Benghazi: Is the Media Conspiring to Cover Up?

Obama Betrayed The Benghazi 4

The truly distressing thing is how the MSM is still trying to shield him from taking responsibility for his utter failure.  Not only did he fail them on that night...but instead of actually trying to do something substantive in retaliation, we went to a fundraiser.  When a president puts his reelection campaign above the lives of those for whom he is responsible, he is showing he is unfit to hold the highest office of this nation. 

The MSM is only undermining it's already thin credibility with America by continuing the charade that they are impartial in this election.  They have become, to quote Glenn Reynolds, "Democratic Operatives, with a byline."

If the current administration won't admit what they knew and when they knew it...then the Romney administration can do so, and then fully prosecute those who broke faith with America, both in this disaster, and in Fast & Furious...

Entertainment Industry All In On Obama

Today, I turned on the TV show Mythbusters.  It was a rerun of a show from Season 9, Episode 9...guess who the special guest was?  Who else, the chosen one of the entrainment industry, Barack Obama.  He's become ubiquitous on TV shows (Jon Stewarts "Daily Show", Tonight Show, Late Night, MTV, etc.) just about around the clock.  Toss in the gratuitous movies (the Bin Laden mission) and you have several million dollars worth of unreported campaign donations.  When you combine that with the MSM's "Democratic Operatives" with bylines, you get a near propaganda-like quality to TV these days. 

FEDERALIST No. 27

The Same Subject Continued
(The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered)From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 25, 1787.Alexander Hamilton

 To the People of the State of New York: IT HAS been urged, in different shapes, that a Constitution of the kind proposed by the convention cannot operate without the aid of a military force to execute its laws. This, however, like most other things that have been alleged on that side, rests on mere general assertion, unsupported by any precise or intelligible designation of the reasons upon which it is founded. As far as I have been able to divine the latent meaning of the objectors, it seems to originate in a presupposition that the people will be disinclined to the exercise of federal authority in any matter of an internal nature. Waiving any exception that might be taken to the inaccuracy or inexplicitness of the distinction between internal and external, let us inquire what ground there is to presuppose that disinclination in the people. Unless we presume at the same time that the powers of the general government will be worse administered than those of the State government, there seems to be no room for the presumption of ill-will, disaffection, or opposition in the people. I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. It must be admitted that there are exceptions to this rule; but these exceptions depend so entirely on accidental causes, that they cannot be considered as having any relation to the intrinsic merits or demerits of a constitution. These can only be judged of by general principles and maxims.

Various reasons have been suggested, in the course of these papers, to induce a probability that the general government will be better administered than the particular governments; the principal of which reasons are that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people; that through the medium of the State legislatures which are select bodies of men, and which are to appoint the members of the national Senate there is reason to expect that this branch will generally be composed with peculiar care and judgment; that these circumstances promise greater knowledge and more extensive information in the national councils, and that they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors, or temporary prejudices and propensities, which, in smaller societies, frequently contaminate the public councils, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust. Several additional reasons of considerable force, to fortify that probability, will occur when we come to survey, with a more critical eye, the interior structure of the edifice which we are invited to erect. It will be sufficient here to remark, that until satisfactory reasons can be assigned to justify an opinion, that the federal government is likely to be administered in such a manner as to render it odious or contemptible to the people, there can be no reasonable foundation for the supposition that the laws of the Union will meet with any greater obstruction from them, or will stand in need of any other methods to enforce their execution, than the laws of the particular members.

The hope of impunity is a strong incitement to sedition; the dread of punishment, a proportionably strong discouragement to it. Will not the government of the Union, which, if possessed of a due degree of power, can call to its aid the collective resources of the whole Confederacy, be more likely to repress the FORMER sentiment and to inspire the LATTER, than that of a single State, which can only command the resources within itself? A turbulent faction in a State may easily suppose itself able to contend with the friends to the government in that State; but it can hardly be so infatuated as to imagine itself a match for the combined efforts of the Union. If this reflection be just, there is less danger of resistance from irregular combinations of individuals to the authority of the Confederacy than to that of a single member.

