The CIA has turned down former Vice President Cheney's request to release memos he says would show waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced valuable information that saved lives.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano says an executive order signed by former President Bush forbids the agency from declassifying documents that are the subject of pending litigation. The memos Cheney wants released are the subject of two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
"For that reason-and that reason only-CIA did not accept Mr. Cheney's request," Gamigliano said.
Cheney's office told FOX News that the former vice president is preparing his appeal to the denial.
President Obama could overrule the agency, as he did a month ago when he cited "exceptional circumstances" and declassified four memos that detailed waterboarding and other interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists.
Cheney and others objected to that release, saying it would tell terrorists what to prepare for. A Senate report concluded days later that the harsh techniques were not just used at the CIA's "secret prisons," but also in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
During an interview on FOX News last month, Cheney criticized the release of the memos and said he was disturbed that "they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort."
Cheney revealed he had made a formal request that two additional memos be declassified and released. He accused the administration of "dismantling" the national security policies that had kept the country safe and said the interrogation techniques potentially saved "hundreds of thousands of lives."
Obama has said the memos Cheney wants released do not prove the harsh techniques are effective. Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, a member of the Intelligence Committee who has seen the memos Cheney wants released, accused the former vice president of "misleading the American people" by indicating that the memos show the harsh interrogation techniques were necessary.
Story can be found HERE.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama Weak On Israeli Security?
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the current administration is not going to do anything to help the Israelis protect themselves. Obama has long been pro Palestine and has never had a harsh word for Hamas. Benjamin Netanyahu has his hands full keeping Obama focused on the primary threat, Iran. If Iran thinks for a single second we are weak on the security of Israel they will attack them as soon as technologically possible.
"FiglePorn" (Hebrew for "May god be with you").
The director of the CIA was recently sent on a secret mission to Israel to warn its leaders not to launch a surprise attack on Iran without notifying the Obama administration, the Times of London reported on Thursday.
FOX News could not immediately confirm the report.
As Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, prepares to visit Washington, it emerged on Thursday that Leon Panetta went to Israel two weeks ago. He sought assurances from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the defense minister, that their hawkish new government would not attack Iran without alerting Washington.
Concerns have been rising that Netanyahu could launch a strike on Tehran’s atomic program, in the same way that Israel hit Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981. Israel has been preparing for such an eventuality. It has carried out long-distance maneuvers and is due to hold its largest civil defense drills this summer. The country’s leaders reportedly told Panetta that they did not "intend to surprise the U.S. on Iran."
Netanyahu will leave for Washington this weekend, where he will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, whom he will try to convince of the need for tougher action against Iran.
Obama favors trying to engage Tehran, but his efforts have been received coolly by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Israeli leader is expected to insist that the U.S. stays focused on Iran, rather than tackling stalled talks with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu has held meetings with Arab leaders this week, including President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Both Sunni leaders share Israel’s fears of a resurgent Shia Iran.
Click to read the full story from the Times of London.
"FiglePorn" (Hebrew for "May god be with you").
The director of the CIA was recently sent on a secret mission to Israel to warn its leaders not to launch a surprise attack on Iran without notifying the Obama administration, the Times of London reported on Thursday.
FOX News could not immediately confirm the report.
As Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, prepares to visit Washington, it emerged on Thursday that Leon Panetta went to Israel two weeks ago. He sought assurances from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the defense minister, that their hawkish new government would not attack Iran without alerting Washington.
Concerns have been rising that Netanyahu could launch a strike on Tehran’s atomic program, in the same way that Israel hit Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981. Israel has been preparing for such an eventuality. It has carried out long-distance maneuvers and is due to hold its largest civil defense drills this summer. The country’s leaders reportedly told Panetta that they did not "intend to surprise the U.S. on Iran."
Netanyahu will leave for Washington this weekend, where he will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, whom he will try to convince of the need for tougher action against Iran.
Obama favors trying to engage Tehran, but his efforts have been received coolly by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Israeli leader is expected to insist that the U.S. stays focused on Iran, rather than tackling stalled talks with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu has held meetings with Arab leaders this week, including President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Both Sunni leaders share Israel’s fears of a resurgent Shia Iran.
Click to read the full story from the Times of London.
Pelosi Is Lying, Still
Republicans said they were stunned Thursday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that she was powerless as minority leader to intervene in the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" used on terrorism suspects.
Earlier in the day, Pelosi told reporters that the CIA misled Congress on its activities, but she protested that she knew that any complaints by her about the use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics would fall on deaf ears.
Pelosi said in her weekly news conference that she supported a letter drafted in February 2003 by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. -- the new ranking Democrat on the House intelligence panel who attended a briefing that month that included discussions on waterboarding -- and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the program.
Harman was the "appropriate person to register a protest," Pelosi said
"But no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do," she added.
Not so, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "As a member of the Gang of Four, if the CIA proposes to do something that we think is wrong, we can do something about it. We've done something about," he said.
The so-called "Gang of Four" refers to the four members of Congress who serve in the chairman and vice chairman spots on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. In 2002, that group included Sens. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Reps. Porter Goss, R-Fla, and Pelosi, D-Calif.
Bond said that as minority leader, Pelosi could have used a number of legislative tools to block the program, including using the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, which protects lawmakers who wish to speak on the House floor on sensitive issues. She could also have insisted that other members be briefed on interrogation techniques; moved to cut CIA funds; insisted Congress go into closed session, like during Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Patriot Act revisions; or sought revisions to the National Security Act to change congressional notification requirements.
"So there's no excuse to say, 'I was powerless,'" Bond said.
Pelosi is under attack for shifting her accounts of what and when she knew about enhanced interrogation techniques. Republicans have charged her with hypocrisy and complicity for seeking to investigate the Bush-era program when she didn't protest earlier.
In fact, in November 2002, two months after Pelosi received her first briefing outlining enhanced interrogation techniques, she stood on the House floor to praise the intelligence community.
"The brave and dedicated men and women of intelligence community perform an invaluable service for our country, and I want them to know how impressed we've all been under frequently dangerous and demanding conditions. They deserve our appreciation," she said as she urged lawmakers to approve funding for intelligence operations.
Story continues HERE
Earlier in the day, Pelosi told reporters that the CIA misled Congress on its activities, but she protested that she knew that any complaints by her about the use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics would fall on deaf ears.
Pelosi said in her weekly news conference that she supported a letter drafted in February 2003 by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. -- the new ranking Democrat on the House intelligence panel who attended a briefing that month that included discussions on waterboarding -- and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the program.
Harman was the "appropriate person to register a protest," Pelosi said
"But no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do," she added.
Not so, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "As a member of the Gang of Four, if the CIA proposes to do something that we think is wrong, we can do something about it. We've done something about," he said.
The so-called "Gang of Four" refers to the four members of Congress who serve in the chairman and vice chairman spots on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. In 2002, that group included Sens. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Reps. Porter Goss, R-Fla, and Pelosi, D-Calif.
