September 24, 2010
— Dave in Texas A speech by Congressman Mike Pence, at Hillsdale College, on Monday, Sep. 20. I mentioned this in a post the other night, just from reading the text, how impressed I was with it.
He gets it going after introductions at 5:50.
On the office of the President of the United States of America:
"Its powers are vast, and consequential. Its requirements from the outset and by definition ...impossible for mortals to fulfill, without humility, and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States".
Truly worth a watch.
I'm not prepared to be a Pence guy in 2012, it's too early. I'm just listening, like I did years ago. Back then, as a young man, I was learning about what it all meant, this government, our history. What it meant, to govern a people, who as Madison said "ain't angels" (paraphrased, TJ, Stuff Jefferson Said, 3rd ed revised), and therefore this government had to at once govern men, and yet then constrain themselves.
But I like this speech. And I think he captures an awful lot about why we believe in this government, formed by men like Benjamin Frankin, who when asked the question "did you give us a Republic or a monarchy?" replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." A Republic in which power is constrained, and intended to be balanced, checked. So that the will of the people who are governed prevails.
We are not subjects. We are citizens.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
06:46 PM
| Comments (125)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: eman at September 24, 2010 07:23 PM (2DjpQ)
Posted by: jwpaine at September 24, 2010 07:25 PM (g4J4S)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at September 24, 2010 07:26 PM (dPcmp)
Posted by: rawmuse at September 24, 2010 07:30 PM (yhrH5)
That's my man! I was born on January 17 like Ben Franklin, but then so was Michelle Obama.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at September 24, 2010 07:37 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Jean at September 24, 2010 07:41 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: Serious Cat at September 24, 2010 07:43 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at September 24, 2010 07:45 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: not at the table Carlos at September 24, 2010 07:46 PM (Y81Xa)
Posted by: Serious Cat at September 24, 2010 07:47 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: Satan's short order chef, Hell's Karry-out Kitchen at September 24, 2010 07:47 PM (X67eL)
Posted by: Serious Cat at September 24, 2010 07:57 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at September 24, 2010 08:02 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: schizoid at September 24, 2010 08:10 PM (W+O9k)
Posted by: Comrade Barack at September 24, 2010 08:13 PM (MTnNh)
Sheesh....sometimes I think we are all so worried about losing our great nation that just beneath the surface lies sadness and rage. I wonder what it will take to bring that to a rolling boil....
"We are not subjects. We are citizens." Amen!
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at September 24, 2010 08:14 PM (nxhW5)
I consider that both a threat and a significant promise.
Who. will. step. up. ?
Posted by: Derak at September 24, 2010 08:17 PM (uJsnh)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at September 25, 2010 12:02 AM (mHQ7T)
Whew...
*puts down the psych meds
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at September 24, 2010 08:18 PM (nxhW5)
I don't know about that. What I know him for, mainly, is a story he tells about a conversation he had at his state's fair some years back. A fellow tearfully told him of how he was out of work, but wanted Pence not to support the harebrained bailout of the moment because "I can always find another job. I can't find another country." -Pence is one of the few that strikes me as understanding the magnitude of the stakes these days, which counts for a lot in my book.
Posted by: Methos at September 24, 2010 08:24 PM (S0c2d)
Posted by: schizoid at September 24, 2010 08:46 PM (W+O9k)
Posted by: TW at September 24, 2010 09:48 PM (e1Iok)
Posted by: The Pledge to America at September 24, 2010 09:54 PM (lSuMX)
Posted by: braininahat at September 24, 2010 10:04 PM (q1suJ)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at September 24, 2010 10:26 PM (nRF6+)
Posted by: DAve at September 24, 2010 10:56 PM (UMNUQ)
Posted by: ChrisCoonsforPresident2012.com at September 24, 2010 10:56 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Chris Coons for Prez at September 24, 2010 10:57 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Coonsmentum at September 24, 2010 11:00 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: It's Coons in America at September 24, 2010 11:02 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Andy at September 24, 2010 11:03 PM (pRbtk)
See here and help do away with the most vile sleaze ever to serve as a congresscritter.
Posted by: Andy at September 25, 2010 03:03 AM (pRbtk)
Posted by: logprof at September 24, 2010 11:22 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: CumforCoons at September 24, 2010 11:32 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: sexypig at September 24, 2010 11:38 PM (0t7L8)
Posted by: sexypig at September 25, 2010 03:38 AM (0t7L
Do we have your vote?