I will, in this place, hazard an observation, which will not be the less just because to some it may appear new; which is, that the more the operations of the national authority are intermingled in the ordinary exercise of government, the more the citizens are accustomed to meet with it in the common occurrences of their political life, the more it is familiarized to their sight and to their feelings, the further it enters into those objects which touch the most sensible chords and put in motion the most active springs of the human heart, the greater will be the probability that it will conciliate the respect and attachment of the community. Man is very much a creature of habit. A thing that rarely strikes his senses will generally have but little influence upon his mind. A government continually at a distance and out of sight can hardly be expected to interest the sensations of the people. The inference is, that the authority of the Union, and the affections of the citizens towards it, will be strengthened, rather than weakened, by its extension to what are called matters of internal concern; and will have less occasion to recur to force, in proportion to the familiarity and comprehensiveness of its agency. The more it circulates through those channls and currents in which the passions of mankind naturally flow, the less will it require the aid of the violent and perilous expedients of compulsion. One thing, at all events, must be evident, that a government like the one proposed would bid much fairer to avoid the necessity of using force, than that species of league contend for by most of its opponents; the authority of which should only operate upon the States in their political or collective capacities. It has been shown that in such a Confederacy there can be no sanction for the laws but force; that frequent delinquencies in the members are the natural offspring of the very frame of the government; and that as often as these happen, they can only be redressed, if at all, by war and violence. The plan reported by the convention, by extending the authority of the federal head to the individual citizens of the several States, will enable the government to employ the ordinary magistracy of each, in the execution of its laws. It is easy to perceive that this will tend to destroy, in the common apprehension, all distinction between the sources from which they might proceed; and will give the federal government the same advantage for securing a due obedience to its authority which is enjoyed by the government of each State, in addition to the influence on public opinion which will result from the important consideration of its having power to call to its assistance and support the resources of the whole Union. It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws. [¹] Any man who will pursue, by his own reflections, the consequences of this situation, will perceive that there is good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the Union, if its powers are administered with a common share of prudence. If we will arbitrarily suppose the contrary, we may deduce any inferences we please from the supposition; for it is certainly possible, by an injudicious exercise of the authorities of the best government that ever was, or ever can be instituted, to provoke and precipitate the people into the wildest excesses. But though the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should presume that the national rulers would be insensible to the motives of public good, or to the obligations of duty, I would still ask them how the interests of ambition, or the views of encroachment, can be promoted by such a conduct? PUBLIUS.

Lena Dunham: Another Parody

Political Correctness Explained

Obama Interview...

It's really something when a local TV reporter actually asks those questions the national media absolutely refuses to ask Mr. Obama.  This just goes to show just how shamefully in the tank the MSM is for the Obama campaign.  Glenn Reynolds calls them Democratic Operatives with a byeline.

Here's a real interview with real, pointed questions.  Those sorts of questions the national media will not ask.



If you read the partial transcript below, and look closely at Mr. Obama's answers (or non-answers) you'll see that he's going a long way to not actually answer any of this guys questions.

KYLE CLARK: Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi Libya denied requests for help during that attack? And is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and we'll all find out after the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we're going to bring those folks to justice. So, we're going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn't happen again but we're also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.
KYLE CLARK: Were they denied requests for help during the attack?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.
KYLE CLARK: In a national address, you touted the stimulus money going to Abound Solar - a Colorado company connected to one of your billionaire fundraisers. Now, as you may know, Abound Solar is out of business and under criminal investigation. The jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars. How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado's Solyndra - a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Laughs) Well, Kyle, I think that if you look at our record that these loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country and only about four percent of these loans were going to some very cutting-edge industries that are going to allow us to figure out how to produce energy in a clean, renewable way in the future and create jobs in Colorado and all around the country. And some of them have failed but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction. And that's good for Colorado and good for the country. And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.
-
-
-
KYLE CLARK: Mr. President, you've called for more civility in our nation's political conversation - and much has obviously been made about the tone of this race. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, you called Governor Romney a "bullshitter." What did you mean and why did you choose that word?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, this was a conversation after an interview, a casual conversation with a reporter. The basic point that I've been talking about throughout this campaign, is people know what I mean and they know that I mean what I say and what I care about, who I'm fighting for and you know a major issue in any election is can you count on the person you're putting into the Oval Office fighting for you having a clear set of convictions that they believe in.

Kyle, you've put your "betters" to shame.  Thanks for putting the president on the spot....the MSM has too long not asked any substantive questions of this president...

The Parody Cascade: Lena Dunham Edition

Obama: The Unwanted Presidency

via Instapundit!

BigBird, Binders and Obama

Anna Wintour Fobids Designers To Clothe Ann Romney?

I've been hearing rumours swirl over the past several days that Anna Wintour is forbidding designers from giving clothing to Ann Romney.  IF this is true, there is a simple way to punish this shallow woman for her short-sightedness.  We can easily do to her what happened to Newsweek, Time, NY Times, etc...if conservatives simply stop purchasing/subscribing to Vogue...her magazine sales SHOULD drop in the neighborhood of 50%...which would hit her bottom line in a very direect fashion...

Using the power of our pocket books, we can, and should show this vapid woman, the stupidity of her posturing.  If you desire to be "powerful" and not permit designers from clothing conservative women, then we, as a group won't patronize your magazine, or it's advertisers.  Liberal newspapers have been hit very hard by the precipitous drop in subscription rates by conservatives.  NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes are great  examples of this. 

This is what happens when you piss off half of your readers.

Perhaps the lamest Political Commercial Ever...



Someone at the Obama campaign thought this was a good idea...the stupidity of the Obama campaign is endless...we knew Obama likes totalitarian style dictators, so he's taking ideas from Putin now?

Via the blogfather...

In The Can For Obama...

...and a CNN reporter actually admitted that someone said that to her...

Congressman's Son Encourages Voting Fraud

Project Veritas nails Congressman Jim Moran's son, Patrick, who is connected with his reelection campaign, encouraging voter fraud.

Obama's Chicago Way Comes to Florida

The Obama campaign has brought the "Chicago Way" to Florida.  Here's the video report (not postable). Essentially, a letter has been sent to consisten GOP voters who regularly cast ballots. 

