Recess Appointments

The last paragraph of Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states:

"The President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

President Obama is clearly misusing and abusing this authority with his recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. None of these appointments were made to fill vacancies that happened during a Senate recess.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says of the president:

Before he enter on the Execution of the Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By his recent usurpation of congressional powers by ignoring the requirement of obtaining advise and consent of the Senate for these appointments is obviously in violation of the Constitution. These actions warrant serious response from the legislative branch. Making a few speeches denouncing this action is insufficient. The leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives need to make an unequivocal demand for President Obama to back down with the clear message that failure to obey the Constitution will result in initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Why is the Obama Administration Afraid of Saying "I Don't Know"

Sunday night we were informed about the killing of Osama bin Laden (OBL). At that time everything was positive as it appeared the military operation went very well. President Obama was being congratulated for making a decision that frankly many didn't think he was capable of making. Since the initial reports the administration has been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with the inept handling of release of information about the military operation.

I understand that the "fog of war" can result in misinformation or confusion about specifics. However, if you don't know for certain that you are giving a correct answer there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" or something similar to end a line of questioning with a non-answer rather than a wrong answer. It is ridiculous the number of details of this military operation that they released and then retracted or modified. With it being a military operation they also had the plausible option of just saying specific details were classified and will be reviewed for later release. Presidential spokesman Jay Carney has accomplished the seemingly impossible task of making his predecessor Robert Gibbs look competent.
A partial list of key details that have changed include:
OBL was pointing a weapon when killed to he was unarmed.
OBL used a woman as a human shield or he didn't.
OBL's wife was killed. Now, she was just shot in the leg.
U.S. military was engaged in a lengthy firefight. Now, only one guy in compound fired a weapon and he was quickly dispatched.
Picture of OBL corpse will be released in a few hours to we've decided not to release the pictures.

The whole burial at sea nonsense and refusing to release the pictures undermines the primary reason to send in a live team rather than just bomb the place from the safety of a plane or ship. Why did we put sailors lives at risk to go in and get him? I assume it was because we wanted certainty that we got the guy. I don't doubt for a minute that we did actually kill the right guy. I believe they performed DNA tests and results showed they got OBL. Problem is, not everyone is as trusting as I am. This post-mission ineptitude plays into the hands of both the conspiracy nuts and those in the Muslim world who want to lead people to believe he may still be alive.

The lesson to learn from this is in the future it would be better to only release the key information: Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces. The other information, much of which was incorrect, did not need to be released immediately or at all in some cases. You can't go wrong with the truth and you can't lie if you don't say anything.

Tax The Rich!

The mantra of "Tax the Rich" is being shouted frequently now by liberals wanting to deflect attention from our debt & deficit problems caused by decades of over spending. Our president won't come out and say it in those words. Instead being too cute by half, President Obama will say something like "I don't need another tax cut, Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut." Well, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a great column addressing the very notion of taxing the rich and in it he responded to Obama's misleading comments.

But Warren Buffett, unlike the building contractor or family dentist, is the world's third-richest man, worth nearly $50 billion. And Obama is probably the most privileged person on the planet, with all of his expenses covered -- from a nice free mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to a huge private jet.

The rich and the poor are not separated across an impenetrable barrier. The president's $250,000 line in the sand is actually quite fluid. Most of those who make incomes above it did not do so 10 years ago -- and they won't, on average, 10 years hence. The income of well-off professionals and small-business people fluctuates widely as they ascend, peak and descend in earnings -- given factors like health, age, and uncertainty in employment and business. It would be more accurate to say that raising taxes on the better-off is a sort of punishment for those who break into the top brackets for a few short years and try to be careful to save what they make and not spend what they don't.

That is the thing. When demagogues like Obama dishonestly rail against the "rich" and talk about fairness in taxation they are merely attempting to fool the uninformed people who get their political information from 30 second soundbites from useful idiots like Katie Couric or Bob Schieffer. If Obama was concerned about taxing the rich or in ensuring fairness in the tax system he would actually propose simplifying the system that Obama's friends like Buffett and GE's Jeff Immelt manipulate to minimize their tax obligations.