Posted by: FapCons4Coons at September 24, 2010 11:51 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Fap4Coons at September 25, 2010 12:05 AM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 25, 2010 12:49 AM (sziYn)
Posted by: cheap supra shoes at September 25, 2010 03:54 AM (3ruJM)
Human, but it has to be a virgin moronette.
Posted by: wrg50 at September 25, 2010 02:02 AM (85/Lw)
I've heard this phrase a few times since 2008 but I'm curious to know the optimum time for such things.
When are announcements supposed to be finished?
Oct 2010? Jan. 1, 2011? Nov. 1, Midnight 2011? When exactly is too late?
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at September 25, 2010 02:04 AM (23kaI)
Ah back to Mike Pence. I like him from what I have seen. As for the Constitution that is one of my favorite subjects. There is much confusion among the population as to what that document really is.
First off it is NOT an agreement between the Federal government and the States. It is an agreement that defines how the States would implement a federal government. Many citizens, educated by the MFM, believe the opposite, that the States are subservient to the feds.
People also forget that the Constitution is not the first agreement between the States for a national government. That was the articles of confederation. Those articles were called into question in the aftermath of Shay's rebellion. (a whole 'nother story)
The intent of the constitutional convention held in PA was not to create a new Constitution, but to modify the articles to make the central government stronger for things like the rebellion. Indeed, many people did not think the central government needed more power. Shay's rebellion to them was a problem for MA caused by extortionent and unfair taxes and that MA government almost got what it deserved.
We all know the outcome of the committee and how it worked out but we seldom stop and think about how that outcome was subverted almost from the start.
The Constitution was completed in 1787 and the arguments between its supporters and it detractors began almost immediately. History has given the detractors short shrift. The supporters wrote the "federalist papers" which have been published and widely read over the years. The detractors wrote the anti-federalist papers which only a few serious students have ever heard of. As it turns out the federalist papers have turned out to be largely untrue and the anti's were largely correct.
In any case the last State ratified the new Constitution in 1789 and the first order was to add the Bill of Rights in 1791. That had been a condition of ratification for many of the States. So in 1791 we had the full Constitution. It didn't take long before the forces of "big government" began tearing it down.
John Adams on leaving the Presidency in 1801 and in preparation for handing congress and the Presidency over to the hated small government Jefferson wing attempted to thwart the takeover by packing the court with midnight appointments of "big government" liberals. He also appointed John Marshall to the Supreme court. At the time the Supreme Court was little more than a roving judicialry on horseback who administered the federal courts.
Adams and Marshall concocted a scheme to change that and to permanently increase the power of the courts. Adams appointed one William Marbury to a justice of the peace position as part of the court packing except that his letter of appointment was handed over to the Secretary of State to deliver. That Secretary of State was Marshall and he held on to the appointment with the intent that after he was Chief Justice Marbury would bring action directly to the court.
All of that come to pass when Marbury demanded his appointment from the new Secretary of State. Marshall then used this excuse to develop new power for the Supreme Court form out of the air. He decided that the court had the power to tell the government AND the States what the Constitution meant. In other words he said it was within the power of the third arm of the government to tell everyone else what the power of the federal government was. My biggest gripe with Jefferson was that he did not do anything permanent to stop this raw power grab. He should have went to congress and demanded an amendment that defined the powers of the court better and openly stated who had the powers of interpretation. Keep in mind that the widespread view of most people at the time was that since the States made the agreement they had that power. Jefferson subscribed to the theory of nullification.
Anyway he didn't and the "big government" turds have chipped away at the Constitution since that time until we have the mess we have now where the federal government and congress can enact any laws it desires. The Constitution after all is only a piece of paper and it can not enforce itself. The people have sat back on their heals and allowed it to be shreaded.
Thanks to this last election and Barky and his minions perhaps that is about to change.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 03:12 AM (/jbAw)
After the fall elections the campaign for 2012 will start gearing up.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 03:13 AM (/jbAw)
We are not subjects. We are citizens.
Posted by: Dave In Texas at 10:46 PM We'll just see about that pleb!
Posted by: Michelle Obama at September 25, 2010 03:39 AM (uvFJG)
Saw the video today and only made it through 15 mins or so.
I would have never given it 15 if I hadn't read the speech before.
.
some suggestions....
Speed it up.
A lot more passion like you mean it.
Learn how to hit the key lines and work the audience.
