On Hiatus

Sphere: Related Content

Due to a perfect storm of server problems (Blogger is "improving" and updating their software, which means it no longer works properly LOL) and time consuming personal matters Because I'm Right will be on hiatus for the foreseeable future. (Please stop crying, friends and stop cheering, all others.)  Yes, I realize that "hiatus" is often a way of saying "going away forever" but such is not the case here.  As soon as some things resolve themselves I, nocomme1 aka The Right Guy will be back to a regular blogging schedule.  And just to prove my good intentions I will be popping up and posting now and again over the next couple of weeks.

In the meantime, have a great couple of weeks and I will see you all soon.

Tuesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

The Obama Tapes...And Why They Won't Hurt HIm

Sphere: Related Content

Here we go, again, wasting our time. The most "recent" Obama scandal du jour comes to us from the Lightbringer's very own lips. Politico reports on the content of the audio version of Obama's 1995 memoir, Dreams From my Father.

While it is true that there is much here of interest and much that will likely turn many people off it is also true that if Republicans are thinking that they will get much mileage out of it, they are probably indulging in more wishful thinking than making any kind of serious analysis. First off, the book was originally published in 1995, thirteen years ago. While some of the excerpts may come as a surprise to some people, Obama will of course fall back on the fact that this is old news...and he'll actually be right. Even the audio clips have been out there for three years. This doesn't exactly qualify as fast-breaking news. The Obama-loving media will, of course, will be more than happy to agree with him and ignore the "story" entirely.

Also it seems likely than those folks who are likely to be shocked, angered, outraged or otherwise miffed by what he has to say have already decided not to vote for the Obamessiah anyway. Unlike the Jeremiah Wright story, which was not known to the public at large and about which Obama has spent much time dissembling, in this case Obama may be concealing some truths here but the actual quotes are being read by him, making it difficult to say that he's hiding them.

There are far more productive ways to deal with Barack Obama than wasting time here. Pointing out that he is a socialist is one way. Pointing out that he is not "new", just another politician-as-usual is another. Pointing out that he will drive energy prices through the roof is another. Pointing out that he is unqualified to be commander is chief is yet another. Pointing out that...well, you get the point.

Pursuing this story would just pull resources away from far more fertile ground. Barack Obama is a veritable scandal machine (most of the "scandals" being found in the truth of his "record" and policies). We don't need this one.

We should close the book on this story and move on.

Conservatives To McCain: We're Not That Into You, Either

Sphere: Related Content

Not much new in this video clip dealing with Conservatives' unhappiness with McCain. What is troubling is that McCain became the presumptive Republican nominee months ago and stories just like this one ran then.  At that time McCain's people assured us that he was aware of the problems and would be addressing them.  Well, he has come around on some things; tax cuts, offshore drilling, etc. but the lack of trust that Conservatives have in McCain (and discussed in the video)  is a very real, continuing problem.  We all know, as Michael Tanner of Cato says here that McCain is a "stubborn guy" as we have seen over and over again.  Of course it seems that most of that stubborn streak is usually saved for his supporters, generally presenting a more "respectful and reasonable" face to his Democratic opponent who is trying to figuratively kick his teeth in daily.

While McCain is sitting around congratulating himself on his stubborness, he'd be well served to remember that Conservatives are stubborn, too.  When he is stubborn, he adopts policies we don't like.  When we're stubborn we're very likely not to go out and vote for him.  Sometimes I think "the little jerk" doesn't really understand that.  But unless he realizes who his friends really are come Election Day, he may find out that he doesn't have very many of us left.

Another Environmental "Solution" Starts To Fall Apart: EU Infatuation With Ethanol Grows Cold - Canada, Too

Sphere: Related Content

Give some credit to environmentalists: they don't just tell us that we are killing the Earth they do frequently have "environmentally sound" boatloads of solutions which we can employ to "save the Earth". Of course, many of those solutions come down to reversing the industrial revolution and all of us going back to living in caves, but they do have some other ideas, too. Take biofuels. Touted as being far more environmentally friendly than gasoline biofuels have been mandated to be incorporated into the fuel mix of many Western nations including those in the EU, Canada and US. But now comes this story from the EU and all of a sudden we have the makings of another enviro-boondoggle:

BRUSSELS:
Signaling a major retrenchment, European Union legislators on Monday proposed ratcheting back an ambitious target to raise Europe's use of biofuels.

At the same time, a new report for the British government cast fresh doubt on using fuels from crops in the fight against climate change.

Until recently, European governments had sought to lead the rest of the world, setting a target for 10 percent of transportation fuels to be derived from biofuels by 2020. But the allure has dimmed amid growing evidence that the kind of targets proposed by the EU are contributing to deforestation and helpingforce up food prices.

"I think when we will look back we will say this was the beginning of a turning point for Europe on biofuels," said Juan Delgado, a research fellow specializing in energy and climate change expert at Breugel, a research organization in Brussels. "It will be very difficult now for Europe to stick by its targets."

And as far as being a sensible, economically smart alternative to gas in reducing greenhouse gases, well environmentalists might have oversold that a bit, too:

Britain also signaled a new course Monday. Ruth Kelly, the British transport minister, said the introduction of biofuels should be slowed down, citing a newly released report warning that current targets for biofuel production could cause a global rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in poverty in the poorest countries.

And with all this reevaluating going on in Europe, across the Atlantic in Canada a very similar dissatisfaction seems to be taking hold:

An Angus Reid poll released on May 13, 2008 shows that only 53 per cent of respondents believe "ethanol is a great alternative to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels." Furthermore, a remarkable 44 per cent believe "corn or wheat-based ethanol should be banned, because it is ethically wrong to use food to produce fuel" in light of global food shortages.

Of course big government being big government, the common sense of the people is rarely a real consideration (the Brainiacs in the bureaucracy always know best).

The Conservative government has committed $200 million to biofuel production through the ecoAgriculture Biofuels Capital Initiative (ecoABC) alone and today introduced Bill C-33 which would make mandatory a minimum five percent biofuel content in all fuels by 2010.

There does seem to be a voice of sanity in Canada, however in the form of Dennis Young, the Libertarian Party leader who has said,

Newly elected Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young added that his party would scrap the biofuel mandates and subsidies to the industry: "Good ideas find
support in the market. Bad ideas require government subsidies and mandates."
Young argued that alternative energy solutions should come from the free market:
"High oil prices are driving innovations in alternative energy. Let's remove the government barriers to successful innovation and see what alternatives prove the most viable."

Here in the States, The Heritage Foundation (of course) has done a rational analysis of the biofuels dead-end:

America's energy policy has been on an ethanol binge, and now the hangover has begun. The federal renewable fuels mandate is an unfolding failure, and more Members of Congress are taking notice. If repeal of the mandate is not yet possible, Congress should at least freeze ethanol use at current levels while the nation reassesses its renewable fuels policy.

Background

Mandates for renewable fuels, chiefly ethanol derived from corn, have steamrolled through Washington as few other issues have in recent years. The 2005 energy bill contained the first-ever requirement that these fuels be mixed into the nation's gasoline supply. Beginning in 2006, the mandate came on top of massive subsidies and tax breaks already enjoyed by domestic ethanol producers.

The mandate quickly proved to be a mistake—raising rather than lowering
fuel costs, sparking food price inflation, and invoking environmentalist opposition during its first two years. Nonetheless, a bill to increase the requirements nearly fivefold passed Congress easily and was enthusiastically signed by the President in December 2007. Thanks to this measure, America is now committed to 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and 36 billion by 2022. For at least the next few years, almost all of this mandate will be met by corn ethanol.

With Americans squirming under the weight of ever more costly energy how long will support for ethanol last when the following information sinks into their heads?:

The AAA calculates that ethanol has recently cost 20 to 30 cents per gallon more than regular gasoline.[1] And that does not take into account the heavy taxpayer subsidies, including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit, without which ethanol would be even costlier.

Proponents insist that economies of scale will kick in and make ethanol
more affordable as the mandated levels are ratcheted up, but there is no sign of that actually happening. The opposite is more likely. For example, ethanol costs more to transport than gasoline, and the expanding mandates necessitate usage well outside of its Midwestern home base.

Ethanol is also more expensive to use in the summer: It contributes to
smog and in several markets can be used only with a costlier base blend that
compensates for this shortcoming; but this blend must be used year-round. Over the longer term, the law requires that corn alternatives like cellulosic ethanol be used as well. Cellulosic ethanol—made from certain grasses, wood, or crop waste—is currently far more expensive than even corn ethanol.

