Opiniongate: Another Obama Problem
As you've probably read or heard, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA JUST GOT CAUGHT OPINION-SHOPPING FOR A GOVERNMENT LAWYER WHO WOULD SIGN OFF ON LETTING HIM KEEP AMERICA'S MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN THE NATO WAR IN LIBYA GOING FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING TO GET CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
Is this just a lawyers' lash-up -- the proverbial tempest in a teapot, yet another "inside-the Beltway scandal" -- or should Americans actually care about this? Another politician being two-faced? Give me a break.
In fact, the issue is an important one, one which involves the lives of thousands of American sailors and Marines who are, literally, within shooting distance of the danger zone.
OPINION-GATE CONSISTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S REJECTION OF LEGAL OPINIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHICH SAID MR. OBAMA COULDN'T DO WHAT HE WANTED, IN FAVOR OF ONE FROM THE LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHICH SAID HE COULD. Opinion-gate raises immediate questions of war and peace, the President's power as commander-in-chief and Congress' war-making power. In particularly, it spotlights the highly- controversial War Powers Resolution, which was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto by a Democratic Congress at the height of the Watergate Scandal.
The State Department opinion which Mr. Obama accepted says that he is not required to seek Congressional authorization for continuing to do what the United States military and covert services have been doing in Libya. The two opinions which he rejected -- from the legal officers which modern American presidents typically look to for such guidance -- say that he is required to do so….
….With Weinergate, the uptick in unemployment, the stock market drop, and now this, all in the same month, Christmas came early this year for conservatives. Republicans need to remember the advice of that great Democratic strategist, James Carville (aka "the Ragin' Cajun"): WHEN YOUR ENEMY IS DROWNING, THROW HIM A SAFE."
LOOKS LIKE MR. OBAMA ALREADY HAS ONE.
It just keeps getting murkier and murkier for the Obama reelection.
Is Obama's Libyan Attack Legal or Not?
Obama's being hassled because he's dropping bombs and bullets on Libyan targets without Congressional permission, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION PER SOME REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. SOME ESTIMATES SAY THAT A YEAR OF IT WILL COST $160 B. Obama says it's within his powers because, though he can't declare war, this isn't war; IT'S A "KINETIC MILITARY ACTION," WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
He goes on to say that ground troops aren't exchanging fire, which adds to the non-warishness. But Libyans bombed or rocketed to death from the sky are still dead. It's not clear that the dead Libyans would appreciate the neat distinction. The Libyans themselves are pretty clearly having a civil war; OBAMA IS KILLING MORE OF THE FOLKS ON ONE SIDE THAN HE IS THOSE ON THE OTHER, THOUGH HE HASN'T DISCRIMINATED ENTIRELY. Apparently, it can be hard to tell which side he's shooting at from the air. That they are having a war seems to be clear to the Libyans even if it isn't clear to Obama.
If you are a student of history and you are familiar with the miracle at Dunkirk, you know that the German’s stopped the war for a brief period and went to “Kinetic Military Action” as Herman Goering wanted to destroy the British at Dunkirk with his Luftwaffe.
Our Reactionary President
Barack Obama is the most reactionary president in the recent history of the United States. OBAMA SEEMS INTENT ON TURNING BACK THE CLOCK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE 1960S AND 1970S, WHEN RIGID POLITICAL ORTHODOXY, NOT AN OPEN MIND, ONCE GUIDED GOVERNMENT.
Take the economy. The 1980s implosion of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union proved that state control of the means of production guaranteed poverty and worse. The current insolvent and fragmenting European Union, and the stagnant economics of the exploding Middle East, remind us that state socialism does not work.
Why, then, would Obama, in horse-and-buggy fashion, go back to SUCH FOSSILIZED CONCEPTS AS ABSORBING THE NATION'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INCREASING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE ECONOMY BY TAKING OVER AUTOMOBILE CORPORATIONS, borrowing $5 trillion to spend on new entitlements, or proposing an array of much higher taxes -- all in a vain effort to ensure an equality of result?
Almost every key indicator of the current economy -- unemployment, deficits, housing, energy -- argues THAT OBAMA'S REACTIONARY ALL-POWERFUL STATIST APPROACH HAS ONLY MADE THINGS FAR WORSE….
What in the world will he run on? "It could have been worse," isn't a real winning slogan.
President Barack Obama's Complete List of Historic Firsts
Yes, he's historic, alright.
• First President to ABROGATE BANKRUPTCY LAW to Turn Over Control
• First President to VIOLATE THE WAR POWERS ACT
• First President to ORCHESTRATE THE SALE OF MURDER WEAPONS TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
• First President to be HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to DEFY A FEDERAL JUDGE'S COURT ORDER TO CEASE IMPLEMENTING THE 'HEALTH CARE REFORM' LAW
• First President to REQUIRE ALL AMERICANS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT FROM A THIRD PARTY
Keep reading and you’ll get another 10 firsts.