Officials on Monday said voters who had received the letters thus far are white, registered Republicans who consistently vote in elections. "This is a major concern," said Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, who received a letter from a voter mailed from Seattle with no return address. "You should not expect a letter from your elections office saying, 'You're not registered to vote, please don't go to the polls.' That's ridiculous." On Tuesday, the state of Florida said there have been reports from more than 20 counties where voters have received fraudulent letters impersonating supervisors of elections. "We are working with the state’s supervisors of elections as well as law enforcement to find the source of these letters and put a stop to them. We have provided all of the information we have received to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement," said Chris Cate, communications director for the Florida Department of State. "We have no tolerance for voter fraud or intimidation, and any attempts at fraud or intimidation will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible."

Having grown up in and lived in Florida for 30 years, this isn't something that Fla voters are accustomed to getting.  It's very unusual.  BUT, all the letters have a Seattle, WA ZIP code on the Post Office stamp. 

Obama: "I Am The President, & I Am Responsible"

Bumps in the Road...

Obama Pulling Jeremiah Wright From Under The Bus!

Obama, in a desperate last minute move to reclaim his 98% black vote share (which has been reported to have dropped to 80% because of his support of gay marriage), has had a conference call with black preachers.  Included in that call was Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago (the G-d DAMN AMERICA fame).

But last weekend, he held a conference call with a collection of black preachers that included his old pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He wanted to talk to them about getting out the vote.

 This is potentially damaging as he has kept his distance from Rev Wright because of his incidiary anti-American rants from the pulpit in Chicago...a church Mr. Obama attended for 20 years, but can't recall any such sermons.  Here's the most famous rant following the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.




That's the church Obbama sat down in...yet claims to never having heard anything like that.

What Obama is trying to do is save his standing in the black community from when he supported gay marriage.   That has badly erroded his standing there.  Many black preachers are advising their congregations not to vote for either candidate for president.

Obama Lied Because Media Is In His Pocket

Charles Krauthammer says that Obama admin lied because the MSM is in his court...and will spin anything says or does.

He's right.  In the past 5 years, the liberally biased MSM has done it's very best to either spin positively, or ignore completely, any story that is inimical to the Obama administration.  This has hurt the country badly because we have a leader that doesn't have to face any difficult questions.  But moreover, because the media has refused to ask Mr. Obama any substantive policy questions, he has been able to ignore the nation's best interests...

“They had two reasons to lie,” Krauthammer said. “The first reason was the fact that the Sept. 11 attack occurred a week after they just spent four days in Charlotte dancing on the grave of bin Laden. Remember, this is their single foreign policy achievement. There is none other. Look at Iran Look at Russia. Look at Israel. Look at Syria. Look at the Arab spring. It’s all in collapse. They got one thing to argue, and they sure argued it, where they made the point again and again and again with that ridiculous slogan from Vice President [Biden], ‘bin laden dead, GM alive,’ because what Libya said, what it was proclaiming to the world and the reason the attack was launched in the first place was to say, ‘bin Laden dead, al-Qaida alive.’ That is what has happened as a result of leading from behind in Libya.”

Krauthammer said the problems stemming from the president’s foreign policy extend beyond Libya. “You’ve got, you know, al-Qaida has — essentially one of the jihadist factions taken over northern Mali,” Krauthammer said. “There are training camps throughout North Africa. And we now know about the rise of the strength of the jihadist in Syria, where Obama has again has been leading from behind.”

Currently, the only thing that he has been able to crow about it the elimination of Osama bin Laden...which would have been better served taking him alive.  Because of Obama's missteps in foriegn policy, Al Quieda is resurgent, not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya as well as making inroads into Mali.  That's a huge foriegn policy failure. 

When you tie that foreign policy failure to the disasterous domestic policies...this president is on road to unseat James Earl Carter as the 2nd worst president in our history.  Currently, in my opinion, James Buchanan holds that title as his policies directly led to the Civil  War.  The most distructive war in our history.

via Instapundit

Bill Clinton: "Did Someone Say Binders?"

as seen on facebook...

Big Bird Love's the O...

via Instapundit,

 

 





Jump Into The Frozen Pool...

this might not be a good idea...

Act Of Terror...

Barack Obama is a weasely, mealy mouthed &%^$#!$#.  4 Dead Americans are "bumps in the road." Or...it's "not optimal"...




Who thinks that America needs, or could absorb another terror attack like the original 911. This man doesn't deserve to be President.  We should send him home on Jan 20th...

Millions of Green Jobs...NOT!

Barack Obama promised us millions of "green" jobs.  He "invested" billions of dollars of 'stimulus' funds in those businesses.  Most of these are owned by cronies of Obama.  Here's the list.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5. AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7. SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11. Amonix ($5.9 million)
12. National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13. Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14. Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
24. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26. Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28. LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29. UniSolar ($100 million)*
30. Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
31. GreenVolts ($500,000)
32. Vestas ($50 million)
33. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35. Navistar ($10 million)
36. Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

 All of these companies have gone belly up. Not one has produced any real jobs...and all of them have laid off  their production staff.

Why Romney Is Not Bush...

It doesn't get much clearer than this...


The Romney campaign would be wise to use this as a 30 second ad in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Here's Romney's 1st ad from last night.

Who Lost The Debate?