Barack Obama, continuing to leave a gargantuan issue opening that John McCain seems unaware he should be exploiting, has a policy on ethanol would exacerbate the problems and continue the upward spiral of energy costs. His policy on ethanol found on his official website show this plainly:

Support Next Generation Biofuels

Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources,
including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.

Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.

Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.

Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

John McCain, who has flirted with ethanol in the past seems to be coming to his senses on the issue recently.

Sen. John McCain Monday joined other GOP senators urging environmental
regulators to ease rules demanding a sharp increase in ethanol use to help head off further increases in food prices.

Ethanol is proving to be yet another policy foisted on the public by the environmental lobby among others with the assurance that it is part of the "answer". Instead what we are learning more clearly with every passing day is, not only don't the enviromentalists have the "answer", they don't even understand the question.

The Absurd Report would seem to agree

Monday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus and Archaeology

Sphere: Related Content

Early last year a story appeared that purported to prove that, unlike what the New Testament tells us and what billions of Christians have believed since the first century or so, Jesus Christ did no die only to be resurrected and then ascend into heaven. Instead, according to this "new discovery" we learn that like many other ordinary people of his day Jesus was married, died and and buried with his wife and family in the family tomb. You see, the family tomb has been "found". No Resurrection, no religion as we have known it.

On the other hand, in 1961...

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered..., when a block of
black limestone [pictured below] was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the
capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[9] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

Score one for the the historical story of Jesus.

Now comes this story of a tablet dating back to slightly before the time of Jesus upon which is (supposedly) written evidence to the effect that Jesus' reported "...death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time." As with most such ancient artifacts its authenticity and actual meaning is somewhat in doubt. While it may date to a time before Jesus, because of its poor condition it is difficult to be sure exactly what it is saying: Does it really indicate that there will be a risen (after three days) messiah? Is the messiah it talks about a person named Simon, also mentioned in the text? Is it really talking about Barack Obama, and not Jesus? (Ok, that was a little joke.)

Believers may now move to one corner of the room and non believers to the other and you can start yelling your arguments at each other. The fact is that militant atheists are always eager to latch onto some bit of "evidence" that they believe will somehow negate the truth of "Christianity" (oddly, they never seem to spend much time looking into the archaeological record to see if they can negate any of the Koran). On the other hand Christan believers can sometimes be a little defensive on the subject of the veracity of Jesus' existence and word.

For me, while I find Biblical archaeology fascinating I tend to agree with the Catholic Church's (and maybe Protestant policy on this as well; I'm just not that familiar with it to know for sure) take on this sort of thing. Christianity's truth will not be found in archaeology, or any other science. In modern times, anyway the Church does not seem to fear science as it once did. Faith, by its very definition is beyond science. We can look for many answers to many questions in the universe that God created but we won't find a rationale for why he created the universe created that universe in it. For that we have to look elsewhere, to religion.

I'm always sort of amazed at the way militant atheists are condescending about believers for all the "absurd" things they believe that are so far away from what everyday experience should tell them is nonsense. Yet these same atheists don't find the current scientific explanation about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang theory, wherein all matter in the universe was once contained in a space a trillionth of what it now is and inexplicably exploded, and (briefly, faster than the speed of light) expanded and cooled to become the universe we all know. Now if you want a crazy story...

Personally I have no problem in believing in the Big Bang, evolution etc. and in Jesus' resurrection, too. Christ's message of redemption is so deep and profound that it "feels right". I'm not a great Catholic, probably not a particularly good one but the older I get the more the story of Christ strikes me as "elegant" as the scientists might say and the less worried I am about the revelations of science and the more I see the strength that exists in faith.

So let the archaeologists, the physicists, the mathemeticians, etc. have at it. I'm betting God isn't afraid of them. And if He's not, neither am I.

Oh, as an addendum: The "photo" of Christ at the top of this post comes from a Popular Science story that investigated what an average man of Jesus' time in Israel probably looked like. And the Jesus' tomb story is now generally considered to have been debunked by most archaeologists.

Definition Of Patriotism: Happiness When The US Defeats The Enemy

Sphere: Related Content

H/t to Ed Morriseey at Hot Air

Here's a part of the definition of patriotism that Barack Obama seems to have forgotten in his speech the other day: Patriotism is celebrating the defeat of those who have killed and want to continue killing Americans and who want to destroy the American nation. But Barack shouldn't really feel that bad; apparently most of the msm and the Democratic party as an entity have also forgotten.

According to this story ,

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular
victories of the war on terror.

One would think that a victory this "spectacular" would be big news indeed, and indeed it would be if it had happened during the administration of a Democrat President, but as it this victory represents the vindication of GWB, it apparently is barely worth a mention.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul. A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the
Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of
Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The breadth and implications of this victory are far reaching and represent the biggest defeat for Al-Qaeda since the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan.

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to
write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said.
“But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we
defeated them.”

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

And how solid is this situation, how stable will it be?

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think
we’re at the irreversible point.”

This is not just a defeat for Al-Qaeda, but is a terrific defeat for Iran, which has been waging a proxy war against the US by funding Al-Qaeda and supplying it with what frequently seemed a never ending supply of manpower.

Ed Morrissey points out the psychological impact this will continue to have on the enemy:

They have lost their supposedly divine endorsement; why would Allah have called them to action, just to see them destroyed by the infidels? The sheer bloodthirstiness of their actions in Iraq have exposed them as drug-driven demons, not righteous jihadists.

While Barack Obama and the Democratic party run around shouting to every microphone they can find that "Al-Qaeda is stronger today than it was on 9/11" Al Qaeda itself is telling a different story. In a letter seized by US military all the way back in the summer of 2007 an Al-Qaeda leader in Anbar province said that their security structure was in a state of "total collapse". And in October of that year came this letter which shows the chaos in their ranks, found in the same way:

"I am Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector,” [His force of 600 had collapsed down to a force of 20.]

“We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers...Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.”

Obama and company may try to downplay the importance in Iraq in the broader war on terrorism but but once again they are gainsaid by Al-Qaeda itself. This is what Osama bin Laden had to say about the importance of Iraq for his global stategy:

The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this
third world war … raging in [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the
whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the
misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the
whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began
against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The
world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text
Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites,
12/28/04)

Thousands of American men and women have suffered and died to create a beachhead of stability in the Islamic world, to draw a line in the sand that says, 'No, you will not advance'. They have challenged the core assumptions of Al-Qaeda's motivating philosophy, that Allah is on their side and they cannot fail, and in doing so have crushed the spirit of Al-Qaeda's followers and assured that recruiting into "Allah's army" is far more difficult that it would have been if otherwise.

And what has been the response of the Democratic nominee for President, his party and devotees in the msm? To deny that these brave men and women have accomplished anything of value to America, often accusing them of crimes against the Iraqi people and against humanity.

Barack Obama may try to set up a rhetorical framework that disallows any questions about his patriotism, but his own behavior demands that his patriotism be called into question.

Barack Obama is no patriot.

Friday, July 4th Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Birthday, America

Sphere: Related Content

Uinted States Constitution, Bill of Rights And The Amendments

Sphere: Related Content

Never in the history of Man has one document ever encapsulated the hopes and aspirations of the human heart more than has the United States Constitution. But its achievement is greater than that, it does something far more difficult: It provides a roadmap to make those hopes and aspirations real. It is not a perfect document as its writers knew, allowing for a method to amend it. But then perfection is not the province of Man but of God.

When this nation has gone astray is when we have strayed from the Founder's wisdom and the words and spirit found in this document.

In this upcoming election, as in all, we could do worse as a way of deciding for whom to vote than choosing that candidate who will keep us closer to the meaning of the words in this document.

__________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

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.

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

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.

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.

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.

Section. 8.

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;

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 provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

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.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

---

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

---

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

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.

---

Article. V.

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.

---

Article. VI.

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.

---

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington


Presidt and deputy from Virginia

Delaware

Geo: Read

Gunning Bedford jun

John Dickinson

Richard Bassett

Jaco: Broom

Maryland

James McHenry

Dan of St Thos. Jenifer

Danl. Carroll

Virginia

John Blair

James Madison Jr.

