2012 elections

Oath? What oath?

A great guest viewpoint by Henry Kramer in this morning's Ithaca Journal (not yet linked on the website—UPDATE: It's linked now.):

U.S. presidents take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which provides in Article II, Section 3, that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The provision does not say “the president is ex­cused from executing laws with which the president disagrees,” or “the president may aid and abet violators of the laws,” or the presi­dent may bypass Congress and issue executive orders when Congress will not pass legislation the president desires.” When a president ignores that oath, he un­dermines the legitimacy of his power.
The current president did all three of those things. He refused to fully enforce immigration law. He encour­aged defense employers to ignore the provisions of federal law (WARN) protect­ing workers that require 60 days’ notice of mass layoffs and plant closures. He then further encouraged lawless behavior by announcing that our tax dollars will pay for violators’ defenses and fines they may incur by not giv­ing notices. He enacted by presidential directive legis­lation (Dream Act) he could not get through Congress and, by setting age param­eters for this program, he engaged in age-based dis­crimination.
The Constitution of the United States, one of the oldest in the world still func­tioning, is the “glue” that holds us together. Provided our duly elected leaders follow constitutional rules, they have the consent of the governed, even their oppo­nents. The Constitution has kept us together even in the closest presidential races, including Hayes-Tilden and Bush-Gore. Its one outright repudiation resulted in our fratricidal Civil War.
The wisdom of our foun­ders was to divide power and to provide checks and balances in order to limit government, not to empow­er it. Congress can seem ineffective, but it is still the main check we have on a runaway presidency. We may excuse Abraham Lin­coln for violating the Consti­tution to keep the nation intact, but we must condemn the view of presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama to whom the Constitution is merely an outdated charter of negative liberties.
When the Constitution is involved, the president’s policies aren’t the issue; it is the violation of the Constitu­tion that matters. Whether or not you favor the presi­dent’s objectives is irrele­vant. The precedents being set create a constitutionally dangerous, imperial presi­dency, one in which the chief executive is a dictator, unilaterally enacting laws by executive order rather than enforcing existing laws. The authors of those precedents today may well regret them tomorrow when the political winds shift and the power is held by those with a different vision.
The loss of liberty is not always a single discrete outrageous act. It is time for a new president who honors our Constitution.

Wendy Long for US Senate!

At The Good Fight, the blog of the Conservative Party of NYS:

...what a great Senator we can have if you spend some time each day -- for the next 18 days -- telling your neighbors, family and friends, that Wendy Long will be our voice in Washington, DC.

Read what the pundits are saying about the debate herehere, here,  here,hereherehere and here.
As noted in some of the articles, Wendy Long was in the bastion of liberalism last evening and did an outstanding job because, as one commentator said after the debate, she is not only knowledgeable, she is also comfortable in her own skin.  The first politician I remember that being said about was Ronald Reagan, and Wendy Long is the only person, since I have been in this business, that comes the closest to walking in his shoes.   You have less than two weeks to give us a strong voice in Washington, D.C., you will never be disappointed with Wendy Long as our US Senator.

What could possibly go wrong?

Voter fraud? Nah, never happen....

At the NYDN:

Losing your home doesn't mean losing your right to vote.
Up until Friday's deadline, NYC Votes! and the city Department of Homeless Services will provide voter registration help at 230 facilities across Gotham.
The latest census data available from Homeless Services, gathered last Thursday, showed just over 46,000 people in shelters, including 26,492 adults and 19,579 kids....
...Misconceptions about voting while homeless abound both among the general public and within the homeless population, Diamond said. When residents do find out they're eligible to cast a ballot, they're often surprised -- and pleased.
"People in shelter want to go to work and be part of our democracy," he said. "They're very happy [for] this [to] be another one of the things they can take part in." While no dollar figure for the registration drive was available, Diamond called it "a modest investment -- but I think it'll have a huge payoff."...
I'll bet.

