Monday, March 12, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 12, 2012
Mornin', folks!
Beautiful day out!
Barack Hussein Obama is still President of the United States and of course that's a dark cloud over America... but on the other hand... Vampire Diaries is back from hiatus this Thursday!
(*GRIN*)
Had a great weekend. Away in Connecticut with "The Poops." The Westport Inn has a nice little indoor pool and you folks know how I love my swimming pools!
Saturday night... through instinct alone we came upon the SBC Restaurant & Brewery! Had a couple pre-dinner pints there and some calamari to snack on prior to heading back to the Inn for dinner.
Following an excellent light dinner of a "gourmet" burger (for me!) and spicy mac & cheese (for The Poops!) it was off again for a nightcap at...
(*DRUM ROLL*)
...the Shake Shack!
Wow...! Just... wow!
Had an excellent Sunday brunch at The Red Barn yesterday.
Today...? Back to the old grind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-opposes-texas-voter-id-law-144238429.html
The {Obama/Holder] Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because...
* BECAUSE VOTER FRAUD OVERWHELMING BENEFITS DEMOCRATS.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... IT REALLY IS JUST THAT SIMPLE. THIS LATEST MOVE IS YET ANOTHER IN A LONG LIST OF OBAMA/HOLDER DISGRACEFUL MOVES.
Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections.
(*SNORT*) YEAH... "CONTENTION." SURE.
Liberal groups...
* ...VIEW VOTER FRAUD AS A NET GAIN FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud.
* ER... MAYBE BECAUSE SUCH MEASURES DO COMBAT VOTER FRAUD!
* FOLK... WE'RE NOT JUST "LOSING" OUR COUNTRY; IT'S BEING STOLEN FROM US.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1954:an-administration-gone-rogue&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69
* BY THE HONORABLE RON PAUL (R-TX)
Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant...[?]
* RHETORICAL QUESTION POSED BY DR. PAUL. HE KNOWS THE ANSWER IS "YES." THIS IS HIS POINT.
I was [once] told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.
* BUT AT LEAST BUSH GOT PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION!
Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored...
* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... AS I KEEP ON TELLING YOU TILL I'M BLUE IN THE FACE, AMERICA IS NO LONGER A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC EXISTING UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission." Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body.
* THESE ARE THE ACTIONS OF A "REGIME," NOT AN ADMINISTRATION. AMERICA IS LOST.
Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.
* BASICALLY THEIR LEGAL POSITION IS THAT ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT ORDERS IS "LEGAL," IS "CONSTITUTIONAL," ABSENT IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
* AGAIN, FOLKS... AMERICA IS LOST.
* To be continued...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years.
(*SAD NOD*)
When President Obama committed the U.S. military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration.
In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the U.S. military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority.
(Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops.")
* LISTEN... FOLKS... SOPHISTICATED READERS...
(*PAUSE*)
YES... I SUPPOSED I "BUY" THAT CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY "AUTHORIZE" WAR AS OPPOSED TO "DECLARING" IT. BUT WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING GOES FAR BEYOND THAT. THIS ADMINISTRATION'S "OFFICIAL" POSITION IS THAT THEY DON'T REQUIRE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE THIS NATION TO WAR AND MY GUESS IS THAT EVEN IF CONGRESS WERE TO PULL FUNDING... (*PURSED LIPS*)... I'D BET THAT OBAMA WOULD SIMPLY "DEEM" FUNDING TO BE AVAILABLE VIA SOME NON-EXISTENT BY CLAIMED "EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY."
Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame?
* WHICH IS A REASONABLE QUESTION; ONE I ADDRESSED UP ABOVE.
Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines?
* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER I SEE AND I DON'T SEE VIOLENCE (IN THE POSITIVE SENSE) TAKING PLACE TILL IT'S FAR TOO LATE TO DO ANY GOOD. AMERICA IS LOST.
Post a Comment