North Carolina

Wm. Blount

Richd. Dobbs Spaight

Hu Williamson

South Carolina

J. Rutledge

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Charles Pinckney

Pierce Butler

Georgia

William Few

Abr Baldwin

New Hampshire

John Langdon

Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts

Nathaniel Gorham

Rufus King

Connecticut

Wm. Saml. Johnson

Roger Sherman

New York

Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey

Wil: Livingston

David Brearley

Wm. Paterson

Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania

B Franklin

Thomas Mifflin

Robt. Morris

Geo. Clymer

Thos. FitzSimons

Jared Ingersoll

James Wilson

Gouv Morris

---

The Bill Of rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on

Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should
be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that
the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States,
as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which
Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid
to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of
the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Amendments

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

---

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

---

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

---

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

---

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

---

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

---

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

---

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

---

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

---

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

---

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept.
25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

Thursday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Calling Michelle Malkin, Charles Johnson, A.J. Strata, Ed Morrissey, Richard Fernandez and Ace of Spades

Sphere: Related Content

When the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 was unveiled in September 2005, these six high profile conservative bloggers were instrumental in raising the public protest that forced the Memorial Project to agree to a redesign. Charles Johnson stayed with the story until the summer of 2006, and Ace has done two links since 2005, but for the most part, these conservative heroes seem to have decided that the "circle of embrace" redesign is okay.



It is NOT okay. Architect Paul Murdoch described his original Crescent of Embrace design as a broken circle. The redesign is still described as a broken circle, and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains exactly as it was in the original design.



In particular, the giant crescent still points to Mecca, and the repetition of this Mecca orientation in the crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial proves that the Mecca orientation is intentional. That makes the giant crescent a mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built.



The planned memorial is a terrorist memorial mosque. This is an enemy plot, every bit as ambitious in its own way as the 9/11 attacks. To stop this re-hijacking of Flight 93, we need our frontline bloggers to rejoin the fray!





The only change: the design now includes a broken off part of the circle



The design drawings were recolored to make it look as if significant changes were made, the but only actual change was the inclusion of an additional arc of trees, said to represent a broken off part of the circle:





Crescent of Embrace left. Circle or Embrace right. The only actual change is the additional arc of trees on the west side of the memorial. (Click for larger image.)



Notice that this extra ark of trees sits to the rear of a person facing into the giant central crescent. That is the equivalent of laying down a Muslim prayer rug (called a small mosque) in front of some trees. The prayer rug is unchanged. You can plant as many trees around a mosque as you want to. It will still be a mosque.





"Broken circle" is Park Service's official story



In the original design, the broken off part of the circle was removed entirely. Now, as Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley reiterated last week, a broken off part of the circle is included:

The trees surrounding this "circle of embrace" are missing, or broken, in two places; first, where the flight path of the plane came overhead (which is the location of the planned memorial overlook and visitor center) and second, where the plane crashed at the Sacred Ground (depicted by a ceremonial gate and pathway into the Sacred Ground).

She is describing the two ends of the additional arc of trees. It is broken at both ends.



Both the theme and the geometry of the original Crescent of Embrace design remain as they were. The terrorists still break our circle, and they still turn it into a giant Mecca oriented crescent.



Those who raised the hue and cry about the original design ought to be equally concerned that the original design remains completely intact in the phony redesign. Come on heroes. Your help is NEEDED!






Animation superimposes the redesign, then withdraws all but the changes. (Click for larger version.)





Come to the August 2nd meeting



If you can make it to Somerset PA on Saturday August 2nd, come help Tom Burnett Sr. tackle the hijacker! (Mr. Burnett announced trip, and his willingness to go to jail if necessary, in this audio clip from the Mancow Muller radio show (25 seconds. And here is Tom talking about the heroism of his murdered son, Tom Jr. Audio 45 seconds).





To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

The New Patriotism

Sphere: Related Content

I am shocked, shocked by the intolerance shown by the Denver officials who are trying to trample on the "creative expression" this marvelous singer was attempting to bring to their gathering. When Barack becomes king...I mean President, this kind of expression will flourish. The Pledge of Allegiance will be to various ethnic groups, or to those who oppose American imperialism. Perhaps the flag will be altered to show Uncle Sam with his head bowed in sorrow for all of America's sins. As we'll soon learn when (not if) the Lightbringer is sworn in, reciting all America's evils is more patriotic than appreciating it. The day is coming near.

Watch. Out.

Yes, He's Worth It

Sphere: Related Content

Next Sunday's New York Times Magazine has a cover story on the Big Man of radio, the Left's bete noir and conservatism's leading man, Rush Limbaugh. The piece is surprisingly even-handed, even nice and consists in large part of a long interview with Rush done in February of this year. The major piece of news to emerge from it is the revelation of Rush's new contract that will keep him on the air until 2016 for an unprecedented and breathtaking amount that is estimated to be near $400 million dollars...not counting the 9 figure signing bonus. Figured annually it is an amount larger than the per annum pay of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer combined.

The Left, never a group to disappoint is livid, rallying a kind hysteria usually reserved for GWB.
On the Huffington Post, "researcher", showing the kind patriotism Barack Obama tells us the Left is all about says,

he is a have more and an imperialist and a war monger
that is why he so popular in america
until most americans figure that out not much will change

And Sylmason on the same HuffPo gives us a peek into the wonderful world of freedom that might be an Obama Presidency:

You might have a contract in 2009, but once BO gets to the WH.......................... you hate bating racists will have to change your dialogue. So for now drug abusing Rush,,,,,,,,,,,,,, have fun cause your days are numbered as a hate monger. Gotta love America,now you have, and now you don't.

But such talk is to be expected from these folks and is therefore dull. What is not is the peek behind the scenes of the Golden EIB microphone into Rush's life offstage. If living well is the best revenge then Rush is living the most vengeful life possible. We're taken to his Florida estate on which there are five houses, the biggest, obviously being his main living quarters is 24,000 sq. feet. There's the two story library, the $450,000black Maybach 578. (It is a car for those of us not used to checking out vehicles in that price range.) There's the 54 million Gulfstream G550. A writer bearing a grudge would probably use all those things and use them as a launching pad for an assortment of snide asides, but none really show up here. Instead there is even some mention of the fact that Rush's excess isn't exactly self centered, with this revealing story:

Dinner was winding down, and I called for the check. It tickled Limbaugh to be taken out to eat on The New York Times. A few weeks later, he sent me a copy of an interview with Jeremy Sullivan, a waiter at the Kobe KobeClub in New York. Sullivan told a reporter that Limbaugh, a fellow Missourian, was the biggest tipper in town: “He likes to throw down the most massive tips I’ve ever seen. The last few times his tips have been $5,000.” When I read this, I felt a stab of guilt toward the hyperattentive staff at Trevini. If I had only known, I would have let Limbaugh leave the tip.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the story is the impression that one gets of Rush, off-air as being essentially the same man we hear on-air three hours a day, five days a week. He's passionate about those things you would expect; American exceptionalism, Ronald Reagan, his family and friends. He's tepid about those things you would expect; particularly GWB. And he's cold as ice about those things you would expect, also: Barack Obama and John McCain for two. About McCain he says,

“McCain and Reagan do not belong in the same sentence,”

About Obama, a dead-right clip from his show is used to express his feelings:

“With Obama we started out, we couldn’t talk about his big ears ’cause that made him nervous. We’ve gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears, we can’t talk about his mother. We can’t talk about his father. We can’t talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a ‘typical white person.’ We can’t talk about his wife, can’t talk about his preacher, can’t talk about his terrorist friends, can’t talk about his voting record, can’t talk about his religion. We can’t talk about appeasement. We can’t talk about color; we can’t talk about lack of color. We can’t talk about race. We can’t talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can’t talk about schooling. We can’t talk about his name, ‘Hussein.’ We can’t talk about his lack of experience. Can’t talk about his income. Can’t talk about his flag pin. This started out we can’t call him a liberal. It started out we just couldn’t talk about his ears. Now we can’t say anything about him.”

Not all conservatives love Limbaugh, of course, some finding him a shallow popularizer and he doesn't seem give a damn about that view of him (although the "shallow" part he'd find not to be on target). The truth is that with Reagan gone and now with William F. Buckley recently deceased conservatism needs a popularizer. As Rush points out in the interview, GWB is not the leader of a movement and McCain is likely to be more of a danger to conservatism than an avatar.

It has been twenty years now since Rush first hit the national airwaves. In that time he saved AM radio by virtually creating the conservative talk radio industry and personally managed to spread the good word of conservatism forcefully, passionately and amusingly, while converting millions to the cause and still managing to charge "confiscatory" advertising rates at the same time.

The conservative movement is obviously in trouble these days, those we placed in office seemingly having left the reservation and left us as well. Rush has gone nowhere, standing firm for all these twenty years. And with his new unbelievably large contract he will continue to do so for another eight, at least. And maybe in that time one of those "skulls full of mush" he talks about so much who have been listening will come along and lead the movement from the White House once again. In the meantime I'll settle for having Rush.

