Monthly Archives: March 2013

It Is Too Soon For This, However…

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article discussing whether or not Ted Cruz would be eligible to run for President in 2016. The article describes Ted Cruz as “one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate.” The question arises because Ted Cruz was actually born in Canada.

The article reports:

Cruz was born in Canada, but his mother was a lifelong American, born in Delaware. (His father was a political refugee from Cuba.) So under federal law, Cruz was born an American citizen by virtue of his mother. His family moved back to Texas, where Cruz grew up, and lived his entire life except the years he spent in New Jersey attending Princeton, Massachusetts attending Harvard Law School, and Washington, D.C., clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court and later serving in the Bush administration. So this former Texas solicitor general was born an American citizen and has spent almost all his life in America—usually serving his state or nation. 

It would be better to report, “Some constitutional experts say he would be ineligible,” or more accurate still, “A small minority of constitutional experts say he would be ineligible.” But no one can make the unqualified claim that the Constitution declares Ted Cruz is unable to run for president.

The entire discussion is a typical pre-emptive strike by the Democrat Party and the media on someone who might eventually be a Republican candidate for President. The old guard of the Republican Party has stood by as the media and Democrats have destroyed some of their most qualified people. It’s time for them to wake up and fight back. There are many smart, gifted, and capable Americans who will never run for office because of the way the media treats conservative candidates. It’s time for a change on the part of reporters and on the part of the Republican Party.

Enhanced by Zemanta

He Was Right, But No One Believed Him

Posted on by

On June 26, 2003, the New York Times published a story with the headline, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy.” The case was Lawrence v. Texas.

The article reports:

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and took the unusual step of reading it aloud from the bench this morning, saying “the court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” while adding that he personally has “nothing against homosexuals.” Joining Justice Scalia’s dissent were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Scalia said he believed the ruling paved the way for homosexual marriages. “This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky, grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

He was right, and no one believed him.

I need to explain some of the reasons I oppose Gay Marriage. I don’t oppose Gay civil unions, and I don’t oppose gay people. I oppose Gay Marriage because it can easily infringe on the rights of people who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. When Massachusetts legalized Gay Marriage, all the Catholic adoption agencies left the state because their right to run their agencies in accordance with their religious beliefs was taken away. What about their right to practice their religion? Would Bible-believing pastors be forced to perform gay weddings? Would their rights be violated? In my opinion, calling civil unions gay marriage opens up many more legal questions than it solves. I am willing to give gay partners the full rights of married people–I am just not willing to let them trample on the religious rights of others.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Second Amendment Is In Danger

Posted on by

How many times have the proponents of limited access to guns told us that they weren’t going to confiscate guns–they just wanted to make sure that guns sold were sold to people who had undergone thorough background checks. Well, it doesn’t always work out that way.

The Blaze report today that a California man had his guns confiscated (he had three) because his wife had been in the hospital voluntarily for mental illness last year. Evidently his wife reacted negatively to some medication she was taking and checked herself into the hospital to have it taken care of. However, the guns were not hers–they were legally owned by her husband.

The article reports:

Just last week, the California Senate approved a $24 million funding bill to expedite the process of collecting guns from owners in the state who legally acquired them but have since become disqualified due to felony convictions or mental illness.

That sounds like confiscating guns to  me. The problem here is defining mental illness. Who is the judge of that? How many witnesses?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Special Relationship With The British Is In Danger

Posted on by
British flag of the Falkland Islands

British flag of the Falkland Islands (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about the recent vote by the residents of the Falkland Islands to make a statement as to what country they belonged to–Britain or Argentina. When asked if they wanted to remain an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, 1,511 residents voted “yes.” Three voted “no.”

The article at Hot Air points out:

That result sends a strong message to the UN and other nations attempting to force the UK into bilateral negotiations with Argentina over the fate of the islands, which are almost 300 miles from Argentina’s coast — but which sit near potentially significant oil and gas fields.

Today’s U. K. Telegraph posted the Obama Administration’s reaction to the vote:

“The residents have clearly expressed their preference for a continued relationship with the United Kingdom.”

“That said, we obviously recognize that there are competing claims. Our formal position has not changed. We recognize the de facto UK administration of the islands, but we take no position on sovereignty claims.”

