lied about the Chamber of Commerce making political contributions with foreign monies. One little problem, he hasn't any proof. The American people know this. The Chamber of Commerce will not disclose their donor list because the Obama thugs would be on their front lawns protesting (SEIU). Obama has a major chip on his shoulder about the United States of America. DiNesh D' Souza has written a book explaining what he believes how Obama manifested his beliefs. His Father was devout communist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, etc... Who does that remind you of? He will do anything to try to save some vulnerable seats in the democrat party. This whole dishonest ploy concerning the C of C is merely a redirection of the major issues facing America today. He is out there campaigning daily for democrats and for his narcissistic self, totally incognizant of what everyday Americans are worried about? He says that Michelle and him understand what everyday Americans are feeling and what they are going through? Everyday Americans' kids don't attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, where it costs more than some universities. I don't think the common folk take lavish European vacations in Spain (estimated costs of $370K to taxpayers) or date night in New York City costing the taxpayers a small fortune in Secret Service, aircraft, vehicles and logistics. Maybe, I just don't hang out with the right people. As I mentioned in past posts, where is the laser-like focus and not resting until the economy rebounds. I assume he meant between campaigning, vacationing and golf. If you look back, whether you liked or hated past Presidents, they always acted Presidential. Even Bill "Bubba" Clinton! (Except for the blue dress incident). Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George H Bush, even Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter acted like the most powerful leaders of the free world. Fast forward to present. Barrack Hussein Obama, the first PINO. I believe world leaders expect the President of the United States to act and govern on the highest level possible. World leaders do not respect the anointed one because he is a weak, pacifist, activist, divisionist (I think I just invented a new W word) who yearns for a social justice, social engineered country in which we are not. Obama and his demagoguery isn't working and won't in the future. Today, a poll showed Obama at his lowest levels ever. If he would just listen, he would realize that what matters most to citizens is JOBS! Most Americans do not want handouts, they want to earn a living. That is what America is built on. Hard work, determination and risk is what built this country into the greatest country in the world. I don't apologize for anything this country has done. Obamatron doesn't see it that way. We must pay for our sins against the world. This is why he is a complete failure. The tide is turning and the democrats are running scared. Michelle has been called from the farm team and pulled up to the majors, campaigning for democrats who are in the worst trouble. I don't think she will make a difference. Tea Party groups have become the trump card and intimidating force in this election cycle. Even the most liberal political pundits are noticing how prevalent and dominant the Tea Party has become. It is my dream to have Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid unemployed by January 1, 2011. Then, we can start working diligently on the 2012 elections. VoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVote!
Remember November!
Hip Hop Tea Party:
Chamber of Commerce v. Obama:
Reagan tells Obama to shut up: Classic!
What is conservatism?
by Jonathon M. Seidl
The new fall edition of the terrorist magazine "Inspire."
The first edition of an al-Qaeda terrorist magazine written in English boasted the headline “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” in July. Now its second edition includes some more equally chilling articles: “Tips for Our Brothers in the United Snakes of America,”* and “I am Proud to be a Traitor to America.”
The “tips” article offers advice to terrorists that includes: “A random hit at a crowded restaurant in Washington, DC at lunch … might end up knocking out a few government employees.” The articles headlines are detailed in the London Telegraph.
The new edition also includes “The Ultimate Mowing Machine,” the Telegraph says, which explains how to use a pickup truck “as a mowing machine, not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of Allah.” The article continues: “to achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control . . . to strike as many people as possible in your first run.”
Most chilling may be the magazine’s contributors. Three Americans are reported to be involved: Anwar al-Awlaki, Adam Gadahn, and Samir Khan.
Al-Awlaki reportedly authored two articles in the magazine’s latest edition, while Gadahn is said to have authored one. But it is Khan’s article that may garner the most attention. His piece, entitled “I am Proud to be a Traitor to America,” unabashedly describes how he went from online jihadist in North Carolina to full-time terrorist in Yemen.