Posted by: ncguy at September 25, 2010 03:53 AM (q7BAQ)
I'm glad for the reposted Pence Hillsdale speech on our Constitutional Governance for our weekend review. The original post linked to the text, no? I want to finish reading it.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:10 AM (H+LJc)
Morning folks.
In an effort to transcend cultural barriers, the White House presented visiting dignitaries with a gift in honor of the 65th annivesary of the United Nations General Assembly.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 25, 2010 04:13 AM (A0VTZ)
From Fox on the DADT wars:
http://tinyurl.com/23vh6fn
Judge Orders Lesbian Reinstated to Air Force
TACOMA, Wash. -- A federal judge says the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a highly decorated flight nurse when it discharged her for being gay, and ordered that she be given her job back as soon as possible.
Is this another case of "undefended" DOJ capitulation in order for the WH to avoid making a campaign promise that would piss off the majority of the country?
Yeah, let the courts take the heat. Put it in a liberal judge's court and show up with a wink and a nod. We have seen this happen too many times.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:14 AM (/jbAw)
Bravo
and thanks for the tutorial
I do not subscribe to the view that precedence outweighs original "constructionist" definition of historical phraseology.
It isn't as if we don't know or understand what our Founders wrote and meant. There is yet complete documentation for context.
Given the ideal of BALANCE, and suffocating under the grotesquely over-stylized mutations that have conglomerated upon the classical simplicity of form and expression, it is long past time to prune away the distortions.
Cut away corruption. How does that expression go with "evil"? At first tolerate, and then embrace.
America can no longer feign to afford Marxist Authoritarianism that suffocates Liberty while bankrupting all national content and potential.
No one ever can. Some realize it sooner than others.
Until recently, America has ALWAYS BEEN the light for the world where humanity finds refuge AWAY FROM feudal orders, including all species of Socialism. People left Europe, Africa and Asia specifically to leave the old world's feudal and authoritarian problems behind and to start fresh in America where Liberties prevail.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:15 AM (H+LJc)
Human, but it has to be a virgin moronette.
Posted by: wrg50 at September 25, 2010 06:02 AM (85/Lw)
Posted by: Kenny at September 25, 2010 04:20 AM (wxn08)
Check out what Lurch has to say
“I think a lot of the anger today - while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken - is not directed at the right people,” said Kerry. “Barney is prepared, as others are, to explain what we’re doing. I think when people hear the facts and they see what we’re doing, it frankly makes sense.”
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 25, 2010 04:22 AM (A0VTZ)
At the time I said that the residents had a good case and needed to lawyer up. Well it looks like that has come to pass. provided they get an honest court the city will have its ass handed to it.
http://tinyurl.com/27lvf7e
York County residents sue to keep Rock Hill water flowing
County residents fighting annexation have sued Rock Hill, asking a judge to at least temporarily stop the city from shutting off their water and to settle a dispute over whether residents should be forced to join the city.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:22 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: CDR M at September 25, 2010 08:20 AM (5I8G0)
Wouldn't surprise me. Paul Newman she isn't though. Even the SWPL will get tired of her shit.
If she's smart she will keep her mug off the packaging.
And yeah Vic, excellent post up thread. Agree with MM.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 25, 2010 04:24 AM (A0VTZ)
Posted by: Progressives at September 25, 2010 04:29 AM (u3Zi5)
Yes, Stare Decisis" another tool developed into something that was never intended by the big government liberals in order to subvert the Constitution. That phrase was probably uttered more times by Ted The Swimmer during every nomination by a Republican President. That is how we got the creeping BS with Kelo where eventually private property was subverted and the wording of the Consitution was changed from "public use" to "public purpose".
Stare Decisis is a legal theory developed under English Common Law. The Common Law is nothing more than a series of rulings over the years on cases in which there was no written law. It was never meant to be used in cases where there was written law and certainly not meant to be used in interpreting the Constitution.
The fact is that the Supreme Court reverses itself all the time. The liberals now want to make sure that the Supremes don't reverse their decades of dominance on the court. Currently the court is less liberal than it has been since the FDR regime entered the WH.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:29 AM (/jbAw)
On separation of powers, Before Obama, when have courts dictated military policy?
The Obama administration on Thursday, however, asked that judge to keep the policy mostly intact, rather than issue an injunction against it, while Congress debates the issue.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:32 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 25, 2010 04:33 AM (WvXvd)
Most recently in the GITMO cases, even after congress had specifically forbidden them to act on it. They have interfered with the military many times.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:34 AM (/jbAw)
Amazing, given Sotomayor & Kagan in the mix.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:34 AM (H+LJc)
http://tinyurl.com/2d2kyj8
Insurers stop adding kid policies
As national health care reform takes effect, health insurance carriers in South Carolina have halted access to new individual policies for children -- a move that could leave families unable to find insurance for their healthy children, advocates said.
