Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Rascist opportunism and what's-in-it-for-me "victimhood" are fluorishing in these United States of America, and it looks like it's coming to a head in our erstwhile hallowed halls of Congress.
Shamelessly sponsored by Representatives John Conyer (D-MI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Melvin Watt (D-NC), HR 40, currently in committee, is intended "to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of those forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes."
Jaw-dropping, yet? Wait.
Entitled "Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act", this bill would create a commission to examine the "capture and procurement of Africans", "their transport to the United States and the colonies" and their "treatment as chattel property in interstate commerce."
The Commission which would be established by the bill would be tasked with "examining lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery" and would recommend "appropriate remedies" which might include--now, how did you guess?--"compensation".
Membership in this judicious and august commission would be restricted to those "persons especially qualified...by virtue (their word, not mine) of their...experience, particularly in the field of African-American studies".
I mean, I understand the morally superior liberal me-first entitlement mindset which continually gropes for government handouts, but these lame excuses for thoughtful leaders have absolutely no class and no sense of proportion or decency. They are, indeed, a plague on our house.
Beware Senegal, Ghana & other African nations. These odious hyphenated American victims might well attempt to extort reparations from you as well. Remember it was your forebears who captured and sold their own to those mean 'ole white Americans in 1619! That's 1-6-1-9, or 323 years before I and my fellow slave masters sprang forth.
If this hubris weren't so insidious and intellectually offensive, it would be side-splitting laughable.
No, Conyers, over my dead body will you get a pay-off! Enough is enough! You and your odious co-conspirators offend reason, propriety and common sense. You are each a hideous embarrassment to every proud American.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Going forward, there are two problems with S 160: 1) short of a constitutional amendment, congressionally granting the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House is, most likekly, inevitably doomed--or, at least, it should be; and 2) if the bill were to pass, Sen. DeMint's amendment might well be effectively nullified by Sen. Durbin's Amdt 591 (Sec 9 of the Act) which is also included in the bill.
Sen. DeMint's amendment "denies the FCC authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance commonly referred to as the Fairness Doctrine."
Sen. Durbin's amendment directs the FCC to "take action to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."
When I again contacted Sen. DeMint's office today, this time the spokesperson was clearly less optimistic that Sen. Durbin's amendment would not, in fact, effectively nullify Sen. DeMint's amendment. There was also doubt about Sen. DeMint's amendment surviving joint committee scrutiny.
So, anticipating that Sen. DeMint's amendment would be altogether dropped by the House, on March 10th Senators DeMint, Inhofe and Enzi joined in support of Sen. Thune's amendment (#662) to the Omnibus Appropriations bill (HR 1105) which mirrors Sen. DeMint's original amendment in S 160, the difference being that Sen. Thune's less ambitious amendment would have denied any FCC funding intended to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine during FY 2009.
Well, it may all be moot now anyway. On a vote of 47-50, Sen. Thune's amendment failed, and, minus Sen. Thune's amendment, HR 1105 was signed into law on March 11th.
While we can still hold out hope that Sen. DeMint's Amdt 573 will survive the legislative axe, I'm not at all that optimistic.
The heavy hand of an increasingly undisguised progressive tryanny does not portend well for public talk radio, or, for that matter, very much else Americans hold dear. On too many fronts, it appears that our republic is, indeed, in retreat.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Finally, some progress. On March 12th, freshman Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced a bill which would require all future presidential candidates to properly document their eligibility. If passed, which, given the liberal lock on Congress, is doubtful, the commonsense provisions of this bill would be effective 2012 and would not be retroactive.
In the face of some vicious personal attacks on his mental health and judgement, Rep. Posey observed that he "had been called some pretty nasty things," going on to say that "the more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives, the more I think I did the right thing." And so you did, Mr. Posey.
Noting how very surprised he was to find that to "run for President it's not required for presidential candidates to file [eligibility documentation] when submitting their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he pointed out that his poll showed that 75% of Americans support such a requirement. He went on to explain that partisanship did not shape his rationale for submitting this bill, but that the glaring absence of proper vetting provisions for presidential candidates did. And for that he should be applauded by all Americans, not condemned. The rule of law should trump blind partisanship.
With scant chance of passage in the Democrat-controlled Congress, HR 1503 would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by requiring that "the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president include...a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." A pretty straightforward, bi-partisan, rational requirement, I'd say. Certainly nothing to be feared by any candidate, right?