And yes, he's worth it.

Flopping Aces also discusses

Allahpundit at Hot Air also notes the story

A Newt One is talking, too

As is Wake Up America

Wednesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Dead Head Dog

Sphere: Related Content

Ok, this may be the weirdest thing I've seen in awhile. Here's the story behind it. You decide about it for yourself.

Barack Obama: Agent Of SMEAR

Sphere: Related Content

He's tanned, rested and ready to be President and is too damn tough to sit around and be a target for the vicious and infamous Republican smear machine. Barack Obama is fighting back against the great Right-Wing Conspiracy. Because he's at the cutting edge of, well everything, he already has a website up (called fighthesmears.com What did you think it would be called?) and is fightin' back for Truth, Justice and the Leftist way!

Listen to Barack Obama lately and you might get the impression that the little scenario above bears some relation to reality, that the Republicans, as in every election are getting ready to dump truckloads of sludge over our shiny new hero. The only problem with this scenario is, in truth if Obama is looking to find a smear merchant his best bet would be to look in the mirror, rather than under his bed for Republicans bearing mud.

James Kirchick, assistant editor of the New Republic has a column in Politico that deconstructs what turns out to be the myth of the 2008 Republican slime machine. Chronicling Obama's creation of this fraud with the assistance (of course) of the msm Kirchick finds that the mud is actually in the other hand.

Writers Evan Thomas and Richard Wolfe [of Newsweek] concluded thatthe 2008 presidential election will be no different. “It is a sure bet that theGOP will try to paint Obama as ‘the other’ — as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.”

But has it been a “sure bet?”

Not really. Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain's campaign has resorted to the alleged“scare” tactics in which Republicans — and, apparently, only Republicans — have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it’s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears.

There have been only two incidents in which people officially associated with McCain have done anything approaching what Thomas and Wolfe predicted those dastardly, conniving Republicans would inevitably do. In February, a conservative talk radio host speaking at a McCain rally made reference to “Barack Hussein Obama.” McCain immediately condemned the statement, leading the embittered and embarrassed professional yacker to complain that McCain “threw me under the bus.” The only other smear-worthy episode occurred in March, when the McCain campaign suspended a low-level aide who provided a link on his Twitter account to a video featuring the rants of Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Heavy stuff, to be sure.

In contrast Kirchick recounts four smears that have been levelled at John McCain by Obama supporters, including Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller saying...

that because McCain “was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from35,000 feet,” and “was long gone when they hit,” the Arizona senator who spent five and a half years in a Vietcong tiger cage having his arms repeatedly broken didn’t really understand the carnage of war. “What happened when [the missiles]get to the ground?”

He also also recounts Senator Tom Harkin's howler abut McCain's military service saying,

“Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Interestingly these and all the other smears attempt to take the luster off McCain's very honorable service to his country. The consistency of the attacks are so stark that Kirchick goes so far as to wonder if they might not all be a coordinated effort directed by the Obama campaign. This very logical thought will probably wind up on fighthesmears.com as the latest Republican smear.

The truth is that despite the Democrat spawned meme of Republican smears, Democrats have proven more than adept at them, all by themselves. One of the first smears of the technological era is also one of the most memorable:

Lyndon Johnson suggesting that Barry Goldwater doesn't "love" and will therefore lead the world into a nuclear conflagration set the bar high early. Not always matching Johnson's ambitious smears the Dems have kept at it through the years with varying degrees of gusto.Some examples that come to mind immediately are: The commercial sponsored by the NAACP in the 2000 Presidential race in which it was suggested that GWB was responsible for the dragging death of an innocent Black man, James Byrd in a tagline stating, "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.". Then there was the conspiracy theory that floated around after Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and husckstered by former Carter administration official, Gary Sick.

This is the October Surprise theory: that the Reagan campaign colluded with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the 1980 election; that William Casey-then campaign manager, later head of the CIA-went to Madrid in July to negotiate the deal; and that George Bush went to Paris in October to nail it down. Originally floated by Lyndon LaRouche and dismissed in a footnote by the HouseSenate Iran-Contra committee, the theory remained the preserve of the loony Left-until Mr. Sick became a believer. Frontline, Nightline, the New York Times, and other major media organs all climbed aboard.

It was, of course, bs but that didn't stop the Dems from riding it for all it was worth. The examples go on and on of the actions of the Democratic hate machine, not that you'd know it if you listened to Barack Obama and his buddies in the msm.

But when you hear him bemoaning the horrors to which he is being subjected in the future just remember that it is nothing more than some a psych-op being brought to you by Barack Obama, Agent of SMEAR.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is also on the case

As is Wake Up America

Betsy's Page also takes note

Tuesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Days Are Here Again - Not That The Media Will Tell You

Sphere: Related Content

Not that the economy isn't in a rough patch but judging by the news and the Democrats you would think that America is currently experiencing the worst economic downturn since the great depression...or at least since the last Republican was in the White House. But there are good things going on in the economy that aren't being reported.

The Heritage Foundation just came out with a research paper titled Getting Better All the Time: Improving Job Quality in the United States that contains a lot of information that most Americans, fed bad news like it was vitamin and mineral enriched manna, probably wouldn't believe. The facts about jobs, their quality, and how much they pay won't be making it into any of Barack Obama's campaign commercials but they're true nonetheless.

Many Americans remember the economy of a generation ago as an era where most workers earned good wages that enabled them to provide for their families, had generous benefits, and enjoyed job security. Especially with the current economic weakness, they fear that such jobs are now disappearing. To many, the idea of a lifetime job with an employer-provided pension and health benefits seems a relic of the past.

These fears are unfounded. Opportunities rise and fall with the business cycle, and many good jobs have disappeared since the 1970s – but so too have many undesirable low-wage positions. The economy is constantly in flux, creating new jobs and destroying old ones. Last year employers created 58 million new jobs, but eliminated 55 million existing positions. On balance, however, the quality of jobs available to Americans has increased over the past generation.

Employers today need fewer workers doing mindlessly repetitive or physically demanding tasks. Computer programs and robots now do much of this work. Jobs such as machine operators, assemblers, and material handlers have decreased their share of total employment considerably since 1980.

But computers cannot think for or interact with people, and highly paid jobs that require greater mental skills are an increasingly large part of the economy. Executive and managerial, professional specialty, and technical and sales jobs are the three most highly paid occupations in America. They have expanded their share of employment by 10 percent since 1980.

And while we're all bemoaning our low pay we might consider this fact:

The increased need for highly skilled and educated workers means expanded opportunities for upward mobility. The average annual incomes of American-born workers rose 27 percent between 1980 and 2000.

Jobs today are also more secure than they used to be:

Concerns about decreased job security are also misplaced. Conventional wisdom holds that workers have less job security than in the past. This is not the case. Workers are somewhat more likely to change jobs than in the 1980s, but this is because workers are more likely to voluntarily decide to move between employers. Companies, however, are much less likely to fire or lay off workers than a generation ago. Workers jobs are more secure today than in the 1970s.

And while many Americans believe that their children won't have the opportunities that they did (Ah, if only GWB hadn't stolen the election from Al Gore, all would be well!):

Today, the typical American works in a better job than his or her parents did, and his or her children will probably work in a better job still.

This is not the kind of story you'll see much of this year as the media attempts to install a Democrat back in the White House. But don't worry, you'll see it as soon as the Lightbringer assumes his rightful place in the Cosmos as President. Oh yeah, and he'll be responsible for it, too. You just watch.

Liberal Hypocrisy #2,345,789 - Obama Pays Female Staff Less Than Male While McCain Pays Them MORE

Sphere: Related Content

Unlike one of those wretched Republicans (boo! hiss!) Barack Obama, fine liberal gentleman that he is, is of course unafraid of strong women, honors them and is outraged at any and all injustices against them. Except when he pays them less than men. Which he does. By a lot.Just last week, Obama took a whack at John McCain's supposed lack of commitment to pay equity for women:

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination."
Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer," Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state. "It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay."

But, as with so many libs, he talks the talk but has a wee bit of trouble walking the walk:

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

This is just the latest example of this particular form of elitist liberal hypocrisy. It was just a little over a week ago that we learned how Al Gore practices his devotion to the environment:

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research…In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month…
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use [in February 2007], the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

And we all know of Nancy Pelosi's devotion to the poor. Obviously she is far more generous than a heartless, insensitive monster like Rush Limbaugh. But then again,...