10 Reasons Obama will be a one term President
Less than two months ago, buzzing from the president’s gutsy call to eliminate Osama bin Laden, liberal pontificators had practically sworn in Barack Obama for his second term. “For the GOP the sands are rushing through the hourglass,” Roger Simon wrote in a column whose title had wondered whether the president was “invincible.” He claimed that with Geronimo KIA, “the Republican field has been fried like an egg.” In reality, the president’s short-term popularity boost had fried the long-term judgment of his supporters.
THE REASONS TO BELIEVE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT ARE MANY AND WELL-GROUNDED.
10. The Declaration of Independents
CANDIDATE OBAMA ATTRACTED INDEPENDENTS. PRESIDENT OBAMA REPULSES THEM. The president entered office with the approval of 62 percent of independents. The latest Gallup poll shows support of just 42 percent of independents. …
9. A Redder America
Barack Obama faces a redder electoral map than he did in 2008. The 2012 presidential election is more than a year away, but THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS ALREADY SHIFTED TWELVE VOTES AWAY FROM BLUE STATES AND TOWARD RED STATES….
8. The Issues Have Changed
Gallup’s “Monthly Most Important Problem” survey is a problem for the president. What is troubling the American people? Over the first five months of 2011, Americans point to the ECONOMY (29%), UNEMPLOYMENT (26%), THE DEFICIT (13%), AND GOVERNMENT (11%)….
7. The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore
….Unpopular ObamaCare, a sedative stimulus, ineptness in the face of the BP oil spill, and defiance of Congress in starting a third Middle Eastern war have all painted a presidential picture that HAS CALCIFIED CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION, ALIENATED MODERATES, AND DISILLUSIONED LIBERAL SUPPORTERS.
6. Demoralized Liberals
Left-wing activist Ralph Nader encourages a primary challenge. Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich sues the administration over Libya. Netroots conference goers boo White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer….
5. Energized Conservatives
…. It showed in 2010, when Republicans added 63 House seats, seven Senate seats, and six governors. NOTHING INVIGORATES A PARTY’S BASE LIKE AN AGGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY OCCUPYING THE WHITE HOUSE. THE GOP CLEARLY HAS THE MOMENTUM HEADING INTO 2012….
Keep reading as it will make you feel good.
What the 2012 election will be all about
…WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONG, ELECTIONS CAN TURN ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES. But when the economy is poor, elections are seldom about anything else. The 1980 race was illustrative.
Though the Carter/Reagan race is remembered now as a landslide for Ronald Reagan, the contours of the victory were not apparent during the campaign. AS LATE AS OCTOBER 29, GALLUP HAD THE RACE AS A DEAD HEAT, with Reagan at 44 percent and President Carter at 43 (it was a three-man race). Other polling showed larger margins for Reagan but nothing like the 10-point margin of victory he achieved. At the time, the contest was perceived as close.
It was after the first and only debate, a week before Election Day, that voters definitively moved into Reagan's column. At the time, inflation was running at 13.5 percent, unemployment was 7 percent and interest rates were 21 percent. American hostages remained in Tehran. Carter's approval ratings hovered in the 30s during the final year of his tenure.
Why wasn't Carter perceived as hopelessly weak? Perhaps BECAUSE AS BAD AS THINGS WERE, VOTERS NEEDED TO BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THE CHALLENGER'S FITNESS. CARTER HAD SUCCEEDED TO SOME DEGREE IN FRIGHTENING VOTERS ABOUT REAGAN'S (YOU GUESSED IT) RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM. Reagan's reassuring debate performance allayed those fears. And Reagan's summation drilled to the heart of voters' concerns. Ask yourself, Reagan advised, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
The economy today is in some respects worse than it was in 1980. Barring a catastrophe, little else will matter in 2012. ANY CREDIBLE REPUBLICAN CAN DEFEAT OBAMA -- WHICH IS WHY AXELROD IS ALREADY SMEARING AS "EXTREMIST" A PERSON WHOSE NAME HE DOES NOT KNOW.
I remember the 1980 election and it being called close just a week before it. I found it hard to believe it would be close since Carter was so clearly incompetent. In the coming election I expect much the same.
22% would not vote for a Mormon for President
Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party's nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967.
The delicious part is that it is the left that appear to be the bigger bigots when it comes to religious intolerance. While 80% of Republicans would vote for a Mormon, only 71% of Democrats would do so (45% higher level of religious bigotry). So much for the goodness of the left.
The Clarence Thomas Rules
WHEN IT COMES TO MEDIA COVERAGE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, THE RULES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OTHER JUDICIAL FIGURES. Yesterday’s front page feature in the Sunday New York Times about Thomas and his various associations with rich people is the sort of thing that one simply cannot imagine being written or published about anyone else on the high court.
THE PIECE IS A 2,800-WORD INSINUATION ABOUT ETHICAL VIOLATIONS THAT ARE NEVER SPELLED OUT. Reporter Mike McIntire was sent out on a fishing expedition looking for juicy material about this liberal bête noire and clearly came up empty. But instead of spiking the story, the Times (whose new editor Jill Abramson’s career was made via slanders of Thomas) printed it anyway.
