Doug Hoffman may still win New York 23
This is an interesting story that I first learned about on rjjrdq’s America. It seems that while Doug Hoffman conceded defeat in the much publicized New York 23 congressional race to Bill Owens and while Owens was subsequently hurried to Washington DC in order to vote for the healthcare reform bill that Doug Hoffman might end up winning this race after all. Doug Hoffman may have conceded prematurely.
The votes are still being counted and the race has tightened up quite a bit. Hoffman conceded after he received two pieces of news that made his prospects look dim.
Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.
However, this news turned out not to be true and Hoffman now trails Owens by only 3,000 votes with 10,000 absentees votes yet to be counted. This is where this story gets a little murky. The state of New York sent Nancy Pelosi a letter that stated the New York election results have not been certified but because Hoffman conceded that means the election is not contested. This allowed Nancy Pelosi to legally swear in Bill Owens.
If it turns out that Hoffman wins this election, and it is highly unlikely, Bill Owens will be removed from congress and Hoffman will be sworn in, but the damage has already been done. Hoffman should have held out to the very end and then contested the election, this would have prevented Owens from making it to Washington in time to vote in favor of the healthcare reform bill while the votes were still being counted. That is what would have happened if the situation was reversed; we saw a perfect example of this in the Franken/Coleman election where Franken eventually was allowed to steal the election from the rightful winner.
Hawaii senator says he is not aware of any provision in the constitution that gives the government the authority to mandate healthcare coverage
When asked if the constitution gave the right to the government to mandate healthcare coverage Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii said that he was not aware of any provision in the constitution that granted the government this right.
You would think that if Akaka did not think healthcare mandates were constitutional he would oppose the measure but you would be wrong. He is still trying to justify his position by claiming that what the congress is trying to do is the right thing to do.
Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health
I guess, according to Senator Akaka’s bumbling answer, that the senator believes the constitution is secondary to what he believes is the right thing to do. He believes that forcing the American people to buy health insurance is the right thing to do and he doesn’t appear to care that the constitution does not give him the authority to do so. I think that the right thing to do would be to follow the constitution.
AmeriCorps Inspector General shredded White House documents that pertained to Gerald Walpin’s firing
Does the name Gerald Walpin sound familiar to you? Probably not so I will refresh your memory. Gerald Walpin was an inspector general who was fired by Barack Obama. Barack Obama claimed that he had lost faith in Walpin but he did not provide the specific details on the firing to the senate as was required by law. And to top it off, Obama illegally fired Walpin with a one hour notice instead of the 30 day notice required by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008.
It turned out that Gerald Walpin was investigating Sacramento Mayor, and Barack Obama friend, Kevin Johnson and AmeriCorps for the misuse of funds when he was fired. Gerald Walpin uncovered the abuse of funds in an organization that Barack Obama holds dear and instead of being credited with saving the taxpayers money and exposing corruption he was fired for it.
Today this story took another turn, the acting inspector general of AmeriCorps admitted that he shredded documents that pertained to Walpin’s firing at the request of an AmeriCorps spokeswoman.
The shredded documents included the draft of a letter from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi that informed her that Gerald Walpin was fired as well as talking points that were to be sent to the media.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the Walpin firing and with this news that some of the documents pertaining to this firing were destroyed we can easily assume that there is something that the administration is trying to hide.
The president fired Gerald Walpin because he was investigating and found fraud at AmeriCrops, which just happened to be run by a friend of Barack Obama, this is fairly obvious. The administration is now trying to cover this up by destroying evidence.
Barack Obama almost called Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist– but not quite
During Barack Obama’s speech at the memorial service for the victims of the Fort Hood terrorist attack he said, ” no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor, and for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world and the next.”
He mentions faith and God when speaking about Hasan and the killings. Is he suggesting that these killings may have been done in the name of a god? It certainly seems so. And if Hasan was a Muslim and he committed these acts in the name of his God wouldn’t that make him a radical Islamist– a terrorist? That also seems about right to me.
Barack Obama, through his comments, laid down the possibility that this attack was a terrorist act. Let’s face it, Barack Obama knows that this was not second hand post traumatic stress syndrome. He knows that this was a terror attack and he alluded to it in his speech. But he just can not bring himself to utter that one word. The Nobel Peace Prize winning president just can’t admit that he let a terrorist attack happen on United States soil while he was president.
Barack Obama almost admitted that Hasan was a terrorist, but not quite.
Rhode Island Senator compares healthcare mandates to the draft
It is getting laughable listening to politicians try to justify where in the constitution the provision is that allows the government to mandate healthcare insurance. Or I should say, it would be laughable if it wasn’t so damned important.
The latest attempt comes from Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, who when asked about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates compared it to the draft.
Let me see,” said Reed. “I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.
First he admits that he has no clue what section in the constitution might legitimize healthcare mandates, he would have done well to stop there and admit defeat, but then he tries to cover his tracks by saying that the constitution does not give the government the authority to institute a draft. I would argue that when the constitution gives the government the right to raise an army it also gives them the right to institute a draft to raise that army if necessary. But that is not the argument here, so for the sake of this discussion I will grant Reed the point.
He claims that because the draft was “necessary for the functioning of the government” that it has become recognized that the government has the authority to institute the draft even though it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. I would ask him– based on his own argument– how can you justify healthcare mandates as being necessary for the functioning of the government? That is the comparison that he has drawn and it just doesn’t hold water. Would he have us believe that if their were no healthcare mandates that the government would cease to exist? That seems to be the parallel that he has drawn.