Bond said that as minority leader, Pelosi could have used a number of legislative tools to block the program, including using the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, which protects lawmakers who wish to speak on the House floor on sensitive issues. She could also have insisted that other members be briefed on interrogation techniques; moved to cut CIA funds; insisted Congress go into closed session, like during Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Patriot Act revisions; or sought revisions to the National Security Act to change congressional notification requirements.
"So there's no excuse to say, 'I was powerless,'" Bond said.
Pelosi is under attack for shifting her accounts of what and when she knew about enhanced interrogation techniques. Republicans have charged her with hypocrisy and complicity for seeking to investigate the Bush-era program when she didn't protest earlier.
In fact, in November 2002, two months after Pelosi received her first briefing outlining enhanced interrogation techniques, she stood on the House floor to praise the intelligence community.
"The brave and dedicated men and women of intelligence community perform an invaluable service for our country, and I want them to know how impressed we've all been under frequently dangerous and demanding conditions. They deserve our appreciation," she said as she urged lawmakers to approve funding for intelligence operations.
Story continues HERE
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Letter From Dear Leader
I received the letter below from Dear Leader yesterday. I am not sure why I am surprised because he told us this is exactly what he was going to do. I just hope we can muster enough decent people from both houses to defeat Dear Leaders dreams of controlling every aspect of our lives. You bleeding heart liberals think everyone deserves health care. You do not have a "right" to enslave me to pay for your medical expenses. I work and pay for my families medical insurance and what the insurance does not cover I pay for out of my pocket. Why should it be Warren Buffets responsibility to pay for my childrens health insurance? He shouldn't! If I can not afford to take care of my children, get ready this is a novel concept, I SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM! When I made the decision to have children I accepted the responsibilities that come along with joys of fatherhood.
We are on our way to a 50% +1 society. When we reach 1/2 plus 1 person depending on some sort of government program this country will fail to exist as we know it. The programs and policies of this administration are taking us down a road that we may never be able to recover from.
Good afternoon,
You are receiving this email because you signed up at WhiteHouse.gov. My staff and I plan to use these messages as a way to directly communicate about important issues and opportunities, and today I have some encouraging updates about health care reform.
The Vice President and I just met with leaders from the House of Representatives and received their commitment to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill by July 31.
We also have an unprecedented commitment from health care industry leaders, many of whom opposed health reform in the past. Monday, I met with some of these health care stakeholders, and they pledged to do their part to reduce the health care spending growth rate, saving more than two trillion dollars over the next ten years -- around $2,500 for each American family. Then on Tuesday, leaders from some of America's top companies came to the White House to showcase innovative ways to reduce health care costs by improving the health of their workers.
Now the House and Senate are beginning a critical debate that will determine the health of our nation's economy and its families. This process should be transparent and inclusive and its product must drive down costs, assure quality and affordable health care for everyone, and guarantee all of us a choice of doctors and plans.
Reforming health care should also involve you. Think of other people who may want to stay up to date on health care reform and other national issues and tell them to join us here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/EmailUpdates
Health care reform can't come soon enough. We spend more on health care than any country, but families continue to struggle with skyrocketing premiums and nearly 46 million are without insurance entirely. It is a priority for the American people and a pillar of the new foundation we are seeking to build for our economy.
We'll continue to keep you posted about this and other important issues.
Thank you,
Barack Obama
P.S. If you'd like to get more in-depth information about health reform and how you can participate, be sure to visit http://www.HealthReform.gov.
Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely
Now that the campaign is over and Dear Leader has to be the adult and make real decisions he is starting to change his tune. During the campaign all we heard was how he was going to pull all the troops out of Iraq, close Gitmo, and be the most transparent administration in history. Now that the safety of this country rest on his narrow weak shoulders he is changing his tune. Welcome to the big league Dear Leader.
The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.
The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.
Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal
The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.
The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.
Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal
Daily Constitution Reading 5-14-2009
Article 1 Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pelosi Could Be In Trouble
The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an Al-Qaeda leader.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.
While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, "I think the facts need to get out.
"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done."
But he added that the controversy over "what was said and when it was said, who said it ... is probably what ought to be on the record as well."
Hoyer also was asked whether he believes Pelosi's support has been undermined among Democrats.
"No, I don't," he said.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee holds the first hearing on the interrogation policy on Wednesday, but has scheduled testimony unrelated to the Pelosi matter.
A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.
Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- and sleep deprivation.
While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, "I think the facts need to get out.
"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done."
But he added that the controversy over "what was said and when it was said, who said it ... is probably what ought to be on the record as well."
Hoyer also was asked whether he believes Pelosi's support has been undermined among Democrats.
"No, I don't," he said.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee holds the first hearing on the interrogation policy on Wednesday, but has scheduled testimony unrelated to the Pelosi matter.
A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 5-13-2009
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Daily Constitution Reading 5-12-2009
Article 1 Section 3.1
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wanda Sucks, I Mean Sykes Bashes Rush
Once again I will repeat myself and say "if this were a Republican administration"........ Blah Blah Blah. I am so sick of saying it. No one is listening and even if they were they are not big enough people to stand up and say anything. People standby and watch the hypocrisy and do nothing about it.
Comedian Wanda Sykes pulled no punches as she skewered conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner -- but her morbid cracks set some guests' cringe-meters off the charts.
Sykes accused Limbaugh of treason, compared him to Usama bin Laden and wished for his physical collapse as she roasted the favorite target of liberals Saturday night at the Washington Hilton.
"Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails,' you're like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason," Sykes said.
"He's not saying anything differently than what Usama bin Laden is saying," she continued, before addressing the guest of honor, President Obama. "You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
The crowd groaned, Obama smiled and Sykes may have noticed a little discomfort in the room.
"Too much?" she asked.
But then she piled it on:
"Rush Limbaugh, 'I hope the country fails' -- I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? ... He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."
Obama joined the crowd in laughing at the crack about Limbaugh's "kidneys."
But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested Monday that Sykes' bit was considered in poor taste.
"I don't know how guests get booked," Gibbs told reporters. "I haven't talked to the president (about it), but my guess is there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection, rather than comedy -- no doubt 9/11 is part of that."
After the appearance, conservatives bellowed that Sykes was way over the line. "Mean-spirited," "hateful" and "disgusting" were just a few of the words used by conservative bloggers and commentators to describe the performance.
"This woman comes up and says, 'I hope Rush Limbaugh dies,' and everybody giggles," said Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center.
National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg called it "particularly awful."
Sykes' publicist was not immediately available for comment.
Some critics said there was a double standard employed for conservative and liberal jokesters, pointing out that golf announcer David Feherty apologized over the weekend for his column in which he joked about U.S. troops wanting to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Feherty's line drew heavy attention from the liberal group Media Matters and earned him a "worst person in the world" dubbing by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
Graham said the relatively low-key coverage of Sykes' joke in mainstream media underscores the "slanted take on what's hateful and what's not."