 Needless to say, the British are not too thrilled with this statement.

The article in the U. K. Telegraph concludes:

Today’s statement, made on behalf of Secretary of State John Kerry, is an insult to Great Britain and the brave inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. It is also remarkably petty and mean-spirited. It is a sad day indeed when the only superpower, the leader of the free world, cannot bring itself to back the basic right of self-determination for a peaceful group of Islanders in the South Atlantic for fear of offending a sinking Latin American regime that doesn’t even like America. Officials in the State Department should hold their heads in shame as they promote a policy that is causing a great deal of offence across the Atlantic, and which is a betrayal of the Special Relationship. Mr. Kerry and his team should remember that more than 250 British servicemen gave their lives for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders in 1982, a sacrifice which the United States, of all nations in the world, should be honouring today.

The Obama Administration is more interested in being friends with the enemies of America than with our friends.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sued Over Argo

Posted on by

“Argo” won the Academy Award for Best Picture this year. The film tells the story of six Americans smuggled out of Iran after the Iranian revolution. The movie is not entirely accurate–it’s a movie–but the basic story follows the history of the events (for some details on what is true and what is not, see rightwinggranny.com).

The Associated Press is reporting today that Iran is planning to sue Hollywood, claiming that the movie portrays the country of Iran in an unrealistic way.

The article reports:

The decision on the lawsuit came after a group of Iranian cultural officials and movie critics screened the film in a closed audience in a Tehran theater late Monday.

The gathering, titled “The Hoax of Hollywood,” discussed various legal aspects of filing a lawsuit, media reports said, without providing details. It remains unclear what specific charges Iran could raise and what court Tehran could turn to if the action goes ahead.

Those at the meeting dismissed “Argo” as a “violation of international cultural norms.” A statement issued after the gathering said that “awarding an anti-Iran movie is a propaganda attack against our nation and entire humanity.”

The statement did not clarify how the movie was allegedly unrealistic, but officials have accused “Argo” of depicting Iranians as “too violent.”

I have no way of knowing if the violence depicted in “Argo” is exactly what happened. I do know that there were some areas in the movie that represent the ‘poetic license’ of the filmmakers. I also know that the people who were in Iran during the 1979 revolution and the news photographs from that time indicate that the violence shown was typical of what went on.

The thing to keep in mind here is the effort on the part of the Iranian government to stop any art or speech that portrays them in a negative light. Freedom of speech in Iran died in the revolution of 1979. The violence that was depicted in “Argo” was part of that picture.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Finally–Someone With Some Common Sense

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling has blocked Mayor Bloomberg‘s ban on the sale of sugary drinks.

The article reports:

In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health‘s mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don’t include the authority to “limit or ban a legal item under the guise of ‘controlling chronic disease.’ “

The board may supervise and regulate the city’s food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

“That has not been demonstrated,” he wrote.

The ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces was to take effect tomorrow. Thank God for a judge with some common sense!Enhanced by Zemanta

Separating The Facts From The Propaganda

Posted on by

Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line today about the death of Omar al-Masharawi, the 11-month-old son of BBC stringer Jihad al-Masharawi. The baby was killed in Gaza City during fighting in the Hamas-ruled territory last November. Admittedly, it is tragic when an innocent child is killed in a war, but it is also tragic when the death of that child is exploited with little regard to the facts.

On November 23, Patrick Pexton, the ombudsman for the Washington Post, posted an article about the death of Masharawi.

The article at the Washington Post states:

That the man is Palestinian — not a terrorist but a journalist — and that the bomb was dropped by Israelis, to my mind, is almost beside the point. This photo depicted loss and pain, the horrific cost to innocents on both sides of the violence in the Middle East.

Yes, the photo does show the horrific cost to innocents on both sides of the Middle East. However, the ombudsman seems to have jumped to a conclusion that has since been proven false.

On March 11, the Washington Post reported:

A U.N. report indicates an errant Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike, likely killed the baby of a BBC reporter during fighting in the Hamas-ruled territory last November.

