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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
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
Change In The Iranian Air?
Is there finally going to be a more centrist candidate in the presidential office of Iran? Only time will tell but at this point things are not looking good for Ahmadinejad. A new "president" in Iran could spell better relations between Tehran and the US. Ahmadinejad has long denied the Holocaust and the repeated calls to wipe Israel off the map has made it impossible for relations with countries that are not radical.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader publicly rebuked the president over his removal of a top official, a rare show of discontent with the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the country's most powerful figure.
The flap centered around control of a body that organizes the annual hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, traditionally part of responsibilities under supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's vast powers. Khameini overturned the government's removal of the head of the organization.
The rebuke, issued in the press on Monday, comes at a time when Iranians are watching carefully for any sign as to whether Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad is weakening as the president faces a tough battle for a second term in June 12 elections. Khameini's backing is important for any presidential candidate to win.
But given Iran's notoriously murky politics, it is hard to gauge where Khameini stands. The supreme leader has overruled Ahmadinejad at times in the past, only to later reaffirm his strong support for the president.
Some have seen other signs of weakening support. In March, the supreme leader said his stance is to support the president in power. But he also said that position was not connected to the elections and that he does not tell anyone who to vote for.
Ahmadinejad faces a strong challenge in the elections from reformists, who call for greater freedoms at home and better relations with the West. At the same time, Ahmadinejad's popularity has fallen among some in his conservative base, mainly because of the country's economic woes. His critics also accuse him of hurting Iran by his insistence on pursuing a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at producing weapons and by denying the Holocaust.
Khamenei holds ultimate power in Iran, at the top of the Muslim clerical hierarchy above elected figures such as the president. If his support for Ahmadinejad is clear, then it would likely rally conservatives behind the president. If not, conservatives could take it as a signal to back an alternative candidate.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader publicly rebuked the president over his removal of a top official, a rare show of discontent with the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the country's most powerful figure.
The flap centered around control of a body that organizes the annual hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, traditionally part of responsibilities under supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's vast powers. Khameini overturned the government's removal of the head of the organization.
The rebuke, issued in the press on Monday, comes at a time when Iranians are watching carefully for any sign as to whether Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad is weakening as the president faces a tough battle for a second term in June 12 elections. Khameini's backing is important for any presidential candidate to win.
But given Iran's notoriously murky politics, it is hard to gauge where Khameini stands. The supreme leader has overruled Ahmadinejad at times in the past, only to later reaffirm his strong support for the president.
Some have seen other signs of weakening support. In March, the supreme leader said his stance is to support the president in power. But he also said that position was not connected to the elections and that he does not tell anyone who to vote for.
Ahmadinejad faces a strong challenge in the elections from reformists, who call for greater freedoms at home and better relations with the West. At the same time, Ahmadinejad's popularity has fallen among some in his conservative base, mainly because of the country's economic woes. His critics also accuse him of hurting Iran by his insistence on pursuing a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at producing weapons and by denying the Holocaust.
Khamenei holds ultimate power in Iran, at the top of the Muslim clerical hierarchy above elected figures such as the president. If his support for Ahmadinejad is clear, then it would likely rally conservatives behind the president. If not, conservatives could take it as a signal to back an alternative candidate.
Specter Is A True Democrat
Specter decided he would follow in the footsteps of democrats like Joe Biden, Obama, and Kerry and say something really stupid on national TV. I think it is a requirement to be in the Democratic party. If you are unable to stay stupid stuff you are not allowed! Now if Specter were still a RINO he would have been blasted by everyone in the media.
Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.
The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Specter suggested that one of the reasons he left the GOP was because it did not share his interest in funding medical research.
"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."
Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Specter has been treated for Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Through his Web site, specterforthecure.com, the senator has called for more federal resources and funding to be directed toward medical research.
Specter on Sunday touted his record of increasing funding for research for the National Institutes of Health. His Web site details the strides he's made -- "doubling the nation's health research budget" and helping include funding for the NIH in the stimulus bill.
But his claims about Nixon's "war on cancer" and Kemp, the former Buffalo Bills MVP who died of an undisclosed cancer after a lengthy illness, raised eyebrows -- since the government has devoted billions to cancer research since Nixon's call in 1971 for a campaign to find a cancer cure.
The National Cancer Institute had a $4.8 billion budget in fiscal 2008. Since the early '70s, the National Cancer Institute's budgets have totaled more than $80 billion, according to historical budget statistics.
"We are spending more money on cancer research -- public and private -- than President Nixon ever dreamed," said one column critical of Specter's comments on The American Thinker blog.
In a statement to FOXNews.com, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer said there's "room for more progress" but noted the achievements researchers have made in past decades in the areas of cancer prevention and treatment.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research, Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday, one day after Kemp, the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee and former congressman, died of cancer.
The Pennsylvania senator, who last week switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, made the claim on two Sunday shows.
On CBS' "Face the Nation," Specter suggested that one of the reasons he left the GOP was because it did not share his interest in funding medical research.
"Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate. But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach," Specter said. "And one of the items that I'm working on ... is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research."
Specter added: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Specter has been treated for Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. Through his Web site, specterforthecure.com, the senator has called for more federal resources and funding to be directed toward medical research.
Specter on Sunday touted his record of increasing funding for research for the National Institutes of Health. His Web site details the strides he's made -- "doubling the nation's health research budget" and helping include funding for the NIH in the stimulus bill.
But his claims about Nixon's "war on cancer" and Kemp, the former Buffalo Bills MVP who died of an undisclosed cancer after a lengthy illness, raised eyebrows -- since the government has devoted billions to cancer research since Nixon's call in 1971 for a campaign to find a cancer cure.