Starting this week, insurance companies are prohibited by law from
denying plans to children 19 years old and younger who have pre-existing
medical conditions.
South Carolina insurance companies said they must suspend new policies
for that market because the sudden influx of sick children, and of those
whose parents enroll them after learning of a major illness or
accident, would drive up premiums for all policyholders.
Will we refrain from "We told you so". Hell no. Everyone with half a brain could see this shit coming. Premiums are going up all over the country and coverage is going down. Who is benefiting from this damn law besides the government?
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:38 AM (/jbAw)
Let's go back to the Truman, then Ike Era, even LBJ.
Growing up, it would have seemed inconceivable to me had a civil court determined a military policy. Even racial desegregation gradually happened on its own in the military without court judicial intervention. It's my contention that military policy should be left to the military to determine so long as it is an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY.
Like Fred Thompson said, "Don't Like It? Don't Join."
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:39 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 08:34 AM (H+LJc)
They were a null change. Liberal for liberal. Pray that the 4 conservative justices remain healthy for at least 2 more years.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:40 AM (/jbAw)
INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Covers less for more. And we gotta buy it AS IS or go to jail after the IRS rapes us.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:42 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 08:40 AM (/jbAw)
If something happens to any of them, hell even Kennedy, I propose a "Weekend at Bernie's" like remedy.
God forbid the Marxist gets to change the balance of power. He will most likely already get to put up a younger, healthier activist when RBG calls it quits.
3 is bad enough but 4 justices picked by this guy? Scary.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 25, 2010 04:45 AM (A0VTZ)
http://tinyurl.com/2bh8eb2
Murkowski seeks clarity on write-in
In addition,
Also Friday, Gov. Sean Parnell endorsed Miller, and the Alaska Federation of Natives board unanimously backed Murkowski.
So the people who live off the federal tit have endorsed her while the establishment Republicans endorse Miller. I have a feeling that the endorsement by the "Natives" will take voters from the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:45 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 08:42 AM (H+LJc)
Not true, they have been forced to accept coverage for a lot more people and stuff mandated by the law. That increases their costs and they will pass it on. That was predicted by everyone with 2 working brain cells long ago.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:47 AM (/jbAw)
Yes, SCOTUS. Yet the question remains if the lack of intellectual prowess exhibited by the new justices benefit or injure the ability of the conservative arguments. Given Leftist dogmatic predispositions, I tend to have no faith that stupidity can be maneuvered by intellectuals. Rather, these two are stuck on stupid, whereas their predecessors (unlike Ginsberg) on occasion could be swayed. That leaves us under a higher intensity of Leftism. Perhaps that's my own fear.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 04:50 AM (H+LJc)
Anyway I need to go burn some cardboard before it gets too hot.
Back later.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 04:55 AM (/jbAw)
If something happens to any of them, hell even Kennedy, I propose a "Weekend at Bernie's" like remedy.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 25, 2010 08:45 AM (A0VTZ)
A propped up stiff couldn't have less of a functioning cortex than the wise scruntina,
Posted by: Captain Hate at September 25, 2010 05:41 AM (aIWP/)
Posted by: Museisluse at September 25, 2010 05:55 AM (DTfXb)
Had to ward off the neighbor's 5 year old. The idiot teacher of her Kindergarten class has them collecting the pull tabs from cans and she wanted to raid my aluminum can bag.
I can not believe we still have people in positions of authority that promote that stupid myth about the pull tabs. Recyclers do not want pull tabs, they want the entire can. A lot will accept them but they will not give you anymore for them that and equal weight of cans. And folks, it takes a damn lot of pull tabs to make a significant weight.
Anyway I collect all my cans for the local fire station who uses them in support of the Shriners Burn Children hospital. Not some stupid scheme by local school that are too stupid to actually check on their programs.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 06:08 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at September 25, 2010 06:17 AM (j84s0)
Posted by: GrumpyUnk at September 25, 2010 06:22 AM (TkQ9R)
http://tinyurl.com/2fqxtcd
Citizens' Group Helps Uncover Alleged Rampant Voter Fraud in Houston
When Catherine Engelbrecht and her friends sat down and started talking politics several years ago, they soon agreed that talking wasn’t enough. They wanted to do more. So when the 2008 election came around, “about 50” of her friends volunteered to work at Houston’s polling places.
