By irishguy

June 17, 2011 6:02 PM | Link to this

A sneer? I got a big smile, a wink and a come hither look….

By Squirrellygirl

June 17, 2011 10:42 AM | Link to this

Obama’s hc bill changes US policy on providing tax payer funded abortions. This when our own federal government wants to cut funding to seniors. This is funding of a political endeavor, it is a Democrat owned position where tax payers are forced to pay for killing unborn babies which is against their beliefs and for some against their religious beliefs. The mandate demanded by the health care bill is also a change in US policy towards forcing citizens to purchase an item. If the federal government can force you to purchase insurance, what else will they force you to purchase? Of course, this administration changes the label to fit their agenda needs, like calling it a tax, nor it isn’t a tax, it is this or it is that. It reminds me of Clinton’s “what does ‘is’ mean?”

By ObamasMisinterpretsWarPowersResolution

June 17, 2011 8:16 AM | Link to this

Only in the liberal media can a weak entreaty to obey the law be considered an act of political warfare. The media have portrayed House Speaker John Boehner’s letter to Barack Obama, merely asking the president for another legal explanation for his war-by-decree in Libya, as “ratcheting up the pressure.” The New York Times correctly noted, “it is not clear if [Boehner’s Congressional] resolution and follow-up letter have any teeth.” It is actually a five-day pass to keep breaking the law. The text of Boehner’s letter reads, “it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.” After blasting the president’s “refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution,” Boehner invokes the Constitution – but not the section many legal scholars may have expected. Instead of noting what our Founding document has to say about the power to declare war, Boehner writes: “The Constitution requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.” There are only four problems with Boehner’s letter: it’s wrong on the Constitution, it’s wrong on the law, it offers no consequences for wrongdoing, and it came 30 days too late. Obama is in violation of the War Powers Resolution right now. The Constitution or Cronyism? Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California gave a more accurate assessment nearly a month ago when he said Obama is “shredding the Constitution.” Today, the House passed an amendment Sherman authored to defund the military action in Libya, by a margin of 248-163. (Whether the final bill passes the House remains to be seen.) More important than Obama’s violation of the law is his violation of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 vests Congress alone with the ability to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and of “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention made clear he understood the term “declare” war as only “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.” Delegate Elbridge Gerry added he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.” The Founders recognized from bitter experience that power belongs only to a tyrant. Since the “kinetic action” in Libya did not repel a sudden attack – it was an act of aggression, not retaliation – the Constitution demands prior Congressional authorization, which Obama did not seek. War Powers? Yes. Resolution? No. Boehner apparently believes the War Powers Resolution allows the president to send troops into any conflict, for any reason, for 90 days before seeking a vote of approval. Yet that law, too, specifically limits the president’s powers to responding to “an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” It then requires the president to report his action to Congress and allows this situation to endure only 60 days, not 90. The relevant section states: Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. (Emphases added.) The 60-day window likely makes the law unconstitutional. But accepting it at face value, the fact remains the president did not gain authorization in that time, nor did he claim the safety of the armed forces necessitated their remaining in Libya 30 more days. Remaining imperils them. Thus, the 90-days referenced in the law are irrelevant. Obama is in violation of the law right now – and has been for nearly a month. His actions have triggered an unrecognized Constitutional crisis that requires consequences, up to and including his impeachment and removal from office. http://floydreports.com/wrong-boehner-obama-is-breaking-the-law-right-now-2/

By Squirrellygirl

June 17, 2011 8:10 AM | Link to this

Obama’s agenda includes changing the following laws (I’ve posted just a few here): Changes in our right to bear arms: http://www.guncontrolkills.com/265/guncontrol/obamas-website-post-new-gun-control-plans/ Changes in education: States may avoid requirements that, for example, more students pass standardized tests each year if they agree to “reforms” backed by the administration, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said June 10 in a press briefing. The law ties federal funding to state test results. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-13/obama-must-leave-education-law-changes-to-congress-leaders-say.html Changes in U.S. Role in Libya: The Obama administration argued yesterday that its nearly three-month military involvement in Libya does not require congressional approval, due to the supporting role most US forces are playing. The position puts the White House at odds with Republican leaders and the antiwar wing of its own party. http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-16/news/296662671libya-campaign-obama-administration-president-obama Obama’s Bankruptcy Change: the election, the bankruptcy bar has been buzzing about how President-Elect Barack Obama may ultimately bring change to the highly controversial bankruptcy reform laws. longislandbankruptcyblog.com/bankruptcy-change-under… Employment Changes Under Obama: How employment law has changed during the Obama administration and how those changes will affect your company http://www.sbnonline.com/2010/05/how-employment-law-has-changed-during-the-obama-administration-and-how-those-changes-will-affect-your-company-lynn-c-outwater-jackson-lewis-llp/ Obama’s Changes of Redistribution of wealth: 1/6th of our economy with HC bill I will post another in separate post.