Today, people are asking who lost the debate. I'd say JournoLism did. Candy Crowley by injecting herself into the debate and constantly handing Obama soft questions and interrupting Romney showed that JournoLists can no longer be trusted. She gave Obama more than 9 minutes of time to answer questions. This shows that an anti-conservative bias is alive and well in the Jurasic media. Any conservative who runs for president and agrees to having "moderators" that are from the heavily biased media is a fool.

Crowly Admits Working for Obama Campaign

Here job title includes the word  "journolist", ergo sum, she's a [Socialist] Democratic operative with a byline,

O'Malley Advances Radical Economic Development Agenda

Gov. Martin O'Malley has put forth an extreme economic develop ment agenda.  Insstead of focusing on well paying industrial jobs...he's focusing on something else...

National GPI Movement Gains Traction in Maryland, Redefines American Progress

For immediate release: 10.11.12
Contact: Jim Pettit
301.704.1363

Annapolis - Change Maryland released a fact sheet today to expose a radical nationwide movement underway to redefine economic progress in America. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley recently hosted an Annapolis summit for advocates of what is called a "Genuine Progress Indicator." The national forum received scant media attention and the issue itself has largely been under the radar of most mainstream media outlets.

The impetus behind the Genuine Progress Indicator, or GPI movement, is to supplant traditional federal government statistics with new and arbitrary criteria that deducts what other government bureaucrats deem as environmental and social costs that accrue from prosperity.

"Under Martin O'Malley, Maryland is falling further and further behind competitors in the region and across the country according to legitimate organizations, and objective, accepted and proven measures," said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan. "He wants to throw out real economic reports and adopt a radical propaganda campaign inspired by the failed model of central economic planning."

The GPI consists of 26 arbitrarily-chosen economic, environmental and social "indicators" that attempt to deduct or add various scenarios that occur with everyday life to state-government planning models. For example, deducted would be a wide range of wildly-subjective indicators such as noise pollution and income inequality.

Nationally, the GPI agenda is pushed by groups such as New York-based Demos, a liberal public policy non-profit that describes itself as dedicated to "empowering the public sector" and that advocates "re-thinking American capitalism as it exists today."

GPI is also pushed by a cadre of left-wing university professors who say that people just need food and shelter for happiness, economies do not need to grow, individuals are interchangeable with one another and that corporations will collapse.

The web-based Maryland GPI initiative, implemented in the executive branch of Maryland State Government since 2010, also contains a number of meaningless platitudes. For example state government tells us that, "Marylanders' social well-being is reduced when the underemployed are not working to their full potential by consequential negative feelings and actions, such as frustration and substance abuse."

"Maryland's well-being will be greatly enhanced when we stop losing businesses, jobs and our tax base," said Hogan. "It's absolutely ridiculous that accepted measures such as IRS tax migration data are ignored and this radical left-wing nonsense is what the state wants to use to measure it's lack of progress."

Maryland has lost 6,500 businesses and 31,000 members of taxpayer households between 2007 and 2010, which puts Maryland at or near the bottom of the region. The loss of 36,000 jobs since 2007 also cements Maryland's place as a regional laggard in economic performance.

In addition to Maryland, Oregon is exploring the GPI program. Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed GPI legislation into law this Spring.

Like most other Liberal economic plans I expect this one to be very destructive, and to not provide any real jobs.  It should however provide lots of service positions that pay minimum wages...

Paul Ryan's Proposed Budget Cuts...

Via reader LindaD, here's a somewhat itemized list of the cuts proposed by Paul Ryan if Romney wins the election.

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS A List the Republican Budget will cut Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list. These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end. * Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings. * Save America ’s Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings. * International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings. * Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings. * Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings. * Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings. * Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 programs at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. * U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings. * Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings. * Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings. * John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings. * Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings. * Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings. * Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings * Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings. * Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings. * Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings. * Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.. * Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings. * Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings. * New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings. · Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings * Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings. * Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings. * Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings. * Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings. * Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings. * Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings. * Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.. * Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings. * Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually. * U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings. * General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings. * Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings. * Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years. * No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings. * End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually. * IRS Direct Deposit: Require IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) into the Treasury, instead of allowing to remain as part of its budget-- $1.8 billion savings over ten years. * Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT – a billion dollars for a no-brainer? * Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years. * Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings. * Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT??? * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings. * Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL * Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings. * USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings. * Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings. * Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings. * Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings. * Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings. * HUD Ph.D. Program. * Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. * TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years   Oddly enough, I think most of this stuff is just a starting point.  Eliminate the Depts of Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Homeland Security as well as various offices, agencies such as the EPA (can be consolidated into a much smaller more efficient entity).  Eliminate the duplicate offices that still exist. Replace those departments with block grants to the various states.  Furthermore, eliminate the strangling regulations that those departments, agencies and offices on the economy

This Is The Debate Moderator?

Candy Crowly of CNN has already being question for her interviews on the debate. She's publicly said that she views her role as being an interrogator... that if she feels that a question wasn't quite answered, the she could,

As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

That brings into sharp focus, this video she's calling the Romney-Ryan ticket a "death wish." 