“What we saw shocked us,” she said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”
They found one house that had 24,000 registered voters supposedly living in it. Read this article, it will make your blood boil.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 06:25 AM (/jbAw)
http://tinyurl.com/34o4r5u
Three Wholesale Credit Unions Nationalized As US Securitizes $50 Billion In Legacy Toxic Assets; Failure "Sweep Under The Rug" Friday Just Got Real
"To help fund the rescue, the National Credit Union Administration plans to issue $30 billion to $35 billion in government-guaranteed bonds, backed by the shaky mortgage-related assets."
Wasn't the original TARP supposed to pay for this? Now they are doing it with zero congressional oversight, just as Republican predicted.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 06:42 AM (/jbAw)
Posted by: Knemon at September 25, 2010 06:46 AM (r0y7J)
Originally the founders had not intended the President to have "war making powers" at all. That is a modern invention.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 06:53 AM (/jbAw)
The Insurance industry reportedly dropped their coverage of children only. That is providing less in order to avoid covering more. Guilded coverage for families costs much more now than previously.
Regardless of legalese text, the end result via ObamaCare is less treatment available despite "coverage" inclusion in policy. That's inevitable given eugenics and rationing.
And the cost of medical treatment continues to go up, covered or not, because the insurance industry GROWS exponentially via federal mandate, and the federal government grows a newly mutated bureaucracy. The increased percentage of prices paid by patients yet fails to make it to the medical providers; doctors, clinics, hospitals.
As if fraud isn't bad enough already, ObamaCare augments the health care industry's opportunities, even from within government, to fraud the system. All the more sticky fingers in the mix now.
Posted by: Beto at September 25, 2010 07:08 AM (H+LJc)
Sotomayor is not like Souter.
Kagan is not the equivalent of Stevens.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 07:13 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 07:18 AM (/jbAw)
Yes. And given HOW recently, that invention should be confronted sooner than later in order to correct the balance of powers.
Truman and Korea first non-declared "war" military intervention/engagement? Did the UN "declare war" on N.Korea? They certainly "directed" the war, naming which hill was politically necessary to take, then changing their minds.
Kennedy and Cuba's Bay of Pigs CIA war.
Kennedy with Vietnam "advising", then LBJ/Nixon escalation.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 07:19 AM (H+LJc)
That's called "my playhouse".
Posted by: Hugh Hefner at September 25, 2010 07:26 AM (E97ku)
@100, interesting question. There was congressional concern about American volunteers in Greece fighting the Turks in the 1820's, and in Spain in the 1930's. Jefferson's partisans tried to drag the US into an entangling alliance in the Citizen Genet affair. Lew Wallace ran a spy ring to upend the Austrians in Mexico in 1864. Then there were the China Mission, the Boxer Rebellion, the Murmansk expedition, the Banana Wars, and the master spies Schwarzkopf Sr and Kermit Roosevelt (America's greatest Players of the Great Game: Norman and Kermit. Figures).
Every one brought on a scandal, an inquiry, and a backlash, and not one brought resolution. Some damn fool thought the War Powers act would settle it all. Sure didn't.
Posted by: comatus at September 25, 2010 07:33 AM (hrwMe)
And actually if I am not mistaken he may have even had some support from the courts on that. The controlling ruling from the Supremes at the time was based on the Migratory Bird Treaty. The Supremes ruled that a ratified treaty had the same controlling power as an amendment to the Constitution even though it had to go through much less process.
So we had a "treaty" to support the U.N. and through that treaty he placed the U.S. in the war business again. Since that stupid ruling the Supremes have backed off on the BS interpretation and restored it to sanity. The current ruling is that no treaty can be made legal if the treaty itself is in violation of the Constitution.
As for LBJ and Vietnam, as well as the recent Iraq war, the President has sought and got approval for the war before commencing action. Note that in no case since WWII have we actually "declared" war. Congress found that actually declaring war gave the President near dictatorial powers, or at least it did for FDR.
And the Bay of Pigs. The fiction of that one was that the U.S. was not involved. That scheme was actually planned under the Eisenhower adm.
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 07:39 AM (/jbAw)
That would be a great sign for the republicans to start printing. And then underneath "Help bring America back" and then "republicans, 2010"
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 07:57 AM (p302b)
Vic at September 25, 2010 11:39 AM
Great contexts.
