About Me

Name: Defend America
Email: guy.ratki@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

I Could of Sworn that Obama Railed Against Bush Using Executive Orders

Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power

Published: February 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.

Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'It All Depends on the Meaning of Party Identification'

It All Depends on the Meaning of Party Identification

By Stuart Rothenberg

I’ll admit it. I like numbers.

Whether the number is a WHIP (walks and hits per innings pitched) when evaluating a baseball pitcher, a price-to-earnings ratio when evaluating a stock or a job approval when considering an incumbent’s re-election prospects, I rely on numbers to allow me to make comparisons and, often, projections for the future.

But some numbers don’t tell the whole story, even when they come from one of the most prestigious and widely cited public opinion organizations in the world, Gallup.

About a week ago, Gallup released a report on party identification in the states. Nationally, the respected polling firm found Democrats with an 8-point advantage, 49 percent to 41 percent, down from a 12-point advantage in 2008.

The change in attitudes from 2008 to 2009 isn’t surprising, since the GOP probably bottomed out with President Barack Obama’s election. Still, Gallup’s aggregate data are useful, especially when examining changes in party identification over a long period of time.

The troubling part of the report, “Party ID: Despite GOP Gains, Most States Remain Blue,” came for me when Gallup characterized the strength of the two major political parties in each of the 50 states, too often leading readers to some misleading conclusions.

Gallup assigned states to one of five categories — Strong Democrat, Lean Democrat, Competitive, Lean Republican, Strong Republican — based on the self-identified partisanship of more than 350,000 adults nationwide.

The states that have become partisan bastions — for example, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maryland on the Democratic side, and Wyoming, Utah and Idaho for the GOP — aren’t surprising. Other characterizations are, well, bizarre.

Gallup found self-identification in South Carolina at 42.8 percent Democratic and 42.3 percent Republican, for a Democratic advantage of one-half of 1 point. That makes the Palmetto State “competitive” according to Gallup’s system of classification.

That may indeed be the way people in South Carolina identify themselves by party, but it isn’t the way they vote. The state has two GOP Senators, a Republican governor and four Republican Congressmen, compared with two Democrats. The last Democratic nominee for president to carry the state was Jimmy Carter in 1976 (before most of the South had realigned), and in 2008, Republicans won large majorities in both chambers of the South Carolina Legislature.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-all-depends-on-meaning-of-party.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Professor Involved in Yesterday's Shooting, Reportedly Killed Her Brother in 1986

Professor Charged in Alabama Campus Shooting Reportedly Killed Brother 1986

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Alabama biology professor accused of killing three in a campus shooting spree Friday also reportedly killed her brother more than 20 years ago in Massachusetts in an incident that police there concluded was an accidental shooting.

Amy Bishop was 20 in December 1986 when she shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in Braintree, Mass., the Boston Globe reported. She reportedly had asked her mother how to unload a round from a shotgun and fired a bullet while handling the gun, hitting her brother in the abdomen.

Bishop, now 42, was charged Friday night with one count of capital murder in the shooting death of three colleagues on the campus of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and more charges are pending. She could face the death penalty if convicted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585781,00.html


Tags: shooting  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Raising VAT Tax to 20% in Britain

New tax bombshell: 20% VAT

A rise in VAT is looming whichever party wins the general election, as Labour and the Conservatives draw up plans to balance Britain’s books.

Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, are both considering raising VAT to as high as 20 per cent — the European average — from the current rate of 17.5 per cent, The Times has learnt.

Doing so would raise an extra £13 billion a year at a time when financial markets are searching for signs that whoever takes power is serious about tackling Britain’s £178 billion deficit.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7025833.ece

Tags: tax   Britain  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Ignoring His Constitutional Role

Getting It Backwards

Obama misunderstands his constitutional role.

BY John Yoo

February 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 21

Democratic postmortems on Barack Obama’s disappointing first year in the Oval Office have emphasized, as the president himself did, difficulties inherited from “the last eight years.” Republicans, for their part, credit public opposition to Obama’s overreaching policies. But a full explanation goes much deeper. Obama is failing because he has turned the constitutional functions of the presidency upside down.

The 2010 State of the Union address nicely summed up Obama’s topsy-turvy approach to the presidency. He pressed for a new jobs bill, more domestic spending, and health care nationalization. He attributed his political setbacks not to broad opposition to his domestic ambitions but to “a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.”

