Biden’s Running Mate

Should Joe Biden choose Michelle or Barack Obama as his running mate?

Either one would be historical. A black woman as VP who ascends to the presidency would be monumental.

And wouldn’t it frost every Republican’s behind to have Barack take over again when it’s determined that Joe doesn’t have the go to finish? And if the VP can’t serve then it all goes to Nancy Pelosi. WOW! How exciting would politics be at that time.

OMG. What a wedgie that would make!

Go read the 25th Amendment Section 3 and Section 4.


The President of Half Measures

Once again President Obama strives mightily for a Participation Award.

From Free Press.Net:

After months of deliberation, President Obama has announced a proposal to end the NSA’s warrantless collection of millions of phone records.1 Under this proposal, these records would stay with the phone companies, and the NSA would need to get a special court order to collect “metadata” about our calls.

Woo Hoo!  Months of deliberation to determine the phone company actually owns the records it creates of your phone data. How mighty is our President!

But does he Win, Place, or Show? Nah,but he was in the race…

The president’s proposal wouldn’t do anything to address the many other ways the NSA and other agencies spy on millions of people in the U.S. and around the world — by tracking our Web searches, reading our emails, even serving National Security Letters that make it illegal for people to speak out.

And what about all those other bills in Congress that want to wrap up the NSA with plastic wrap? Well, …

The FISA Transparency and Modernization Act — which Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger introduced this week — bolsters some of the NSA’s worst practices, including the accessing of phone records without a warrant.2 And Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s so-called FISA Improvements Act would “make permanent a loophole permitting the NSA to search for Americans’ identifying information without a warrant.

And what about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill to “modernize” FISA?

Section 6 of Feinstein’s bill blesses what her committee colleague Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat and civil libertarian, has called the “backdoor search provision,” which the Guardian revealed thanks to a leak by Edward Snowden.

The section permits intelligence agencies to search “the contents of communications” collected primarily overseas for identifying information on US citizens, resident aliens and people inside the US, provided that the “purpose of the query is to obtain foreign intelligence information or information necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or to assess its importance.”

Section 6 bills itself as a “restriction,” but it would not stop the NSA from performing the warrantless search, merely requiring intelligence agencies to log their queries and make them “available for review” to Congress, the Fisa court, the Justice Department and inspectors general inside the executive branch.

Additionally, the report on Section 6 explicitly states that the provision “does not limit the authority of law enforcement agencies to conduct queries of data acquired pursuant to Section 702 of Fisa for law enforcement purposes.”

One thing that we all can agree on is that as soon as Congress puts the word “Modernization” in the title, it is a guarantee that somebody wants to enshrine into law something that is an advantage to him or her.

What will you and I do to protect our privacy?

Who cares what the Prez says tonight?

Seriously, who the bleep cares?

Since 2001 the State of the Union speech has been cheapened by overblown rhetoric, manipulated facts, demonstrably false statements, partisan hackmanship (if such a word exists), and inferior men as Presidents.

The promise of America in the State of the Union speech has been replaced with statements befitting a beauty pageant. Whirrled Peas…is the answer.

Tonight, we are told, the President will focus on the minimum wage. Imagine the boldness of the idea to raise the wages of people in companies who are paid by the federal government….your tax dollars. The very fact that the President has this power is appalling and the fact that he would use it is embarrassing. And yet, he goes on to cement a name for himself as the worst possible President to ever give a SOTU speech. Or is it the worst possible SOTU speech. Sheesh, if the best you can do is talk about using your own Executive Branch power then you are pathetic. (sarcasm alert) Minimum wage is right up there with the best ideas of the 20th century, isn’t it?

I am not watching it. I don’t want to yell at the TV. I’ll read the highlights because the President is going to lie to us again during the speech. Where is the bold vision of Kennedy, the plans for a Great Society, and, frankly, where is the insight of Bob Seeger who passed away today?

Where have all the Presidents gone?

Kudo to Sen. Ron Johnson

Here is why:

“On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans “created under” ObamaCare or “offered through an Exchange” established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law’s benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That’s when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.”


ReasonableCitizen says “Hear!Hear!”

Gaffney vs Buchanan: Iran and Obama

I find it fascinating that The Washington Weekly December 2nd edition had a commentary by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr about the Obamabomb and President Obama’s efforts to strike a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program. Mr. Gaffney is anxious to destroy any agreement with Iran.

Mr. Gaffney’s commentary is essentially a rebuttal to Patrick J. Buchanan’s November 18th comments (in the very same paper) that supports President Obama’s efforts to seal the deal. Mr. Buchanan once again points out how Israeli intransigence is undermining the need to strike a deal with Iran or else we all go to war with Iran.

It is easy to see that Mr. Gaffney is a supporter of the Israeli position and Mr. Buchanan is opposed to it. Mr. Gaffney describes President Obama’s policy as: “Embolden our enemies. Undermine our friends. Diminish our country.”

Of the two, I trust Pat Buchanan’s analysis more than Gaffney’s. Pat Buchanan always takes the position of what is good for America in the world. I cannot say the same for Mr. Gaffney who prefers to take the position of what is good for Israel is good for the world.