Now for the utter foolishness of our nation's predicament given 9/11/01 followed up with Obama.
We were attacked, even the Pentagon. 3000 died. Thousands of rescue workers are permanently disabled. The World Trade Center has not yet been rebuilt. And America put the corrupt and manic Karzai in charge of Afghanistan, allows Pakistan "allied" status though it funds the terrorists particularly with intelligence, and Obama prepares to pull out just as soon as he gets what he wants out of military engagement while himself protecting Islamic terrorists stateside.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 25, 2010 08:09 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: rawmuse at September 25, 2010 08:12 AM (yhrH5)
Posted by: Vic at September 25, 2010 11:39 AM (/jbAw)
Yeah, but it was JFK that chickened out at the last moment and refused the Cuban patriots air support - AFTER they already hit the beach. JFK was heads and shoulders way more patriotic than any liberal Democrat currently alive, but let's face it: he more than just kind of sucked. In fact, his fecklessness at the Bay of Pigs and his awful performance when first meeting Khrushchev precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis and just about destroyed the world in a nuclear Armageddon.
Posted by: CoolCzech at September 25, 2010 08:16 AM (tJjm/)
Dave really hit it, right....simple direct..really to the point...
Good job Dave....
I wish someone could send that to the republicans....cause well you know, time is of the essence..
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 08:20 AM (p302b)
yes, but you don't want the republicans to look argumentative. You want them to look like that big tent everyone would love to come under. So, no matter who you are, you can certainly agree with "bring America back" I mean it's almost as though the republicans could accuse the democrats of being unpatriotic if they didn't want to "bring America back".
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 08:23 AM (p302b)
That's called "my playhouse".
Posted by: Hugh Hefner at September 25, 2010 11:26 AM (E97ku)
My take from that part of the referenced article was that that particular voting district had 24,000 homes with six or more voters living at that address. From the article:
"Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .
"But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking."
Still, 24,000 such homes vs. the expected 1,800 to 2,400 suggests that ACORN and its associates have been hard at work there.
Posted by: NM Hick at September 25, 2010 08:52 AM (IzuWw)
Posted by: mockmook at September 25, 2010 08:56 AM (WZMt3)
Posted by: mockmook at September 25, 2010 12:56 PM (WZMt3)
Was wondering about that myself.....is there some executive order somewhere that changes the powers that the constitution gives to the president. Cause really the constitution doesn't give the prez much power if you think about it and read that section.
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 08:59 AM (p302b)
I think his plan is gain some executive experience as Governor .. then run for President .
He is only 50 years old now.. plenty of time to run for President.
Posted by: Timbo at September 25, 2010 09:04 AM (ph9vn)
Only if you don't think about what "the executive power of the United States" is that the President is vested with. What exactly that means has been debated from the outset, but do take note that unlike Article I, Article II does NOT use the phrase "herein granted." Therefore, whatever the executive power of the United States includes, it is not necessarily limited solely to those powers actually enumerated in the rest of that Article.
Posted by: Dave J. at September 25, 2010 09:04 AM (DCQ0q)
Posted by: Hav Blue at September 25, 2010 09:12 AM (mV+es)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at September 25, 2010 12:52 PM (NurK6)
Haha.
Posted by: Timbo at September 25, 2010 09:14 AM (ph9vn)
Posted by: jimmuy at September 25, 2010 09:23 AM (ImAna)
Posted by: CMU VET at September 25, 2010 09:36 AM (aWPiu)
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 10:26 AM (p302b)
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 10:45 AM (p302b)
Posted by: curious at September 25, 2010 10:48 AM (p302b)
124 Teaching used to be a calling, should be a calling -- "is" is no longer operative for most "teachers" (there are still some, but they are not sticking around for many reasons and that sort of philosophy is not being taught in most colleges now...because the profs who used to be that way have left for the most part).
I took a look at the staff and dept. chair rosters at the places I worked at -- out of the entire batch (one university, a jr. college, two high schools) there are only 3 people that I worked with still working at any of those departments now. I'm hardly in a radical area of the country, but something pushed these people to retire or find other employment...it seems a bit much for sheer coincidence.
Posted by: unknown jane at September 25, 2010 11:26 AM (5/yRG)
Posted by: sTevo at September 25, 2010 01:39 PM (vJL5e)
Posted by: Bard at September 26, 2010 11:09 AM (KIYXf)
Posted by: coco1314 at June 17, 2011 10:25 PM (Vx++B)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.265 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at September 24, 2010 07:22 PM (S0c2d)