Voter Registration Brochure 2012


“The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”
— The Constitution,
Article II, Section 2
When on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama swore to defend the Constitution, he did not mean all of it. He evidently believes that the provision quoted above merely expresses the Framers’ now anachronistic anxieties about abuses of executive power. (Jefferson’s lengthy catalogue of George III’s abuses is called the Declaration of Independence.) So on Jan. 4, 2012, Obama simply ignored the Recess Clause.
He was in his “We can’t wait!” — for Congress and legality — mode, as he was when he unilaterally rewrote laws pertaining to welfare, immigration and education. On Jan. 4, he used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess” means. Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says.
In 2011, the Noel Canning company, which bottles soft drinks in Yakima, Wash., was negotiating a labor contract with Teamsters Local 760. The union says it and the company reached a verbal agreement. The company disagrees. An administrative law judge sided with the union. On Feb. 8, after Obama’s disputed appointments, the NLRB upheld that decision and asked a federal court to enforce it. Noel Canning is asking the court to declare that the NLRB’s intervention in the dispute was unlawful because the board lacked a quorum until Obama made the recess appointments, which were invalid because the Senate was not in recess.
In support of the company, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and 41 members of his caucus have filed a brief arguing that the recess appointments “eviscerated” two of the Senate’s constitutional powers — to “determine the rules of its proceedings” and to reject presidential appointments...
Read the rest of George Will's column.  If the current regime is returned to office on November 6th, things will only get worse.

Class warfare

"Class" as in "Joe don't know jack about class," although a certain congressman from Wisconsin does know the meaning of the word.

Boors of a feather sure flock together, but maybe these two were separated at birth?



Victor Davis Hanson at NRO seems to think so:

Another Boor Like Gore

Biden needed to do something to elevate an otherwise peripheral vice-presidential debate into a force to stop the insidiously growing Romney momentum. He did not. To raise the old canard about reactions to debates on radio vs. television, if there were no visuals, then Biden by sheer audacity and aggressiveness might have won a tie against the methodical Ryan. But unfortunately there were visuals — and, far worse even than Al Gore’s poor 2000 performance — Biden’s interruptions, smirking, guffaws, and headshaking reflected poorly on a vice president and will turn off precisely those undecided voters he hoped to woo. “Buffoonish” has often been used of him and it certainly was an apt adjective of Biden in the debate. And as far as quotable whoppers, Biden’s assertions about no pre-9/11/2012 warning about lax security communicated from our Libyan people were simply flat-out untrue; while the blame-gaming the intelligence community only feeds into the larger narrative of tiresome Obama scapegoating — and won’t be forgotten by those so scapegoated. So the talking heads’ conclusions of a draw on substance, and a Ryan win on style and decorum, seem about right — which at this particular point in the campaign means yet another lost opportunity for the Obama effort.

I think VDH is a little off here and maybe showing his Dem colors—a "draw" on substance?  Really? With all those baldfaced lies that Biden told?

Like this lie that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wasted no time calling Biden on in their response "...To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate." Biden said:

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.

The bishops' response (emphasis mine):

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served...

 A polite way of saying, "You need to go to confession, Joe."

In any case, God has the last tweet in this matter:

When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet.— Proverbs 29:9

Pix of the fool raging and laughing (at Weasel Zippers):

Yep, keep it classy, Joe.

h/t John

Anticipating a gaffe-tastic evening

It's only the morning but the cartoonists are already jumping on this opportunity for some new fodder for the Biden Gaffe-O-Matic.


No enumerating those poultry just yet

Nevertheless, this feels good.

You've probably seen this:

After last night, there's this:

The rich get richer...

...and according to the President, "America doesn't succeed when the rich get richer..."

There's a little problem with that reasoning—it's called "math."

Yes, we all know that many Americans are functionally illiterate:

But many, including the President, are also functionally innumerate:

Indeed, a friend went to that well-known list of the rich getting richer, the Forbes 400, and just for fun, added up the wealth of the top 100—I know, we're getting into the realm of higher mathematics here, three-and four-column addition—and it came to just over a trillion dollars. Fabulous wealth, no? Shouldn't we just confiscate it and solve all of our fiscal woes?

