Russ Feingold moves to block troop surge in Afghanistan
Nobody knows what the president is going to do in Afghanistan, not even the president. He is too busy golfing and playing basketball to make a decision concerning Afghanistan, but Russ Feingold is making preparations just in case Obama does decide to heed General McChrystal’s warning that we need more troops over there or the mission is lost.
Russ Feingold is moving towards blocking a troop surge in Afghanistan if that is what Obama decides to do. I have to give him credit for one thing, at least he is consistent. He opposed the troop surge in Iraq when Bush was president and now he opposes a troop surge in Afghanistan. He was wrong about the Iraq troop surge, that surge secured victory in Iraq. And if General McChrystal is correct, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, that the only way to secure victory in Afghanistan is with more troops than Russ Feingold will be wrong again.
But the bottom line here is still the fact that the general in charge of the troops on the ground has declared that he needs more troop or we will lose. If Russ Feingold and others decide that they will block the troop surge that is needed to attain victory and to protect the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan than there is no sence fighting a war that the general said is unwinnable. If we are not going to do what it takes to win than it is time to leave.
Man arrested for killing his unborn baby
A Los Angeles man has been arrested for killing his unborn baby— a despicable, disgusting, reprehensible crime. There is no worse crime that a man can commit and I hope that he rots in jail for the rest of his life. But this does lead me to ask the question, what if it was the mother who had decided to kill this unborn baby?
It seems to me that thousands of men commit this same crime every day. The only difference is that these men are doctors and they have the permission of the mothers. Thousands of abortions are committed every year under the guise that a woman has control over what she does to her body. The fetus is considered part of a woman’s body, not life, and if she does not want a child she can simply terminate the pregnancy. The fetus is not considered a person in these cases because the fetus can not live outside the womb. Yet this man is charged with murder for committing an act that the mother could perform freely, openly, and without consequence and in some circles is admired.
This is where the questions needs to be asked, how can this be murder in one case yet not in the other? By charging this man with murder aren’t law enforcement officials classifying the fetus as a baby? Doesn’t this now confirm that a fetus is a person? If so than isn’t this an admission that murder of a fetus is acceptable depending who decides to commit the crime?
The motive for the killing is the same, the baby is unwanted. Just because it is the mother who decides to terminate a pregnancy it is not any less tolerable. We cannot have it both ways– either a fetus is a person who deserves the right to life, or the fetus isn’t and is subjected to the whim of the would be mother.
40 House Democrats to vote against healthcare bill if federal funding for abortion is included
There is a group of about 40 Democrats who have formed a coalition and have pledged to vote against the healthcare reform bill if the House is not allowed to vote on language that would prohibit federal money from being used to provide for abortions.
Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat, introduced an amendment to the House bill that would deny the federal funding of abortion but it was voted down in committee. He has now formed a coalition that is demanding that his amendment be brought to the floor for a vote or his coalition will vote against the healthcare reform bill.
Stupak has basically been told that there is no way in hell that his amendment will ever be voted on on the floor. It will be interesting to see if all 40 of these pro-life Democrats hold true to their professed beliefs. If all Republicans vote against the bill as expected, it will require at least 38 of these Democrats to vote against healthcare reform in order to kill it.
Pressure will undoubtably be applied to these Democrats by party leadership to change their votes. The threat of withholding federal money to assist them in their re-election bids will also be used. What will prevail, their conscience or their desire for power and prestige?
Obama declares a state of emergency over the swine flu
President Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, thus giving the federal government even more power.
There has never been a more overblown crisis in recent memory that I can think of. During a slow news cycle the media trumped up this crisis and the national politicians have run with it creating a story where none existed and now we now have the president declaring a national emergency over an outbreak of the flu. This looks to me to be nothing more than a political move.
With his healthcare reform bill floundering in congress the president is declaring an emergency in order to gin up support for his highest priority domestic policy issue. He hopes that by issuing this fraudulent national emergency that people will rally around his healthcare reform effort in the interest of stemming off a potential pandemic that does not exist.