The death of Omar al-Masharawi, the 11-month-old son of BBC stringer Jihad al-Masharawi, became a symbol of what Palestinians see as Israeli aggression during eight days of fighting that killed more than 160 Palestinians and six Israelis. A woman was killed alongside the baby.

In a way it really doesn’t matter to the child’s family which side is responsible for the death of the child–they have still lost a child, but it is disturbing that the initial reports along with the heart-wrenching picture blamed Israel before the facts were known. It is also unfortunate that the Washington Post ombudsman immediately assumed that the reports blaming Israel were accurate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Imposing Portion Control On Sugary Drinks

Posted on by

CBS News today posted an article about the New York City ban on sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces that goes into effect tomorrow.

The article reports:

The cola crackdown goes into effect on Tuesday. The new regulation puts a 16-ounce limit on sugary drinks and applies to both bottled and fountain drinks.

The ban but does not include grocery or convenience stores that don’t serve prepared food. It also does not apply to diet soda, other calorie-free drinks or anything that has at least 50 percent milk or milk substitute.

So when I order my million-calorie pizza for delivery, I can order it with a 2-liter diet soda–I just can’t order it with a 2-liter regular soda. Wow!

Because lattes have more than 50 percent milk or milk substitute, Starbucks can continue offering 20 ounce drinks because of the milk content. Like Dunkin’ Donuts, customers will also be able to add their own sugar to their coffee.

Just for the record, a 20-ounce regular coca-cola has 240 calories. A grande size Starbucks Caramel Macchiato has 224. Coca-cola in that size cannot be legally purchased in a restaurant in New York City, the Caramel Macchiato can.

What this says is that all that the coffee shops  have to do is put the sugar in a place where the customer can add their own sugar to their drink. This will result in higher cost to the coffee shop, more of a mess where the sugar is added, and general inconvenience for everyone involved. It also does nothing to solve the problem of obesity.

This law is government at its worst. New York City has bigger problems than residents buying large sodas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fuzzy Math In Massachusetts

Posted on by

Holly Robichaud posted a column at the Boston Herald today about a statement by Massachusetts Treasurer Steve Grossman concerning the cost of illegal aliens to the state.

The article states:

At this eight-town South Shore Democratic Caucus, like Gov. Deval Patrick, Grossman came out in favor of in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants, putting him at odds with middle-class voters and union members, but firmly on the side of moonbat liberals who don’t believe in enforcing our laws. Is it no wonder why Democratic State Party Chairman John Walsh doesn’t like primaries?

…Grossman went on to deny that it costs money to give these breaks. To quote him: “(Opponents) say it will cost us money. Once again, this is absolutely wrong.”

The article points out that in-state-tuition breaks are subsidized by the taxpayers of Massachusetts and do actually cost money.

The article points out:

Vaughn (Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies) estimates that taxpayers are spending anywhere from $3,000 to $15,000 per illegal immigrant student, depending on the school. Using her estimates, if just 100 illegals get the break, it will costs us $300,000 to $1.5 million for one year. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 225,000 illegals live in the commonwealth. So it will be more than 100 students.

My questions here is simple, “Why should an American citizen from a state other than Massachusetts pay more to go to college in Massachusetts than someone who is here illegally?”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Skewing The Definition Of Charity

Posted on by

I haven’t written about the death of Hugo Chavez. My only comment is, “If this man cared so much about the poor, why was he worth millions when he died?” In contrast, how much was Mother Theresa worth when she died? Just an observation…

Today’s New York Post posted a story about how the death of Hugo Chavez will impact Citizens Energy Corp, the organization founded in 1979 by Joe Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy‘s oldest son. The organization provides assistance to Massachusetts residents who need help paying for heating oil in the winter. The charity is able to do this by buying crude oil from Venezuela at below market price, selling it at the market price and using the difference to provide oil for people who need it. It really is a good idea and works well.

People should be paid fairly for their work, even when they work for a non-profit organization, but somehow I think we have forgotten that a non-profit organization is supposed to be supporting a cause of some sort and that’s where most of it’s money should go.

The article reports:

After Joe Kennedy left Congress, he returned to run Citizens Energy. That job paid him $86,311 in 2010. But the bulk of his income comes from his for-profit companies — Citizens Enterprises Corp. and Citizens Investments Ltd. — which together paid him $807,390 in salary and benefits. Kennedy’s wife, Elizabeth, raked in $346,764 from the nonprofit, where she is marketing director, and from the for-profit companies.