"When a conservative says it, it's an utter outrage. And when a liberal says it, it's a knee-slapper," he said.
An editor with Britain's Daily Telegraph who was at the dinner wrote that liberals will give Sykes a pass, since her target was a right-wing talk show host. And he marveled at Obama's response.
"That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing," wrote Toby Harnden. "Imagine if a comedian 'joked' that Obama was a terrorist who was guilty of treason and should be tortured and allowed to die. There would justifiably be an outcry."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Comedian Wanda Sykes pulled no punches as she skewered conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner -- but her morbid cracks set some guests' cringe-meters off the charts.
Sykes accused Limbaugh of treason, compared him to Usama bin Laden and wished for his physical collapse as she roasted the favorite target of liberals Saturday night at the Washington Hilton.
"Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails,' you're like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason," Sykes said.
"He's not saying anything differently than what Usama bin Laden is saying," she continued, before addressing the guest of honor, President Obama. "You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
The crowd groaned, Obama smiled and Sykes may have noticed a little discomfort in the room.
"Too much?" she asked.
But then she piled it on:
"Rush Limbaugh, 'I hope the country fails' -- I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? ... He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."
Obama joined the crowd in laughing at the crack about Limbaugh's "kidneys."
But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested Monday that Sykes' bit was considered in poor taste.
"I don't know how guests get booked," Gibbs told reporters. "I haven't talked to the president (about it), but my guess is there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection, rather than comedy -- no doubt 9/11 is part of that."
After the appearance, conservatives bellowed that Sykes was way over the line. "Mean-spirited," "hateful" and "disgusting" were just a few of the words used by conservative bloggers and commentators to describe the performance.
"This woman comes up and says, 'I hope Rush Limbaugh dies,' and everybody giggles," said Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center.
National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg called it "particularly awful."
Sykes' publicist was not immediately available for comment.
Some critics said there was a double standard employed for conservative and liberal jokesters, pointing out that golf announcer David Feherty apologized over the weekend for his column in which he joked about U.S. troops wanting to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Feherty's line drew heavy attention from the liberal group Media Matters and earned him a "worst person in the world" dubbing by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
Graham said the relatively low-key coverage of Sykes' joke in mainstream media underscores the "slanted take on what's hateful and what's not."
"When a conservative says it, it's an utter outrage. And when a liberal says it, it's a knee-slapper," he said.
An editor with Britain's Daily Telegraph who was at the dinner wrote that liberals will give Sykes a pass, since her target was a right-wing talk show host. And he marveled at Obama's response.
"That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing," wrote Toby Harnden. "Imagine if a comedian 'joked' that Obama was a terrorist who was guilty of treason and should be tortured and allowed to die. There would justifiably be an outcry."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Man Defends Friends At Party
This guy deserve an award for taking these scumbags off the earth. He may have saved my family from ever having to endure an act of violence. Thank you.
Two masked gunmen burst into Charles Bailey’s apartment where he was entertaining ten guests, celebrating his birthday. The gunmen started counting bullets, making sure they had "enough," and then separated the men and the women into different rooms to be raped. The gunmen didn’t expect one of Charles’ friends to be packing heat, but he was:
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.
The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
Calvin Lavant was found dead a block away, from a well-deserved gunshot wound to the face, and police say they are close to arresting the second gunman.
This story should illustrate that when things really hit the fan, you are ultimately responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. You will probably not have time to wait for help, and most importantly, you will be the one who has to live with the results. You can not count on the police to protect you, and they are not legally obligated to protect you (seriously).
Keep this story in mind as we push for tighter federal gun laws. If that one brave student hadn’t brought his gun to the party (and to be honest, I’m kind of blown away that he did), 10 lives would have been ruined, if not ended. You also might want to ask yourself why no major news outlets have been running this remarkable story, or read John Lott’s excellent essay on the media’s bias against guns.
As for me, my birthday’s not coming up for a while, but I’m asking for a cute little nine-millimeter insurance policy. And if you come to the celebration, feel free to come packin'.
Original story can be found HERE.
Two masked gunmen burst into Charles Bailey’s apartment where he was entertaining ten guests, celebrating his birthday. The gunmen started counting bullets, making sure they had "enough," and then separated the men and the women into different rooms to be raped. The gunmen didn’t expect one of Charles’ friends to be packing heat, but he was:
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.
The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
Calvin Lavant was found dead a block away, from a well-deserved gunshot wound to the face, and police say they are close to arresting the second gunman.
This story should illustrate that when things really hit the fan, you are ultimately responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. You will probably not have time to wait for help, and most importantly, you will be the one who has to live with the results. You can not count on the police to protect you, and they are not legally obligated to protect you (seriously).
Keep this story in mind as we push for tighter federal gun laws. If that one brave student hadn’t brought his gun to the party (and to be honest, I’m kind of blown away that he did), 10 lives would have been ruined, if not ended. You also might want to ask yourself why no major news outlets have been running this remarkable story, or read John Lott’s excellent essay on the media’s bias against guns.
As for me, my birthday’s not coming up for a while, but I’m asking for a cute little nine-millimeter insurance policy. And if you come to the celebration, feel free to come packin'.
Original story can be found HERE.
Kathleen Sebelius Confirmation
I received a 2009 Republican Party Precinct Survey over the weekend. They of course wanted money and my "opinion" are a bunch of issues they feel are important to the 2010 election. After reading the questions I decided to take a look and see what if any Republicans voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius to head up Health and Human Services.
A little background on Kathleen Sebelius is in order.
It was brought to our attention that Sebelius received substantial donations from Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers. But when asked how much she received she say $12,450 between 1994-2001. But in addition to those campaign donations, records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee Sebelius established while insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats.
Now one would think any senator that has stood on the floor preaching about how he is a devout Catholic and opposes all forms of abortion would appose this woman right? WRONG! Senator Brownback voted to confirm Sebelius. I dont know how Brownback could in good conscience vote to confirm this woman to head anything.
Below is a list of Republican senators that voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius.
Kansas: Brownback and Roberts
Maine: Collins and Snowe
Missouri: Bond
New Hampshire: Gregg
Ohio: Voinovich
Most of these "Yea" votes did not surprise me. The majority of the people on the list are RINO's but I was really disappointed to see Brownbacks name on that list. Just goes to show it is all about his career. l
A little background on Kathleen Sebelius is in order.
It was brought to our attention that Sebelius received substantial donations from Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers. But when asked how much she received she say $12,450 between 1994-2001. But in addition to those campaign donations, records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee Sebelius established while insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats.
Now one would think any senator that has stood on the floor preaching about how he is a devout Catholic and opposes all forms of abortion would appose this woman right? WRONG! Senator Brownback voted to confirm Sebelius. I dont know how Brownback could in good conscience vote to confirm this woman to head anything.
Below is a list of Republican senators that voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius.