“I praise Allah and laugh at the intelligence agencies that were watching me for all those years. Back in North Carolina, the FBI dispatched a spy on me who pretended to convert to Islam,” he writes, according to the Daily Mail. “I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be one.”
According to NPR, Khan is believed to be editor of the terrorist magazine, called Inspire. Al-Awlaki is on a U.S. government kill-or-capture list.
The introduction to the latest edition of Inspire boasts that the Arabian Peninsula al-Qaeda (responsible for its publication) is “one of the most dangerous branches of al-Qaeda.” It then promises: “You haven’t seen anything yet.”
Pathetic Funnies:
Michelle Obama hits campaign trail:
Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau
October 13, 2010
11:24 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — Making her campaign debut in Wisconsin on Wednesday, Michelle Obama found common cause with the vulnerable Democrat she came to support, Sen. Russell D. Feingold.
"When my husband was here in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago, he talked about how independent and outspoken Russ is, and how Russ doesn't always agree with him. So Russ, you and I have a little something in common," the first lady joked.
Feingold is the first Democratic candidate this year to benefit from a political stop by Mrs. Obama, who in her 20 months in the White House had limited her profile to nonpartisan issues like promoting healthy lifestyles and support for military families.
Because her personal favorability ratings far outpace most other political figures, Democrats hope the first lady can offer a late boost for candidates struggling to keep their seats in a volatile climate. Feingold, a three-term incumbent, trails Republican foe Ron Johnson in most recent polls.
In her speech, Mrs. Obama made a softer appeal to voters than the decidedly more partisan one her husband has delivered, focusing on her self-described role as the "mom in chief."
"I don't do this very often," she said. "My first priority has been making sure that my girls are happy and healthy and adjusting to a very interesting new life in the White House."
From that perspective as a mother, not the wife of the president, she talked about the struggles Americans – particularly those in the middle class -- have gone through during the economic downturn.
"Folks all over the country were worrying that maybe that fundamental American promise was being broken – and worse yet, that no one in Washington was listening. And that is why my husband ran for president in the first place," she said.
She did tick off some of her husband's accomplishments – tax cuts for the middle class, credit card and education reform, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. On health reform, she said her husband "refused to take the easy route," and invoked his mother's battle with breast cancer, and insurance companies.
"These are just some examples of the kind of changes that we're making. And the truth is, it's because of all of you -- it's because of strong leaders like Russ -- that so much has been accomplished in such a short period of time," she said.
She acknowledged the challenges still to come, and the impatience of many at the pace of recovery. But she recalled the excitement that surrounded her husband's election and inauguration to say that today there is still a chance "to change the country we love for the better."
"If you keep standing with Russ, and bringing folks together for Russ, if you're still as fired up and ready to go as you were two years ago, then I know that we can keep that movement going," she said.
The fundraiser for Feingold in Wisconsin was the first in a series of campaign stops in the coming weeks for the first lady. From Milwaukee she travels to Chicago for events with Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias and congressional candidates. From there, she will spend a week traveling to Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Washington state and California.
She and her husband will also make a rare joint campaign appearance in Ohio on Sunday.
Responding to the first lady's visit, Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus focused on Feingold.
"A parade of D.C. insiders probably isn't the best tactic for a candidate trying to prove that he hasn't 'gone Washington' over the last 18 years," he said in a statement.
Good News:
Kudos to Chile. It is nice to get good news sometimes.
Daft Statement of the Week:
Dems not running on administration's accomplishments because "it's just too hard to explain."
Vice President Joe " the used car salesman" Biden
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 67
The Executive Department
From the New York Packet
Tuesday, March 11, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE constitution of the executive department of the proposed government, claims next our attention.
There is hardly any part of the system which could have been attended with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.
Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.
Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well as industriously, propagated.
In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.