How can this woman possibly be considered "unbiased" when she's going to choose which questions to ask which candidate.  In guarantee, that she will give Obama soft-balls, and biased "gotcha" questions to Romney.  Nothing good can come from choosing this Democratic Operative w/a Byline as a moderator.

Surprisingly enough, both campaigns have protested her view points of the moderator's role. 

According to the town-hall format language in the agreement, after each audience question and both two-minute responses from the candidates, Obama and Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by Crowley. Yet her participation is meant to be otherwise limited. As stated in the document: “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.” The memorandum, which has been obtained by TIME, was signed by lawyers for the two campaigns on Oct. 3, the day of the first presidential debate in Denver.

I expect her to ambush Romney while giving Obama any possible benefit of doubt.  She's widely known to support his campaign, both in word and deed.  This debate may well strip away any further doubt of the media's becoming the unofficial propaganda arm of the Obama Campaign.

I Like To MOOOO

Don't Text & Fly...

Gallaudet Univesity Official Punished on 2nd Amendment Grounds

According to OneNewsNow.com, Gallaudet University President Alan Hurwitz has placed chief diversity officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, on suspension simply for signing a petition supporting the amendment banning homosexual marriage while attending a church  service.  Here's the letter that I sent to the University president.

Dear President Hurwitz:
As an American, I am deeply concerned by your suspension of Dr. Angela McCaskill for signing a petition expressing her fundamental right to participate in a fully legitimate democratic process.
Your action represents a gross misconduct and abuse of power by someone who should understand and defend the most basic of constitutional rights.

Dr. McCaskill signed the petition on her own time, in her church. For the sake of democracy, I urge you to fully reinstate Dr. McCaskill immediately.

Furthermore, I ask you to publicly apologize to Dr. McCaskill for punishing her for simply exercising her constitutional right as an American citizen.  So much for diversity of thought in American academia..."free speech for me, but not for thee" seems to be your message here.

American academia has become so narrow minded that their concept of "diversity" is limited to race, and not political or social thought.  This is one of the biggest issues that confronts academia today, yet colleges and universities have become so one sided as to be mere propagandizing or indoctrinating our youth.  The fact that conservative and libertarian thought lives on is goes to show just  how bankrupt Liberal thought is.

FEDERALIST No. 26

The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense ConsideredFor the Independent Journal.

Alexander Hamilton

 To the People of the State of New York: IT WAS a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.

The idea of restraining the legislative authority, in the means of providing for the national defense, is one of those refinements which owe their origin to a zeal for liberty more ardent than enlightened. We have seen, however, that it has not had thus far an extensive prevalency; that even in this country, where it made its first appearance, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the only two States by which it has been in any degree patronized; and that all the others have refused to give it the least countenance; wisely judging that confidence must be placed somewhere; that the necessity of doing it, is implied in the very act of delegating power; and that it is better to hazard the abuse of that confidence than to embarrass the government and endanger the public safety by impolitic restrictions on the legislative authority. The opponents of the proposed Constitution combat, in this respect, the general decision of America; and instead of being taught by experience the propriety of correcting any extremes into which we may have heretofore run, they appear disposed to conduct us into others still more dangerous, and more extravagant. As if the tone of government had been found too high, or too rigid, the doctrines they teach are calculated to induce us to depress or to relax it, by expedients which, upon other occasions, have been condemned or forborne. It may be affirmed without the imputation of invective, that if the principles they inculcate, on various points, could so far obtain as to become the popular creed, they would utterly unfit the people of this country for any species of government whatever. But a danger of this kind is not to be apprehended. The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community.

It may not be amiss in this place concisely to remark the origin and progress of the idea, which aims at the exclusion of military establishments in time of peace. Though in speculative minds it may arise from a contemplation of the nature and tendency of such institutions, fortified by the events that have happened in other ages and countries, yet as a national sentiment, it must be traced to those habits of thinking which we derive from the nation from whom the inhabitants of these States have in general sprung.

In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant. As incident to the undefined power of making war, an acknowledged prerogative of the crown, Charles II. had, by his own authority, kept on foot in time of peace a body of 5,000 regular troops. And this number James II. increased to 30,000; who were paid out of his civil list. At the revolution, to abolish the exercise of so dangerous an authority, it became an article of the Bill of Rights then framed, that "the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, UNLESS WITH THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT, was against law."

In that kingdom, when the pulse of liberty was at its highest pitch, no security against the danger of standing armies was thought requisite, beyond a prohibition of their being raised or kept up by the mere authority of the executive magistrate. The patriots, who effected that memorable revolution, were too temperate, too wellinformed, to think of any restraint on the legislative discretion. They were aware that a certain number of troops for guards and garrisons were indispensable; that no precise bounds could be set to the national exigencies; that a power equal to every possible contingency must exist somewhere in the government: and that when they referred the exercise of that power to the judgment of the legislature, they had arrived at the ultimate point of precaution which was reconcilable with the safety of the community.