The National Cancer Institute had a $4.8 billion budget in fiscal 2008. Since the early '70s, the National Cancer Institute's budgets have totaled more than $80 billion, according to historical budget statistics.
"We are spending more money on cancer research -- public and private -- than President Nixon ever dreamed," said one column critical of Specter's comments on The American Thinker blog.
In a statement to FOXNews.com, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer said there's "room for more progress" but noted the achievements researchers have made in past decades in the areas of cancer prevention and treatment.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Letter From Senator Kaufman
May 4, 2009
I was unfortunate enough to receive another form letter from Senator Kaufman. This is evident that he does not read the letters that are sent in because in my letter to him I insisted he either send me a self crafted response or no response at all. I will be doing everything I can to ensure this clown does not get elected the first time he runs because unfortunately the peoples of Delaware did not have the option to voice their opinion on Kaufman being a senator.
Dear Mr. James:
Thank you for writing me in regard to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Our federal budget is a general statement of priorities. Every budget, whether that of a family or of the United States government, reflects difficult choices and this year's choices are made more difficult because of the economic situation that the country is in today.
This budget reflects two realities. We must first deal with the deep, inherited troubles of the current crisis and then lay the groundwork for our future success. This budget responds to the severe economic circumstances with emergency action and makes strategic investments to build a stronger future.
As you may already know, the Congress recently passed its budget with my support. I was proud to support this crucial blueprint because it provides for tax cuts to the middle class and putting people back to work. It will allow us to make college more affordable, health care more accessible, and fund research and development of domestic renewable energy sources which will create new industries, jobs, products, and improve our energy independence and security.
At this stage in the formulation of the budget, dollar amounts involved are assigned to broad categories that will become more specific through later legislation. You can be sure that I welcome your input as the Senate continues to work through this crucial process.
Thank you, again, for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Edward E. Kaufman
United States Senator
I was unfortunate enough to receive another form letter from Senator Kaufman. This is evident that he does not read the letters that are sent in because in my letter to him I insisted he either send me a self crafted response or no response at all. I will be doing everything I can to ensure this clown does not get elected the first time he runs because unfortunately the peoples of Delaware did not have the option to voice their opinion on Kaufman being a senator.
Dear Mr. James:
Thank you for writing me in regard to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Our federal budget is a general statement of priorities. Every budget, whether that of a family or of the United States government, reflects difficult choices and this year's choices are made more difficult because of the economic situation that the country is in today.
This budget reflects two realities. We must first deal with the deep, inherited troubles of the current crisis and then lay the groundwork for our future success. This budget responds to the severe economic circumstances with emergency action and makes strategic investments to build a stronger future.
As you may already know, the Congress recently passed its budget with my support. I was proud to support this crucial blueprint because it provides for tax cuts to the middle class and putting people back to work. It will allow us to make college more affordable, health care more accessible, and fund research and development of domestic renewable energy sources which will create new industries, jobs, products, and improve our energy independence and security.
At this stage in the formulation of the budget, dollar amounts involved are assigned to broad categories that will become more specific through later legislation. You can be sure that I welcome your input as the Senate continues to work through this crucial process.
Thank you, again, for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Edward E. Kaufman
United States Senator
Daily Constitution Reading 5-4-2009
Article 1 Section 9.1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-30-2009
Article 6 Section 1
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Delmarva Sign
This picture was taken on Delmarva. I doctored it up a little to protect the identity of the business that posted it. They are not ashamed of it but it is not my place to put their name out there.
Hate Crime Prevention Act 2009
Here goes our buddy Congressman Castle again off on a liberal tangent. It is when he does things like this that I hope he resigns his house seat and runs for Bidens seat, and loses. Castle has a very "Specteress" voting record. You never really know where he is going to come down. The GOP in Delaware is just so happy to have a "Republican" as out lone congressman because the state is so ridiculously blue they allow him to do as he pleases without any resistance. Personally I would rather have an admitted Democrat in that seat so we could run a strong conservative against him.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-29-2009
Article 5 Section 1
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Marines Reaction To Two Different Presidents
This is utterly amazing. I knew how the service men and women felt about Bush and assumed they were much less "friendly" to Obama but this is staggering.
Specter Admits Hes A Liberal
Well not exactly but he has decided to run as a Democrat in the upcoming primary. I personally am happy to see him go. This is the coward thing to do but wish he would have done it long ago. No matter what party he decides to associate with he is going to loose.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
White House Apologizes For NYC Scare
Once again this arrogant administration has done something stupid. Yesterday the plane that bares the call sign "Air Force One" when the president is on board did a low fly over, with an F-16 in trail, of New York City.
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-28-2009
Article 4 Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Second Amendment Supporters
I was browsing the web this morning and ran across the document below. It just goes to show not all republicans are interested in preserving your second amendment rights.
Click HERE for the document.
Click HERE for the document.
Trophy Rock Fish Season
I know this is supposed to be a political blog but this time of the year I spend a lot of time on the water fishing for trophy rock fish. The season has been open for a week and after many hours spent on the water catching nothing I finally was able to land a couple of trophy's.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-27-2009
Article 4 Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama Is Not Playing Nice?
There are not really people that are surprised this president, the most radical liberal ever to be elected, would not honor his promise of bipartisanship is there? The Republicans that have voted with the Democrats since this radical took office should be voted out of office as soon as their current term expires.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Pelosi Is A LIAR!
Pelosi is a liar! I don't typically start a story with such harsh allegations but this creature is will say anything to get reelected and get the heat off her back. She knew of the interrogation techniques and anyone who does not believe she does is an idiot. I hope the citizens of her district wake up and vote this crazy ding bat out of office. I hope whoever runs against her plasters the television and newspapers with the story of her husband and American Samoa. She is a crook right along with Feinstein.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-24-2009
Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)