No Background Checks On NLRB Appointees
Jan 6, 2012 Political
It is bad enough that Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he made what he calls recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess but two of the appointments he made never made it through the vetting process and the Senate never had a chance to advise and consent. As such, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin were sent up after the Senate had adjourned (but did not go into official recess) and they do not appear on the list of Obama nominations.
These two did not have background checks, security checks and were not checked to ensure they paid their income taxes (a common problem among Obama appointees). None of this mattered to the Dictator of Amerika, King Barack Hussein, who appointed them anyway.
It is tragic that he violated the Constitution though it is not surprising. It is just as bad that he never gave the Senate time to even put these nominees through the proper vetting process.
King Hussein said he appointed folks because he knew Republicans would obstruct. It was, preemptive. So he has now embraced the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.
The Senate was not in recess and has had a pro forma session every three days. That appears to be consistent with Senate rules (and the Constitution says the Senate makes its own rules for how it is run) so Obama usurped the authority of Congress.
None of these appointments came up while the Senate was in recess and only one has been submitted for proper review. The Senate has not yet acted on these nominations so Obama decided he would take matters into his own hands, violate the Constitution, tick off a lot of people and do what he wants, rules be damned.
I hope he does not expect much cooperation when things ramp back up. He wants a trillion more added to the debt ceiling and he will want to make more nominations.
Republicans need to step up to the plate. Take Obama to court over this and get a ruling. If it goes in our favor then great. If not then you guys need to filibuster every motion to adjourn or motion to recess from now on. Keep everyone in DC and Obama will not be able to do an end run.
Until we take the King off his throne we need to use all the tricks.
We can start by not providing for a salary to anyone who gets a recess appointment and then proceed to not providing funds for their agencies.
The power of the purse will derail a dictator every time.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: background, king obama, liar, national security, recess appointments, taxes
Obesity A National Security Issue?
Feb 10, 2010 Political
Michelle Obama has taken on the issue of childhood obesity and while this is certainly an issue that effects many children one has to wonder where it becomes an issue for the government. What children eat and how they are fed is a matter for parents, not the nannies in government.
Obama said that obesity is a national security issue:
Military leaders report that obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service. Economic experts tell us that we’re spending outrageous amounts of money treating obesity-related conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. And public health experts tell us that the current generation could actually be on track to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Politics Daily
I don’t know who these military leaders are because they are unnamed and no information other than the claim is given. The branches of service have different weight standards and obesity is certainly an issue that can cause disqualification but most services will take people who are overweight because basic training usually gets them in shape and helps them lose weight. A waiver might be required but those who are otherwise healthy might get the waiver and later be released if unable to shed the weight.
Claiming it to be a national security issue is shady at best. If national security is the issue more waivers will be issued and the recruits who are obese will be on a more strenuous program to get them in compliance.
There are a lot of things that disqualify people from military service including use of Ritalin. This is certainly an issue that is widespread because America drugs its children with Ritalin more than any country in the world. The list of things that can be disqualifying is quite large and some reasons are more common than others.
[note]The Military Personnel Procurement Manual lists the prescribed use of Ritalin as a “permanent disqualifier” for joining the military. [/note]
In any event, none of them is a national security issue any more than being too tall or too short to join is a national security issue.
It might be wise for the administration to avoid the hype and stick to real issues that actually are a concern for national security.
Like say, allowing people on watch lists to board aircraft with bombs in their underwear.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: michelle obama, national security, obesity
More On The Misinformation Front
Feb 3, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and James Carville like to call the last decade the lost decade. It is a swipe at George Bush and the assertion is that the economy was terrible while he was in office. Randall Hoven at American Thinker has a great post up comparing the years and how we did and it is broken down by which party controlled the government.
This should drive the Democrats nuts (OK, it is more like a short putt):
So that “lost decade” was really just five lost years: the years when Republicans did not control Congress. When Republicans did control Congress, all of ten years in the last eighty, the economy did just fine — better than most recent decade averages.
Let me be clear. We got “lost” only when Democrats took over Congress. That is a fact.
Not to worry, the Obama apologists who frequent here will come up with some defense of the anointed one.
The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is coming to America for heart surgery:
The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador will be coming to the US for heart surgery for a procedure his deputy claims is not available in his home province. Just One Minute
I am certain that someone will point out that this guy’s province is small and does not offer the surgery that is needed and that this is the case all over Canada depending on where people live and what the population is. This is the excuse we hear when they make excuses for wait times.
But surely this surgery is offered somewhere in Canada. You mean to tell me this guy could not find some place in Canada, with its wonderful health care, where he could get the heart surgery he needs?
