President Obama traveled to Ft. Hood today to attend a memorial service for those slain there last Thursday. I was struck by something he said during his prepared remarks:
But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.
It appears the president is treating this horrendous act as a murder committed by a nut. He is quick to discount the strong possibility that terrorism is involved.
He was certainly quick to render judgment on the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department last summer:
…that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.
Why the double standard? Political correctness? Please, Mr. President, be consistent in your message.
I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.
At least this senator is honest about not reading the health reform bill. I wonder if any legislator plans on reading it?
What a bunch of tools!!!
Fox News, I wrote, is like the bar in “The Blues Brothers” that has “both kinds of music: country and western.” That is, it does so well in part because it brings under one umbrella several different kinds of conservative. There’s Neil Cavuto’s Wall Street, big-business conservatism, Mike Huckabee’s religious conservatism, Sean Hannity’s party-line Republicanism, Bill O’Reilly’s grouchy reactionariness—and now, touching a hot-button in the year of budget stimuli, Glenn Beck’s conservative (and paranoid) libertarianism.
I like this quote!
I have seen a number of similar cartoons about Obama’s upcoming speech to students. Most contain themes similar to this cartoon. I’m personally not aware of any parent referring to the president as a Nazi (although the Speaker of the House earlier referred to health care opponents at town hall meetings as carrying swastikas!).
Most parents are concerned about the politicalization of the speech. True, presidents have often talked directly to students…usually about the importance of staying in school and learning. No argument there. However, this is the first time that I’ve heard of a president asking students to submit essays to help him run the country. I thought he already had a plan!
Many schools are letting students “opt-out” should their parents wish that they not be exposed to the speech.
The article in its entirety:
If you had any doubts about the level of historical and legal ignorance, not to mention arrogance, among our feckless leaders, I give you Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter representing the 1st District of New Hampshire:
Caller Dennis from Manchester asked Shea-Porter during a broadcast on WGIR radio, “I just wanted to know where it says in the Constitution that the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party for that matter, can pretty much do what they’re trying to do?”
“I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads,” Shea-Porter replied. “It also doesn’t say the government should make sure the drugs are safe. It doesn’t say the government should look at airplanes to make sure they are safe to get on. It doesn’t say we should have a police force in Manchester.”
“So, the Constitution did not cover everything,” Shea-Porter concluded.
Well, Congresswoman, let me introduce you to Article I, Section 8. That’s the part of the Constitution that sets forth the powers that Congress, and by extension the entire Federal Government, actually has. After you’ve read that, I’d suggest taking look at the Tenth Amendment: “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.”
That means that if the Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can do, then Congress can’t do it, and that such powers are left to the states to exercise, or to the people themselves. And, if the Constitution doesn’t “cover” something in the sense that it doesn’t specifically authorize it, that means that Congress can’t do it.
While you’re there take a glance up at the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
That means that the fact that a right isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Now about those examples of yours…….
Creating roads, regulating drugs, and ensuring airline safety can pretty easily be seen to be exercises of Congressional authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. With respect to roads, it’s worth noting that Section 8 also specifically authorizes the creation of “post roads,” although it would admittedly be stretching that particular provision of the Constitution beyond it’s reasonable limits.
As for the last one, a police force for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire isn’t “covered” by the Constitution because it’s something that Congress has absolutely no authority over, that’s something that falls under the general police powers that the States retained under the Tenth Amendment.
As a Representative from one of the original Thirteen Colonies, one would think that Porter would have the intelligence and historical memory that even a 5th Grader would have about the basic structure of our government. Although, given how dishonorably Congress has acted over the years when it comes to respecting the limits on it’s power, I can’t say that I’m at all surprised or that I think that Porter’s attitude is all that uncommon.
Update: Last night my wife reminded me of a meeting that was held a week ago between area car dealers and representatives from NADA, the National Automobile Dealers Association. In that meeting, it was disclosed that one of the contributing reasons for the slow reimbursement process is that early in the program, the government paid out over $100 million without any paper trail or any assurance that the transactions even qualified for reimbursement!
# # # #
My wife works at a car dealership. She works in the office and is the person responsible for preparing and filing the paperwork needed for the dealership to be reimbursed under the CARS [Cars Allowance Rebate System] better known as “Cash for Clunkers.” The program has been a needed shot in the arm for her dealership and for dealerships all over the country. However, is the CARS program providing a peek into how health care reform may work?
The CARS program works buy paying $3,500 or $4,500 to a consumer trading in an older, fuel-inefficient car for a new, fuel-efficient vehicle. The difference is based upon the difference in combined MPG from your old car. I wholeheartedly support the concept as it’s a “win-win” for everyone — we take old gas guzzlers off the road replacing them with more efficient cars and provide a short-term boost to struggling automakers. I think the program is a bit too costly. I would prefer seeing the amounts range from $1,500 to $2,500, but that’s my opinion.
The problem is that the government — i.e., the Department of Transportation — has really messed up the administration of the program. Last week it was reported that only two percent of the claims submitted to the department had been paid and there were over 338,000 claims outstanding. The department has only 225 people reviewing the claims which comes up to about 1,500 claims per employee. It got to be so bad that a number of dealer associations were encouraging their members to cease the program. The government finally announced that the program would cease on Monday. When they say “cease,” they mean that all claims must be submitted by Monday. Most dealerships were ending the program on Friday; my wife’s dealership is ending the program today (Saturday) at the close of business. She’s at work now — she’s normally off on Saturdays — and will be working late into the night!
I’m sure the Obama administration will do everything they can do to make sure all claims are reimbursed. If, for some reason, properly-submitted claims are not reimbursed, I hope Republicans raise holy hell about this. If the government cannot properly administer a straight-forward program like CARS, how are they ever going to administer a complicated program like health care reform?
Separate from the arguments brought forth in the town hall meetings held all across the country, the next few weeks will show if the government can even handle something along the order as socialized health care.