Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘’ Category

>Obama Says America Is Handing Off To NATO – And Our Role Should Be Limited In Libya…Unless He lies Again

>

President Obama didn’t bother to talk to Congress 
or get anyone’s approval
 for this war with Libya, except the United Nations. 
You can decide for yourself 
if he should have gone to Congress or is this just a 
little “Police Action” that is 
within the purview of an American President? If 
Congress doesn’t stand up and 
object, we can expect more of these exciting, 
expensive show of force 
extravaganzas.
Good morning,
I’m writing today with an update on the situation in Libya,
including the actions we’ve taken with allies and partners to
protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar
Qaddafi. For further details, please take a moment to watch
this morning’s Weekly Address:
Watch the Video
Sending our brave men and women in uniform into harm’s way
is not a decision I make lightly. But when someone like Qaddafi
threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region,
it is in our national interest to act.  In fact, it’s our responsibility.
Our mission in Libya is clear and focused — and we are succeeding.
Along with our allies and partners, we are enforcing the
 mandate of theUnited Nations Security Council.  Working
with other countries, we have put in place a no-fly zone and
 other measures that will help prevent further violence and
brutality. Qaddafi’s air defenses have been taken out, and his
forces are no longer advancing across Libya.
As a consequence of our quick action, the lives of countless
 innocent civilians have been saved, and a humanitarian
catastrophe has been avoided.
The role of American forces in this mission is limited.
After providing unique capabilities at the beginning,
we are now handing over control of the no-fly zone to

our NATO allies and partners, including Arab partners
 like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The United States has also joined with the
international community to deliver urgent
humanitarian assistance.  We’re offering support
to the Libyan opposition and have frozen tens of
 billions of dollars of Qaddafi’s assets.
Our message to Qaddafi is clear: attacks against
innocent civilians must end, his forces must be
pulled back, humanitarian aid must reach Libyans
in need, and those responsible for the violence in
Libya must be held accountable.
The progress we’ve made over the past seven days
demonstrates how the international community
should work, with many nations, not just the United
 States, bearing the responsibility and cost of
upholding international law.
Every American can be proud of the service of
our men and women in uniform who have once again
 stood up for our interests and ideals.  And as we move
forward, I will continue to keep each of you fully
informed on our progress.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
President of the United States
P.S. On Monday evening at 7:30 p.m. EDT, I will deliver
an address at theNational Defense University in Washington,
 DC on the situation in Libya. You can watch the speech live at WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Thanks for coming. Please leave a comment. Your opinion is as valuable
as mine or anyone’s. Let’s create an active dialog. Let’s stand up for what
we want, what we think and believe America should be like. Fight for your
rights – and I don’t mean take to the street with guns. Do your fighting with
the pen and conversation – friendly persuasion. Remember, we’re Americans
living in the greatest nation on earth. Act like it. Don White

>Maybe We Should Ship These 150,000 American Abortion Lovers To Haiti

>

So What If 150,000 Americans Believe In Abortion!
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
A renewed – and heated – debate about abortion is underway one month into a congressional session that largely has devoted its energy to tackling economic issues.

At the core of the discussion this week are two House Republican proposals that would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding.
One, H.R. 3 – also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” – would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions in all federal programs by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which typically is renewed annually. It also would reinstate a ban on abortion funding in the District, a move that some have contended would infringe on the city’s right to self-government. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).
The other, H.R. 358 – known as the “Protect Life Act” – would prohibit federal funding for abortions under the new national health-care law and also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions. It is sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.).
ad_icon

Abortion rights advocates contend that the proposals would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions in cases where the woman’s life is threatened. They also argue that the bills go too far in prohibiting women from using their own money to obtain insurance that covers a range of reproductive care.