Kansas: Brownback and Roberts
Maine: Collins and Snowe
Missouri: Bond
New Hampshire: Gregg
Ohio: Voinovich
Most of these "Yea" votes did not surprise me. The majority of the people on the list are RINO's but I was really disappointed to see Brownbacks name on that list. Just goes to show it is all about his career. l
National Health Care
With all the talk about health care I just could not resist the urge to put up my favorite picture of Dear Leader that my good friend Mike Church designed. I am afraid we have started down the road of no return. It has been 100 days of Dear Leaders rule and already the insurance companies are running to the table with deals to prevent their demise. Good Luck people.
In a rare move before the Obama administration has unveiled the details of its own health care overhaul, industry groups are offering to reduce the costs of coverage for all Americans in the hopes of staving off legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years.
Leaders of the health care industry have offered $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years. The goal is to make insurance more affordable so the government does not create a system to enroll middle-class workers and their families that directly competes with the health care industry.
Under a government system, drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.
Representatives of industry and provider groups have been invited to the White House Monday. Many of them were part of a health care summit held at the White House in March.
The groups attending Monday include the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Pharma, AdvaMed, America's Health Insurance Plans, SEIU, the Greater New York hospital association and the California Hospital association.
"We cannot continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years, with costs that are out of control, because reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait," Obama said in prepared remarks the White House released Sunday.
"That is why these groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment."
The groups concede that their prices are not going down, they are merely slowing the rate of growth. But economists say the move would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it.
Story continues HERE.
Daily Constitution Reading 5-11-2009
Article 1 Section 3.2
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Dissension In The Ranks?
Members of former Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign reportedly devised a "doomsday" strategy over his affair with Rielle Hunter in which they would destroy his bid for office.
Several unnamed former campaign officials said they had prepared a plan in which they would sabotage Edwards' campaign if it appeared he would secure the Democratic nomination, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reported on Sunday.
"They were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign -- they were going to blow it up," Stephanopoulos said.
The strategy was apparently put together in secret in December 2007 after months of denying rumors that Edwards was having an affair with a woman and had also fathered a child with her.
Story Continues HERE.
Several unnamed former campaign officials said they had prepared a plan in which they would sabotage Edwards' campaign if it appeared he would secure the Democratic nomination, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reported on Sunday.
"They were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign -- they were going to blow it up," Stephanopoulos said.
The strategy was apparently put together in secret in December 2007 after months of denying rumors that Edwards was having an affair with a woman and had also fathered a child with her.
Story Continues HERE.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Daily Constitution Reading 5-10-2009
Article 1 Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Pelosi Remembers Torture Briefings
Knowing that Democrats are always above board and very honest about everything I was shocked to see Pelosi all the sudden remembered that she was involved in the meetings about "torture". But why did she wait until Friday evening to admit this information? Could it be that she was hoping it would be swept under the rug in a very short weekend news cycle? No way, she is way to ethical for all that nonsense.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.
"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal,'" she said.
But even that statement is at odds with the official record of the briefings recorded in the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002. That memo says Pelosi received a "briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
Pelosi noted that the media had reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a cover letter accompanying the briefings memo that "the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."
Pelosi is fighting back against accusations that she and other Democrats are being motivated by politics in their attempt to establish an independent commission to investigate officials and lawyers involved with the Bush-era interrogation programs.
Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.
In addition, from the beginning of the program in 2002 until it became public in the fall of 2006, the House held 13 votes to authorize intelligence funding at which time no one objected or demanded changes to any intelligence programs.
The briefings took place in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the time, the CIA was getting actionable intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots.
Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that. But when it became public, Pelosi and others shifted gears and started criticizing a program they had known about for years, claimed GOP strategist Brad Blakeman.
"Either the speaker has a veracity problem or an incompetence problem and it could be both," Blakeman told FOX News. "The fact of the matter is she was briefed and she was hoping that the top secret nature of these briefings would shield her from this information coming out."
Blakeman added that he trusts the notes made at the briefings more than Pelosi's memory.
Justice Department officials are not likely to recommend criminal charges against the three Bush administration lawyers who the wrote the memos approving the interrogation methods, but two could face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.
"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal,'" she said.
But even that statement is at odds with the official record of the briefings recorded in the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002. That memo says Pelosi received a "briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
Pelosi noted that the media had reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a cover letter accompanying the briefings memo that "the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."
Pelosi is fighting back against accusations that she and other Democrats are being motivated by politics in their attempt to establish an independent commission to investigate officials and lawyers involved with the Bush-era interrogation programs.
Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.
In addition, from the beginning of the program in 2002 until it became public in the fall of 2006, the House held 13 votes to authorize intelligence funding at which time no one objected or demanded changes to any intelligence programs.
The briefings took place in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the time, the CIA was getting actionable intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots.
Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that. But when it became public, Pelosi and others shifted gears and started criticizing a program they had known about for years, claimed GOP strategist Brad Blakeman.
"Either the speaker has a veracity problem or an incompetence problem and it could be both," Blakeman told FOX News. "The fact of the matter is she was briefed and she was hoping that the top secret nature of these briefings would shield her from this information coming out."
Blakeman added that he trusts the notes made at the briefings more than Pelosi's memory.
Justice Department officials are not likely to recommend criminal charges against the three Bush administration lawyers who the wrote the memos approving the interrogation methods, but two could face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Gay Research On My Dime?
I do not subscribe to the notion that people are born gay. I think it is a choice people make for whatever reason. If people were born gay the species would fail to exist at some point. The human body is a near perfect specimen that is constantly evolving. Hence the theory of evolution you liberals keep talking about. In order for the species to "evolve" it has to weed out the weak or unhelpful genes. If being gay was a birth defect if more than 1/2 of the population was born gay next generation the species would be on the verge of extinction. We have evolved too much for me to believe that could possibly be the case. People choose to be gay.
The story below is from www.foxnews.com
Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.
The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.
Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.
Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.
The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.
"Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed and sexual behavior occurs," the project's overview explains, "the goal of this 2-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high risk sexual space."
That means NIH researchers will have as many as 730 nights on the town for careful observation and interaction.
"To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place" -- social scientists call this the "vibe" -- and other factors like "patron characteristics" and "social dynamics" that can lead to risky behavior when mixed with a few parts alcohol.
NIH officials say the study is doing valuable work to address high HIV infection rates among homosexual men in Argentina, and that plans developed there could be translated for use in the United States and elsewhere.
Researchers plan to interview dozens of bar patrons and proprietors to help develop the on-site intervention programs -- and they mean to be exact.
"Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use among this sample," the study's abstract reads.
In layman's terms, that means they're asking drinkers to keep tabs on their quaffs and their quarry; fortunately for their more modest subjects, it's not a qualitative test too.
Because the study is promoting venue-based prevention programs, researchers will have to be exact about the bars they visit in the city of 13 million, taking special care to describe the them "in terms of their physical characteristics, alcohol availability, patron characteristics and sexual behavior that occurs in the venue."
An NIH official said that funds approved for the project include $275,000 for direct costs and an additional $125,000 in indirect costs, but would not elaborate. Though FOXNews.com could not confirm the median price of cervezas in Buenos Aires, that should leave a lot of money for tips.