I would have left Congress too! Note that Elizabeth Kennedy was making more than $300,000 from the nonprofit company. I really think that is a little much.

The article concludes:

The oil started to flow in 2005 via two related nonprofits. Citizens Programs Corp., a charitable foundation, takes in the heating oil — $59 million worth in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. It immediately sells the supply to an undisclosed “prearranged buyer,” according to its tax returns. The proceeds are used to buy 100 gallons of heating oil for 200,000 needy households in 25 states and Washington, DC.

The distribution is done through Citizens Energy, which receives a $5 million management fee from Citizens Programs.

Citizens Programs uses some of its oil riches — $4 million in fiscal year 2011 — to pay for its ubiquitous advertising program. Running a call center and the “Joe-4-Oil” hot line costs $1.3 million.

A spokesman for the groups refused to answer questions about the operation.

Kennedy also funnels cash to his family’s own causes, including the Robert F. Kennedy Center in DC.

I think Joe Kennedy’s commitment to helping the poor stay warm in the winter is wonderful. The cost of living is high in Massachusetts, and a lot of people have been helped by Citizens Energy Corp. I just wonder about the details of how the money was spent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Two Pinocchios For The White House Vaccine Statistics

Posted on by

Yesterday Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post awarded two Pinocchios to the White House for their comments on how the sequester would affect children’s vaccines.

The article quotes Congressional testimony from March 5:

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.): “Let me get it straight. Under the president’s cut of $58 million to the [Section] 317 program, you think you could get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children, but under a sequester, that the president blames on Republicans, you don’t know if you can do that?”

CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden: “We’re going to do everything we can to limit any damage that occurs because of the across-the-board cut, but it reduces our flexibility significantly.”

Harris: “Is it your testimony that under the president’s proposed cut of $58 million in his budget to the 317 program you could have avoided cuts to vaccines to children in Maryland?”

Frieden: “We believe that we could have maintained vaccination levels, yes.”

Well, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Please follow the link above to read the details of the fuzzy math and issues involved in children’s vaccines and the sequester.

The article concludes:

Still, even before the sequester, the administration had sought to reduce costs by ending shots for children who have insurance–on the grounds that the president’s own health-care law was creating new avenues to obtaining vaccinations. Many families might have been dissuaded from getting vaccinations because of the higher costs involved. What are those numbers? That’s still unclear.

The administration’s vaccination statistics earn Two Pinocchios.

I would have given them at least three.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Were Some Things Left Out In The Unemployment Numbers

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted some of the facts the media seems to have missed in reporting on the jobless numbers this week. The article quotes James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work.  … [I]f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …

The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.

The employment-population ratio is exactly where it was a year ago, at an almost rock-bottom 58.6%.

This really doesn’t look like much of an economic recovery to me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Legislation Is Needed!

Posted on by

There are two bills working their way through Congress right now–H.R.833 in the House of Representatives and S.470 in the Senate. My source for the following information is Thomas.gov. I am not putting up a direct link as their direct links expire in a set time. Both bills deal with the new “The Distinguished Warfare Medal” which would outrank the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. The medal recognizes service members with special training and capabilities that directly impact military operations, regardless of distance from the battlefield. That means that a drone operator in California could get a higher medal than a soldier in the actual battlefield who takes heroic action. Seems a little unfair.

Thomas.gov reports the latest major action on H. R. 833 – 2/26/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Thomas.gov also reports the latest major action on S. 470 – 3/6/2013 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

You can find information on how to get involved at the VFW website. I realize that the men and women who fly the drones are important, but they are not on the battlefield being shot at. That matters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Global Warming Thing…

Posted on by

Again, the best site on the Internet for climate change information is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that you visit that site any time you hear alarming news about global warming. It will give you the real information.

Meanwhile, UpNorthLive is reporting that a new ice island has formed in Lake Michigan.

The article reports:

An island has sprung up off the coast of Lake Michigan and this one isn’t made of dirt.