No, he is wealthy and he is coming to America to get his surgery. He is coming here for a reason and it is not that the surgery is not offered in his province…
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen does not feel safe under Obama [Big Dog Salute to Just One Minute]:
There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America’s critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?
Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality.
Hey Richard, welcome to the club.
Bonus
Republicans get more in fundraising money in December.
That’s the wrap up for now. As always, your comments are appreciated.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: canadian health care, democrat, fundraising, national security, Obama, republican
Democrats And National Security
Dec 30, 2009 Political
The Democrats are quick to point out that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and therefore he is responsible for it. Fair enough though it is just as true that the policies of the Clinton Administration led to the attacks of that day. Bush was tagged with it but Clinton made it happen.
The failed terrorist attack of Christmas Day took place on Obama’s watch and he is responsible for it. Democrats believe that it is our belligerence that causes us to be attacked and that their methods of diplomacy are the correct ones. I think it is safe to put that myth to rest. Despite the Obama view that he will usher in a new world and that people will like us if we extend an open hand the attacks continue. The people who want to do us harm do not care much about the nice talk. They have a goal and that goal is to destroy us.
No external force can defeat us. Our defeat, if we suffer one, will come from forces within and those forces are manifested in the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress. Their policies and their positions make us weaker and will get Americans killed.
David Horowitz has a piece out at FrontPageMag.com which is entitled; “Who Will Be Responsible for the American Dead?” He answers the title’s question as follows:
The answer to the question posed above is that liberals will be responsible when the next bomber actually succeeds in killing Americans. Liberals have fought the very idea that we are at war (and should use security measures appropriate in wartime) although our enemies have declared war on us. Liberals have fought to close the Guantanamo Bay holding center and to release its terrorists back onto the battlefield.
Liberals have fought the idea that we are at war. This is a true statement and is reflected by the replacement of the phrase “War on Terror” with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operations” and “Terrorism” with “Man Made Disaster.” This is a mindset that will get people killed and is a mindset that demonstrates weakness. The Christmas Day bomber felt no love for America or Obama and his open hand. This person felt a hatred for us and everything we believe in and felt so strongly that he was willing to take his own life in order to murder a bunch of innocent people.
Dick Cheney says that Obama is pretending that this does not exist but that pretending will not make it go away. Politico reports these words from the former Vice President:
“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”
This is a very astute observation by Mr. Cheney. He has Obama completely pegged and his assessment is spot on. Obama pretends that things do not exist because they do not fit into the view he has of the world. Obama is like a child who believes that if something is not seen (or in his case acknowledged) then it does not exist. The saying that what you can’t see can’t harm you is a dangerous one indeed. While Obama pretends that there are no enemies and that we are not at war we are being targeted by those who are at war with us.
Recently, Obama gave himself a B+ grade for his work so far. Toby Harnden of the Telegraph UK has a post up indicating that Obama gets an F for protecting Americans. Mr. Harnden states:
There is no more solemn duty for an American commander-in-chief than the martialling of “all elements of American power” – the phrase Obama himself used on Monday – to protect the people of the United States. In that key respect, Obama failed on Christmas Day, just as President George W. Bush failed on September 11th (though he succeeded in the seven years after that).
Yes, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Obama may have rather smugly given himself a “B+” for his 2008 performance but he gets an F for the events that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn into his underpants. He said today that a “systemic failure has occurred”. Well, he’s in charge of that system.
Yes, Obama is in charge of the system that failed and he is in charge of securing this country. Unfortunately, while he pretends that all is well the wolves are at the door.
The sad truth is that the door leads to a house made of straw.
Related:
History News Network; SYSTEM WORKED; OBAMASPHERICS FAILED
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cheney, harnden, horowitz, national security, Obama, terror
Senator Dodd Reduced Aviation Security
Dec 29, 2009 Political
Now that securing the nation’s airports is again on the front burner, after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, the Washington Examiner is reporting that one Senator introduced an amendment to reduce aviation security. The Examiner reports:
Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants — a notoriously inneffective[sic] program. In fact, the money was specifically “for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems.”
According to the report, Dodd reduced aviation security by $4.5 million to give the money “to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.”
Politics over security, yep that sounds like a Democrat.
Obviously this had no impact on what took place on Christmas but one has to wonder what affect it is having now that security has been stepped up. Would that money have been used to buy more x-ray screeners that airports are now begging for? Would explosives detectors now be in place so that dogs would not have to do the job?
Senator Dodd is not likely to win reelection next year. His constituency is unhappy with his illegal sweetheart mortgage deal and his role in the collapse of the housing market.
The fact that he played politics with our security cannot sit too well with them either.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: aviation security, Democrats, dodd, national security, politics