The story below is from www.foxnews.com
Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.
The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.
Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.
Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.
The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.
"Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed and sexual behavior occurs," the project's overview explains, "the goal of this 2-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high risk sexual space."
That means NIH researchers will have as many as 730 nights on the town for careful observation and interaction.
"To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place" -- social scientists call this the "vibe" -- and other factors like "patron characteristics" and "social dynamics" that can lead to risky behavior when mixed with a few parts alcohol.
NIH officials say the study is doing valuable work to address high HIV infection rates among homosexual men in Argentina, and that plans developed there could be translated for use in the United States and elsewhere.
Researchers plan to interview dozens of bar patrons and proprietors to help develop the on-site intervention programs -- and they mean to be exact.
"Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use among this sample," the study's abstract reads.
In layman's terms, that means they're asking drinkers to keep tabs on their quaffs and their quarry; fortunately for their more modest subjects, it's not a qualitative test too.
Because the study is promoting venue-based prevention programs, researchers will have to be exact about the bars they visit in the city of 13 million, taking special care to describe the them "in terms of their physical characteristics, alcohol availability, patron characteristics and sexual behavior that occurs in the venue."
An NIH official said that funds approved for the project include $275,000 for direct costs and an additional $125,000 in indirect costs, but would not elaborate. Though FOXNews.com could not confirm the median price of cervezas in Buenos Aires, that should leave a lot of money for tips.
More Global Warming BS
I am amazed that the global warming fools are still able to get traction with the lies they spew. The Obama administration has an opportunity to thrust this country into deeper levels of socialism by allowing the viscous polar bear on the endangered species act.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is approaching a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, for imposing limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the pollution occurs thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.
The species law that affords protection for plants, animals and fish that face possible extinction became entangled with the need to reduce pollution linked to global warming more than a year ago. The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species, citing the decline of Arctic sea ice due to global warming.
Fearful that the declaration putting the bear under the federal species law might be used to force regulation of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, the Bush administration issued a special rule: No action outside of the bear's Arctic habitat could be considered as endangering its survival.
The limitation, hailed by business groups, prompted lawsuits from environmentalists and action by Congress.
In March, federal lawmakers authorized Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind the Bush administration's special rule, thus avoiding any complicated and time-consuming regulatory procedures. The deadline for such action is Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.
Salazar was said to be weighing the issue. Lobbying on the matter has been heavy, and Salazar has given little hint on whether he will rescind the Bush rule.
Environmentalists complained last week when Salazar failed to address the polar bear rule when he rescinded another Bush regulation involving endangered species consultation -- one Congress also authorized to be scrapped.
"From our perspective the job is half done" without a reversal of the polar bear rule, Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group, said after last week's action.
The special rule "significantly undercuts protections for the polar bear by omitting global warming pollution as a factor in the polar bear's risk of extinction," said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, which delivered 80,000 petitions to the Interior Department after they were collected by the two environmental groups.
Environmentalists also circulated a letter to Salazar, signed by 49 law professors, that urges him to reverse the Bush rule, arguing that its restrictions are so broad as to be illegal under the Endangered Species Act.
Business groups have expressed concern about the Endangered Species Act being used to regulate greenhouse gases, especially industrial and power plant emissions.
On Thursday, Rep. Doc Hastings, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.
Along with the recent ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide is a health hazard, "withdrawing this rule would give the federal government vast new climate change power to regulate any federal or federally permitted activity in our country that emits greenhouse gases," said Hastings. "This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk."
From www.foxnews.com
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is approaching a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, for imposing limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the pollution occurs thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.
The species law that affords protection for plants, animals and fish that face possible extinction became entangled with the need to reduce pollution linked to global warming more than a year ago. The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species, citing the decline of Arctic sea ice due to global warming.
Fearful that the declaration putting the bear under the federal species law might be used to force regulation of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, the Bush administration issued a special rule: No action outside of the bear's Arctic habitat could be considered as endangering its survival.
The limitation, hailed by business groups, prompted lawsuits from environmentalists and action by Congress.
In March, federal lawmakers authorized Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind the Bush administration's special rule, thus avoiding any complicated and time-consuming regulatory procedures. The deadline for such action is Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.
Salazar was said to be weighing the issue. Lobbying on the matter has been heavy, and Salazar has given little hint on whether he will rescind the Bush rule.
Environmentalists complained last week when Salazar failed to address the polar bear rule when he rescinded another Bush regulation involving endangered species consultation -- one Congress also authorized to be scrapped.
"From our perspective the job is half done" without a reversal of the polar bear rule, Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group, said after last week's action.
The special rule "significantly undercuts protections for the polar bear by omitting global warming pollution as a factor in the polar bear's risk of extinction," said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, which delivered 80,000 petitions to the Interior Department after they were collected by the two environmental groups.
Environmentalists also circulated a letter to Salazar, signed by 49 law professors, that urges him to reverse the Bush rule, arguing that its restrictions are so broad as to be illegal under the Endangered Species Act.
Business groups have expressed concern about the Endangered Species Act being used to regulate greenhouse gases, especially industrial and power plant emissions.
On Thursday, Rep. Doc Hastings, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.
Along with the recent ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide is a health hazard, "withdrawing this rule would give the federal government vast new climate change power to regulate any federal or federally permitted activity in our country that emits greenhouse gases," said Hastings. "This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk."
From www.foxnews.com
Daily Constitution Reading 5-8-2009
Article 1 Section 7
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
John Edwards Love Child?
Rielle Hunter has decided to break her silence and get her child's father named. Hunter decided to abandon the "cover-up" over the paternity of her daughter after learning about the contents of Elizabeth Edwards' book, in which she reportedly refers to the baby only as "it" and does not name Hunter.
I predict one of two things.
Scenario 1: Hunter will start driving a new Lambo and move into a huge house and decide that the paternity test is too traumatic for her daughter Frances to endure.
Scenario 2: Rielle and Frances disappear. Edwards decides to take a page from Clinton's play book and has the two "disposed" of.
Either scenario is typical of the Democratic party. I am very confident this child was fathered by John Edwards. It is not surprising that he, like many other Dems, has no paternal feelings for this child. Who loses in this fight? Frances. This poor child will grow up either being lied to about who her father is or with the feeling of abandonment because her sperm donor is more interested in his political career than he is her.
In case John didn't know, his political career lasted about as long as making this child did.
The story below is from www.foxnews.com
John Edwards' ex-mistress is reportedly interested in administering a DNA test to determine who is the father of her 1-year-old daughter after Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, sparked fresh questions over whether it might be her husband.
The former North Carolina senator and presidential candidate denied being the father of Frances Quinn Hunter during a television interview in August. But Elizabeth Edwards, in an interview on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" set to air Thursday afternoon, left open the door on whether her husband was telling the truth.
"I've seen a picture of the baby," she said. "I have no idea. It doesn't look like my children, but I don't have any idea."