By Mark from St Paul

June 16, 2011 4:07 PM | Link to this

2ThingsBlowfly, how exactly is Obama rewriting any laws when Republicans control the House and have paralyzed the Senate? Not to mention refusing to OK any judges leaving the federal bench breathtakingly Republican. Which exact laws has Obama passed that have so endangered our Republic? I’m being sincere here, I don’t much like Obama and would love to know WHICH laws you’re referring to.

By 2ThingsBlowfly

June 16, 2011 2:44 PM | Link to this

Vick mentioned the Federalist Papers and wondered how Glenn was going to make it relevant to today. Glenn spoke about this subject, and how they were used to ratify the Constitution. In particular #10 which talks about how a group of special interests in a democracy can become violent, more vocal, and overthrow the will of the majority. To me, that is exactly what is going on right now in our country. We have Obama rewriting our laws to fit his progressive agenda, an agenda for the special interests, not the majority. It’s obvious to me how this is relevant right now. You have been missing a lot by not watching Glenn’s show, Blowfly. And Blowfly, I can’t believe that I agree with most of what you said on your last post, except for your attitude, of course.

By Blowfly

June 16, 2011 2:23 PM | Link to this

SG has (finally) posted something worthwhile. Madison’s thoughts (I’m assuming the constant reference to “he” means Madison) on direct democracy have proven true. Just look at California the biggest reason they are in the mess they are in is due to all the stupid ballot initiatives they passed (a form of direct democracy). Take prop. 8, that has destroyed California schools which prior to that were among the best in the nation. The solution to the problem posed by what has been called “tyranny of the majority” is a constitution, which provides certain rights that cannot be taken away by simple majority. I’m glad to hear them recognize that there is such a thing as too much democracy. After all Hitler rose to power in a democratic Germany. The beauty of our system is not just that it is a democracy, but how it balances the powers between branches and uses a constitution that has embedded certain core values that are necessary to offer protection from the majority. I don’t know what this has to do with Glen Beck and Ann Coulter, since I think all this is lost on them - but it’s an important topic.

By Squirrellygirl

June 16, 2011 1:21 PM | Link to this

Ann and Glenn—I don’t agree with everything they say, but both have been very effective at calling out the evils of this administration, and the previous one as well. I don’t know if I’ll prescribe to Glenn’s new network, but I appreciate all of the good news he has relayed on his program. I do watch it everyday at 5, and he’s on for 11 more days, people so catch it while you still can. I can’t speak for Beck, but he touched on the Federalists Papers recently (#10). Federalist No. 10 continues the discussion of the question broached in Hamilton’s Federalist No. 9. Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. He defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred. However, he thinks “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” In particular, the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Got this info from Wikipedia.

By Raoul

June 16, 2011 1:16 PM | Link to this

Vick, I will anxiously await your comments on AC’s new book. I like her a lot, for many reasons, but mostly because she is fearless and has a razor sharp wit. As for GB, I can’t imagine paying to subscribe to his new show. He is thought provoking and his radio show can sometimes be hilarious, but I will pass on the new venture.

By vick

June 16, 2011 12:45 PM | Link to this

Dear Vice President Gore, I never make up my mind about a book until after I have read it. Why would I read a book if I already have my mind made up? That is truly a waste of my time. Have you ever seen or heard Ann Coulter? She sneers. I interviewed her and we had a lovely time together. She sneered a lot. I loved it. That is my favorite thing about her. Nobody can sneer like Coulter. That was no sneer on my part -I’m listening to Coulter at this very moment. I did look up your fancy word: “Metrosexual is a neologism derived from metropolitan and heterosexual coined in 1994 describing a man (especially one living in a post-industrial, capitalist culture) who spends a lot of time and money on shopping for his appearance.[1] Debate surrounds the term’s use as a theoretical signifier of sex deconstruction and its associations with consumerism.” I think my wife would take issue with that. I never shop. How about you? Do you enjoy shopping, Al?

By Al Gore

June 16, 2011 12:23 PM | Link to this

Vick, just listen to what you say. You are going into this with your mind already made up. Are you searching for a gotcha moment? Do I detect a sneer in your metro-sexual voice? A closed mind learns nothing.