“It was just a bunch of blocks piled on top of each other and they were welded together with the wind and snow,” Outdoor enthusiast Josh Baker explained.

Over the weekend, Baker and his family stumbled across this giant island floating in Lake Michigan outside of the small town of Good Hart.

Sunday, he decided to climb the jagged, 15–foot ice mountain. Once he made it to the top, he noticed the structure was different on the other side.

“The side facing the lake was almost sheer, it was pretty neat. So the side I was on was all jumbled and the opposite side was just sheer down to the water,” Baker said.

That has to be an amazing sight! I guess we will have to wait another year for some serious global warming on Lake Michigan.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Please Listen To The Entire Statement From Senator Feinstein

Posted on by

Please listen to the entire statement from Senator Feinstein.  As Senator Cornyn points out, PTSD sufferers are already prohibited from owning weapons by law. It is horribly unfair to accuse all veterans of having PTSD.

The transcript of the video is at C-SPAN:

Our military is well trained and can be trusted with guns. It bothers me that there are people in our government who seem to be trying to undermine the rights of veterans to buy and possess firearms.

Enhanced by Zemanta

While We Were Focused On Sequestration

Posted on by

The Obama Administration has a habit of focusing our attention on ‘the crisis of the moment’ while they do something significant behind the scenes, hoping we won’t notice. Well, they’ve done it again.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today about the upcoming trial of Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, in New York City. Sulaiman Abu Ghayth was captured in Turkey last month, and rather than being sent to Guantanamo to face a military tribunal, he was transported to New York to stand a civilian trial.

There are some interesting implications of doing this:

Because Abu Ghayth was not detained at Gitmo, he was not subject to the statutory prohibition against using government funds to transfer enemy combatants into the U.S. So, while no one was paying attention, the administration whisked him into lower Manhattan, where his indictment in civilian court was promptly announced. He thus promptly received legal representation — so much for interrogation — and is enjoying all the protections of the Bill of Rights.

…Moreover, as Attorney General Holder must know, by proceeding with this civilian prosecution in New York at the very moment when  KSM and the other 9/11 defendants are facing a military commission at Gitmo, he has given KSM & Co. an exquisite legal argument that proceeding with their military commission would be arbitrary and unjust in light of the grade-A due process Abu Ghayth is getting. That is, the government is virtually inviting the federal courts to invalidate military commissions — which was a top goal of many Obama administration lawyers back when they were in private practice, volunteering their services to terrorist detainees.

Snookered again by the snookerer-in-chief. Unfortunately, this move prevents the officials at Guantanamo from collecting intelligence from this man, and it creates massive legal problems for those attempting to carry out the military tribunals. This move makes Americans less safe.Enhanced by Zemanta

About Those Budget Cuts…

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about the three White House calligraphers with a total salary of $277,050. Their jobs are not impacted in any way by the sequester budget cuts. Today White House Dossier is reporting that stopping tours of the White House saves about $18,000 per week.

The article reports:

ABC calculates that the White House is open for visits for about 20 hours per week and the tours require around 30 Secret Service agents at $30 per hour.

ABC White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, who filed the report, ran into House Speaker John Boehner on Capitol Hill. Boehner commented, “We’re open.”

Does anyone doubt that the choice of where to make these budget cuts is political?

Enhanced by Zemanta

If You Want To Know Where The Power Is…

Posted on by

If you want to know where the power is in Washington, watch the statements of the people who may be facing tough re-election campaigns. One of these people right now is Senator Mitch McConnell, who is faced with a celebrity opponent at a time when his own popularity is fading. Generally speaking, Mitch McConnell represents the establishment Republican party, but the establishment is being strongly challenged these days. Yesterday was a really bad day for the establishment–Rand Paul held a filibuster and discussed an issue that concerns many Americans.

Today’s Washington Examiner is reporting that Senator McConnell praised Senator Paul‘s actions and referred to the dinner with the President attended by some Republicans as a publicity stunt. Do you believe that Senator McConnell would have said anything at all were he not involved in a very difficult election next year? The fact that he is right is purely coincidental.

The article reports on Senator McConnell’s comments on the dinner with the President:

He said Obama probably reached out to Republicans to help stem his plummet in the polls.