On Wednesday, one day after Oprah's production company released excerpts of the interview, The National Enquirer reported that Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' former mistress, is working with a lawyer to seek a paternity test from him.
That's a turnabout from last August, when Hunter's attorney Robert Gordon released a statement saying she "will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future."
Edwards said at the time that he would "welcome" a paternity test, and that because of the "timing" of his affair "it's not possible that this child could be mine." But he indicated that his apparent willingness to take the test would lead nowhere unless Hunter consented.
"I'm only one side. I can run only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one," Edwards said at the time.
It's unclear whether Edwards would be as willing to submit to a test if Hunter is on board with the idea. When it was initially reported that Edwards was the love child's father, a former aide to the ex-senator, Andrew Young, claimed paternity.
Gordon, reached by FOXNews.com Thursday, said he did not know whether Hunter was seeking a paternity test and that he no longer represents her.
"I haven't been involved in that in a long time," Gordon said. "I can't speak to anything. I don't know anything."
Pigeon O'Brien, a former close friend of Hunter's who publicly questioned Edwards' account of the affair last year, said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that she didn't know whether Hunter is seeking a paternity test. But she added: "It all has to do with [Elizabeth Edwards'] book and the resulting chaos."
In her book, "Resilience," due out next week, Elizabeth Edwards calls Hunter's life "pathetic" and writes that she threw up when she learned of her husband's affair.
A source reportedly told the Enquirer that Hunter decided to abandon the "cover-up" over the paternity of her daughter after learning about the contents of Elizabeth Edwards' book, in which she reportedly refers to the baby only as "it" and does not name Hunter.
While Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign aide, claimed to be the father of Frances Hunter, another former campaign worker told FOXNews.com last summer that he and Hunter had "no relationship." The birth certificate for Frances Quinn Hunter does not list a father.
The question of paternity isn't the only matter still dogging Edwards in the wake of the affair and his subsequent confession. Federal investigators are also looking into how he's managed his campaign funds -- finance questions arose last year after his political action committee paid more than $100,000 to Hunter's company for the production of short videos.
I predict one of two things.
Scenario 1: Hunter will start driving a new Lambo and move into a huge house and decide that the paternity test is too traumatic for her daughter Frances to endure.
Scenario 2: Rielle and Frances disappear. Edwards decides to take a page from Clinton's play book and has the two "disposed" of.
Either scenario is typical of the Democratic party. I am very confident this child was fathered by John Edwards. It is not surprising that he, like many other Dems, has no paternal feelings for this child. Who loses in this fight? Frances. This poor child will grow up either being lied to about who her father is or with the feeling of abandonment because her sperm donor is more interested in his political career than he is her.
In case John didn't know, his political career lasted about as long as making this child did.
The story below is from www.foxnews.com
John Edwards' ex-mistress is reportedly interested in administering a DNA test to determine who is the father of her 1-year-old daughter after Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, sparked fresh questions over whether it might be her husband.
The former North Carolina senator and presidential candidate denied being the father of Frances Quinn Hunter during a television interview in August. But Elizabeth Edwards, in an interview on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" set to air Thursday afternoon, left open the door on whether her husband was telling the truth.
"I've seen a picture of the baby," she said. "I have no idea. It doesn't look like my children, but I don't have any idea."
On Wednesday, one day after Oprah's production company released excerpts of the interview, The National Enquirer reported that Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' former mistress, is working with a lawyer to seek a paternity test from him.
That's a turnabout from last August, when Hunter's attorney Robert Gordon released a statement saying she "will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future."
Edwards said at the time that he would "welcome" a paternity test, and that because of the "timing" of his affair "it's not possible that this child could be mine." But he indicated that his apparent willingness to take the test would lead nowhere unless Hunter consented.
"I'm only one side. I can run only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one," Edwards said at the time.
It's unclear whether Edwards would be as willing to submit to a test if Hunter is on board with the idea. When it was initially reported that Edwards was the love child's father, a former aide to the ex-senator, Andrew Young, claimed paternity.
Gordon, reached by FOXNews.com Thursday, said he did not know whether Hunter was seeking a paternity test and that he no longer represents her.
"I haven't been involved in that in a long time," Gordon said. "I can't speak to anything. I don't know anything."
Pigeon O'Brien, a former close friend of Hunter's who publicly questioned Edwards' account of the affair last year, said in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that she didn't know whether Hunter is seeking a paternity test. But she added: "It all has to do with [Elizabeth Edwards'] book and the resulting chaos."
In her book, "Resilience," due out next week, Elizabeth Edwards calls Hunter's life "pathetic" and writes that she threw up when she learned of her husband's affair.
A source reportedly told the Enquirer that Hunter decided to abandon the "cover-up" over the paternity of her daughter after learning about the contents of Elizabeth Edwards' book, in which she reportedly refers to the baby only as "it" and does not name Hunter.
While Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign aide, claimed to be the father of Frances Hunter, another former campaign worker told FOXNews.com last summer that he and Hunter had "no relationship." The birth certificate for Frances Quinn Hunter does not list a father.
The question of paternity isn't the only matter still dogging Edwards in the wake of the affair and his subsequent confession. Federal investigators are also looking into how he's managed his campaign funds -- finance questions arose last year after his political action committee paid more than $100,000 to Hunter's company for the production of short videos.
New Louisiana Senator?
Only in America could a porn star and a joke like Al Frankin could run for a Senate seat. The problem is we have people dumb enough to vote for these fools. Unless something major changes Al Frankin will be the new Senator from the great state of Minnesota. I don't typically pass judgment on people for their career choice but in a country where morals are getting very difficult to find do we really need an ex-porn star as a senator? I would say No!
Stormy Daniels strode onstage at a downtown Baton Rouge restaurant in a tight black blouse with a plunging neckline and a knee-length skirt in the popular purple of Louisiana State University. She introduced herself with a warning.
"For those of you who don't know who I am," she told the lunch crowd at The Roux House, "I'd suggest that you don't Google that until you get home from work."
She's a Louisiana-born porn star who says she is considering a 2010 run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican David Vitter, whose family-values reputation was marred in 2007 when his name was linked to a Washington prostitution ring.
Daniels, 30, insists she's serious. She's spending her own money on a "listening tour" to hear what people have to say as she considers a possible run, and said she isn't just starting a publicity stunt to promote her work or embarrass Vitter. However, she said she hasn't lived in Louisiana for seven years -- she currently resides in Florida -- and would need to re-establish residency to run.
She sprinkled her presentation Tuesday with the occasional joke ("If you get any closer you're going to have to start tipping me," she told a crowd of reporters and photographers) but she kept the topics serious.
Daniels backs some issues common to many candidates, including bringing troops home sooner from Iraq and replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Others are closer to her professional background, including pushing to remove child pornography from the Internet and keeping minors from viewing adult material.
She doesn't want to take questions about Vitter. "I think it's about time David Vitter started answering David Vitter questions," she said.