RUSH Limbaugh is much more charitable than Nancy Pelosi. According to Peter Schweizer in "Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . And Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals" (Doubleday), the most recent tax records show Limbaugh gave money to "various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses" ($109,716), "children's case management organizations" ($52,898) and "Alzheimer's community care" ($35,100). And Pelosi's contributions? The list includes the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ($36,500) and San Francisco Symphony ($5,600). "But with the exception of an occasional $1,000 contribution to a Boys & Girls Club, little went to the less fortunate," Schweizer, a Stanford professor, writes.

For a man who claims to be a new politician, Obama is playing some very old games. Liberal hypocrisy is a grand old tradition. Back in 2005, author Peter Schweitzer published the bestselling, Do As I Say (Not As I Do) which contains such edifying chapters as Ted Kennedy - Environmental Rapist, Tax Cheat, Oil Profiteer and, to show that liberal hypocrisy isn't just confined to liberal politicians, Michael Moore - Corporate Criminal, Environmental Menace, and Racist Union-Buster.

You have to wonder, if these people really believed in the policies they're trying to impose, why don't they set the example for the rest of us? Would it really be asking too much?

By the way, that was a rhetorical question.

Nocomme1 also posts at The Patriot Room and Flopping Aces

Stop The ACLU also notes the hypocrisy

OUTRAGE! - Obama Surrogate Impugns McCain's Military Service! McCain Responds With..Ya know...Kinda Thinkin' It's, Ya Know, Not True And Sort Of Not The Point Anyway, Ya Know?

Sphere: Related Content

When I first heard retired General and active moonbat Wesley Clark's verbal assault on John McCain on Sunday's Face The Nation (the meat of which is quoted, below) I thought it was a tawdry little performance by a tawdry little man.

Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?

Now, I'll admit I've got a bit of a temper and if he'd said things like about me, especially if I'd spent five years being beaten up in a variety of huts in Vietnam, I'd probably respond with a certain amount of...animation, shall we say. John McCain is reported to have a temper that makes mine seem dainty by comparison, so for one brief moment I thought that his response might be to rip into Clark. But then I remembered that Clark is a Democrat; you know, the bad guys and that made me think McCain would say, oh, something like this:




ZZZZZ Oh, sorry. I drifted off for a minute.

In the past I've hyperventilated a good deal about John McCain's apostasy from conservative orthodoxy and how this has annoyed (nice bit of understatement, eh?) conservatives. But policy differences aren't the only reason the Right has less than warm feeling for McCain; it is a matter of attitude and style as well. For some reason known only to him McCain goes into his "Let's have a respectful discussion" routine when confronted with Democrats who are slapping him around. He tends to be a bit more combative when Republicans thwart him, however:

 

This is pretty typical of McCain. He seems to save all his real anger for fellow Republicans but when it comes to levelling fire at Dems it all seems terribly perfunctory. In answer to conservatives complaints about granting tax credits to "guest workers" he suggests that those who object are the sort of folks who want have people ride "in the back of the bus". I can't say that I can recall him saying anything like that about Dems who are pro-abortion, for example.

It is this proclivity of his to kick his own and the lack of respect that he seems to have that has led a lot of people to believe the story about McCain considering the VP slot on the Kerry ticket in 2004. He just seems happier around Democrats. Like somebody very profound and wise once said: He's just not that into us. And it shows.

Nocomme1 also posts at The Patriot Room and Flopping Aces

AllahPundit at Hot Air has a different take

Monday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Mugabe Sworn In After Landslide Win...Also...Pigs Fly

Sphere: Related Content

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwean thug-o-crat and faux President was sworn in for a sixth term after a reign of terror launched against all who opposed his bid for re-election.  Mugabe, who has taken an economically sound nation which had a strong manufacturing base, mining industry (it is rich in natural resouces)  thriving agricultural as well as tourism industies, and turned it into one of the world's biggest economic basket cases. 

Over the last seven years, Professor Craig Richardson of Salem College estimates the economy has shrunk by 40 percent, wiping out almost 60 years of gradual economic improvements. The standard of living has dropped to levels last seen in 1948. The World Health Organization estimates that Zimbabwe has the world’s lowest life expectancy — 34 years for women and 37 years for men.

Unemployment is at 80 percent. The currency is nearly worthless and inflation currently exceeds 3,700 percent per year. Last week, the black-market exchange rate for one U.S. dollar reached 40,000 Zimbabwean dollars.

The economic meltdown has led to environmental devastation. Zimbabwe, once known for its flourishing wildlife, used to have a sophisticated tourism industry that accounted for up to 6 percent of the country’s GDP. Hunger and lawlessness have put an end to that.

Brian Gratwicke, an Oxford-educated environmentalist and Zimbabwean national who runs a U.S-based nature and wildlife website estimates that “Eighty percent of 250,000 head of game that lived on privately owned commercial farms have been poached by land invaders – often with the encouragement of senior ZANU-PF officials who wanted to wrest control of the farms from their rightful owners.” To make matters worse, Gratwicke argues, chronic environmental problems such as deforestation and overgrazing, water pollution, uncontrolled fires, human-wildlife conflict, and wildlife-borne disease are spreading through Zimbabwe.

Needless to say, this nightmare has not been accomplished without a corresponding downturn in the country's' human rights condition.  Copiously documented here, the violations are a stark indictment of the human suffering taking place under Mugabe:

The ruling party's dominant control and manipulation of the political process through intimidation and corruption effectively negated the right of citizens to change their government. Unlawful killings and politically motivated kidnappings occurred. The state sanctioned the use of excessive force and torture, and security forces tortured members of the opposition, union leaders, and civil society activists. Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained journalists, demonstrators, and religious leaders; lengthy pretrial detention was a problem. Executive influence and interference in the judiciary were problems. The government continued to forcibly evict citizens and to demolish homes. The government continued to use repressive laws to suppress freedom of speech, press, assembly, movement, association, and academic freedom. Government corruption and impunity remained widespread. High ranking government officials made numerous public threats of violence against demonstrators. The following human rights violations also continued to occur: harassment of human rights and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and interference with their attempts to provide humanitarian assistance; violence and discrimination against women; child labor and prostitution; discrimination against persons with disabilities and ethnic minorities; an increase in the number of HIV/AIDS orphans and child-headed households; harassment and interference with labor organizations critical of government policies; and attempts to supplant legitimate labor leaders with hand-picked supporters.

The current election is a well documented fraud, in which Mugabe's main opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out before the voting, after escalating attacks on him and his supporters.  

The Mugabe-appointed Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) said the 84-year-old incumbent won Friday's run-off presidential election, in which he was the only candidate, with 85.51 per cent of the vote.

Those Zimbabeans who cannot prove that they voted for Mugabe are currently being hunted down and assaulted by his bands of travelling thugs. 

The vaunted "international community" has been utterly ineffectual in dealing with the situation. A number of Mugabe's African neighbors are supporting him, thereby facilitating the atrocities.  A review of those neighbor's and their positions toward him are illustrative of their impotence and/or complicity:

The African Union – Mugabe's opponents and allies

ANGOLA

The most surprising criticism of Mugabe came from the Angolan president, Jose Dos Santos, who has been one of Mugabe's staunchest allies. In a message sent to Mugabe yesterday, Dos Santos said he welcomed the Zimbabwean's statement that he is open to negotiations with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

BOTSWANA

Botswana's president, Seretse Ian Khama, is the only African leader so far to make an official protest against Robert Mugabe's reign of terror. Botswana has seen its population of fewer than two million invaded by 800,000 Zimbabwean refugees. Mr Khama said he was "deeply disturbed" by Mugabe's politically-motivated arrests.

KENYA

Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga has called on the international community to demand that Mugabe steps down from power, describing the run-off vote as a "shame to Africa".

MOZAMBIQUE

The government of Mozambique has called for renewed dialogue between Mugabe's Zanu-PF party and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to solve the crisis. "We lament the loss of human lives (in the period before the first election on 29 March and before the uncontested run-off on 27 June], and hope that the injured make a speedy recovery," a statement read.

NAMIBIA

Namibia's Swapo government has been an unwavering ally of Robert Mugabe, and last week the country's foreign minister, Marco Hausiku, described reports of electoral violence in Zimbabwe as "unverified rumours". The "Swapo Elders Council," comprising top party members, issued a statement blaming western countries for the crisis and urged Zimbabwean citizens to vote for Mugabe in the run-off.