By declaring a national emergency he is hoping to create a crisis mentality in the nation that he can use in order to pass his reform bill. We must never forget that it was his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who declared “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”
By declaring this national emergency Barack Obama is hoping to create just such a crisis in order to pass healthcare reform. There is no state of emergency, there is no pandemic, there is no crisis, we are talking about the flu here. The only crisis facing the president is the fact that his healthcare reform bill is in peril and he is looking to save it.
Nancy Pelosi refuses to comment on where the constitutional authority is to mandate healthcare insurance
With the exception of Steny Hoyer’s asinine assertion that the “general welfare” clause of the constitution grants the power to congress to mandate healthcare insurance, (an assertion that I debunked here), other politicians, such as Patrick Leahy, have shown their constitutional ignorance in another way– by refusing to even make up something the way Steny Hoyer did and by refusing to answer the question at all. Patrick Leahy’s answer to the question? We have the authority, nobody doubts that. But still he can’t show us where the constitution grants us that authority. Now we can add Nancy Pelosi to the mix of politicians who can not tell us where the constitution grants congress the authority to mandate healthcare insurance.
When asked the question about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say:
Are you serious? Are you serious
She then shook her head in disbelief that someone would dare to question her authority and took a question from another reporter without ever answering a question that should be a no-brainer to anyone in congress if the congress did in fact have constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance.
Later in the day, in an effort to find the authority that simply does not exist, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman claimed that the “interstate commerce” clause granted the congress the authority to mandate healthcare coverage. This seems to be at odds with Steny Hoyer, who claimed that it was the “general welfare” clause from which congress derived the power to mandate healthcare coverage.
Having already debunked Steny Hoyer’s claim in a previous post it is now time to delve into the commerce clause and Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the commerce clause grants congress the right to regulate healthcare mandates.
The original intent of the commerce clause was to eliminate trade barriers and tariffs that were imposed between the states, which were much more sovereign entities than they are today, and to create a national currency. Under the Articles of Confederation individual states could negotiate treaties with foreign nations and with other states setting up inequities between differing states with each other as well as between different states and foreign nations. The commerce clause was designed to take treaty making privileges away from the states in order to ensure uniform treaties across the nation. That is the original intent of the commerce clause, pure and simple.
But don’t take my word for it, let us go to the people who actually wrote and defended the constitution and look at the arguments that they made about the “commerce clause.
Alexander Hamilton:
It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States.No nation acquainted with the nature of our political association would be unwise enough to enter into stipulations with the United States, by which they conceded privileges of any importance to them, while they were apprised that the engagements on the part of the Union might at any moment be violated by its members, and while they found from experience that they might enjoy every advantage they desired in our markets, without granting us any return but such as their momentary convenience might suggest
It is obvious that he is talking about the states forming their own treaties with foreign nations.
Madison:
A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former
He was writing about tariffs and taxes that were implemented between the differing states. I can go on and on, there is much more, but suffice it to say that the commerce clause was designed to regulate trade between the sovereign states between each other and with foreign nations. Just read the Federalist Papers that pertain to the commerce clause if you don’t believe me.
But over the years the commerce clause has been probably the most abused clause in the constitution. The case of Wickard vs. Filburn is a perfect example. Filburn was growing wheat for his own consumption, he was not selling it. The Supreme Court ruled that because he was growing wheat and using it for his own private use that it violated the commerce clause, even though there was no commerce involved, because if he didn’t use his own wheat he would have to purchase it elsewhere.
This is just one example, there are many, many more. And now we have Nancy Pelosi claiming that the commerce clause gives her the authority to mandate that people buy healthcare insurance? On what grounds? How do healthcare mandates fall under the commerce between states or the commerce between nations? Nancy Pelosi, as well as other liberals in congress, would do well to actually read the constitution.
White House tries to shut Fox News out of the media pool– the other networks side with Fox News over Obama
I haven’t written anything on the Obama administration’s feud with Fox News because I feel that there are much more important issues to focus on and because I feel that this is a diversionary tactic that is being used by the administration that is designed to take the focus off of the real issues the country is facing, the issues that Barack Obama is failing on. Frankly, I find his attack on Fox News to be silly and beneath the office of the presidency.