Vitter has steadfastly refused to discuss the "serious sin" he confessed to after his phone number was linked to Deborah Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam" who committed suicide as she faced prison time for running a prostitution ring that catered to the powerful. His office declined to comment Wednesday on Daniels' possible candidacy.
Vitter, 48, kept a low profile in the months after his scandal broke but has emerged as a chief critic of government bailouts and President Barack Obama's spending plans -- popular stands in a state that went solidly for Republican John McCain in last year's presidential election.
He also has been aggressively fundraising, amassing $2.5 million in campaign funds for what will be his first re-election attempt since the Palfrey scandal broke. He won the Senate seat for the first time in 2004, spending more than $7 million to defeat four major opponents for the open position.
Noting Vitter's solid conservative stances and his healthy campaign account, Ed Chervenak, a political science professor at the University of New Orleans, doesn't think a Daniels candidacy would do much damage.
"It's probably going to be fairly easy for him to ignore her," he said.
"What it really shows is the lack of any real credible Democratic challenger," he added.
Pollster and political consultant Bernie Pinsonat agreed. But he said a possible Daniels' candidacy could be a distraction if Vitter is challenged in next year's Republican primary.
"Is she a threat to beat him? No. Is she really going to run? I seriously doubt it," Pinsonat said. "But if I had my druthers and I was running the campaign of David Vitter, I would rather she not be there."
Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne has expressed interest in the GOP primary. Others reportedly considering a run are retired state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor, a Republican; and state Sen. Eric LaFleur and Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, both Democrats. Nobody has announced.
If nothing else, a Daniels candidacy could bring color to the Senate campaign the way adult film star Mary Carey did as a candidate for governor in California's 2003 recall race, which Arnold Schwarzenegger won. And Daniels could restore the spectacle missing from Louisiana politics since the unabashed gambler, reputed womanizer and now-felon Edwin Edwards left the governor's office in 1996.
Edwards was succeeded by the staid Mike Foster, the grandmotherly Kathleen Blanco and the young policy wonk, Bobby Jindal. All are a far cry from other colorful characters from Louisiana's political past: the windmill-armed Depression-era orator, Huey Long; country-singing Gov. Jimmie Davis, who once rode up the Capitol steps on horseback; or Gov. Earl Long, Huey's brother, who openly cavorted with Bourbon Street stripper Blaze Starr in the 1950s.
Daniels, meanwhile, has not committed to a candidacy -- or a political party.
She decided to explore a possible run after a draft movement started by fans after the Palfrey scandal broke, she said. "I completely ignored the whole thing for a while, and then I just got so much encouragement and feedback that I thought at the very least I owe it to myself and to the people to come out and see what they have to say."
At Mike Serio's Po-Boys & Deli in downtown New Orleans on Wednesday, the crowd was friendly but some seemed more interested in Daniels' film career.
"You look familiar. Not your face, though," said Jody Mathern, 51, a New Orleans man who said he works in the oil industry, drawing laughs from Daniels and a table full of oil patch workers. "She's a whole lot prettier than Vitter. But I still don't know what color her eyes are."
Stormy Daniels strode onstage at a downtown Baton Rouge restaurant in a tight black blouse with a plunging neckline and a knee-length skirt in the popular purple of Louisiana State University. She introduced herself with a warning.
"For those of you who don't know who I am," she told the lunch crowd at The Roux House, "I'd suggest that you don't Google that until you get home from work."
She's a Louisiana-born porn star who says she is considering a 2010 run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican David Vitter, whose family-values reputation was marred in 2007 when his name was linked to a Washington prostitution ring.
Daniels, 30, insists she's serious. She's spending her own money on a "listening tour" to hear what people have to say as she considers a possible run, and said she isn't just starting a publicity stunt to promote her work or embarrass Vitter. However, she said she hasn't lived in Louisiana for seven years -- she currently resides in Florida -- and would need to re-establish residency to run.
She sprinkled her presentation Tuesday with the occasional joke ("If you get any closer you're going to have to start tipping me," she told a crowd of reporters and photographers) but she kept the topics serious.
Daniels backs some issues common to many candidates, including bringing troops home sooner from Iraq and replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Others are closer to her professional background, including pushing to remove child pornography from the Internet and keeping minors from viewing adult material.
She doesn't want to take questions about Vitter. "I think it's about time David Vitter started answering David Vitter questions," she said.
Vitter has steadfastly refused to discuss the "serious sin" he confessed to after his phone number was linked to Deborah Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam" who committed suicide as she faced prison time for running a prostitution ring that catered to the powerful. His office declined to comment Wednesday on Daniels' possible candidacy.
Vitter, 48, kept a low profile in the months after his scandal broke but has emerged as a chief critic of government bailouts and President Barack Obama's spending plans -- popular stands in a state that went solidly for Republican John McCain in last year's presidential election.
He also has been aggressively fundraising, amassing $2.5 million in campaign funds for what will be his first re-election attempt since the Palfrey scandal broke. He won the Senate seat for the first time in 2004, spending more than $7 million to defeat four major opponents for the open position.
Noting Vitter's solid conservative stances and his healthy campaign account, Ed Chervenak, a political science professor at the University of New Orleans, doesn't think a Daniels candidacy would do much damage.
"It's probably going to be fairly easy for him to ignore her," he said.
"What it really shows is the lack of any real credible Democratic challenger," he added.
Pollster and political consultant Bernie Pinsonat agreed. But he said a possible Daniels' candidacy could be a distraction if Vitter is challenged in next year's Republican primary.
"Is she a threat to beat him? No. Is she really going to run? I seriously doubt it," Pinsonat said. "But if I had my druthers and I was running the campaign of David Vitter, I would rather she not be there."
Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne has expressed interest in the GOP primary. Others reportedly considering a run are retired state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor, a Republican; and state Sen. Eric LaFleur and Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, both Democrats. Nobody has announced.
If nothing else, a Daniels candidacy could bring color to the Senate campaign the way adult film star Mary Carey did as a candidate for governor in California's 2003 recall race, which Arnold Schwarzenegger won. And Daniels could restore the spectacle missing from Louisiana politics since the unabashed gambler, reputed womanizer and now-felon Edwin Edwards left the governor's office in 1996.
Edwards was succeeded by the staid Mike Foster, the grandmotherly Kathleen Blanco and the young policy wonk, Bobby Jindal. All are a far cry from other colorful characters from Louisiana's political past: the windmill-armed Depression-era orator, Huey Long; country-singing Gov. Jimmie Davis, who once rode up the Capitol steps on horseback; or Gov. Earl Long, Huey's brother, who openly cavorted with Bourbon Street stripper Blaze Starr in the 1950s.
Daniels, meanwhile, has not committed to a candidacy -- or a political party.
She decided to explore a possible run after a draft movement started by fans after the Palfrey scandal broke, she said. "I completely ignored the whole thing for a while, and then I just got so much encouragement and feedback that I thought at the very least I owe it to myself and to the people to come out and see what they have to say."