“I think his effort so far to try to scare everybody and and try to convince the public that the sky is falling because we’re going to cut federal spending 2.4 percent out of $3.6 trillion out of the next six months has been a failure. So he may feel that just trying to rub our noses in it all the time is not going to work for him,” he said, citing the president’s seven-point drop in the Gallup approval rating in just one week.

Senator McConnell is courting the Tea Party in order to win reelection. If there is a conservative primary challenge to him, the Republicans stand a chance of losing the seat. If there is not a primary challenge and he wins, we still have the same stale leadership. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It’s time that those of us in the Republican Party who want change thought about that definition.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mr. Paul Goes To Washington

Posted on by

According to a Mediaite story posted this morning, Senator Rand Paul ended his filibuster in the Senate at 12:39 this morning.

YouTube posted the video of the Senator’s closing remarks:

The article reports:

During the half-day-long filibuster session, Paul was joined by fellow Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Mike Lee (R-UT). Despite his support for Brennan’s CIA nomination, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) joined the effort, voicing his concerns about the Obama administration’s authority to assassinate American citizens without congressional oversight.

America needs to have this discussion. I don’t even like the idea of Americans being killed based on congressional oversight. In a country where the Biblical view on gay marriage may be considered hate speech and those in the the Catholic Church are not allow to practice their religious beliefs outside of their church, who determines who or what is dangerous? When we arrested the underwear bomber after an obvious attempt at terrorism, we read him his Miranda rights and allowed him to hire a lawyer. Now the President seems to think he has the right to kill American citizens on American soil without the benefit of either a lawyer or a trial. The problem here is very simple, “Who determines who is a danger to the country?” Depending on who holds the office of the presidency, we might see Bill Ayers being called a threat or we might see Glenn Beck declared a threat. Politics could easily influence these decisions. There is a reason we have a court system. It is not perfect, but it is better than the idea of the government being able to kill American citizens at will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disturbing News From The Senate

Posted on by

Regardless of how you feel about the filibuster Senator Rand Paul is conducting in the Senate, there are some interesting aspects of this filibuster. First of all, it is a real filibuster. Senator Rand Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 am this morning. Another interesting aspect of this filibuster is a resolution Senator Paul has suggested that I would like to mention.

PJ Media is reporting on the filibuster. They report:

During his ongoing filibuster in the well of the US Senate, Sen. Rand Paul introduced a resolution opposing the targeted drone killing of US citizens on American soil by our government. The resolution stated that “the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights” [of due process].

Assistant Majority Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) blocked a floor vote on the resolution.

My question of the day–“Whatever happened to the Posse Comitatus Act? The American government does not have the right to kill American citizens on American soil without a fair trial. We gave the underwear bomber (who was caught red-handed trying to carry out a terrorist attack) a lawyer and read him his Miranda rights, shouldn’t we do at least that much for American citizens?

In December 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported on a drone used to capture three men in North Dakota who were stealing cattle.

The article reports:

In an interview, Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown “in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis.”

But former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who sat on the House homeland security intelligence subcommittee at the time and served as its chairwoman from 2007 until early this year, said no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police serve warrants or do other basic work.

Using Predators for routine law enforcement without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, Harman said.

“There is no question that this could become something that people will regret,” said Harman, who resigned from the House in February and now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank.

In 2008 and 2010, Harman helped beat back efforts by Homeland Security officials to use imagery from military satellites to help domestic terrorism investigations. Congress blocked the proposal on grounds it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from taking a police role on U.S. soil.

Why in the world would the Democrats block a vote on Senator Rand Paul’s resolution? Wake up, America, don’t support a political party that will not support your rights.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The President Who Cried ‘Wolf’

Posted on by

There really is a wolf, but it’s not in the sequester–it’s in the unsustainable spending which is creating an unmanageable deficit. But that ‘wolf’ is being ignored–to some extent by both sides of the aisle in Washington.

But back to the President crying ‘wolf.’ Marc Thiessen posted an article at the American Enterprise Institute on Monday entitled, “The president who cried ‘Sequester!’”

