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.
Monday, May 11, 2009
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)