John McCain calls the Fort Hood massacre an “act of terror” and condemns political correctness
Add John McCain’s name to the small but growing list of politicians who are willing to call the Fort Hood massacre an “act of terror.”
The fact is that it was an act of terror when you’re on a military base, and you are a trusted member of the military, a commissioned officer, and you kill your fellow members in the military — motivated obviously by his views of the extremist interpretation of an honorable religion
Truer words have never been spoken. The list of politicians who have called the shootings an act of terrorism may be small, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Pete Hoekstra, but that list is growing and it will continue to grow as more details about the massacre come out.
Barack Obama may want to believe that terrorism doesn’t exist any more but the actions of Hasan prove to us all that it does exist. Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president is in denial, or cover up mode, and he is unwilling to call the massacre what everyone knows it is– an act of terror. As more details come out it will be increasingly harder for Barack Obama to deny this. He, and Homeland Security, are more interested in protecting Muslims against a backlash that is not going to happen because of the massacre than they were about protecting the American people before the massacre.
This is political correctness gone awry, and that leads me into John McCain’s next statement:
We ought to make sure ‘political correctness’ never impedes national security
Unfortunately it seems as if political correctness came before national security at Fort Hood. Political correctness was an accessory to the crime terrorism that occurred at Fort Hood, political correctness enabled the massacre at Fort Hood.
More links are found between the Fort Hood terrorist and people under investigation by the FBI
We are learning more and more news about Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist, every day and it is more troubling that this man was not stopped before he had a chance to commit his atrocity.
We already know that Hasan visited the mosque that three of the September 11th hijackers frequented and we also know that he contacted the radical cleric of that masque, Anwar al Awlaki, and now we are learning that Hasan had ties to even more people that the FBI has been investigating. The source of this information would not release the names of those individuals but said that the names would soon be made public.
It is getting more and more troubling and infuriating that the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security sat by and did nothing until it was too late. Nidal Malik Hasan will face trial and I would say that everybody in the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security that knew this man was dangerous and did nothing to stop him should also be tried for dereliction of duty. Nidal Malik Hasan may have been the one that pulled the trigger over 100 times but he was empowered by our government through political correctness and an unwillingness to arrest a Muslim before a terrorist act was committed.
This attack on our heroes was preventable, or should have been preventable if we had a government that was doing whatever it took to protect us. But we don’t and now we have thirteen dead soldiers. These soldiers put their lives on the line to keep us safe, the least that they could expect is for our government to keep them safe. The government did not and that is a crime. The FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security have blood on their hands, as does the president if we learn that he instituted barriers that stopped our intelligence agencies from doing their jobs.
Thank you veterans
Thank you too all of those who have served and those who are still serving. You mean more to us than you will ever know.
Chicago mayor Daley blames the terror attack at Fort Hood on America’s love for guns
There seems to be plenty of blame to go around when we review the terror attack on Fort Hood. First and foremost, of course, is the radicalized Islamist that committed the attack, followed by political correctness, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and quite possible the president himself. The president and all of the aforementioned organizations were privy to information that Hasan was dangerous yet they did not act in time to stop the attack. Time will tell exactly who was responsible for the government’s inability to protect our heroes, or at least tell us who the fall guy will be.
But the mayor of Chicago has his own theory on why the terrorist attack on Fort Hood happened. He is blaming gun loving Americans.
Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group
You read that right, he claims that we cannot blame a group, such as radical Muslims, when it is gun loving Americans that are to blame for this attack.
So what does he propose we do, take guns away from our military? This argument does not make any sense and he is using a terrorist attack to push his anti second amendment agenda. Can someone please tell me how the second amendment can be to blame for a terrorist attack on a military base by a military man?
It was only a matter of time before someone suggested something as asinine as this. We are already seeing the victimization of Hasan in the media and even from the president, who claimed that stress probably led Hasan to commit terrorism. And now we are beginning to see the anti-gun politicians espousing the virtues of gun control as the answer.
This is all an effort to deflect blame away from where it belongs while at the same time advancing a political agenda. Mayor Daley’s assertion is so ludicrous that it is almost laughable. In fact it would be laughable if so many people didn’t take it as seriously as I am sure they will.
Anita Dunn to resign from Obama’s cabinet
Anita Dunn is resigning as Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director. No real reason has been given but we can rest assured knowing that another radical in Obama’s cabinet has been forced to resign. I think that most of us know why she is leaving, she is a radical who worships Mao Tse Tung, what else do you need to know?
First the radical Van Jones offered his resignation after comments that were politically embarrassing to the White House emerged and now the woman who considers Mao Tse Tung as one of her favorite political philosophers has decided to leave the White House.
She became an embarrassment to the White House and as such she has become expendable. While this is great news for freedom loving Americans all across the nation the fact remains that Barack Obama himself is just as much of a radical as Van Jones and Anita Dunn, that is why he hired them in the first place– he agrees with them. But Americans are starting to wake up and they are realizing that Obama has surrounded himself with radicals.
Obama has spent his life around many radicals, so it is not surprising that he would have this type of person in his cabinet. But most Americans are not as radical as Obama, this is something that Obama probably didn’t realize because of all of his past associations but as time goes by he is beginning to realize that. He cannot afford to keep radicals like Jones and Dunn around and when they are exposed he kicks them to the curb.
We know that there are more radicals in his cabinet and we cannot rest until they are all gone. And then in 2012 the American people must take the biggest radical of them all out of the White house.