I'd cut and paste more of Hanson's column (it is all worth stealing), but I'd rather refer people to read the entire piece. Read it. Bookmark it. Print it out. And next time someone who is half smart but mostly uninformed says we can solve our fiscal problems by "taxing the rich" ask them to slowly read this article.

Bottom line to the whole situation is you could tax the rich at 100% and it wouldn't solve our fiscal problem. We as a nation owe more than FOURTEEN TRILLION dollars and it is increasing every day! A trillion is a thousand billions! A billion is a thousand millions! A trillion is a million millions. We are all going to have to pay more taxes at some point. However, until we convince the stink'n politicians to stop spending (which is just bribing us for votes with spending funded by borrowing against our future) it makes no sense to give them any more ammunition.

Palin on the Rising Cost of Gasoline

Today, Sarah Palin had a Facebook post regarding the rising cost of gasoline and how President Obama's actions/decisions are contributing to the rise. Ever the optimist, Palin referred to Obama as "The $4 a gallon president." I say optimist because based on his stance on domestic drilling and past comments about preferring more expensive fuel to encourage greater reliance on mass transit, Obama is aiming for a price much higher than $4. Here is the opening paragraph, click the link above for the rest.

The $4-Per-Gallon President by Sarah Palin

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Is it 2012 yet?

I Guess Obama is Saying We Should Just Throw Away the Recruiting Manual

The guy who should not have been elected president in 2008 tweeted the following today:

Anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf should be able to. DADT will end & it will end on my watch.

About 20 years ago, I was on recruiting duty. Contrary to popular opinion, recruiting is not just about doing whatever you can to get anybody to enlist. A recruiters primary function is to screen out unqualified applicants and focus on those who will pass the entrance exams and be able to serve. To help recruiters do their jobs the Navy issues recruiters a great big book called the Recruiting Manual. I assume the other services do likewise. We also have give the doctors who perform the entrance physicals a book called the Manual of the Medical Department. Both books are full of disqualifiers. Depending on the economy, recruiting goals and other factors our qualifications change. Oddly enough when we have a draft the Navy can be a little more choosy. When the economy is doing great we are not quite as picky. The changing standards usually involve scores on the entrance exam. Some standards don't change. Regardless of whether we are talking standards of moral turpitude (police involvement, etc) or physical standards (asthma, cancer, HIV, etc, etc, etc) we can not and must not do what the president said: "Anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf should be able to." No, Barack, a lot of people are just not qualified to serve in the military. While on recruiting we said "Thanks, but no thanks" to people for hundreds of reasons. In fact, Mr. President, if you had entered my office and applied we would have said no thanks. That is, if you would have been honest about your drug usage (not that honesty is your strong suit). Experimental pot smoking is waiverable. Regular cocaine usage is not.

Apparently, our commander in chief has just voided all enlistment requirements. Glad I'm not on recruiting now a days.

CNN, NBC and ABC All Dump Top Boss

Oddly coincidental announcements today signal that Jeff Zucker is out at NBC, Jon Klein is out at CNN and this follows news a few weeks ago that David Westin is "resigning" as president of ABC News. Apparently, they were all pushed out for failing to maintain President Obama's popularity above 40%.

Actually, the stations did not cite failure to make the presidents policies palatable as a reason for the executive being shown the door. However, they did not deny it either. Using media standards, failure to deny is same as confirmation.

Andy McCarthy - A Voice of Reason in the Shirley Sherrod Situation

As anyone reading this blog is likely aware, in response to the NAACP falsely accusing the Tea Party movement of being racist, Andrew Breitbart published a tape a few days ago showing some Agriculture Department official speaking to the Georgia NAACP. The taped portion of her speech included an admission of past racist actions on her part which was applauded by the NAACP audience. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack quickly moved to ask for her resignation. Then the tap[e of her entire speech turned up and it slightly mitigated her racism as she further explained how she transitioned from pure racism to a modified form of Marist classism/racism. Obviously, she did not explain the transition using the same labels I just used. So, all of a sudden the Obama administration and Secretary Vilsak are now falling all over themselves trying to apologize to Sherrod for jumping to conclusions. Coincidentally, this is the one year anniversary of President Obama jumping to conclusions and declaring the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in arresting his racist Harvard buddy who was acting nutty. Anyways, Andy McCarthy of National Review has a different view on this than all the folks (on both the left and right) who are now praising this woman.