From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. The circumstances of a revolution quickened the public sensibility on every point connected with the security of popular rights, and in some instances raise the warmth of our zeal beyond the degree which consisted with the due temperature of the body politic. The attempts of two of the States to restrict the authority of the legislature in the article of military establishments, are of the number of these instances. The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of an hereditary monarch were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the people in their popular assemblies. Even in some of the States, where this error was not adopted, we find unnecessary declarations that standing armies ought not to be kept up, in time of peace, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. I call them unnecessary, because the reason which had introduced a similar provision into the English Bill of Rights is not applicable to any of the State constitutions. The power of raising armies at all, under those constitutions, can by no construction be deemed to reside anywhere else, than in the legislatures themselves; and it was superfluous, if not absurd, to declare that a matter should not be done without the consent of a body, which alone had the power of doing it. Accordingly, in some of these constitutions, and among others, in that of this State of New York, which has been justly celebrated, both in Europe and America, as one of the best of the forms of government established in this country, there is a total silence upon the subject.

It is remarkable, that even in the two States which seem to have meditated an interdiction of military establishments in time of peace, the mode of expression made use of is rather cautionary than prohibitory. It is not said, that standing armies SHALL NOT BE kept up, but that they OUGHT NOT to be kept up, in time of peace. This ambiguity of terms appears to have been the result of a conflict between jealousy and conviction; between the desire of excluding such establishments at all events, and the persuasion that an absolute exclusion would be unwise and unsafe. Can it be doubted that such a provision, whenever the situation of public affairs was understood to require a departure from it, would be interpreted by the legislature into a mere admonition, and would be made to yield to the necessities or supposed necessities of the State? Let the fact already mentioned, with respect to Pennsylvania, decide. What then (it may be asked) is the use of such a provision, if it cease to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it?

Let us examine whether there be any comparison, in point of efficacy, between the provision alluded to and that which is contained in the new Constitution, for restraining the appropriations of money for military purposes to the period of two years. The former, by aiming at too much, is calculated to effect nothing; the latter, by steering clear of an imprudent extreme, and by being perfectly compatible with a proper provision for the exigencies of the nation, will have a salutary and powerful operation.

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.

But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.

PUBLIUS.

Democratic Racism

Liberals from the far left are constantly attempting to pin the label of racist on Conservatives.  that's been their mantra for the past 20 years.  But, when you examine the history of the Democratic party, it's very, very ugly.

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.

Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said “Segregation Forever”.

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

(And no, the Dixiecrats didn’t join the Republican Party – most of them remained Democrats.)

It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a “house nigger”.

It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an “Aunt Jemima” and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.

It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion.

Had GOP Senators not blocked Democratic Senator Robert Byrd's filabuster, the Civil Rights Act would never have passed.  Toss in Liberal's attacks on Mia Love, Stacy Dash, Tamara Mowry-Housely and others...but that's just good fun, right? 

Deep in th heart of American Liberalism, is an ugly racist centre.  It's always been at the heart of the Democratic Party, at least since the time of Jackson.   When Liberals run out of things to say, they revert to projection and accuse their opponents of being racists, after all, which party has been a consistent supporter of the civil rights movement...which party freed the slaves?  Which party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  Which party forced through integration of schools?

If you can ask yourself these questions, and answer them truthfully, then you might not be as blind as American Liberals are...

The Ryan Girl...

...forget the Obama girl, we have the Ryan girl. She can do the math;




Something neither Obama nor Biden can do...

via Instapundit.

Rob Sobhani

I am going to vote for Rob Sobhani. He's a Repub...running for the MD US Senate seat currently being warmed by Ben Cardin. He's different enough and fresh enough to do the the job.

Overheard on Baltimore's Metro Today...

"How do you tell when Obama's lying?...his mouth is moving."

What Liberals Believe...

Anti-Socialist Ad...

Mr. Obama, You're Fired...

Via Newsalert,

State Dept Fights Back....

...and has thrown Susan Rice, the Obama regime's US Ambassador under the bus.  Jon Hudson of The Atantic Wire , is reporting that

In an unusual display of disunity, State Department officials have disowned remarks by one of their top officials, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, regarding her explanation of the deadly terrorist assault on U.S. diplomats in Libya in September. Not only did they say Rice's characterization of those attacks as "spontaneous" was wrong, but also, they said that assessment was never the conclusion of the State Department at any point in time.

In a conference call to reporters on Tuesday, senior State Department officialssaid they couldn't explain why Rice went on a Sunday talk show blitz last month describing the Benhazi attacks as a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film in the U.S. "That was not our conclusion," the officials said. "That is the question you'd have to ask others."

In the Rice version of events, the attacks that led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans began as an anti-film demonstration and devolved into a deadly assault. But State Department officials say there was no anti-film demonstration. "Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m., there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside," officialstold reporters Tuesday. "Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound." [This was the conference call that FoxNews, the only major outlet asking questions was excluded from...hence the long time in reporting on that call. ed.]

In contrast, Rice said this on NBC's Meet the Press on Sept. 16: "Our current assessment is what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video." That's a view she repeated on CBS and Fox News.

Hudson asked why it was important?  Mr. Hudson, it's important because Susan Rice has very close ties to the White House.  She was the principle foreign policy advisor to Obama prior to her appointment to the UN.  That means that she has a direct line to Obama and Valerie Jarret...who make all the decisions in this administration.  That the State Dept is throwing her under the bus is significant because that means they will fight trying to blame the Benghazi disaster on the SecState, Hillary Clinton...thereby ruining her chance in the 2016 presidential campaign.  This the first indication that not all is well in the Liberally dominated DC bureaucracy...