Mr. Thiessen points out that so far the biggest damage done by the sequester has been to President Obama’s credibility. The credibility problem began during the final debate with Mitt Romney when President Obama stated, “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” I believe the Washington Post gave the President four pinocchio’s for that statement. The problem with the internet and YouTube is that it is very easy to look up past statements of people in office. The President also stated that the sequester would never happen. Oh well.

The discourse got worse. The sequester would bring plagues and pestilence; the sequester would mean that everything about America we know and love would be gone. The sky would fall, the glaciers would melt, etc. Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, claimed that teachers would get pink slips. Homeland Security began letting criminals out of jail. Children would lose the Head Start Program (which has been proven ineffective anyway). The janitors at the Capitol would take a pay cut. When investigated, all of these claims proved to be false.

The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was the answer given to Charles Brown of Raleigh, North Carolina, (see rightwinggranny.com) when he sent a memo to Washington asking how to implement the budget cuts in sequester. The bottom line of the answer he received was “make the cuts as painful to the public as possible.”

The posturing by the President and the Democrat Party on the sequester is not only bad politics, it is bad for the country. Can we please re-open the debate on term limits for Congress? That is probably not the total answer, but it would be a start.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Borrowed From A Friend On Facebook

Posted on by

Earlier this week (rightwinggranny.com) I posted an article quoting a government memo requesting all government departments to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible. The picture above was posted by a former Marine and shows how that memo is being carried out.

This is not only an insult to those men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces, it is an insult to every America who cares about our troops.

This is a disgrace. We are talking about using taxpayer money to educate illegal aliens, and we can’t even spend the money to educate our own troops!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The “Gore Effect” Strikes Again

Posted on by

It seems that every time global warming believers try to get together for a rally or a government meeting it snows or we have record cold temperatures. This has become known as the “Gore effect.” Well, the Gore effect has struck again.

Politico is reporting today that the House Science, Space and Technology Committee announced that it’s postponing its environmental subcommittee’s scheduled 10 a.m. hearing on the state of the science behind climate change. As a reason, it cited “weather.” Washington is expecting as much as 11 inches of snow today and tonight.

The article reports:

The session was apparently designed to shore up the knowledge of subcommittee members ahead of expected new carbon regulations from President Barack Obama. As of Tuesday evening, a committee spokesman had insisted the show would go on.

From the start, the idea of holding a climate hearing during a paralyzing D.C. snowstorm seemed ripe for snarky comments.

Don’t buy into global warming science? Here’s your March snowstorm — call up Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and his grandchildren for help with your Al Gore igloo project.

In case you are a new reader of this blog, one of the best websites explaining what is actually happening with the earth’s climate is Anthony Watts’ site, WattsUpWithThat. I highly recommend it as an antidote to the climate change hysteria on the political left.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Misplaced Priorities

Posted on by

As spring break approaches and class trips are planned to Washington, D. C., the White House has announced that tours of the White House will be cancelled until further notice due to the budget cuts in the sequester. Meanwhile, The Weekly Standard reported today that the three White House calligraphers, with annual salaries of $96,725, $85,953 and $94,372 (for a yearly total of $277,050) are not in danger of being laid off.

It really is unfortunate that budget cuts seems to bring out the worst in our President. He is trying to do things to anger the public so that he can increase spending and taxes.Please remember that this is all about the 2014 elections. If the Democrats can win the House of Representatives, government spending and government growth can continue unchecked. That is the reason the President is attempting to use the sequester to turn public opinion against budget cuts and against the Republican party. It is important that voters stay informed and not fall for this plan.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Stating The Obvious

Posted on by

On March 4th, I posted an article about the sequester (rightwinggranny.com) which included the following:

Glen Reynolds at Instapundit has a very interesting take on this:

Somebody should really put in a FOIA request for communications between the White House and agencies about sequester implementation. There’s gold in those emails.

Well, there are still a few good reporters left.

Stephen Dinan at the Washington Times reported today:

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

It hurts my heart to think that there are people in our government who are purposely trying to harm the American public for political purposes. For example, closing the White House to public tours is a political move designed to make the public mad so that they will blame the Republicans. Never mind that the Republicans were not the authors of sequestration. I am sure some of the money needed to keep the White House tours going could be found in the President’s vacation fund or in reducing the number of personal assistants we are providing for the First Lady.
Enhanced by Zemanta