TANZANIA

The handling of the Zimbabwe crisis by Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete, current chairman of the 53-member African Union (AU), has been severely criticised by Amnesty International. In a statement, Amnesty said Mr Kikwete's silence on Zimbabwe has been "deafening and is contrary to its own principles of respect for human rights and the rule of law".

ZAMBIA

Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa has said: "What is happening in Zimbabwe is a matter of serious embarrassment to all of us."

President Bush has been one of the strongest world leaders in condemning Mugabe and attempting to remove him from power.

United States President, Mr. George W. Bush, has ordered tougher sanctions against the Zimbabwean government headed by Mr. Robert Mugabe for "the regime's blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people's democratic will and human rights".


The hard slam from the American government is coming as Mugabe is to be sworn in as Zimbabwe's president today, following his victory in a run-off election boycotted by the opposition candidate, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai.

Bush, in a directive to his top aides including secretaries of state and the treasury, said the US was compiling sanctions and would also champion international campaign for sanctions against the administration, including an arms embargo.
He said the move was in response to "the Mugabe regime's blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people's democratic will and human rights".

While Bush's actions are significant, pressure must continue to be applied until Mugabe is finally pushed from powere.

Robert Mugabe must go.

Nocomme1 also posts at The Patriot Room and Flopping Aces

McCain To Base: I'm Just Not That Into You

Sphere: Related Content

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

John McCain is a stubborn man and it is a character trait that has held him in good stead. As a prisoner in Vietnam his stubbornness in not giving up and giving in to the five year long ordeal of his imprisonment certainly played a large part in keeping him alive. And stubbornness can be a good quality in a politician, too. God knows Ronald Reagan was stubborn, often proudly saying that one of his political strategies was to get most of what he wanted from the Democrats in one battle, letting them save face with a partial win...and then going back and getting the rest of what he wanted later.

But stubbornness can be a character flaw, too. It can make you blind to the arguments of others. This can be especially problematic when you're wrong and they're right. It can make you arrogant and can alienate people who should be your allies. Which brings us to McCain and conservatives, his base without whom he can't win this election. You see, the problem is McCain really doesn't like us. To a large degree he's bought into the moonbat caricature of conservatives, thinking we're bigots and yahoos who lack hearts. But he's figured out a way to deal with us. He's going to throw us some red meat during the campaign; he'll give us some lip service when he has to and once he placates us enough that we vote him into office, he's stubbornly going to go right back to what he wants to do. You can do that sort of thing and keep a clear conscience when you're doing it to people you don't respect, I guess.

Take a listen to the following clip of McCain answering a question after a speech to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Washington, DC on Saturday.


Link: sevenload.com



McCain took a terrible beating on comprehensive immigration reform when the conservative grassroots mobilized against The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 which conservatives asserted was nothing more than a Trojan Horse for amnesty for illegals. Ostensibly chastened by the defeat and with his eyes on winning the Republican nomination McCain toned down his rhetoric and started emphasizing border security enforcement. As a matter of fact, in his prepared remarks at the NALEO he maintained that new line:

I and many other colleagues twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic necessity of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely with those who came here, as my distant ancestors did, to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact they came here illegally or granting them privileges before those who did. Many Americans, with good cause, did not believe us when we said we would secure our borders, and so we failed in our efforts. We must prove to them that we can and will secure our borders first, while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that our responsibility to meet this challenge will end with that accomplishment. We have economic and humanitarian responsibilities as well, and they require no less dedication from us in meeting them.

Only in the q and a session, when he wasn't reading from a script did his real feelings and intentions come out. Comprehensive immigration reform "and not just enforcement" (quote from questioner) "will be my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow" (quote from McCain). His "top priority". Oh. I see. He pretty much admits that the emphasis on border security is not much more than the usual boob bait for the Bubbas when he says (while he was off-script), "We have to secure our borders. That's the message." Right. That's the message. But it isn't the important part of what he wants to do, which stays substantially the same as when conservatives sank it last year. He also reminds us conservative brutes that illegals may be breaking the law but, by Golly, "They're God's children and they'll be treated in a humane fashion." Well, I guess that means we should all put away our white sheets and flaming crosses. According to McCain, those of us who want the law enforced are inhumane. Nope, he doesn't care for us at all.

He also thinks we're trying to destroy the Earth or something as well, as he's seemingly bought into the Al Gore apocalyptic view of man's impact on the environment. The Wall Street Journal had this to say about McCain's "solution" to global warming:

This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based." In fact, if "the market" is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain's endorsement of a "cap and trade" system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush Administration has pursued one option, which combines voluntary measures with subsidies for "clean" alternatives. Since 2001 under this approach, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% – that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe. At the other end of the market spectrum is a straight carbon tax, which would at least distribute costs more efficiently. It would also force politicians to be honest about – and take responsibility for – the true price of their global-warming posturing. Then there's cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, "change the dynamic of our energy economy." He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, "The federal government can't just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out." To translate: His plan is "market based" insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.

McCain has bought into the whole global warming cult and, as with so many other issues about which conservatives have disagreements with him, he is impervious to points of view other than his own. He refuses to favor drilling in ANWR, convinced beyond all reason that it is the equivalent of the Grand Canyon instead of the mosquito-ridden swamp that it is in summer and the tundra wasteland that it is in the winter, one of the most inhospitable places on Earth. When McCain becomes convinced of something that puts him on the opposite side of conservative thought, he simply ignores counter argument and becomes as suspect of conservative motivations as the average poster on the Huffington Post. It seems unlikely that he would be moved by this counter argument to the assertion that global warming is settled science:

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?

The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.

Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

McCain really doesn't want to deal with arguments like these. He's part of the the global warming crusade and those of us who aren't are probably jerks (a favorite term of his) to him. John McCain wants to be President and seems to think that conservatives better get in line behind him, instead of him taking us seriously if he wants our votes.

He has seemed to move some of his positions somewhat to the right but it is hard to tell if all of that is just "message", masking his real intentions. Many conservatives feel it is all mask and no reality. A lot of conservatives comfort themselves with the belief that even if most of McCain's (very tepid) outreach to conservatives is all smoke and mirrors, at least he'll appoint conservative judges. But George Will in a recent column calls even that into question when he notes how conservatives on the Court have ruled on an issue near and dear to his hear:

The McCain-Feingold law abridging freedom of political speech -- it restricts the quantity, timing and content of such speech -- included a provision, the Millionaires' Amendment, that mocked the law's veneer of disinterested moralizing about "corruption." The provision unmasked the law's constitutional recklessness and its primary purpose, which is the protection of incumbents.

The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor -- the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.

Declaring the Millionaires' Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government's interest in combating "corruption" or the "appearance" thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates' financial resources.

The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires' Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.

This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona's and Maine's, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.

The more McCain talks -- about wicked "speculators," about how he reveres the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet's thermostat, etc. -- the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable? [emphasis mine]

John McCain "is just not that into" his base. Well frankly, we in his base are not really that into him either. He's seems to be pegging his Presidential hopes on the fact that however we feel about him we're still going to march down to our local voting booths and vote for him come Election Day.

Its a helluva campaign strategy, isn't it?

Nocomme1 also posts at The Patriot Room and Flopping Aces

Friday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Governor Palin - Oh Yes!

Sphere: Related Content

I have made my crush on the good governor clear in an earlier post. Ok, deregulating the oil companies may not exactly be all that do-able right now as AllahPundit at Hot Air points out, but it would be the right thing. So the crush continues. *SIGH*

Stop The ACLU also is smitten

The Audacity To Be A Dope

Sphere: Related Content

Attendant with Barack Obama's ascension (an important word here) to the position of soon-to-be Democratic Presidential nominee has come some of the strangest behaviors from his ...followers...no, that word doesn't really capture it...disciples is nearer to the reality, ever witnessed in a political campaign. From the oooh-ing and ahh-ing and applause when he has to blow his nose to the gyrations of the "Obama Girl" to the recent statement by the ubiquitous P. Diddy (is that still his name, by the way?), "Obama or die!", these folks have simply lost it.

Some of the most astounding examples of the kind of mental decompensation that is going on can be found in print. Warren Bolton, Associate Editor of The State.com has written a column that typifies what passes for reasoned analysis in the ranks of the Obamessiah's acolytes. It is a thing of wonder:

MANY HAVE OPINED about what Sen. Barack Obama’s phenomenal win in the Democratic presidential primary and his possible ascension [there it is] to the presidency mean to this nation.

Just the elementary historical facts are powerful enough: There has never been a black president. An African-American had never come close to winning a major-party nomination. None had been part of a majority-party ticket.