But something happened yesterday that I found interesting and worth writing about when it comes to the Obama’s administration’s feud with Fox News. The president tried to cut Fox News out of the White House television pool interview that was being given by Obama’s “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. In a show of solidarity, all of the other networks said that if Fox News was not allowed to attend the interview that no other network would attend. An embarrassed White House was forced to cave in to the rare show of support.
The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV news networks consulted and decided that none of them would interview Feinberg unless Fox was included – and the administration relented, making Feinberg available to all five pool members and Bloomberg TV
While most of the other networks fawn over President Obama and while most of the other networks agree with all of his radical leftist positions, when it comes to “protecting one of their own” the media has a way of circling the wagons. Even the liberal networks were not willing to acquiesce to the president on this issue.
The Obama administration is using its attacks on Fox News to let it be known to the other networks that this could happen to them also if they do not fall in lockstep with the administration. But it seems to have had the opposite effect. Instead of cowering to the oppressive Obama regime, and fearing that the administration could target them next, or try to tell them what they should report, they came to the aid of Fox News. The president was forced to allow Fox News to attend the interview if he wanted to get his message out and he did.
President Obama is trying to control the media and trying to make sure they report the stories in a manner that he approves of; while the mainstream media does not like Fox News they like being told what to report and how to report it even less. President Obama’s attempt to control his message through an all too willing media may have just proven to be his downfall.
President Obama fails to sell out Massachusetts fundraiser
Today President Obama gave a speech on clean energy at MIT, he followed this appearance with an appearance at a fundraiser for Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick– his good friend whose speech he plagiarized during the campaign.
President Obama faced lagging ticket sales for this event.
As of last night, liberals who once braved frigid temperatures to behold Obama were shunning tickets to the fund-raiser at the posh Westin Copley Place featuring the president, sources told the Herald. And despite campaign denials, Patrick operatives reportedly were pushing the ducats – between $500 and $6,000 – by e-mail up to the last minute
Although the article that I linked to does not state it, it has been widely reported on Boston radio that the event failed to sell out. This can probably be partly attributed to discontent and impatience with Massachusetts liberals toward the Obama administration as well the growing unpopularity of the Massachusetts governor.
The lack of support for Obama in Massachusetts is astonishing coming from one of the most liberal states in the country and could be very telling as to the trouble Obama and the liberals may be facing in the midterm election next year.
Obama also faced protesters from both sides of the aisle when he arrived at MIT to give his speech.
Among the groups planning to dog Obama during his scheduled afternoon swing through Cambridge and Boston:
Anti-war activists CODEPINK, who are irate with the president for backpedaling on promises to withdraw from Iraq and weighing a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Environmental coalition 350.org – which has soured on Obama’s efforts to curb global warming – plans to protest the MIT address. They’re also taking out a full-page ad in the MIT student paper questioning Obama’s commitment to the green cause.
Gays and lesbians are furious with Obama for forsaking campaign vows to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
If Massachusetts can be used to gauge the president’s popularity, and considering the politics of that state I feel that it can be, I think that it is safe to assume that this president is in serious trouble. If Massachusetts liberals are so disgusted with Obama that they can not be bothered to attend a fundraiser that he attends, the president has real problems.
Conservatives were never going to agree with him, but to see liberals protesting the president and shunning a fundraiser that he attended does not bode well for the president. He is losing popularity every day. If President Obama can not fill a fundraising event in one of the most liberal states in the country how will he fare in less liberal states? The bloom is of of Obama’s rose, the people are waking up and taking notice and they do not like what they see.
Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.
White House says that the effect of the stimulus bill has peaked
While we keep waiting for the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy only to see nothing improve we learn that the stimulus bill has already peaked and the effects of the stimulus bill are begining to slow.
This news comes straight from the White House’s top economist.
A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.