I suspect that some are beginning to think that Mr. Obama is going to lose this election cycle...and don't want to go down with his sinking ship...think  about that for a moment.  Until now, the DC bureaucracy has been marching in lock step with the Obama administration...the fact that an important Dept is breaking away...could very well spell the beginning of the end.

Ad Hits White House On Libya Attacks

The Obama Recovery Is No Recovery

...and here's why,

Obama’s attempts to increase taxes, for example, discourage businesses from expanding and deter consumers from spending. Many taxpayers already feel that taxes are extortionate and, fearing of even higher levies, have withheld their spending, thereby reducing demand for goods and services.
In addition, there have been recent “hidden” tax increases such as burgeoning "user fees" on drugs, biologics, medical devices, and food—the purpose of them being to get regulators to do their jobs.

There is also a potentially catastrophic 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. This excise tax is particularly pernicious because it is exacted not on profits but on revenues. It could jeopardize the very existence of start-up entities that are not yet realizing profits or companies that work on very thin margins.
 

Read the whole thing.

Vandalized...

Why Doesn't America Trust Our "Non-Partisan" Media?

Here's why:

Neil King is a political reporter for the Wall Street Journal. He is married to Shailagh Murray who left a reporting job at the Washington Post to take the job of Joe Biden’s communications director. She replaced Jay Carney who moved to the White House and who himself left Time to take the communications director role for Biden.

John Harris of the Politico is married to an abortion rights activist who used to run NARAL Virginia.

The Politico’s Chief Washington Correspondent, Jonathan Allen, left the Politico to work for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then returned to the Politico.

Andy Barr of the Politico left the Politico to work for the Democratic National Committee and now works for Richard Carmona, the Democrats’ candidate for Senate in Arizona against Jeff Flake.

George Stephanopolous of ABC News used to be a strategist for Bill Clinton and even after becoming Chief Washington Correspondent still engaged in regular conversations with Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and Paul Begala from the Clinton days. (Ironic, isn’t it, that John Harris wrote that story)

Michael Scherer of Time, where Jay Carney left to go to Joe Biden’s office, got his start in left wing publications, as did Ezra Klein of the Washington Post who famously created the left wing Journolist filled with Washington journalists and pundits to bounce around themes in the left wing echo chamber.

Linda Douglass of ABC News left ABC to serve as Chief Propaganda Officer for the Obama White House in charge of getting Obamacare through.

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times made up the story about President George H. W. Bush being surprised and taken aback by a common supermarket check out scanner. The story was made up by Rosenthal who was not even present. Andrew Rosenthal is now the Editor of the New York Times Editorial Page.

The incestuous relationship between the democratic Party and the media has become naked and quite obvious.  The revolving door between prominent Democratic Politicians and "JournoList(ers)" has become far too open to conceal.  Follow the link and read the whole thing.

Federalist Papers, No 25

The Same Subject Continued (The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered)
From the New York Packet.

Friday, December 21, 1787.

Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

IT MAY perhaps be urged that the objects enumerated in the preceding number ought to be provided for by the State governments, under the direction of the Union. But this would be, in reality, an inversion of the primary principle of our political association, as it would in practice transfer the care of the common defense from the federal head to the individual members: a project oppressive to some States, dangerous to all, and baneful to the Confederacy.

The territories of Britain, Spain, and of the Indian nations in our neighborhood do not border on particular States, but encircle the Union from Maine to Georgia. The danger, though in different degrees, is therefore common. And the means of guarding against it ought, in like manner, to be the objects of common councils and of a common treasury. It happens that some States, from local situation, are more directly exposed. New York is of this class. Upon the plan of separate provisions, New York would have to sustain the whole weight of the establishments requisite to her immediate safety, and to the mediate or ultimate protection of her neighbors. This would neither be equitable as it respected New York nor safe as it respected the other States. Various inconveniences would attend such a system. The States, to whose lot it might fall to support the necessary establishments, would be as little able as willing, for a considerable time to come, to bear the burden of competent provisions. The security of all would thus be subjected to the parsimony, improvidence, or inability of a part. If the resources of such part becoming more abundant and extensive, its provisions should be proportionally enlarged, the other States would quickly take the alarm at seeing the whole military force of the Union in the hands of two or three of its members, and those probably amongst the most powerful. They would each choose to have some counterpoise, and pretenses could easily be contrived. In this situation, military establishments, nourished by mutual jealousy, would be apt to swell beyond their natural or proper size; and being at the separate disposal of the members, they would be engines for the abridgment or demolition of the national authcrity.

Reasons have been already given to induce a supposition that the State governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest between the federal head and one of its members the people will be most apt to unite with their local government. If, in addition to this immense advantage, the ambition of the members should be stimulated by the separate and independent possession of military forces, it would afford too strong a temptation and too great a facility to them to make enterprises upon, and finally to subvert, the constitutional authority of the Union. On the other hand, the liberty of the people would be less safe in this state of things than in that which left the national forces in the hands of the national government. As far as an army may be considered as a dangerous weapon of power, it had better be in those hands of which the people are most likely to be jealous than in those of which they are least likely to be jealous. For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.