National security amounted to an afterthought. He devoted one paragraph each—out of the approximately 110 paragraphs in the speech—to Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorism. It is as if Lincoln had spent most of his Inaugural Addresses on the transcontinental railroad and the Homestead Act. 

Obama believes the president should lead a revolution in society, the economy, and the political system, but defer on national security and foreign policy to the other branches of government. This upends the Framers’ vision of the presidency. They thought the chief executive’s powers would expand broadly to meet external challenges while playing a modest role at home.

The latest Democratic president is repeating the mistake of the first. When Thomas Jefferson entered office 210 years ago, Chief Justice John Marshall warned that Jefferson would “embody himself in the House of Representatives.” This would “increase his personal power,” Marshall predicted, but it would lead to the “weakening of the office of the President.” The chief justice meant that his political rival (and distant cousin) would gain power by joining forces with his party’s legislative majorities. But the combination would realize the Framers’ fear that Congress would come to dominate the executive branch.

Marshall’s observation explains much about Obama’s first year. By associating himself so closely with congressional Democrats, Obama became responsible for their every misstep. Their reckless overspending and earmarks became his. Their corrupt deal to buy Senator Ben Nelson’s support for nationalized health care became his sordid bargain. Their command-and-control approach to global warming, which will set nationwide limits on energy use and industrial production, became his socialist program.

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/getting-it-backwards


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck Mocks Larry King for Biden and Paterson Interviews

Tags: Beck   Media  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Debra Medina, the Tea Party Candidate in Texas Gubernatorial Election, a 9/11 Truther?

Here she is asked on The Glenn Beck Radio Program about 9/11 attacks and it would appear that she is a 9/11 truther:






Via the Right Scoop. Debra Medina responded here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/debra-medina-is-a-911-truther/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Video to Prove that Pakistani Taliban Leader is Alive to be Released Soon?

Hakeemullah alive, will release tape: Taliban commander

Another Taliban commander has denied recent reports that the terror group's top leader is dead, and said the leader would soon release evidence to prove he is alive.

An unnamed commander said he personally met with Hakeemullah Mehsud, the leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, during a meeting of the shura majlis, or executive council, over the past 24 hours. The media have claimed that Hakeemullah died on three separate occasions since Jan. 14.

"Now I am dead sure he is alive," the Taliban commander told The News. "I personally held a meeting with him and found him safe and sound."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/02/hakeemullah_alive_wi.php

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Obama Officials Wrong on Padilla'

Obama Officials Wrong on Padilla

Al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla started talking only after he was designated an enemy combatant.

BY Thomas Joscelyn

February 11, 2010 8:35 PM

During an interview on MSNBC Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended the Obama administration’s handling of Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Gibbs argued that the administration was right to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant, instead of as an enemy combatant. “Just because you make somebody an enemy combatant [it] doesn’t make them talk,” Gibbs argued. He then pointed to an example from the Bush years to supposedly support his point.

“Jose Padilla was made an enemy combatant so that we could get him to talk,” Gibbs said. “And guess what happened when we made him an enemy combatant, he didn't talk. He did talk when he was transferred back into a civilian court.”

President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, made the same point on Tuesday in an op-ed for USA Today. Brennan argued: “Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.”

Brennan and Gibbs are wrong. In fact, Jose Padilla only started cooperating once he was transferred into the military’s custody and interrogated.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-officials-wrong-padilla


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Trouble with Elitist Theories'

The Trouble with Elitist Theories
Nobody likes to be lectured by those claiming superior wisdom but lacking common sense.

Whats behind the Tea Party protests, low approval ratings for Congress, distrust of the media, and unease with experts in the Obama administration?

In short, a growing anger at the sermonizing and condescension by many of America’s elites.

We see this specifically, for example, in the debate over global warming, which a year ago was accepted as gospel.
The high profile of prestigious scientists, former public officials like Al Gore and Van Jones, and the Obama administration all made impending cap-and-trade legislation seem likely. Skeptics were derided as “deniers” and virtual know-nothings.

But then the assertion of manmade climate change met a perfect storm.

First, several high academic priests of global warming were discredited. Leaked e-mails at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom revealed doctored evidence, personal vendettas, and cover-ups among scientists.

More recently, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted it had relied on faulty information, leading it to make inflated claims on impending manmade warming disasters involving Himalayan glaciers.