Considering that the stimulus bill did not contribute to any significant expansion this year why should we expect it to next year? Still trying to claim that the stimulus bill had some effect the administration is claiming that the bill created or saved between 600,000 and 1.5 million jobs. In the interest of being fair by using the high number, this amounts to the government spending over $500,000 for every job created or saved. Is that a reasonable price to pay for every job that was supposedly created or saves?
The stimulus bill was an abject failure and Barack Obama should be held accountable for squandering almost a trillion dollars in taxpayer money on nothing.
Sebelius admits that Swine Flu vaccines will be sent overseas before all Americans are immunized
Let us just pretend for the purpose of this post that the Swine Flu is a legitimate concern and that a possible deadly pandemic could break out killing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. That is what we have been told by both alarmists in the administration and in the media, so lets go with their line of propaganda.
Kathleen Sebelius is now on record as admitting that the United States is going to send Swine Flu vaccinations to foreign nations before everyone in the United States who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated.
After only 16% of the vaccine has been distributed within the United States we will begin to donate 10% of all vaccinations to foreign nations. The vaccinations are already behind schedule, the states are not receiving their vaccinations on time and yet we are now going to put precedence on ensuring that people in other countries receive our vaccinations before we do.
It seems to me that if the Swine Flu could become as deadly as we are told that it could than we shouldn’t give away the vaccine until Americans are taken care of. Remember how big of an issue John Kerry made the lack of flu shots available to the American people during the campaign of 2004? Suddenly with a flu that is supposed to be capable of killing thousands of Americans, and a shortage of the vaccine available to Americans, it is acceptable to send some of the available vaccinations overseas? Where is John Kerry’s opposition now?
If this administration was really concerned about a possible Swine Flu pandemic in the United States wouldn’t the president take the precautions to make sure a pandemic does not occur in this country?
Patrick Leahy can’t cite where congress gets the constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance
Yesterday I wrote a post about Steny Hoyer’s asinine claim that the “general welfare” clause gives congress the right to force people to buy healthcare insurance, but today when Patrick Leahy ws asked where in the constitution power was granted to congress to mandate healthcare insurance he couldn’t do it.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance–as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do
When asked specifically to point out where the authority was granted to congress in the constitution, Leahy answered with a question of his own:
We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
They just have the authority? When asked again this was his answer:
Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that
Still he refused to cite where the constitution granted congress the power to force the American people to buy healthcare coverage. He states, “there is no question there’s authority,” but he cannot prove that statement. Instead he says that nobody questions the fact that congress has this authority. And perhaps he is right, not about whether congress has the authority, but rather the fact that nobody, or at least enough people, do not question whether congress has the authority. Congress does not have the authority to mandate healthcare insurance and it is well beyond time for people to begin questioning the constitutionality of mandate such as the one being proposed. As well as most of the laws passed in the federal government.
When asked once again Patrick Leahy claimed that the same provision in the constitution that allows the federal government to regulate speed limits is the provision that allows healthcare mandates; evidentially he is unaware that states regulate the speed limits in their own states. The federal mandate of speed limits was repealed in 1995.
Asked one last time Senator Leahy walked away, never answering the question.
According to Leahy’s theory we aren’t supposed to question if congress has the authority to mandate healthcare insurance or where they get that authority, we are just supposed to acknowledge that they have it– sounds dictatorial to me when instead of questioning authority you are relegated to accept it.
The problem is that while Leahy just assumes that the American people will not question the authority of congress on this issue he has the bases covered if they do eventually question congress’ authority. Patrick Leahy is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee that vets Supreme Court nominees. Certainly President Obama will nominate judges to the Supreme Court who hold the belief that congress is empowered to mandate healthcare insurance and a committee headed by Patrick Leahy will approve them.
Congress may not have the authority to mandate healthcare insurance but eventually the Supreme Court will have enough justices sitting on the bench that are sympathetic to the position that congress has this authority. Once that happens it doesn’t matter if healthcare mandates are constitutional because the Supreme Court will never rule against the mandates. The Supreme Court will adjudicate healthcare mandates into the constitution.
He knows that he doesn’t have to cite the constitutional authority of healthcare mandates because if he and President Obama have their way and seat the proper justices on the Supreme Court they will do it for him.