In one instance, which I cite as a sample of the general spirit, the temerity has proceeded so far as to ascribe to the President of the United States a power which by the instrument reported is EXPRESSLY allotted to the Executives of the individual States. I mean the power of filling casual vacancies in the Senate.
his bold experiment upon the discernment of his countrymen has been hazarded by a writer who (whatever may be his real merit) has had no inconsiderable share in the applauses of his party [1] ; and who, upon this false and unfounded suggestion, has built a series of observations equally false and unfounded. Let him now be confronted with the evidence of the fact, and let him, if he be able, justify or extenuate the shameful outrage he has offered to the dictates of truth and to the rules of fair dealing.
The second clause of the second section of the second article empowers the President of the United States "to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other OFFICERS of United States whose appointments are NOT in the Constitution OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, and WHICH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW." Immediately after this clause follows another in these words: "The President shall have power to fill up ?? VACANCIES that may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE AT THE END OF THEIR NEXT SESSION." It is from this last provision that the pretended power of the President to fill vacancies in the Senate has been deduced. A slight attention to the connection of the clauses, and to the obvious meaning of the terms, will satisfy us that the deduction is not even colorable.
The first of these two clauses, it is clear, only provides a mode for appointing such officers, "whose appointments are NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and which SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW"; of course it cannot extend to the appointments of senators, whose appointments are OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution [2] , and who are ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION, and will not require a future establishment by law. This position will hardly be contested.
The last of these two clauses, it is equally clear, cannot be understood to comprehend the power of filling vacancies in the Senate, for the following reasons: First. The relation in which that clause stands to the other, which declares the general mode of appointing officers of the United States, denotes it to be nothing more than a supplement to the other, for the purpose of establishing an auxiliary method of appointment, in cases to which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." Secondly. If this clause is to be considered as supplementary to the one which precedes, the VACANCIES of which it speaks must be construed to relate to the "officers" described in the preceding one; and this, we have seen, excludes from its description the members of the Senate. Thirdly. The time within which the power is to operate, "during the recess of the Senate," and the duration of the appointments, "to the end of the next session" of that body, conspire to elucidate the sense of the provision, which, if it had been intended to comprehend senators, would naturally have referred the temporary power of filling vacancies to the recess of the State legislatures, who are to make the permanent appointments, and not to the recess of the national Senate, who are to have no concern in those appointments; and would have extended the duration in office of the temporary senators to the next session of the legislature of the State, in whose representation the vacancies had happened, instead of making it to expire at the end of the ensuing session of the national Senate. The circumstances of the body authorized to make the permanent appointments would, of course, have governed the modification of a power which related to the temporary appointments; and as the national Senate is the body, whose situation is alone contemplated in the clause upon which the suggestion under examination has been founded, the vacancies to which it alludes can only be deemed to respect those officers in whose appointment that body has a concurrent agency with the President. But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third section of the first article, not only obviate all possibility of doubt, but destroy the pretext of misconception. The former provides, that "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years"; and the latter directs, that, "if vacancies in that body should happen by resignation or otherwise, DURING THE RECESS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE, the Executive THEREOF may make temporary appointments until the NEXT MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE, which shall then fill such vacancies." Here is an express power given, in clear and unambiguous terms, to the State Executives, to fill casual vacancies in the Senate, by temporary appointments; which not only invalidates the supposition, that the clause before considered could have been intended to confer that power upon the President of the United States, but proves that this supposition, destitute as it is even of the merit of plausibility, must have originated in an intention to deceive the people, too palpable to be obscured by sophistry, too atrocious to be palliated by hypocrisy.
I have taken the pains to select this instance of misrepresentation, and to place it in a clear and strong light, as an unequivocal proof of the unwarrantable arts which are practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real merits of the Constitution submitted to the consideration of the people. Nor have I scrupled, in so flagrant a case, to allow myself a severity of animadversion little congenial with the general spirit of these papers. I hesitate not to submit it to the decision of any candid and honest adversary of the proposed government, whether language can furnish epithets of too much asperity, for so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to impose on the citizens of America.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
L A Times
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Jonathon Seidl
Michael Memoli
Tribune Washington Bureau
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
No comments:
Post a Comment