At Mike Serio's Po-Boys & Deli in downtown New Orleans on Wednesday, the crowd was friendly but some seemed more interested in Daniels' film career.
"You look familiar. Not your face, though," said Jody Mathern, 51, a New Orleans man who said he works in the oil industry, drawing laughs from Daniels and a table full of oil patch workers. "She's a whole lot prettier than Vitter. But I still don't know what color her eyes are."
Daily Constitution Reading 5-7-2009
Article 1 Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Specter Muscle Most Junior Dem
Good for him, it could have not happened to a more deserving jerk. Specter muscle admitted he bailed on the party that got him where he is because he was going to lose the primary battle because he is out of touch with primary voters. When people like Specter muscle think they are smarter than the average tax payer and vote to advance their own agenda it is time for them to go. That is exactly was was going to happen to Specter muscle so he decided to show his true cowardly colors and jump ship to the party that is in power. Hey Specter muscle, the dems will not be in power forever and when the Republicans regain control you are not welcome on our side. You ass clown.
Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party has cost him his seniority on Senate committees.
The Senate passed a resolution Tuesday night that made him the most junior Democrat on the committees on which he serves. The resolution was passed after an agreement was reached between leadership in both parties and Specter, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Manley said the seniority issue will be revisited after the 2010 elections.
Specter, 79, is seeking a sixth term next year in Pennsylvania. He has said he made the decision to end his four-decade relationship with the Republican Party because he was unlikely to win the nomination in a party that has grown increasingly conservative.
Specter serves on the Appropriations, Judiciary, Veterans Affairs, Environment and Public Works, and Special Aging committees.
Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, had been the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which is preparing for hearings on a Supreme Court nominee to replace the retiring Justice David Souter. When Republicans were in the majority, Specter chaired the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He now will have to wait in line to question the nominee.
Specter also was the top Republican on the subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. The issue is a personal one for him because he has twice battled cancer.
A message left with Specter's office Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party has cost him his seniority on Senate committees.
The Senate passed a resolution Tuesday night that made him the most junior Democrat on the committees on which he serves. The resolution was passed after an agreement was reached between leadership in both parties and Specter, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Manley said the seniority issue will be revisited after the 2010 elections.
Specter, 79, is seeking a sixth term next year in Pennsylvania. He has said he made the decision to end his four-decade relationship with the Republican Party because he was unlikely to win the nomination in a party that has grown increasingly conservative.
Specter serves on the Appropriations, Judiciary, Veterans Affairs, Environment and Public Works, and Special Aging committees.
Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, had been the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which is preparing for hearings on a Supreme Court nominee to replace the retiring Justice David Souter. When Republicans were in the majority, Specter chaired the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He now will have to wait in line to question the nominee.
Specter also was the top Republican on the subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. The issue is a personal one for him because he has twice battled cancer.
A message left with Specter's office Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Daily Constitution Reading 5-6-2009
Article 1 Section 8.2
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Job Approval Ratings
I find it humorous that the drive by media is running around talking about what a great president Obama is. They tell us of his soaring approval ratings and that no other president in history has been this loved.
NEWS FLASH!!!!!
After 100 days in office George Bush had the same approval ratings that Dear Leader Obama did. Whats that you say? How is that possible? Obama is the chosen one this could never be. After the first 100 days President Bush enjoyed a job approval rating of 62, Dear leader is sitting at 63.
NEWS FLASH!!!!!
After 100 days in office George Bush had the same approval ratings that Dear Leader Obama did. Whats that you say? How is that possible? Obama is the chosen one this could never be. After the first 100 days President Bush enjoyed a job approval rating of 62, Dear leader is sitting at 63.
Murtha Again!
This is a real shocker. NOT! Another crooked person related to a high profile democrat. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that Robert C Murtha's uncle ist he chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
WASHINGTON -- A company owned by a nephew of Rep. John Murtha received $4 million from the Defense Department last year for engineering and warehouse services, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Murtha, D-Pa., is chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Murtech Inc., based on Glen Burnie, Md., is owned by the congressman's nephew Robert C. Murtha Jr., who told the Post the company provides "necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going."
The Post reported that the Pentagon rewarded contracts to Murtech without competition.
Robert Murtha denied using his family ties to land defense contracts and called it "unfortunate" some would assume his company he received federal dollars because of his uncle's influence. In fact, he told the Post, "I've been critiqued all my life, having the last name of Murtha."
"If we're not doing our job well, we wouldn't be doing our job," Murtha told the paper. "I'm successful at the work I do because of the skill sets I have...You don't know how good someone is unless you work with them."
Rep. Murtha has been known for his skill at steering government money to defense contractors in his home state. But the Post said there was no evidence the lawmaker had earmarked funds for Murtech.
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported another nephew of Murtha's was named to a congressional lobbying position, raising eyebrows.
The newspaper said Marine Corps Col. Brian Murtha was appointed to a legislative liaison position with the service, which may bring him into official contact with his uncle, a decorated former Marine.
The Times said the situation doesn't appear to violate any rules or ethics guidelines, but noted other Murtha family members have also benefited from the congressman's position. He reportedly earmarked millions of dollars to an institution in his district, St. Vincent College, while his cousin, the Rev. John F. Murtha, was its president.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON -- A company owned by a nephew of Rep. John Murtha received $4 million from the Defense Department last year for engineering and warehouse services, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Murtha, D-Pa., is chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Murtech Inc., based on Glen Burnie, Md., is owned by the congressman's nephew Robert C. Murtha Jr., who told the Post the company provides "necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going."
The Post reported that the Pentagon rewarded contracts to Murtech without competition.
Robert Murtha denied using his family ties to land defense contracts and called it "unfortunate" some would assume his company he received federal dollars because of his uncle's influence. In fact, he told the Post, "I've been critiqued all my life, having the last name of Murtha."
"If we're not doing our job well, we wouldn't be doing our job," Murtha told the paper. "I'm successful at the work I do because of the skill sets I have...You don't know how good someone is unless you work with them."
Rep. Murtha has been known for his skill at steering government money to defense contractors in his home state. But the Post said there was no evidence the lawmaker had earmarked funds for Murtech.
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported another nephew of Murtha's was named to a congressional lobbying position, raising eyebrows.
The newspaper said Marine Corps Col. Brian Murtha was appointed to a legislative liaison position with the service, which may bring him into official contact with his uncle, a decorated former Marine.
The Times said the situation doesn't appear to violate any rules or ethics guidelines, but noted other Murtha family members have also benefited from the congressman's position. He reportedly earmarked millions of dollars to an institution in his district, St. Vincent College, while his cousin, the Rev. John F. Murtha, was its president.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Daily Constitution Reading 5-5-2009
Article 1 Section 8.1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Monday, May 4, 2009
Conservative Website
A good friend of the conservative movement writes a blog I visit daily. Below is a link to her blog.
Click HERE to visit www.anotsocapitolidea.com
Click HERE to visit www.anotsocapitolidea.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)