So, in Sherrod World, mean-spririted, racist Republicans do nasty things that "we" would never do because we have a president who, being black, is above that stuff. Still, we have-nots need to band together for "change" because a cabal of haves, desperate to keep their power, is still imposing their centuries old capitalist system of institutionalized racism — the same racism that courses through the Republican Party and surfaces on "us versus them" issues like healthcare.

Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

Read the rest.

Post script to this mess is the administration is compounding their mistake of rushing to fire this woman by rushing to rehire the woman. The lesson they continue to fail to learn is to get facts before reaching judgments or taking action.

General McChrystal Needs to be Canned

General McChrystal is currently serving as Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan. The issue of Rolling Stones magazine coming out this week contains a profile of the General including quotes from his staff. In the article Gen. McChrystal is critical of both his civilian counterpart in Afghanistan, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and the president. In discussing the president, Gen. McChrystal described being disappointed in President Obama in their first meeting despite having voted for him.

Obviously, voting for Obama reflects poorly on McChrystal's judgment. Worse than that is a senior military officer even disclosing who he voted for in any election. An officer remains a citizen with a right and duty to vote. However, an active duty officer should not engage in active politics for several reasons. Our national has been well served by having separate and distinct civilian leadership over the military. A military clearly subordinate to elected officials protects us from the coups seen in other young nations and should make us less likely to enter into military action unnecessarily. Additionally, it can be argued that revealing which party or candidate a senior officer supports could overly influence his troops.

Beyond all that, this situation also reflects poorly on Gen. McChrystal's job performance. How's that you ask? He is leading troops in a war zone and now he is being called to DC to answer to his boss about some stupid magazine article. Rather than leading his men he has become a distraction. He and his staff are now more engaged in saving their own bacon then the war effort. This was an unforced error and his troops deserve better.

I'm not a fan of President Obama, but this issue is bigger than the man currently holding the office. He needs to fire Gen. McChrystal to maintain our concept of civilian leadership over the military. We can always get another general. It is much harder to reinstate a chain of command structure after allowing it to break down. This was true when Truman was forced to relieve MacArthur and it is still true today.

What's the President Been Doing While the Oils Been Leaking?

I don't begrudge a man some rest and relaxation, but wow he plays a lot of golf for a guy who supposedly has a full time job.

(Shamelessly stolen from Grouchy Old Cripple)

Congressman Sestak, Were You Lying Before OR Are You Lying Now?

During the run up to his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) stated that the Obama administration offered him a job in the administration if he would give up his run against Specter. This became an issue when people realized it is a felony to offer compensation to induce someone to quit a race. Since people realized his original claim amounted to an accusation of a crime, both Sestak and Obama spokeman Robert Gibbs have been evasive at best when asked about the situation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has been pushing the issue hard for the last month or so. Yesterday, President Obama held his first actual press conference in close to a year and he was asked about Sestak's claim. Obama did his best Nixonian self-finding of no personal wrongdoing and said a full report will be forthcoming shortly. Today, a report was issued which mostly refuted Sestak's claim that they attempted to bribe him to get him out of the race. Basically the report (here's a link) says former president Bill Clinton talked with Sestak and recommended he drop out of the race for the good of the party and told him that if he wanted to stay in government service he could be appointed to some executive branch advisory board position. The memo makes a point to clarify that the advisory board positions are uncompensated (no pay). Now Sestak is saying "Yeah, sure that's about right."

Nope. Doesn't pass the smell test. This guy is a congressman trying to get a job as a senator. In other words he makes $174,000 and looking to keep making that kind of money. You don't convince him to drop out of a race with an offer of an unpaid board position. My guess is he was offered something more substantial (ambassadorship or a cabinet position) and this memo specifically modified that to an unpaid position to sanitize the crime.

Bottom line, I don't think the initial act was all that out of the ordinary in DC. The underlying crime is now less important than the cover up. Integrity should matter to voters and both the administration and Sestak have shown they are lacking in that department. Will Pennsylvanians care?

Reporters should continue to attempt to get Sestak to answer whether he was lying months ago or if he is lying today. My guess is reporters will buy the administration's spin on this and quietly move on to other matters.