In addition, the Smith bill sparked controversy through its use of the term “forcible rape,” which women’s rights groups charged was an attempt to change the definition of rape. The term was dropped from the bill last week.
The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display Tuesday as lawmakers sparred ahead of – and during – a hearing on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee.
As the subcommittee hearing began, about a dozen activists from the organization DC Vote staged a silent protest against the reinstatement of the ban on D.C. abortion funding. Wearing red bandanas over their mouths, the protesters stood among the 70 or so people in the packed committee room for several minutes until they were silently escorted from the room by Capitol Police officers.
Testifying at Tuesday’s subcommittee hearing were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services; and Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse.
Kellie Fiedorek, a staff attorney for the antiabortion organization Americans United for Life, was among those attending Tuesday’s hearing. She said that she believes the current debate over abortion funding is in tune with the debate over jobs and the economy.
“I think it’s completely in line with the desire to focus on jobs, because we are in a financial crisis, so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion,” Fiedorek said.
Just before the hearing, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and representatives from several abortion rights groups held a news conference at which they denounced the Smith bill as an “unacceptable attack on a woman’s right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress.”
About a dozen activists from MoveOn.org attended the event and presented a petition that they said contains more than 150,000 signatures from Americans opposed to the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”
At a separate news conference before the hearing, Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and other Senate Democrats took aim at the GOP proposals as “extreme” and charged that they are a distraction from Congress’s top priority of kick-starting the economy.
Lautenberg said the Smith bill “sounds like a Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces, even if they don’t want to do it.”
On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health is slated to hold a hearing on the “Protect Life Act.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters Tuesday that, so far, neither measure has been scheduled for a vote in the House, but that both “are obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our Pledge to America.
“These are bills which have to do with the expenditure of government funds, taxpayer dollars for abortion, something that most Americans feel we should do without,” Cantor said.

>Goodbye, Republican Party

>

Is the Republican Party Finished?


  0Share024Share24

The lame-duck session of the 111th Congress proved one thing beyond a doubt: the Republican Party does not represent the interests of conservatives.  Despite the midterm election tidal wave, in which the Republican Party gained 63 House seats (eclipsing its historic 1994 success against Clinton), congressional Republicans failed to leverage their victory into political clout and collapsed like a house of cards in the lame-duck session.
The last two weeks ought to sicken conservatives.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spectacularly failed to hold his caucus together to even delay ratification of New START until the 112th Congress is seated in January.  Republican leftists Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski sided with Democrats to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, forcing the gay agenda from the streets of San Francisco right into the U.S. Marine Corps.  Congressional Republicans agreed to cut FICA taxes for Social Security (which is underfunded already) and expand the Democratic Party’s welfare state constituency by extending unemployment benefits — in exchange for maintaining current tax rates for a paltry two years.  The deal will add billions to the deficit.  Tea Party darling Scott Brown, mocked by Obama for driving a truck in his insurgent 2009 campaign in which he stole “Ted Kennedy’s seat” from the Democrats, voted for Obama’s agenda on all of these issues.

Add New Comment

>Drill, Drill, Drill: Judge Invalidates Obama Ban

>

Judge halts Obama’s oil-drilling ban

** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama’s deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.
He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don’t support the blanket ban.
“Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’ As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading,” Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he’s in control of the 2-month-old spill.
Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.
Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

>Let’s Help Progressive And Illegal Aliens Pack!

>

Let Us Help Ya Pack!!!!

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:38 AM

>Bush Was A Damned Liberal, Let’s Face It!

>I made a comment after reading columnist Byron York’s fine article found in the Washington Examiner.com. I said Bush was a “damned” liberal on Constitutional freedom, the economy, and the borders. He was only conservative when it came to attacking the people who knocked down the Trade Centers in New York. Or was he, because if he was he should have attacked Saudi Arabia and looked for WMDs there. Don White

The following Noah Webster quote is even better:

Wise Words: 2nd Amendment

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 15, 2009

Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla., Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush’s governing philosophy.
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror — to use that outlawed phrase — and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn’t with them.
You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.
Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.
The revealing moment, described in “Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,” occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.
“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”
The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party — or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word “conservative” only once, in the last paragraph.
Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer’s criticisms in “Speechless.” As an observer of it all, I certainly don’t agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.
Right after the Republican Party’s across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.
Bush’s words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn’t in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.
Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we’re seeing spending that makes Bush’s record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on http://www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

>Obama’s Health Care Speech Fell Flat Between DC and LA

>By Don White
The camera work and photographs were excellent – far better than the speech. Obama has a flare for the dramatic, the anti-American, the radical, the anti-Constitutional, anti-flag, etc. But let us not mistake style for substance. He was short on substance, long on smile appeal.

This speech won’t get the traction he hopes. But, part of an entertainer’s shtick must always be the appearance of inner confidence, poise, golden words, and of course some comedy.

He provided all of that, and for the partisans it was a good night out on the town and for the right it didn’t resonate. For America between D.C and L.A. it was just plain scary, not what the vast majority of people in this country want. I’m part of the latter group, thank you, and it won’t do anything to turn our hearts his way so he will have to ram something through if he wants a government option, AND SEE DEMOCRATS SUFFER AT THE POLLS NEXT YEAR, which last night proved he did.

By the way, the Kas Sunstein (the man who wants to put chickens before man, give them attorneys, and regulate farmers out of business) confirmation cloture vote proved one thing. That even Utah Republicans once thought to be conservative, Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch, have a price. Don White