The framers of the existing Confederation, fully aware of the danger to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States, have, in express terms, prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress. The truth is, that the existence of a federal government and military establishments under State authority are not less at variance with each other than a due supply of the federal treasury and the system of quotas and requisitions.

There are other lights besides those already taken notice of, in which the impropriety of restraints on the discretion of the national legislature will be equally manifest. The design of the objection, which has been mentioned, is to preclude standing armies in time of peace, though we have never been informed how far it is designed the prohibition should extend; whether to raising armies as well as to KEEPING THEM UP in a season of tranquillity or not. If it be confined to the latter it will have no precise signification, and it will be ineffectual for the purpose intended. When armies are once raised what shall be denominated "keeping them up," contrary to the sense of the Constitution? What time shall be requisite to ascertain the violation? Shall it be a week, a month, a year? Or shall we say they may be continued as long as the danger which occasioned their being raised continues? This would be to admit that they might be kept up IN TIME OF PEACE, against threatening or impending danger, which would be at once to deviate from the literal meaning of the prohibition, and to introduce an extensive latitude of construction. Who shall judge of the continuance of the danger? This must undoubtedly be submitted to the national government, and the matter would then be brought to this issue, that the national government, to provide against apprehended danger, might in the first instance raise troops, and might afterwards keep them on foot as long as they supposed the peace or safety of the community was in any degree of jeopardy. It is easy to perceive that a discretion so latitudinary as this would afford ample room for eluding the force of the provision. The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities, instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand. Provocations to produce the desired appearances might even be given to some foreign power, and appeased again by timely concessions. If we can reasonably presume such a combination to have been formed, and that the enterprise is warranted by a sufficient prospect of success, the army, when once raised, from whatever cause, or on whatever pretext, may be applied to the execution of the project.

If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded. As the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse, the presence of an enemy within our territories must be waited for, as the legal warrant to the government to begin its levies of men for the protection of the State. We must receive the blow, before we could even prepare to return it. All that kind of policy by which nations anticipate distant danger, and meet the gathering storm, must be abstained from, as contrary to the genuine maxims of a free government. We must expose our property and liberty to the mercy of foreign invaders, and invite them by our weakness to seize the naked and defenseless prey, because we are afraid that rulers, created by our choice, dependent on our will, might endanger that liberty, by an abuse of the means necessary to its preservation.

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perserverance, by time, and by practice.

All violent policy, as it is contrary to the natural and experienced course of human affairs, defeats itself. Pennsylvania, at this instant, affords an example of the truth of this remark. The Bill of Rights of that State declares that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up in time of peace. Pennsylvania, nevertheless, in a time of profound peace, from the existence of partial disorders in one or two of her counties, has resolved to raise a body of troops; and in all probability will keep them up as long as there is any appearance of danger to the public peace. The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground. That State (without waiting for the sanction of Congress, as the articles of the Confederation require) was compelled to raise troops to quell a domestic insurrection, and still keeps a corps in pay to prevent a revival of the spirit of revolt. The particular constitution of Massachusetts opposed no obstacle to the measure; but the instance is still of use to instruct us that cases are likely to occur under our government, as well as under those of other nations, which will sometimes render a military force in time of peace essential to the security of the society, and that it is therefore improper in this respect to control the legislative discretion. It also teaches us, in its application to the United States, how little the rights of a feeble government are likely to be respected, even by its own constituents. And it teaches us, in addition to the rest, how unequal parchment provisions are to a struggle with public necessity.

It was a fundamental maxim of the Lacedaemonian commonwealth, that the post of admiral should not be conferred twice on the same person. The Peloponnesian confederates, having suffered a severe defeat at sea from the Athenians, demanded Lysander, who had before served with success in that capacity, to command the combined fleets. The Lacedaemonians, to gratify their allies, and yet preserve the semblance of an adherence to their ancient institutions, had recourse to the flimsy subterfuge of investing Lysander with the real power of admiral, under the nominal title of vice-admiral. This instance is selected from among a multitude that might be cited to confirm the truth already advanced and illustrated by domestic examples; which is, that nations pay little regard to rules and maxims calculated in their very nature to run counter to the necessities of society. Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable.

PUBLIUS.

Benghazi Terror Attack Conference Call...

Invited all of the broadcast networks...except FoxNews!




Because Fox news has been reporting on the attacks...instead of deflecting attention away from the Obama regime.

Organizaing For America Encourages Voter Fraud

James O'Keefe has done it again.  He's caught the Obama campaign and a salaried DNC operative helping an investigator to vote twice...once in Florida, by absentee ballot and once in Texas.



But then, that's the "Chicago Way", a city where the dead vote often.

The video then cuts to a montage of different clips of Obama campaign volunteers and staffers all over the country helping O’Keefe’s Project Veritas activists get set up to vote twice, a sign there’s likely more to come. The video ends with a challenge for the media: “Put your reputation on the line, journalists. Say this is an ‘isolated incident.’”
 

Just the way Democrats do it...

UPDATE:   It keeps getting better and better...here's some more video of OFA offices in NY and MN advising Mr. O'Keefe's investigator's to  break the law as well.