Vote 'em All Out

This morning the president of Mexico Felipe Calderon addressed the various reprobates in Congress and attacked our immigration policies in general and the new Arizona law in particular and around half of congress stood an applauded. I know my congressman wasn't one of those applauding the insulting speech. Find out if your congresscritter applauded and if he/she did then vote 'em out of office.

An analogy would be if the head of a bunch of criminals visited your house and lectured you about your plan to put locks on your front door.

Sadly, but predictably, our blame America first president agrees with the Mexican president. Most likely neither one of them has read the Arizona law.

Dishonest Headline/Article of the Day

It is one thing to slightly slant news coverage or to give the benefit of doubt. It is another thing altogether to completely lie as James Oliphant and Christi Parson did in an article titled:

Kagan's abortion stance has both sides guessing

What?!?

We have someone appointed by the most pro-abortion president (You know, the creep who wouldn't want his daughters punished with a baby. In other words, he would prefer his grandchildren be murdered than be inconvenient.). Do you need to guess whether he would appoint a supreme court justice that has any qualms about infanticide?

I will hope and pray she comes around to see abortion for the evil it is, but I'm not silly enough to think I need to guess what her views are as of the day President Obama nominated her. I guarantee you Obama isn't guessing about this question.

Latest Edition of the "What if Bush Had . . . " Series

A major complaint of conservatives and Republicans is how the hypocritical mainstream media handles alleged controversies differently based on which party is involved. An easy way to view this is to see the reaction to something done by the current Democrat led administration and imagine how the media would react if similar decisions were made by the previous Republican administration. Here is the latest example:

Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, both senior advisers to the president, have been given the luxurious and prestigious perk of being picked up at their homes and driven to work or around town throughout the day in government vehicles chauffeured by military drivers, according to a list of those given the benefit provided to The Daily Caller by the White House.

The closest equivalent in the Bush administration to Axelrod would be Karl Rove. Any guesses how loud the whining and screaming would have gotten if Rove was given a military driver to chauffeur him around?

To the main question of drivers, I can understand the president always being driven. Anyone else can drive themselves anywhere they need to go. I could be sold on the need for a driver for the Secretary of State and Defense. Beyond that, they can all whistle for a cab.

Kagan Nominated for Supreme Court

This morning President Obama nominated his Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. If you're unfamiliar with Kagan you can think of her as a less experienced Harriet Miers that kind of resembles Mike Myers. Separated at birth? You decide.








In all seriousness, I fully expect she'll be confirmed. The president gets to appoint justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. Barring a major revelation about Kagan she should be confirmed. Elections have consequences and this is one of the lasting consequences. The people who foolishly voted for Obama in 2008 also were voting for a left wing supreme court whether they understood that or not. Senate Republicans should vigorously question Kagan during confirmation hearings, but should not attempt to filibuster the nomination. The best they can do is get her on the record on her positions on contentious issues including her anti-military history at Harvard. The senate should not address the rampant rumors about her personal life at all. I don't care about her sex life (eewww!). I do care whether she has read and will follow the United States Constitution. Considering who picked her for the job I don't have high hopes in that regard.

Stupak Caves - No Word Yet on Delivery of Thirty Pieces of Silver

This afternoon Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) proved that a "pro-life" Democrat is only pro-life enough to get a vote during an election but not pro-life enough to cast a vote once elected. He actually switched his vote to yes on the horrendous socialized health care plan after getting a promise from President Obama. Keep in mind this is the same president who is so pro-abortion he stated he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby." Also keep in mind this is the president who is so trustworthy he promised health care talks would be transparent and public.

In the end we have a "pro-life" politician voting for a health care plan that will fund abortion with funds confiscated from tax payers based on a promise from a dishonest Chicago politician.

UPDATE: Rep. Stupak does have a challenger in November, Dan Benishek. I imagine his campaign will get a lot of $30 donations after today.

UPDATE #2: How does one weigh the value of their principles against serious pork rewards for their district? I guess it comes down to how many votes one believes they might get for obtaining the pork from DC (oh yeah, and placing little or no value on your principles).