Well, as we've blogged about here 18 months (and a couple of trillion dollars in debt) ago, all that wealth is a drop in the bucket relative to what we are spending—and borrowing—on a daily basis. 

In addition to innumeracy, maybe people can't suspend their disbelief—people simply can't believe that we're that far gone financially, that even instantly, magically confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest among us and immediately applying it to our budgetary problems wouldn't fix things.

In fact, it would probably make things worse...the same mathematically-inclined friend points out that if you impoverish the rich at the federal level

  1. there goes the tax base for other taxing authorities such as the 57 states, and
  2. what do you do in year two? You can only go to that particular well once, after all.

And, seeing what happened to their rich compatriots, any other productive or potentially productive Americans would likely "go Galt." John Smith found that out in Jamestown in 1607—when it comes to human nature, there's nothing new under the sun.

But our idiot savant President thinks that none of that is an issue. Debt? What debt? So what if we have a little debt...after all, we just owe that to ourselves, right?


What we're doing is saddling our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, grand-nieces, grand-nephews with debt that will keep them working for the government rather than for themselves for their entire lives...all to repay the excesses of the current and past generations, excesses that didn't arise out of compassion, but out of political expediency.

And even worse, if that's possible, is the money that we owe to creditors outside our own borders....like the Chinese Communists.

Yes, the Chinese Communists.  Sounds old-fashioned, doesn't it?  Didn't the Chinese see the error of their ways and morph into capitalists?

Not really.  They're big-C Communists who are not nice people (don't click on the link unless you have a strong stomach...what's been seen can't be unseen).

The Chinese would make a mafioso Vito-the-Legbreaker collector look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

This is where we're headed, folks:


h/t Tom.

Death & taxes

The only sure things, according to Benjamin Franklin.

Not much to look forward to.  At AMAC:

BOHEMIA, NY, Sep 14 – “There may not be a ‘death panel’ lurking in the Affordable Care Act but there is an Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB] that has some folks – including many physicians – scared it will ultimately find a way to ration care for the elderly,” according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.
“You can hide a lot of mischief in a 2400 page law.  Perhaps, that’s why they didn’t want you to know in advance what was in the legislation that the President calls ObamaCare.  And, the IPAB is, in fact, one of those hidden threats all set to rear up and bite us come 2015 when the Board is expected to begin functioning.”
The stated purpose of the IPAB is to control costs and that’s a good thing, said Weber.  However, he added, when you dig down into the descriptions of the Board’s functions and powers a lot of questions are raised.
“For one thing, it creates the very real possibility that the Board will reduce payments to doctors as a means of controlling costs.  In turn, it raises the specter of physicians choosing to not treat Medicare patients at all or, if they do, they might elect to limit the amount of care they will provide”...
And as always, the media is carrying water for the administration, the kind of water that gets you acclimated to your own imminent demise:
You're being trained to think that the road the administration is going down is the only path to take and is the only solution to existing problems.  For example, in USA Today:
The number of total knee replacement surgeries has soared 161.5% among Medicare participants over the past 20 years, a $5 billion annual tab that will continue to grow as the USA's 77 million Baby Boomers age, according to a large study out today...
...The challenges, [lead author Peter Cram] adds, are how to address post-surgery problems that can develop from shorter hospital stays and in patients with other conditions such as diabetes and obesity, and how to ensure doctors are not overusing a "highly reimbursed procedure"...
...the authors say the yearly demand for total knee replacements could be as high as 3.48 million procedures by 2030 and can potentially "decrease the allocation of health care resources used by patients."
Yet the surgeries also "will be a driver of health care costs,'' and steps need to be taken to address "predisposing modifiable factors such as obesity and to advance efforts at early intervention strategies to treat mild arthritis and to prevent progression'' requiring surgery...
The solution to existing problems is to vote out of office the people whose policies are completely driven by leftist ideology and who are thus unable to think outside that box.
Grandma says it best:
h/t Tom

UPDATE: At the Lonely Conservative..."Former Obama Adviser Steven Rattner Called for Death Panels in NYT Op-Ed"


Subscribe to 2012 elections