What does Sen. Obama’s nomination say about race and race relations in America? What does it say about opportunity for people of color? Those are the kinds of questions many a pundit has tried to put into perspective.

Of course, most importantly, Sen. Obama’s ascension [there it is, again!] says a lot about, well, Sen. Obama. It says his powerful gift of oratory and his message of change connected. His ability to build and manage an extraordinary campaign network and to raise funds is superior. His idealism that America can unite beyond race and politics and age worked.

Ok, not so crazy so far, except for overdoing the "ascension" [hint hint] thing. That's a bit disturbing, no? But next he jumps into the deep end without a life preserver and doesn't bother to take a breath.

As I’ve considered Sen. Obama’s accomplishment, I’ve determined the most profound impact he’s had — not considering the possibility of him becoming president and proving to be one of our better ones — is on our future more than our present or our history.

I didn’t grasp that until I took my 2-year-old to the doctor last week and he took a vision exam. It was through young Alexander’s eyes that I saw how important this moment in time could be.

The nurse administering the exam pointed to different shapes and images on a chart, asking Alexander to identify each. One of the recurring images was that of a flag. It wasn’t an American flag, but a flag just the same.

To a 2-year-old, a flag is a flag, right? Alexander is most familiar with the U.S. flag. When the nurse pointed to the flag, he answered confidently.

“Barack Obama,” he said, pronouncing it as best as a 2-year-old could.

“What did you say?” she asked.

“Barack Obama.”

As she went through the chart, she once again came to the flag.

“Barack Obama.”

“Do you know what he’s saying?” I asked her.

“No.”

“He’s saying Barack Obama.” Why? Because he was making an association. Most times when he’s seen Sen. Obama on TV, the Democratic nominee has been standing in front of the U.S. flag.

The preceding just may be one of the craziest stories ever to try to pass itself off as journalism in the history of that checkered profession. His kid seems forced into this piece like a square peg smashed into a round hole with a sledgehammer by the Hulk in a particularly nasty mood. It is simply inane and utterly incoherent. In rereading it, the poor child seems afflicted with some sort of developmental perceptual deficit, unable to distinguish between a flag and Barack Obama. Instead of picking the poor boy up and running to have him tested Bolton is proud that the kid seems to think that Obama is a (not even an American, mind you) flag. Sadly the madness doesn't end there:

Whether Sen. Obama wins the presidency or not, he has had an untold effect on the future and psyche of America.

My son will live a lifetime in which he knows an African-American can ascend to the highest levels in this country. He won’t think it odd for a black man to seek to lead a nation. He as well as many white, Asian, Hispanic and other children, whether they like the candidate or not, won’t think it odd or a novelty to see a black man standing in front of the American flag — the ultimate display of patriotism, despite misguided and mean-spirited efforts to paint Sen. Obama as being otherwise — articulating his concerns and love for his country.

[Excuse my interruption here, but since when is "standing in front of the American flag" the "ultimate display of patriotism"? I always thought that dying or suffering for your country - you know, kind of like John McCain did - was the ultimate display of patriotism. But that was the definition, pre-Obama, I guess.]

Because of Barack Obama, many of our children won’t grow up with as many of the psychological bruises those before them might have endured.

Read that last line again. Because of Barack Obama many of the "psychological bruises" of childhood will be vanquished. How about pimples and bed-wetting? Surely he can end those, too?

I grew up being told that I could one day be president. But much of what I saw and heard suggested otherwise. I saw and experienced the discrimination. Blacks only secured the right to vote in my lifetime. I saw many black kids in school being steered away from advanced courses and training that would have prepared them to shoot for higher goals.

Not only does Sen. Obama’s feat help shape a 2-year-old’s thoughts about himself and the world around him, but it affects so many others, from high-schoolers to college students to older folks.

Think of the many people, particularly older citizens, who had determined they would never live to see a black president. Scarcely 200 years since the end of the evil slave trade, there’s a good chance it could happen.

I’ll never forget the e-mail I got from one of my sisters who was excited about Sen. Obama’s chances: “He has more going for him than any other black person who has ever tried for the presidency. I never thought this would happen in my life time, but now I see the possibility.”

Possibility. Hope. Change.

Ok, you just knew those three words were coming, didn't you? As usual they are disconnected to anything tangible in the real world, just sort of free-floating happiness that is beyond explanation. This is the Obamessiah's gift to us, I guess.

People sell those notions short. But they’re powerful. The fact is,
people of all races and backgrounds see different possibilities and hope in Sen. Obama. They see the
hope for a unified America that actually attempts to address issues such as
health care. It’s not so much that Sen. Obama can solve them alone — what president can? —
but they believe he can inspire Americans to rise up and help bring about
change. [Whatever the Hell that means.]

An Obama win doesn’t mean we’ve arrived in terms of race relations and
equality. [You always want to leave that door open so you can play
the race card once more when a White guy gets into office again.] But it would send a signal that we can arrive.

Even Congressman
James Clyburn, who
once said he would never live to see a black governor in South Carolina, was
moved by the possibility. He told ETV’s “The Big Picture” that he was overcome with
emotion watching Barack Obama become the first black major-party
presidential nominee. He said he left a public event and went home to watch Sen. Obama’s victory
speech alone “because what I was feeling was indescribable, and I was afraid
that I would not be able to control my emotions .”

Congressman Clyburn controlled himself
— that time. If Sen. Obama succeeds in November, Congressman Clyburn may not be able to
control his emotions.

He’ll have lots of company.

The only thing that makes any sense in this diatribe is that last sentence. And if that doesn't scare you, I don't know what could.

Welcome to American politics in the Promised Land.

Cross Posted at The Patriot Room

Keith Olbermann Gets Trashed

Sphere: Related Content

It isn't exactly giving away a state secret to say that Keith Olbermann is a creepy, ambition-crazed, ego maniacal hypocrite whose shtick used to garner himself fame and fortune - assuming the role of a Moonbat Howard Beale - is as pathetic as the stories his ex-girlfriends tell about his amorous "abilities". Rare is the conservative blog that at one time or another that doesn't find itself drawn to some Olbermann outrage and then picking him apart, piece by gooey piece.

Despite some degree of apparent squeamishness about him, to the inhabitants of the political nether lands who inhabit such places as the Democratic Underground, the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, of course he is the answer to Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and Coulter all contained in one bug-eyed package. But it looks like Olbermann's inability to stick to anything even remotely resembling a principle has finally run afoul of some on the Left. In a Salon column that ran yesterday, author, litagator and columnist Glenn Greenwald took on Olbermann from the Left and the end result wasn't pretty.

What got Greenwald's hackles up was Olbermann's mendacity on the issue of Barack Obama's position on the FISA and telcom amnesty bill. Greenwald pegs how Olbermann's well cultivated outrage on FISA seems to be built on shifting sands when Obama essentially takes the same position on the issue that Bush does.First, his reaction to Bush's, before knowing about Obama's, stand:

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immnity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:

This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.

The planet-cracking rant can be seen below:Greenwald cuts Olbermann no slack when his take on FISA changes when Obama decides to basically agree with Bush (at least until he decides not to):

Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:

OLBERMANN: Asked by "Rolling Stone" publisher, Jann Wenner, about how Democrats have cowered in the wake of past Republican attacks, Senator Obama responding, quote, "Yeah, I don't do cowering." That's evident today in at least three issues . . .Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own party . . . But first, it's time to bring in our own Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor of "Newsweek" magazine.Good evening, Jon.

JONATHAN ALTER, NEWSWEEK: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: "Yeah, I don't do cowering." This is not just the man, but the campaign?ALTER: Yes. This is part of the message that is consistent across the last couple weeks and it comes down to one word -- strength. The United States is not going to elect a president that perceives to be as weak. You look weak if you're flip-flopping. You look weak if you're not taking actions that seem to be securing the United States against terrorists. And you look weak if you don't fight back against your political adversaries.

OLBERMANN: But this cuts, I mean, this terminology cuts in more than one direction here. Not cowering to Republicans is one thing in the Democratic, recent Democratic history, it's a thing that I think anybody who has a "D" near their name cheers, but not cowering to the left, not going along with the conventional, the new conventional thinking on the FISA bill, that's something altogether different, isn't it?

The dangers of the kind of politics Olbermann practices doesn't escape Greenwald as he notes that ejecting all honest and rational analysis can only lead to moral corruption and the acceptance of policies that are antithetical to what you believe actually works best for the people of the country, which is supposed to be the whole point of politics in the first place.