As we all know by now, Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate for Barack Obama on file, but cannot release it without his permission. To date, disclosure of his vaulted birth certificate has been strenuously blocked tooth-and-nail by his legal team. HR 1503 would mandate future candidates to divulge all pertinent evidence of their eligibility, inclusive of their birth certificate. With passage, courts would then have clear jurisdiction in such issues and would be able to order candidates to comply, something the courts are currently unable to do.
When I phoned Mr. Posey's DC office on March 24th to express my gratitude and support and to enquire as to the bill's progress, his spokesman noted that the bill was in committee, which "didn't mean much", but that he was "encouraged" by the large number of supportive phonecalls from around the country. Beyond that, the spokesman couldn't accurately predict the bill's fate.
Though many suits are going forward around the country demanding that Obama divulge evidence of his eligibility, without a law requiring him to do so, and absent his voluntary compliance, those suits stand precious little chance of success. But, they go forward in earnest nonetheless.
If HR 1503 should pass, a very remote possibility, and should Mr. Obama opt for re-election, he would finally need to show evidence of his eligibility to run for office in the 2012 prsidential election. The irony is bittersweet, to say the least. But, better late than never, I suppose. Until then, I just hope America can survive what now clearly appears to be a "presidential usurpation". And on that acutely unsettling score, I fear I no longer have any rational doubts. I sincerely wish I did.
("All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson)
Friday, March 20, 2009
With 9/11 a faded memory, and in classic liberal fashion, the clueless Obama Administration is now poring over the Defense budget to see what funding can be diverted to bread-and-circuses and other socialist make-over programs.
Obama's well-practiced, snappy, but entirely unconvincing salutes while boarding the Presidential chopper nothwithstanding, his asking our vets to foot the bill for treatment of their combat injuries is but the latest example of the Administration's visceral hostility and cavalier attitude toward our military. Fortunately, the public outcry over this callousness caused the Administration to back off. But, if complacency is allowed to hold sway more threats to our military's well-being and our security are in the offing.
True to historical form, the liberal elites are myopically planning to cut and weaken our military and anti-terrorist capabilities, all in a single-minded effort to transform our once dynamic entrepreneurial Republic into a fetid, languid Euro-style socialist state. What is so patently obvious to even the least clear-eyed among us is the alarming reality that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Triumverate's shamelessly buying votes and paying off political supporters on the grandest of scales, all to ensure their political power, has taken absolute priority over our nation's security.
In a scant 60 days in power, a microcosm of what's to come, the Democratic machine is already pushing a 10% across-the-board cut in Defense Department expenditures. (Surprise. Surprise.) And then, of course, there's the usual idealistic gibberish about drastically reducing our strategic nuclear capability and, via kumbaya diplomacy, to enlist the agreement of Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and those inevitable nuclear club aspirants to do the same. (Now, where have we heard that sophomoric blather before?) But, disturbingly, while this is going on there appears to be no appreciation on the Administration's part for the need to properly maintain and modernize our already aging nuclear arsenal.
Erroneously labeling the ABM system as "unproven" and "experimental"--this despite many breathtakingly successful tests--the Administration is seriously talking about suspending or altogether scrapping the anti-ballistic missile defense program, the only reasonably reliable asset capable of protecting the homeland and our allies from rogue missile strikes. (Brilliant! A return to MAD or unilateral disarmament, anyone?)
Symptomatic of some serious chinks in its defensive thinking, the Admin has banned coercive/enhanced interrogation of terrorist suspects, labeling such barbaric techniques as "torture". (No fair yelling or turning out the lights, guys.) And in the Team Obama's painful penchant for political correctness, they've now even abandoned use of the highly inflammatory term "war on terror". (I guess if you don't say it, it will go away. Are we sure a George Orwell protege isn't now in charge of Team Obama's national security-speak! Just wondering.)
To blindly placate their far left minions, the Admin has announced the closure of GITMO within a year with no rational alternative plan for properly detaining the remaining hardcore terrorists there. (How about the South Lawn or the Rose Garden, Mr. Prez! Better yet, why not mix them with American inmates where swift justice will surely be meted out.)
As if their withering, albeit stealth, assault on the 2nd Amendment isn't enough, it was reported last week that the Admin was quietly shutting down a program which qualifies pilots to carry firearms in cockpits. The Administration vociferously denied report, saying only that the $2 million funding for the program had been inadvertently diverted. Reportedly, funding for the program has been restored. (God, how I wish I could trust them.)