New York Times Columnist Questions McCain's Patriotism

A columnist for the increasingly irrelevant New York Times, Frank Rich has a column this weekend where he questions Senator John McCain's patriotism. I've had my disagreement with McCain's positions on issues and his pandering to the media, but there is no doubt of his love of this country.

John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Is failing to smile when President Obama criticizes your political party the new definition of patriotism? Does Rich even remember the Bush years when anytime the administration or their supporters complained about the actions/statements of the opposition they were accused of the unpardonable sin of "questioning their patriotism?" No, instead we heard endlessly that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." In fact, Byron York or the Washington Examiner found some rather telling quotes from past columns by Frank Rich where he looked at political dissent quite differently solely because of which party was being criticized.

If the New York Times had any decency left they would can this partisan hack tomorrow. However, they have no journalistic standards and since Rich toes the NYT party line he won't even be called onto his bosses carpet.

Obama Give Us Another Choice

I thought our only two choices with President Obama was one lousy term or two lousy terms of office. He is now saying there are other options.

President Barack Obama said that he "would rather be a really good one-term president" than have two mediocre terms.

Sounds like he is being delusionally optimistic to think he has a chance to be considered mediocre. I guess it is progress. A month or so ago, he actually told Oprah with a straight face that he thought he deserved a B+ for his first year in office.

Ignorant or Dishonest - You Decide

Watch that youtube recording and then decide for yourself if the U.S. Senator from Rhodes Island is incredibly ignorant of the last decade or just another lying Democrat. For the record a Google Image Search for "Bush Hitler" returns 17,700 results, "Bushitler" returns 9,820 results, and Bush Hitler without the quotation marks gets two million results. Here is one example of the liberal lunacy of the recent past that suddenly none of them seem to remember as they cry about criticism of President Obama:



Just for clarification it is stupid for anyone to compare a president of the United States to Adolph Hitler regardless what political issue you may be protesting. In fact there is an internet term called Godwin's law which has come to mean any reference to Hitler in an argument basically ends the discussion. I would recommend people only bring up Hitler when discussing Hitler, WW II history, etc.

(h/t Park Bench)

Impeachable Conduct? You Decide

Impeachment proceedings should not be undertaken lightly. Whenever we down the path of presidential misconduct it is the cover up which really undermines an administration more than the initial misbehavior. That is true again in a matter involving President Obama and his crooked friend Kevin Johnson. Here are the basic alleged facts:
* Former NBA player and current Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson was investigated by the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin after people reported misuse of funds by Johnson when he was head of a private school funded by Americorps.
* Johnson is a friend and ally of Obama.
* Obama fired Walpin in June amid allegations of senility.
* Walpin filed suit in federal court in Washington in July alleging that he was fired improperly while investigating whether Johnson had misused federal grant funds.
* U.S. attorney ruled in favor of Walpin that he was removed improperly.
* Johnson's fiance, Michelle Rhee, who is now DC schools chief, handled the "damage control" after the sexual misconduct charges arose against Johnson.
* Walpin has not been reinstated.

This scandal and the administration cover up have received scant reporting in the lamestream media. Does anyone doubt it would lead the evening news every night if a Republican president fired an inspector general who was investigating his buddy?

Does impeding an investigation of misuse (fancy word for theft) of government funds rise to the level of impeachable behavior? When you get down to it Nixon was hounded out of office for impeding an investigation into misbehavior by his underlings. Funny thing is based on his naive foreign policy mentality, we have considered Obama to be serving Jimmy Carter's second term and it turns out he is looking more and more like Nixon without the competence (or press scrutiny).

President Bows Again

The President of the United States is not supposed to bow to foreign potentates. Earlier this year the supporters of our ill prepared naive president defended him when he bowed to the Saudi king and claimed he wasn't really bowing. Well, yesterday he bowed again this time to Japanese Emperor Akihito.



We need a president who understands that the United States does not bow to other countries. When the president bows it is as if our nation is bowing. There is a reason our Navy has a standing order that we do not dip our flag first when passing the ship of another nation. We will dip the flag in response, but never initiate to a foreign flagged ship and we don't even return the dip if from a nation we don't formally recognize.

These acts are just further evidence that Obama's lack of understanding of United States history and culture play a key role in his failures to properly represent our interests.