This Election Shouldn't Even Be Close

How incompetent and divisive is the Obama executive branch? Let us count the ways:
1. The Obama Justice Department dropped a case against the New Black Panther party members accused of voter intimidation after the case as already prosecuted and won by the Bush Justice Department.
2. The Obama Justice Department considered reopening cases that exonerated CIA agents for their interrogation techniques. (These same interrogations provided information that would later lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.)
3. The Obama Justice Department sued the states of South Carolina, Alabama, and Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws.
4. The Obama Justice Department is suing companies for requiring documentation from their non-US citizen employees to ensure they are in the country legally.
5. The Catholic Church is suing the Obama Administration for infringing on their religious rights.
6. The Obama Justice Department cannot stop the flow of information to the public of classified information such as the US Cyber attack on Iran and information on drone attacks on terrorists.
7. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, was held in Contempt of Court for refusing to release certain information to Congress on a program called “Fast and Furious” in which guns were provided to Mexican drug lords by the US ATF which led to the death of a US Border Patrol agent. The Obama Administration is now claiming Executive Privilege to protect that information from becoming public.
8. The economy remains a mess.
9. The president turns poor against rich, black against white, etc.  In short he turns American against American.
10. The Arab Spring has turned into an Arab nightmare.
11. Four Americans have been killed by terrorists and nothing is done.
12. Joe Biden

But what will Mitt Romney do?  Who cares?  Could he really do worst than President Obama?  And if he does, or things don't get better, we'll throw him out in four years.

A Sucker's Bet

President Obama claims he created over five million jobs.  He doesn't tell you, in the same period of time, over 5 million jobs have been lost.

That is the same as going to the race track and plunking down a bet and winning $500.  Then, losing it all back over the course of the evening.  When you get home someone asks how did you do at the track and you say you won $500.  Technically, that is true.  But in reality, you would be misleading them.

Remember that next time you hear the President's job-creation claim.  Don't be a sucker.

Benghazi-gate

Please take the time to read these two articles. They will give you insight into the man who may be reelected the President of the United States. This is information you will not hear from the mainstream media.

The first article tells the story of Benghazi the President and the media do not want publicized until after the election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331977/benghazi-symbol-obama-s-leadership-mona-charen

The second article compares and contrasts how the administration handled Benghazi and how it handled the hurricane, both for political expediency.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332371/tale-two-crises-mark-steyn

Obama’s Bold New Plan

Four years after being elected to fix our economic mess, President Obama is waving around a pamphlet. And what is the bold new plan contained in the pamphlet? He wants to raise taxes on the rich, invest in green energy, and invest in education. In short the bold new plan is to …wait for it…tax and spend. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?

If You Knew Lilly, Like I Know Lilly

The Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already address gender-based discrimination in pay in the U.S.  So what does the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act do? It extends the statute of limitations for pay-discrimination cases. 

Who does this help?  It helps lawyers, for sure.  

How about small businesses? Well, now small businesses open themselves up to law suits if they have to let a female employee go.  A disgruntled, female, ex-employee now has a sure-fire way to get back at her former employer.

 

Surely it helps women.  Not so fast.  If a small business has a choice of hiring a man or hiring a woman, who are they going to hire; the man or the potential law suit? 

This law just kills mosquitoes.

Our Fearless “Lead-From-Behind” Leader

Let’s face facts. President Obama is pathetic. He is. I’m sorry. He is. President Obama holds the office once known as “The Leader of the Free World”. Does anyone really think of President Obama as the Leader of the Free World? Let’s look at the facts.

His excuses for the economy he was elected to fix include: Bush, the tsunami in Japan, oil prices, speculator­s, corporate Jet owners, corporatio­ns sitting on money, ATM's and the Internet, the Tea Party, Republican­s, Big Oil, insurance companies, pharmaceut­ical companies, tax cuts, Wall Street fat cats, unrest in the Middle East, European economies, Fox news, talk radio - to name a few. Pathetic.

A new phrase had to be coined just to protect him from any fallout from his decision to bomb Libya, “Lead from behind”. Does anyone really know what that even means?

President Obama is going to get tough on Syria. How, you ask? He is establishing an Atrocities Prevention Board. An Atrocities Prevention Board! Pathetic.

He is letting Hillary Clinton take the fall for the Benghazi debacle that cost four American lives - so much for “the buck stops here”.

When he finally does do something decisive, he claims he was forced. When President Obama agreed on extending tax cuts and unemployment insurance, he likened it to negotiating with hostage-takers and being forced to agree so that the hostages, the American people, were not harmed. He couldn’t even deal with his own Congress. Pathetic. This is the guy we expect to stare down Ahmadinejad?

Now a real crisis faces this country. There is just not enough revenue for the federal government to keep spending at its current rate. What does our leader do? He launches into his tired old “fairness” diatribe to stir up class warfare. His only answer is the Buffet rule. Really? According to the Congressional Budget Office President Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise $3.2 billion per year. As Mark Steyn points out, that is “what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526.”

It is so pathetically clear what President Obama is doing. He refuses to put a budget out that substantially cuts the federal government. His 2013 budget proposal was unanimously shot down in the House, 0-414. Then he has the gall to criticize Paul Ryan’s plan. Even when he had majorities in both the House and Senate, no budget was signed. (I don’t count the first budget he signed when he took office because he claimed that although he thought it spent too much, he was just finishing up the previous year’s business. In other words, it was President Bush’s fault.) He doesn’t want anyone to be able to say that President Obama cut your – insert your favorite federal government giveaway here – to any potential voter. Instead he will pick a fight with 1% of the population to pander to the other 99% in hopes of getting reelected even though it is clear this will not fix the problem. Pathetic.

We need a leader to help lead us out of this mess; someone who is willing to make the hard decisions necessary to get this country back on track. A leader that our enemies fear and our allies trust. We better get someone soon.

Constitution or Bust

The powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. They are limited and enumerated. The list is only 429 words long. Our Founding Fathers were so fearful of a powerful central government they added the Tenth Amendment, 28 words, to reinforce the concept of a limited federal government with all other powers reserved for the states and the people. Those 457 words are easy to read and understand. Nowhere in those 457 words does it say the federal government should control healthcare, provide cell phones for the poor, fund television and radio, or perform any other benevolent act. If we want to expand the role of the federal government, then an amendment to the US Constitution is required. 

To reinforce how much the Constitution’s meaning has been twisted and tortured beyond its original intent, I have copied excerpts from a good article by Walter E. Williams:

 

James Madison is the acknowledged Father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” 

A few years later, James Madison’s vision was expressed by Representative William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." 

In 1827, Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his term of office a $10,000 relief measure was proposed to assist the widow of a naval officer. Davy Crockett eloquently opposed the measure saying, “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” 

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a popular measure to help the mentally ill saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” 

The framers addressed the misinterpretation of the “general welfare clause. James Madison said, in a letter to James Robertson, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” James Madison also said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison laid out what he saw as constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper Number 45 where he explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." 

Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” 

The full article can be found here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.html. It is well worth a read.