Over the objections of NATO, the Admin has offered to reneg on our pledge, that's p-l-e-d-g-e, to set up an ABM system in the Czech Republic and Poland, two of our staunchest allies, to guard against the growing threat of an Iranian missile strike on Europe. (Better we bargain away our allies' security than risk the irritation of our Russian "friends", huh? Gee, could it be that Neville Chamberlain's inspirational bust has now quietly replaced Churchill's in the Oval Office? Wouldn't be surprised.)
Team Obama is also voicing its firm objections to developing the new generation F-22 Raptor fighter to replace our aging fighters. (Incidentally, the F-22 is the only aircraft that will be able to penetrate Iranian air defenses on the very, very ever-so remote off-chance that the need for such a penetration arises. Ahum.)
And despite China's recent interception of an orbiting satellite, the Admin is opposed to "weaponizing space". (Could it be that the Admin is unaware that we are all very heavily reliant upon satellites for our communications and defense; that maintaining our offensive and defensive edge in space should never be negotiable? )
Team Obama is also planning to eviscerate the development of new combat technologies/systems. (Great! I'm certain that'll be reassuring to our bleeding troops in the field.)
What the liberal mindset never seems to grasp is that there is an inescapable correlation between effective diplomacy and our maintaining a dominant cutting-edge military capability. (Remember President Reagan's spending the USSR into oblivion?) For America to achieve success in any of its well-meaning, if not altogether misguided, diplomatic forays requires a comprehensive military capability second to none. Stubbornly ignoring the lessons of history in this regard serves only to increase our vulnerability and to render our diplomatic efforts null and void. (Surely, that's not their aim. Is it?)
But, not to worry. After the next attack, the surviving liberals will restore full funding for our anti-terrorist and other defense programs. (At least, I think that will be the case.) Oh, sure, some of us and our friends won't be around to see the pendulum briefly swing back to a 9/12 level of sanity, but, hey, ya' can't live forever. Get over it.
In any event, hold your dear ones close, folks. We are in for a wild ride over the next 3 years, 10 months. Our way of life and, yes, our very lives are on the block. And if Americans of all political persuasions don't remain vigilant and fully committed to pushing back to stop Team Obama's shortsightedness, incompetence and gross mismanagement of our resources and military strength, our Republic is all but doomed.
Friday, March 6, 2009
However, I couldn't let an irresponsible AP story regarding the issue which appeared in today's D&C go unchallenged. Given the seriousness of the matter, the article bordered on the trite and simple-minded. Sadly, 99% of the D&C readership will likely never know that they've been misguided.
Under the headline "Judge assails cases denying Obama's citizenship", AP reporter Nedra Pickler deftly managed to mischaracterize the issue and to mislead readers.
First, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson denied one suit (singular), that being Hollister vs Soetoro. Gotta' watch how they word those headlines. Harmless embellishment, I'm sure.
Second, the Judge's sarcasm nothwithstanding, the evidenciary merits of the claim itself were NOT reviewed, only the usual procedural questions regarding legal standing, harm done and appropriate remedies. Of course, a cursory reading of the AP article would lead one to quickly believe that the ineligibility evidence was reviewed and rendered "foolish" and/or "frivolous". Not so.
Third--and what might not be known to Ms. Pickler--it has only recently been learned that a Court cannot enforce Constitutional eligibility requirements as set forth in Art 2, Section 1 of the Constitution since, quite amazingly, there is nothing codified that allows the Court to render a judgement on the merits of POTUS ineligibility claims. Talk about a legal quandary, huh? So, in effect, what this case illustrates is that this Judge adopted the prevailing view that the electoral process itself properly vets candidates since, as said, there is simply no law which requires such vetting be done for a presidential candidate. Re-read that sentence. Let it sink in. Absent a legal mechanism requiring presidential candidates to substantiate their eligibility, their election alone determines their eligibility. Not a court. So, in that sense the Judge was correct in denying the case. Pretty stunning, huh?
Of course, had the numerous suits already filed not gone forward, this abyssmal legal loophole would never have fully come to light. Again, the Courts have no jurisdiction in these matters. Thus, the judicial stone walls experienced by all the cases to date is now better understood. Well, better we learn later than not at all.
Which raises another disturbing truth: absent Court jurisdiction in such matters, Barack Obama is not obligated to furnish documentation to substantiate his eligibility--even if ordered by a court to do so! If that isn't a sobering realization, nothing is. In fact, Obama's legal team has successfully argued that very position, i.e. the Court has no jurisdiction. Now, that IS scary!