The worst allegation in the piece is that Thomas may have helped persuade a wealthy donor to contribute to the building of a museum about the culture of poor Gullah-speaking African-Americans along the Georgia coast where the jurist grew up. Federal judges aren’t supposed to do fundraising even for charity but the code has never applied to the Supreme Court and even if it did, McIntire has no real proof of Thomas conducting an “ask” for the Pin Point museum….
….But you don’t have to be an investigative reporter to understand the motivation behind this article. AS A BLACK CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, LIBERALS HAVE ALWAYS TREATED THOMAS AS TRAITOR TO HIS RACE. Others may agree to disagree but Thomas is the sort of person about whom anything can be said. It is true that he may not have been the most qualified person in the land at the time of his appointment but the same can be said of a number of his liberal colleagues on the court. But, unlike other judges, his personal destruction has always been the goal of the political left….
Conservative women, blacks, etc. are worse than traitors to the left, they are heretics. As such they are subject to extreme forms of racism and sexism by the left.
Science and the Smear Merchants
Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is right there in her recent book, "MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: HOW A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS OBSCURED THE TRUTH ON ISSUES FROM TOBACCO SMOKE TO GLOBAL WARMING," coauthored with Eric Conway. HER SCIENCE IS FAULTY; HER HISTORICAL PROCEDURES ARE THOROUGHLY UNPROFESSIONAL. She is, however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists -- of whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous charges.
This is a devastating indictment of Oreskes. Oreskes is the person who started the “settled science” claim of AGW proponents when she did a study which examining the abstracts of some 900 published papers found almost none questioning AGW. Unfortunately, she missed more than 11,000 papers (she overlooked more than 92% of the papers available) through an incorrect Internet search. She published a discreet "Correction"; yet she has never retracted her ideologically based claim about consensus. This woman appears to be the Kitty Kelly of Climate Science.
EPA masquerading propaganda as facts
….“The difference in air quality between 1990 and 2020 was then used to project improvements in health and the environment. This result was compared to A SECOND SCENARIO IN WHICH THE SCOPE AND STRINGENCY OF REGULATORY CONTROLS REMAINED FIXED AT THEIR 1990 LEVELS—I.E., PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1990 AMENDMENTS—WHILE ALLOWING FOR INCREASED EMISSIONS FROM ECONOMIC AND POPULATION GROWTH,” she wrote.
“The researchers acknowledge that ‘there is no way to validate’ their forecast of air quality conditions for the non-CAA scenario, effectively rendering the comparison between regulation and non-regulation meaningless,” argued Katz.
“GIVEN THESE AND OTHER UNCERTAINTIES THAT PLAGUE THE REPORT, THE FINDINGS AMOUNT TO LITTLE MORE THAN ‘GUESSTIMATES,’ Katz said. “Rather than document that the benefits of regulation roundly trump regulatory costs, the EPA’s report raises serious questions about the agency’s politicization of science.”….
The EPA should go into infomercials. You’ve seen the ads where someone is selling a spice rack. The person they show has so many spices and when they try to find one, they fall out of the cupboard and on to the floor. Their spice rack eliminates all that. The EPA is spice racking us.
Genetic Basis for Crime: A New Look
IT WAS LESS THAN 20 YEARS AGO THAT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ABRUPTLY WITHDREW FUNDS FOR A CONFERENCE ON GENETICS AND CRIME AFTER OUTRAGED COMPLAINTS THAT THE IDEA SMACKED OF EUGENICS. The president of the Association of Black Psychologists at the time declared that such research was in itself “A BLATANT FORM OF STEREOTYPING AND RACISM.”
The tainted history of using biology to explain criminal behavior has pushed criminologists to reject or ignore genetics and CONCENTRATE ON SOCIAL CAUSES: MISERABLE POVERTY, CORROSIVE ADDICTIONS, GUNS. Now that the human genome has been sequenced, and scientists are studying the genetics of areas as varied as alcoholism and party affiliation, criminologists are cautiously returning to the subject. A small cadre of experts is exploring how genes might heighten the risk of committing a crime and whether such a trait can be inherited.
It appears they need to look at something else. Their theory about guns seems to have proven wrong as places where guns have been readily available, the crime rate has fallen. The article is very interesting though and I recommend you read it.
The War Against Girls
SINCE THE LATE 1970S, 163 MILLION FEMALE BABIES HAVE BEEN ABORTED BY PARENTS SEEKING SONS
….WHAT IS CAUSING THE SKEWED RATIO: ABORTION. IF THE MALE NUMBER IN THE SEX RATIO IS ABOVE 106, IT MEANS THAT COUPLES ARE HAVING ABORTIONS WHEN THEY FIND OUT THE MOTHER IS CARRYING A GIRL. By Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence….
Does a woman’s right to choose also include her right to contribute to genocide against her own sex?