Tuesday, February 16, 2010
No More EO's, Aiight?
"I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
We're not going to use [Executive Orders] as a way of doing an 'end run' around Congress. Aiight?"
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Fourth Branch of Government
President Obama, much aided by a media blackout on the subject, has signed an Executive Order, the documentation of which conspicuously bears no identifying number, which creates an entity known as "the Council".
The Council is made up of ten governors, appointed by the President, which shall meet with the intention to "... exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard;" etc, etc,.
The ten Council members are to serve terms of two years, and may be reappointed to additional terms. No more than five of the members may be of the same political party, and the two co-chairs of the Council must be of different parties as well. No one is compensated for this service in the Council, except for travel expenses.
Now, what exactly do they discuss at these Council sessions?
"(A) Matters involving the National Guard of the various states; (B) homeland defense; (C) civil support; (D) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (E) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
The Council is also expected to write up a "charter" for this organization, officially declaring its creation and purpose.
This is basically the most unconstitutional piece of work since the PATRIOT Act, as it flauntingly violates Posse Commitatus, and possibly Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution (if the proceedings of the meetings are not immediately disclosed to the several states); it also violates the inviolable separation of powers between federal and state authority.
As the exclusive members of this entity are the executive officers of individually sovereign states, meeting to discuss matters of federal and national importance places "the Council" in a position of wielding unprecedented powers and authority which are unmatched, unrivaled, and basically unchecked by the three, mutual branches of government, thus creating, unofficially, the fourth branch of U.S. government.
The Council is made up of ten governors, appointed by the President, which shall meet with the intention to "... exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard;" etc, etc,.
The ten Council members are to serve terms of two years, and may be reappointed to additional terms. No more than five of the members may be of the same political party, and the two co-chairs of the Council must be of different parties as well. No one is compensated for this service in the Council, except for travel expenses.
Now, what exactly do they discuss at these Council sessions?
"(A) Matters involving the National Guard of the various states; (B) homeland defense; (C) civil support; (D) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (E) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
The Council is also expected to write up a "charter" for this organization, officially declaring its creation and purpose.
This is basically the most unconstitutional piece of work since the PATRIOT Act, as it flauntingly violates Posse Commitatus, and possibly Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution (if the proceedings of the meetings are not immediately disclosed to the several states); it also violates the inviolable separation of powers between federal and state authority.
As the exclusive members of this entity are the executive officers of individually sovereign states, meeting to discuss matters of federal and national importance places "the Council" in a position of wielding unprecedented powers and authority which are unmatched, unrivaled, and basically unchecked by the three, mutual branches of government, thus creating, unofficially, the fourth branch of U.S. government.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Charles Payne is a Racist
Skip to 4:45 for the relevant clip
"Conservative" Charles Payne admittedly voted for Obama, because he said he had "... a sense of obligation to Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, people - my family who came up through Alabama."
But, now he's "really disappointed".
Also, note how quickly he says, "I was torn! I voted for him, then I voted all Republican." Oh, Republican, that makes it all better.
Hating to borrow a phrase from Janeane Garofalo, but, "That's racism, straight up."
I want an apology from Charles Payne, and from everyone else who voted for Obama, but especially from those who voted for him just because his father was from Africa.
Shame on you, hypocrites.
"Conservative" Charles Payne admittedly voted for Obama, because he said he had "... a sense of obligation to Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, people - my family who came up through Alabama."
But, now he's "really disappointed".
Also, note how quickly he says, "I was torn! I voted for him, then I voted all Republican." Oh, Republican, that makes it all better.
Hating to borrow a phrase from Janeane Garofalo, but, "That's racism, straight up."
I want an apology from Charles Payne, and from everyone else who voted for Obama, but especially from those who voted for him just because his father was from Africa.
Shame on you, hypocrites.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Oh, Where is the Courage?
"I ask them, where is the, where is the, where is the courage? Where has the senners (sic) got courage on that side of the aisle, to stand up and work together, on bipartisan basis, to get healthcare reform passed? Where?" ~Senator Max Baucus
I don't know, Senator, but I know you keep your courage close to your heart... in a flask.
Happy New Year, America and friends. Tell me, what more are we going to put up with this year?
Sunday, December 27, 2009
On Underwear Bombs and Airport Security: Cui Bono?
No mention of this little dandy in the media (emphasis added to quotations):
"A passenger who boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam with attempted plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab says the would-be terrorist had no passport and was aided by a sharp-dressed man who claimed Mutallab was a Sudanese refugee, just one of a plethora of startling inconsistencies surrounding an incident that has led to ramped up security and increased levels of harassment in airports." ~Infowars.com
Yes, I'm ready to call this one an inside job. By whom? I don't know, you take a wild guess.
"I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results. The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place- for all domestic and international flights- to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public. We are also working closely with federal, state and local law enforcement on additional security measures, as well as our international partners on enhanced security at airports and on flights." ~Janet Napolitano
Since Richard "the Shoe-Bomber" Reid brought us "sockfeet security" at airports, what will Umar "Flammable Underwear" Mutallab add to the TSA's constantly updated repertoire of screening devices? I'm sure it will involve those highly controversial yet oh-so necessary x-ray machines which allow airport security to view your naked body, thus violating your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your persons. No, nothing is sacred in the post-9/11 world, or had you forgotten?
Cui bono? Who stands to gain from this? You're all smart, every one of you; who do you think stands to gain from underwear attacks?
A hint: it's not Umar.
"A passenger who boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam with attempted plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab says the would-be terrorist had no passport and was aided by a sharp-dressed man who claimed Mutallab was a Sudanese refugee, just one of a plethora of startling inconsistencies surrounding an incident that has led to ramped up security and increased levels of harassment in airports." ~Infowars.com
Yes, I'm ready to call this one an inside job. By whom? I don't know, you take a wild guess.
"I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results. The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place- for all domestic and international flights- to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public. We are also working closely with federal, state and local law enforcement on additional security measures, as well as our international partners on enhanced security at airports and on flights." ~Janet Napolitano
Since Richard "the Shoe-Bomber" Reid brought us "sockfeet security" at airports, what will Umar "Flammable Underwear" Mutallab add to the TSA's constantly updated repertoire of screening devices? I'm sure it will involve those highly controversial yet oh-so necessary x-ray machines which allow airport security to view your naked body, thus violating your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your persons. No, nothing is sacred in the post-9/11 world, or had you forgotten?
Cui bono? Who stands to gain from this? You're all smart, every one of you; who do you think stands to gain from underwear attacks?
A hint: it's not Umar.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Websites That Make This One Possible