Fourth, the AP article erroneously asserted that disclaimers regarding Obama's eligibility have been debunked by virtue of Obama's campaign having "posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its website." God help us all. Urban legends don't die easily, do they. So much for journalistic acumen and integrity. Had the writer researched this item--and the cynic in me tells me she most likely had but ignored her own research--she would have easily determined that only his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), not his Birth Certificate, was posted. ( I won't bore you again by explaining why the COLB is insufficient evidence of live birth in the USA. Interested readers may refer to my previous posts on the "natural born citizenship" tests.)
SO, I think we can all safely say that neither the courts nor the Supreme Court will likely deign to nullify or otherwise abrogate any presidential election outcome. No matter what. No sense tempting tumult by overruling the electorate. Thus, to have any hope of success at this stage it appears that the POTUS eligibility suits must emanate from the States to have any legal standing and that a) SCOTUS will eventually need to review the issue and b) Congress will need to fashion a law specifying procedures for candidates to substantiate their eligibility BEFORE an election actually occurs. Very likely none of this has any real hope of happening until well AFTER Obama's out of office, if even then.
So, it appears that pending proper remedies we none of us have any recourse but to allow what may be a Usurper-in-Chief to occupy the White House now and in the future. Again, it appears that the only evidenciary test of a person's eligibility appears to be his or her election alone. A rather alarming gap in the rule of law, I'd say. But, perhaps there is a constiutional remedy afterall.
Lesson now learned, and enter Quo Warranto.
One particular suit which you should keep your eye on is Kerchner vs Obama in Jew Jersey which alleges that Congress failed to properly determine Obama's POTUS qualifications. What makes this case of special interest is the incorporation of the principle of Quo Warranto, one of the oldest rights in common law and recognized by the Founding Fathers.
Very briefly, a writ of Quo Warranto, which circumvents the court system, seeks to prevent a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what may have already occurred. In effect, a QW action enjoins either the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to ascertain a public office holder's eligibility to hold that office after the fact. Short of impeachment, the Quo Warranto statute, which was authorized by Congress, now clearly appears to be the only Constitutional means of removing a possibly ineligible president from office.
It is my understanding that attorneys Donofrio and Apuzzi have already provided a legal brief regarding Quo Warranto to both Atty Gen. Holder and the D.C. District Attorney which, it is hoped, will compel one or the other to institute a Quo Warranto action which would lead to the removal of the current president should the evidence warrant such removal.
Of course, in the interest of the common good Mr. Obama could voluntarily provide evidence which would substantiate his eligibility once and for all; but, for reasons unknown to me, he and his legal team refuse to do so. Very disturbing, indeed.
Given these revelations, I have some catching up to do. Will carefully study developments and report back to you. Intensely compelling stuff. I hope it is of some interest to you as well.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Very briefly, it is my understanding that on the House side, Rep. Mike Pence's efforts to introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act both as an amendment to the Omnibus Bill and as a stand-alone bill (H.R. 226) were unsuccessful.
However, on the Senate side, the D.C. Voting Rights Act (S 160), inclusive of Sen. Jim DeMint's amendment which prohibits the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine in any shape or form, handily passed 87-11! (Note: the Senator's amendment appears as Section 10 of S 160. Sen. Durbin's obstructionist amendment which is also included in S 160 seeks to "encourage the FCC" to "promote diverse media ownership". And in the words of Sen. DeMint's spokesperson with whom I spoke on Tuesday, Durbin's amendment is "so watered down as to have no real effect". In other words, even if both amendments were to remain intact throughout the legislative process, Durbin's amendment would not nullify Sen. DeMint's amendment.)
Yesterday, Rep. Pence's spokesperson advised me that the D.C Voting Rights Act (S 160/H.R. 157) is currently in Senate-House conference and will likely reach the House floor for a vote in the coming weeks. He opined that in view the 87-11 vote in the Senate, prospects for passage of the Senate's version of the Act in the House "would seem to be favorable"; but, of course, he too was careful not to characterize it's passage as in any way a slam dunk. The disturbing truth is that at some point in the byzantine legislative process, Section 10 of the Act might well be stripped from the Act altogether. But, that remains to be seen.
So, while the fight isn't over yet, there is some reason for at least a modicum of hope. Will keep my eye on developments and report back.