What Greenwald misses however is the fact that the whole Democratic Party is afflicted with the same condition that Oblermann has. But frankly, how can they not be? Barack Obama is a man of no particular knowledge or experience for the job for which he's running. He changes positions as frequently as Olbermann turns off girlfriends. The Left, which has invested him with near God-like powers, not to mention given him the Democratic nomination can either carry on the fantasy and follow him down whatever contradictory roads he chooses to follow next or jump ship on him. And you don't jump ship on Jesus.

Greenwald hasn't just written a column that deconstructs Keith Olbermann but deconstructs the whole Left side of the electorate as well. Sorry, Mr. Greenwald but Keith Olbermann is no aberration. Keith Olbermann is the Left.

But we on the Right have known that for quite some time.

Thursday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Magnificent Rebuttal To MoveOn.org

Sphere: Related Content

This short, simple homemade video is unpretentious yet very effective in rebutting MoveOn.org's recent deeply dishonest video (below) which suggest that years from now John McCain's policies would be conscripting young men to fight in Iraq.

Of course McCain said that he would only leave troops in Iraq long-term if they were still there in the same way Americans are still in Japan. And, of course there is no draft so it is hard to see how little "Alex" would be in Iraq unless he chose to be there.

It is encouraging to see how powerful Daniel and Noah's mother's honest testament is when contrasted with Alex's mother's lies. So much of the Left's campaign is based on falsehoods every bit as egregious as those in the MoveOn.org video. Why can't the Republicans be as effective in countering them as is Daniel and Noah's mom?

Oh, and has anyone thought of filing child abuse charges against Alex's mother? Shouldn't the cynical use of one's child to perpetuate a lie be a crime?

Paving The Road To The New Fascism: Pelosi Plots To Implement The Hush-Rush Law

Sphere: Related Content

In anticipation of ushering in a new age of Liberal Fascism House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let it be known recently that she plans to re-institute the defunct Fairness Doctrine, or as it is known to those of us who value free speech, the Hush-Rush bill. Human Events columnist John Grizzi reports here on a recent encounter with Pelosi.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

The reason for Pelosi's excitement has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with squelching opinion critical of her and her party. Her goal: the removal of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glen Beck and the entire conservative talk radio industry from the airwaves.

Charles Sykes, a Senior Fellow of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has written a terrific history of the Fairness Doctine and review of what is at stake should Pelosi and her fellow brown-shirts get their way.

The original Fairness Doctrine was written in 1949, when the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule that required broadcasters to devote a certain amount of time to discussions of public affairs “of interest to the community served by the particular station.”

In 1949 there was (for most Americans) no TV, certainly no hundreds of cable and satellite TV stations and no real computers from which an Internet could spring with its multiplicity of sites of every variety. Returning to a broadcast rule that was created in an era in which most Americans could only get their news from newspapers, newsreel footage in movie theaters and radio broadcasts is akin to fighting today's wars with Revolutionary war muskets. What made sense in a long-along era does not make sense today.

Well, let me revise that: it does make sense if your real motives are less than pure as Pelosi's certainly aren't.

If the goal was to foster a more vigorous debate, the Fairness Doctrine failed miserably; if it was to chill the expression of inconvenient opinion, it was demonstrably successful. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, broadcasters, who were fearful of the time and the cost of compliance, simply opted to shut down controversial debate, avoiding whenever possible the discussion of issues that might trigger the regulatory nightmare. As a result, rarely did politicians have to worry about being pilloried or even criticized by radio hosts or even by on-air editorialists, whose weak and insipid commentary became monuments to the chilling effect of the Fairness Doctrine.

Under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine radio went silent on controversial issues and the AM band in particular remained a vast and neglected wasteland until 1987, when the rule was lifted.

Since 1987 radio has seen an explosion of opinion flourish, especially since the advent of the Rush Limbaugh Show as a growing national presence in 1988. One has to wonder how eager the Left would be to bring back the Fairness Doctrine if it had been say, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, Al Franken or any one of the host of failed liberal talk show hosts who had spawned a whole new industry rather than Rush revolutionizing radio by making it the watering hole for conservative voices. Try as they might to succeed in it, talk radio is just not liberals' medium. You might think they wouldn't care so much, having a virtual monopoly in newspapers magazines, movies, network TV, etc. but then you would be underestimating their lack of respect for freedom of speech and their hunger for unfettered power.

The end of “fairness” :

In abolishing the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC acknowledged all of these logical and constitutional flaws. In August 1987, by a 4-0 vote, the FCC decided that:

[T]he intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters . . . [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.[x]

Commissioners took note of both recent court decisions and the flood of new technologies: “[T]he extraordinary technological advances that have been made in the electronic media since the 1969 Red Lion decision,” the FCC declared, “together with a consideration of fundamental capital First Amendment principles provides an ample basis for the Supreme Court to reconsider the premise or approach of its decision in Red Lion.”

Most important of all, the FCC declared that “the constitutional principles applicable to the printed press should be equally applicable to the electronic press.”

Twenty years later that principle remains unchallenged, except by politicians anxious to use their clout to bring back the speech police with their tape recorders and stop watches.

A reliable measure of the actual impact of the Doctrine was what happened when it was repealed: a veritable explosion of outlets—radio, television, cable, wireless, and satellite —and the spread of over-the-air debate and exchange of ideas that would have been unimaginable under the smothering influence of the Fairness Doctrine.

But what would happen if Democrats do, in fact, succeed in restoring the Fairness Doctrine?

By the left’s own account, the regulators will be quite busy: the liberal Center for American Progress estimates that more than 1,700 radio stations around the country have some form of talk show, with 50 million listeners a week. Each weekday, they figure, more than 2,824 hours of political talk (most of it conservative) are broadcast on those stations.[xi]

On an annual basis that comes to 146,848 hours of regulated speech, requiring mountains of tape machines and stop watches—and an almost unimaginable explosion in the number of speech policeman needed to maintain “fairness.”

Fascism operates by using the power of the state to remove all opposition to the state. There could hardly be a more compelling example of this than Congress bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. It is an action only a fascist could love. By returning to it as soon as she can, Nancy Pelosi, with an almost certainly expanded Democratic presence in Congress would make a possible President Barack Obama very happy very early in his reign.

Let the new era begin. And watch what you say.

Hot Air reports that the Obamessiah is against The Fairness Doctrine. I hope I don't seem cynical if I think he's against it the same way he was for public financing for the election.

Brian at Liberty Pundit also sees what the Dems are up to.

So does American Sentinel

Reason # 1,234,459 The US Should Get Out Of The UN

Sphere: Related Content

The United Nations, providing yet another reason why it is an utterly execrable institution that serves the interests of undemocratic, retrograde forces has banned criticism of Islam during debates in the UN Human Rights Council.

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”, council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

While Costea’s ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.

Costea issued his “presidential ruling” on Monday during the eighth meeting of the council’s 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council’s experts, just its chamber debates.

Muslims have found a very effective method in which to prevent criticism: Since many Muslim countries are, to one degree or another guided by Sharia law, any criticism of such a nation's human rights violations allowed by their laws would be a criticism of Muslim based Sharia - therefore any criticism of their violations would be a criticism of Islam. Since Islam isn't just a religion but a legal system as well it is very easy to conflate Islam and Islamic nations .

The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.


Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.” The representative from Slovenia then protested mildly against this attempt to silence Littman: “Any NGO representative,” he reminded Siddiqui, “has the right to make a statement within the merits of the agenda item under discussion. We see the statement being made pertaining within the purview of the agenda item and we don’t see grounds for any restricting censorship in that respect.”


The representative from Egypt thereupon responded: “I would humbly and kindly ask my colleague from Slovenia to reconsider.” He warned: “We will not take this lightly….This is not about NGOs and their participation in the Council. This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”


After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”


At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.

Instead of standing up for human rights, which this being the Human Rights Council one would think he might Costea caved, thereby removing from discussion many of the horrors committed by Muslims against woman (as well as assorted other atrocities) from even being discussed.

It is time to leave the useless and noxious UN.

Cross-Posted at Because I'm Right

Wednesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

The Dutch Are Mayans? Who Knew?

Sphere: Related Content

According to this story many folks in the Netherlands think the world is done for in 2012 and wait until you read why:

Thousands of people in the Netherlands say they expect the world to end in 2012, and many say they are taking precautions to prepare for the apocalypse.

The Dutch-language de Volkskrant newspaper said it spoke to thousands of believers in the impending end of civilization, and while theories on the supposed catastrophe varied, most tied the 2012 date to the end of the Mayan calendar, Radio Netherlands reported Monday.

Funny, I always had the Dutch pegged as being Incan.