I know that the Iranian’s Friday night chanting of Death to America is the brainwashing of a nation. I agree that Iran is an enemy of the United States and has been for more than 30 years. Yet, if we fail to engage Iran on what is important to them and to us and to Israel then we are setting ourselves up for a new Pearl Harbor attack. Japan did not attack the US in the Pacific until the US took the position that it would cut off oil to Japan. This was an unacceptable action to the Japanese government. We face the same situation with Iran if we fail to negotiate a solution and instead take a warlike position.

I imagine that Israel prefers the role of irrational actor on the world stage. This may be the best strategy for them. But Mr. Buchanan’s view is more US-centric than Mr. Gaffney’s and I prefer Buchanan’s view. America first.

The US and Life After President Obama

I wonder what it will be like when President Obama is no longer in office. What will he do? What will we do?

Will President Obama have a world cause that he embraces to keep himself busy? Will he be utlized as some ambassador of good will for America to the African continent? Will he desire more politics?

What do you think he will do when he is no longer ‘Mr. President’?

And what do you think the US will do with a new Republican President? hmm?

President Obama Unaware…News at 11 pm every day

Every week the news media reports a White House Insider ( aka “leak”) saying that President Obama was “unaware”. I was planning to write a post about it but so many people beat me to the punch that I thought  I would just link to the best of them:

News Busters

American Thinker

And then I thought of future headlines:

President Obama unaware of Mrs. Obama and children

President Obama unaware that he was lost on White House grounds

President Obama unaware of Constitution

President Obama unaware that President Reagan can’t remember anything from his Presidency either.

President Obama unaware he affirmed his unawareness last week when he  remarked on the topic today.

President Obama unaware of this blog

( Ok, that last one might actually be true but it is unlikely to be a headline)

Who cares about the Healthcare website…

Ok, granted: the website ought to work.

But really, why the big deal? A website that is broken for a program that forces people to buy healthcare insurance products… is okay to be broken.

And I don’t particularly care if the traffic to the site is down from some estimate given two years ago.

But all of this ‘counting coup’ on another government failure is beyond sound reason. Hey, Mr. Media, get your head in the game of privacy instead of ObamaCare and you will have my attention.

We all know that only early adopters are looking at it now. The reasonable people have not yet gotten around to it. When they do, they will take it in stride and check another day off the President Obama calendar until he is replaced.

That is what I am doing…

US Government shuts down people-centered activities only

If the government shuts down all nonessential services and the nonessential services are ‘for the people” then the government has retained all services that serve itself.

Does that make you afraid?

The Government “for the people” has just perished from the earth. I am kind of glad that Abraham Lincoln is no longer around to learn this. Should we re-write history now so that it appears that President Lincoln said “… that this government of the people, by the people, and for itself shall not perish from the face of the earth”?

This government shut down was constructed and carried out to close all “for the people” activities and keep all the “for the government” actions fully staffed.

Snarkily, I have been waiting for President Obama and Speaker Boehner to help serve food in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill plus I was kind of looking forward to the President and the First Lady having a BBQ in their backyard just for themselves.

Imagine the photo shoot and press op:

“President Obama used Kinsgford charcoal in his Weber today to prepare hot dogs and burgers for his family’s dinner. The shutdown has caused problems with staffing the White House kitchens and the President and the First Lady have now taken on the kitchen duties. The first lady’s ‘world renown shapely arms in sleeveless dresses’ are now gracing the White House kitchen sink. The President wears a Wolfgang Puck apron and places dishes in racks to let them air dry.”

No, we don’t get those stories, do we? We get stories about closed parks, memorials, dire warnings that checks will not be sent, while all the funds earmarked for foreign aid are still paid.

So who is sharing your (and my) burden of this government shut down? The furloughed workers. But they will be paid when the shutdown ends. So it is a paid vacation after the fact. How corrupt is a government when it favors its own over all others?

So to all you Statists out there, let me say this: The problem with the government becoming so big that it runs everything: they don’t have any experience. And when they do, they run the country for the government’s benefit rather than ours.

If the civilian government does not get its act together, I fear what comes next.

President Obama’s Handicap in RealPolitik

Raised by a woman and then married into a matriarchal society, President Obama values relationships more than progress. He goes along to get along because he was nurtured that way.

Now he is in the real world of manly politics and he is unsuccesful because there are no women dictators, female Muslim Chiefs, or European matriarchal societies. President Putin sneers at President Obama. And even Angela Merkel does not accept the President as a manly world leader.

I am not saying that women cannot be world leaders, my goodness , we have plenty of examples of great female leaders. My issue is that President Obama is a man and does not comport himself like one on the world stage. He is flexible and adjusting as a dutiful wife would be. How can other manly men trust him if he adjusts his brassiere instead of his jock strap?

Ladies, I am not saying that being raised by women is a handicap, we all love our mothers and are better men as a result of a good mother or a good wife. But stereotypes exist among men that men should act as men with each other and should not be pursuing relationships based on likabilty but more upon respect.

I have no doubt that President Obama is a man. He should act like one on the world stage.