These exposés dovetailed with a series of unconnected events that further undermined the climate-change diktat.

http://article.nationalreview.com/424633/the-trouble-with-elitist-theories/victor-davis-hanson
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stimulus Package to Go for Vikings Stadium?

Vikings Stadium Plan? Obama vs. Pawlenty

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'New Conformo-radicalism'

The New Conformo-radicalism
Groupthink compliance has never felt so right!

A man asks for a plastic bag at the supermarket checkout. Next thing you know, his head’s slammed against the counter, and he’s being cuffed by the Green Police. “You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy,” sneers the enviro-cop, as the perp is led away. Cut to more Green Police going through your trash, until they find . . . a battery! “Take the house!” orders the eco-commando. And we switch to a roadblock on a backed-up interstate, with the Green Police prowling the lines of vehicles to check they’re in environmental compliance.

If you watched the Super Bowl, you most likely saw this commercial. As my comrade Jonah Goldberg noted, up until this point you might have assumed it was a fun message from a libertarian think-tank warning of the barely veiled totalitarian tendencies of the eco-nanny state. Any time now, you figure, some splendidly contrarian type — perhaps Clint lui-même in his famous Gran Torino — will come roaring through flipping the bird at the stormtroopers and blowing out their tires for good measure. But instead the Greenstapo stumble across an Audi A3 TDI. “You’re good to go,” they tell the driver, and, with the approval of the state enforcers, he meekly pulls out of the stalled traffic and moves off. Tagline: “Green has never felt so right.”
So the message from Audi isn’t “You are a free man. Don’t bend to the statist bullies,” but “Resistance is futile. You might as well get with the program.”

Strange. Not so long ago, car ads prioritized liberty. Your vehicle opened up new horizons: Gitcha motor running, head out on the highway, looking for adventure. . . . To sell dull automobiles to people who lived in suburban cul de sacs, manufacturers showed them roaring round hairpin bends, deep into forests, splashing through rivers, across the desert plain, invariably coming to rest on the edge of a spectacular promontory on the roof of the world offering a dizzying view of half the planet. Freedom!

http://article.nationalreview.com/424914/the-new-conformo-radicalism/mark-steyn?page=1
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'No Compromise on Enemy Combatants'

No Compromise on Enemy Combatants
We’re winning because we should be winning.
\
Imagine the Yanks are beating the Mets 12–0 in the eighth inning (I know — not hard to imagine). Now, imagine if the Mets approach the Yanks and say, “How ’bout we give you a new Gatorade barrel, and we call this thing a draw?” Joe Girardi would laugh them out of the dugout and say, “Hey, you want to forfeit, go ahead and forfeit. Otherwise, get back out on the field and finish getting your brains beat in.”

This is how we ought to think about rumors swirling around that the Obama administration is looking for a deal on enemy combatants and that some GOP types are listening. The compromise would be: KSM gets a military commission, but Republicans agree to close Gitmo and bring the combatants to stateside federal prisons.

This would be a terrible sell-out of our national security. It would also be unnecessary. The American people strongly support military commissions for enemy combatants — not for all terrorism cases, but for all unlawful alien enemy operatives who have no right to be tried in our civilian courts and for whom Congress has authorized military commissions.

http://article.nationalreview.com/424948/no-compromise-on-enemy-combatants/andrew-c-mccarthy
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romer on Stimulus: Historians will Praise Stimulus

Romer: Historians will praise stimulus

By Walter Alarkon - 02/12/10 11:05 AM ET
Senior White House economist Christina Romer said that historians will judge President Barack Obama's stimulus more favorably than is a public still struggling through an economic downturn.

"I think when we're through this, when scholars actually sit and look at this, they will say, 'My goodness, look at all of the trajectory, look at where we were going, my goodness, it would have been dramatically worse [without the stimulus],' " Romer said Friday.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/80885-romer-historians-will-praise-stimulus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White House to Post Their Version of Health Care Bill Before Summit

UPDATE 3-W. House to post health bill before Feb 25 meeting

Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:17am IST
 

(For full coverage of healthcare reform, click on [nHEALTH])

* Invitation list includes 12 Democrats, 9 Republicans

* W.House to post bill online, asks Republicans to do same

* Republicans plan to attend, but skeptical of motives (Adds more McConnell reaction)

By Patricia Zengerle

http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINN1214860020100213


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »