Sen. Barack Obama condemns the Obama administration’s “leadership failure” in debt limit crisis

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies... 
 
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
 
-- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

Quick Quote - Alexander Hamilton on the balance between state and federal power

Hamilton certainly did not envision a future where the states  willingly surrendered any leverage they had over the federal government.

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."

–Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

The causes are various, but one of the most egregious was the states’ ratification of the 17th Amendment, making the Senate a matter of popular vote rather than state appointment.

Whatever the reasons, the states now are for the most part submissive to the will of the federal government, and We The People are overwhelmingly the losers.

(Via Patriot Post)

John Adams: Nip it in the bud!

John Adams, like Barney Fife, saw but one rational response to approaching dangers: nip it in the bud.  Writing to the residents of Massachusetts in 1775, he (Adams, not Fife) had this to say about Britain’s “long train of abuses and usurpations”:

Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards.

Obsta principiis – Resist the beginnings.

Unfortunately, arbitrary power has grown far beyond the shoots.  For too long, the American people have given way, to the point where virtually all resistance ceased for many decades.

Groups like the TEA party movement represent an attempt to take a metaphorical machete to the tangled jungle of unconstitutional government.  It may be too late, but let history record that someone recognized the peril and at least tried to reverse it.

If we’ve lost the Fruit-of-the-Loom grapes, then we’ve lost America

On July 16 Politico wrote about the DNC/Hollywood axis, and about how our movie dollars are going straight into Obama’s reelection coffers (well, they didn’t put it in those words exactly, but still).  People who are tremendously famous – not because they’re particularly smart, but because they can string memorized words, emotions and facial expressions together in a way that is pleasing to the general public – are, once again, cranking up the money machine for those dedicated to pushing our country even further into the Abyss (again, not Politico’s words – you have to learn to read between the lines).

Politico’s Mackenzie Weinger presents many of the usual suspects – Tom Hanks, Rita Wilson, George Clooney, Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Michael Keaton, Alec Baldwin, Will Ferrell, Jennifer Garner, Gwyneth Paltrow, yada yada yada… but then she ends with a shocker:  “Wayne Wilderson, the actor who portrays the grapes in Fruit of the Loom commercials.”

I knew things were bad for the republic, but never in my wildest dreams did I suspect that we had lost the grapes. 

The GOP candidates are, I suspect, scrambling to determine how to get them back.

NAACP blasts lack of diversity in NBA and NFL

Just kidding!  They would never complain about the overwhelming dominance of African Americans in professional basketball and football!

This week their target is the television newsroom, as reported July 7 by the Wall Street Journal:

In a press release issued this morning, the NAACP condemned 24-hour cable news channel CNN for its recently announced prime time news lineup, calling the lack of diversity in its collection of news anchors a “glaring omission.”

Of course, they don’t do the heavy lifting of proving that qualified minorities are trying to get jobs or promotions and are being denied.  As usual, they simply infer discrimination without having to be in the same ZIP code as the facts.

As our president is fond of saying, let me be clear: The NAACP's goal is not diversity.  Its goal is to increase representation of African Americans wherever it sees said representation to be deficient.  This is not necessarily wrong in itself.  What's wrong is the fact that they're hiding under the cloak of Diversity.  If diversity was truly the the NAACP's goal, it would at the very least express discomfort at the overrepresentation of African Americans in basketball and football.  Raise your hand if you think that will ever happen.

(Don’t miss the part of the article where the NAACP press release essentially says, “everyone knows Fox News is racist, but we expected better from CNN”. Again, reinforcing the liberal meme without being required to prove anything.)

About this bus tour thing: Is Sarah running or not?

The Daily Beast’s Shushannah Walshe reports May 30 on how we can know whether or not an announcement is forthcoming:

Sarah Palin’s “One Nation” Bus Tour launched Sunday, but is it an unofficial exploratory phase for a potential 2012 run or is it a Palin family vacation stopping in historic sites in the Northeast? The answer may well be both.

According to a source with knowledge of Palin’s operation and thinking, keep a careful eye on how long the tour lasts, because it is intended as a way to test the presidential waters. If the road trip ends abruptly, it’s a sign she didn’t get the enthusiastic responses she believes she needs to launch a campaign. If the tour heads to regions outside of the Northeast like Iowa and South Carolina that, the source says, is a “big indicator” that Palin will pull the trigger.

Palin is breaking all of the rules regarding how to launch a campaign.  The fact is, though, that she’s introducing herself to America on her own terms, not on the media’s.  The political world hasn’t seen anyone like her in a long time, and nobody in the media/political elite knows what to do with her (besides inadvertently give her all of the free publicity she wants).

Many of us non-elite folks are enjoying the spectacle immensely.

Obama continues to find ways to show contempt for the Constitution

Seriously? Robo-signing a bill?

The Hill, May 27:

Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) is questioning President Obama's use of an autopen in signing an extension of the Patriot Act.

In a letter Friday, Graves asks Obama to confirm that he saw the law prior to its autopen signing.

[…] Obama signed the bill into law late Thursday night. The autopen was used because the president was in France, meeting with G8 leaders, and the bill's provisions expired at midnight.

Graves cited Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, which says that the president must sign a bill to approve it into law.

Who has legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of this? 

President Obama DID NOT SIGN THIS BILL.

Is Sam Elliott a Democrat or a Republican? None of your business.

A lot of people are curious about the political views of actor Sam Elliott.  I know this because a post from December 2009 brings many of these people to this blog.  In fact, many of the top search engine queries bringing people to C-Pol are variations on this question.

That finally got me wondering as well: Is Sam Elliott a Democrat or a Republican?

Research shows that political affiliation in Hollywood leans absurdly Democrat.  But, Google searches on Sam Elliott himself turn up… nothing.

The fact of the matter is that Elliott seems to think that his political leanings are nobody’s business but his own.

How refreshing.  Would that more in Hollywood felt this way.

Despite my criticism of Mr. Elliott in that December 2009 post, I love his acting, and I think that just about any movie he’s in (not counting the one cited in the blog post)  is improved by his presence.

That’s actually the point: actors should be famous for their acting, not their political activity.




UPDATE, 23 October 2013
[Tim throws his hands up in surrender] You know, I consider myself to be a pretty good communicator, but judging from the comments on this post, and despite my repeated attempts to set the record straight, I don't think I've gotten my point across. This has frustrated me to the point that I've decided to revive the blog and try again in a new post.  You can read it here.

Rule of thumb: Don’t rely on media reports when deciding who to support for the GOP nomination

David Limbaugh, May 24 essay (emphasis added):

But in the end, it's not the liberal bias, double standards, selective demonization and unfairness that troubles me most. It is what I fear to be our side's passive acquiescence to the media's predictable narrative. Why do we keep allowing our political enemies to pick and disqualify our candidates?

Professional politicians have steered our ship of state into the Titanic iceberg. It's hardly facetious to suggest that there's an inverse relationship between the collective experience of those in the political class and their ability and willingness to extricate us from the mess they've created.

We need fresh blood and a fresh approach to the nation-threatening problems we face, so perhaps we should liberate ourselves from the template preventing us from stepping outside the box.

I haven't decided whom I will support for the GOP nomination this early in the field. I like Palin, Cain, Ryan, Rick Perry, Santorum, Pawlenty, John Bolton and Bachmann, among others. But I sure won't let the liberal media or establishment types color my thinking about it.

About the 2012 GOP field: Likes, Dislikes, and Ambivalents

The primaries are just under a year away, and already we’re wading hip-deep in GOP candidacy announcements.  Add to that those who are delaying their announcements for one reason or another, and it’s obvious that just about everyone who’s anyone wants a piece of the action.

This post marks the first in an occasional series regarding which declared, exploring or prospective candidates  come across favorably to me (Likes), which come across unfavorably (Dislikes), and which can’t manage to come across at all (Ambivalents). 

Ambivalents are people I’m somewhat familiar with, but there’s nothing yet that makes them stand out for me one way or the other.  As I learn more about them and their views, I’ll bump them up to the Likes or Dislikes.

So now, without further ado, and without much explanation, here they are, presented alphabetically in each category, and culled from a list found here.  Even though Huckabee and Trump declined to launch campaigns, I included them just to go on record with the fact that I don’t like them.

Likes

Michele Bachmann* Herman Cain Sarah Palin*

Dislikes

Newt Gingrich Lindsey Graham* Mike Huckabee Ron Paul Mitt Romney** Donald Trump

Ambivalents

John Bolton* Mitch Daniels* Gary Johnson Jon Huntsman* Tim Pawlenty Rick Santorum**

* Potential candidate
** Formed exploratory committee, but not yet declared

And now, a bonus category for those I know so little about, I can’t even summon the energy to be ambivalent about them.

Sub-Ambivalents

Fred Karger Tom Miller Vern Wuensche

Is there a difference between earmarks at the federal level and at the state level?

In a May 15 article, The Daily Caller (TDC) seems to be trying to whip up some controversy regarding possible GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s apparent inconsistency on the earmarks issue.

Given that Bachmann is a TEA party favorite, this is a serious charge.  TDC notes that she has secured nearly $4 million in earmarks for her district since she was first elected to Congress in 2007.  She also argued to exclude transportation projects from a GOP-championed earmarks moratorium.

These facts are enough to raise eyebrows among TEA partiers and constitutionalists.  I’d like to know how she defends these actions.  Do they undermine the credibility of her TEA Party Caucus on Capitol Hill?

While the answers to these questions are important, TDC raises another issue that got under my skin:

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14? and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Doug Sachtleben, Bachmann’s communications director, sought to explain the earmarks, arguing that voters resent “taking money from taxpayers in one state to pay for a host of wasteful projects in other states.” He added that voters “also expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” These are not absurd arguments — bridges have to get built somehow — but Tea Party activists may find the argument that earmarks are fine at the state level as appealing as Mitt Romney’s argument that individual health care mandates are fine so long as they are enacted at the state level.

When it comes to government, I believe in the principle of subsidiarity – namely, that any activity that ought to be taken on by government should be taken on by the lowest level of government that can get the job done. 

Road and bridge construction is most certainly not in the constitutional domain of the federal government.  So, what about the other levels? 

Some necessary infrastructure is within the financial means of municipal and county governments.  But the reality is that major projects – highway interchanges, bridges, etc. – can quickly wipe out the treasuries of smaller cities and towns (and the counties containing them).  The money has to come from a higher level.

But think about this: What is a county?  It is an administrative subdivision of… the state government!  Counties are entities created by the state enabling it to govern regions more efficiently.  Likewise, cities are state-created entities.  So, it could be argued that spending at the city, county or state level could all be considered state spending.

This fact – and the principle of subsidiarity – are what make the final sentence in the above excerpt so nonsensical.  Are there TEA partiers who think that the state should not fund highway projects (whether at the request of a local representative or not)?  If there are any, I’d like to hear the logic behind such a position.  I suspect, though, that the author’s “Tea Party activists” are made of straw.

One final thought on the excerpt’s final sentence: There is no equivalence between state funding of transportation infrastructure (a legitimate government concern) and state funding of health care (not a legitimate government concern).

Appeals court hands Obama administration a major victory in the war on the unborn

Fox News, April 29:

A U.S. appeals court ruled Friday that the Obama administration can use federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a decision that overturns a judge's order last year and hands the White House a major victory.

In a 2-1 decision, the court said that opponents of taxpayer-funded stem cell research are not likely to succeed in a lawsuit to stop it.

The ruling reversed an opinion last August by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who said the research likely violates the law against federal funding of embryo destruction.

The 1996 law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars in work that harms an embryo, so private money has been used to cull batches of the cells. Those batches can reproduce in lab dishes indefinitely, and the Obama administration issued rules permitting taxpayer dollars to be used in work on them.

Does anybody think tests like this would NOT be used eventually for granting/denying services in ObamaCare?

UPI, May 13:

A blood test that measures the length of a person's telomeres -- a predictor of longevity -- may be available soon, U.S. and Spanish researchers say.

"Knowing whether our telomeres are a normal length or not for a given chronological age will give us an indication of our health status and of our physiological 'age' even before diseases appear," Maria A. Blasco, who heads the Telomeres and Telomerase Group at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center and who co-founded the company Life Length, told Scientific American.

Stay classy, Mr. President

All presidents use their influential position as a bully pulpit for advocacy of issues important to them.  But, has any other president in living memory used their office as a platform for mocking and caricaturing his political opponents?

Arizona Daily Star, May 11:

Touting gains on border security and mocking Republicans' insatiable appetite for border enforcement, President Obama said Tuesday it's time for immigration reform.

The administration has gone "above and beyond" what Republicans asked for on border security when the last round of serious immigration reform debate stalled in 2007, Obama said in El Paso on his first trip to the U.S.-Mexico border since becoming president.

"All the stuff they've asked for, we've done," Obama said. "But, I suspect there's going to be those who try to move the goal posts on us one more time."

They'll now call for even more Border Patrol agents and a higher fence, he said.

"Maybe they'll say we need a moat? Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat?" Obama said. "They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that; that's politics. But the truth is that the measures we've put in place are getting results."

Way to promote reasoned debate, Mr. President.

Mock all you want, but can you prove that the border is less porous now than it was when you entered office?  I’d love to have some south Texas ranchers in the room with you when you answer.

P.S. A moat with alligators might actually work.

Newt Gingrich, about 15 years too late

So… Newt Gingrich, conservative architect of the 1994 Republican Revolution, has tossed his hat into the GOP primary ring.  It’s amazing that there was any space left in the ring for his hat to land on.

Back then, I admired Gingrich for his ability to make “gutsy calls” on issues that resonated well with the conservative base.  His star faded, however, as the GOP-led Congress failed to deliver much of anything in the way of reform.

If he had run in 1996, he might have had a decent chance at the nomination, even with the brutal treatment he was receiving at the hands of Democrat allies in the media.  Certainly, he would have energized GOP voters much more than Bob Dole did.

Since then, he has popped up in the news from time to time, and  mostly for the wrong reasons.  For example:

• His controversial divorces and remarriages (now on wife #3).  Call me old fashioned, but I wonder about the character of a man who supposedly has a strong faith in God, but twice deliberately broke vows made to Him.  In both of his divorces, he already had a replacement lined up before the soon-to-be-ex-wife knew anything was up.  I wonder what Callista was thinking when Newt did his “vows” the third time.  When Gingrich starts courting conservative voters, what shall we make of his promises?
• He conceded nearly every Democrat talking point on global warming (parting with the Dems only in proposing free-market remedies).  Four years later, Gingrich (who is no more qualified to pontificate on climate issues than Al Gore is) remains proud of the stands he’s taken.
• He endorsed Dede Scozzafava in a special election for a NY congressional seat, publicly scolding Republicans who thought the nomination should go to someone whose views should align more closely with the GOP than with the Dems.

So what does he bring to the table now that makes him think this is his time?