Monthly Archives: May 2011

Herman Cain Applauds Defeat of Bill to Raise Debt Ceiling

(Stockbridge, GA)- Republican presidential candidate and business executive Herman Cain applauded the defeat of H.R. 1954, legislation that would raise the federal debt ceiling to $16.7 trillion, saying:

“I am pleased to learn that the U.S. House of Representatives voted against raising the debt ceiling to an unacceptable $16.7 trillion.

As a business executive, I have turned several companies around and understand the courage it takes to make tough decisions.

The American people demand significant spending cuts now.”

Majority of Americans Do Not Trust President Obama or His Economic Advisors to Handle Budget Deficit

NEW YORK, May 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — The issue of the budget deficit is one that many people know exists, but are not exactly clear on how it should be handled. And, when it comes to who among elected officials they would trust to handle the deficit, it turns out majorities of Americans would not trust any of these people or groups: just over half of Americans (51%) do not trust President Obama to handle the budget deficit (while 49% do) and over half of U.S. adults (56%) do not trust the President’s economic advisors.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,184 adults surveyed online between May 9 and 16, 2011 by Harris Interactive.

Those in Congress fare even worse. Two-thirds of Americans say they do not trust Republicans (65%) or Democrats (66%) in Congress to handle the deficit. The highest elected Republican official, Speaker of the House John Boehner, does just as poorly as 65% say they do not trust him to handle the budget deficit.

Partisan differences

Depending on which political party one belongs to, they may be more likely to have greater trust levels on this issue. More than four in five Democrats (83%) trust President Obama to handle the deficit while three-quarters (76%) trust his advisors and almost two-thirds (64%) trust Democrats in Congress. Looking at Republicans, not surprisingly, over two-thirds (68%) trust Republicans in Congress and over half (55%) trust Speaker Boehner to handle the budget deficit. Independents, however, do not trust anyone. Just two in five trust President Obama (43%), 36% trust his economic advisors, 31% trust Speaker Boehner, 28% trust Republicans in Congress and 22% trust Democrats in Congress.

Income differences

There are also some differences by household income.  Just over half of those with a household income of under $35,000 a year (51%) and over $100,000 a year (52%) say they trust President Obama on the budget deficit. Those in the highest income bracket are also more likely to trust the President’s economic advisors (49%), Republicans in Congress (41%) and the Speaker of the House (40%) to handle the budget deficit. Those in the lowest income bracket are more likely to trust Democrats in Congress (41%) to handle the deficit.

So What?

The budget deficit is a serious issue that is not going away and may become even more prominent over the summer with the debate over the debt ceiling. The American public is looking for someone they trust on this and, at the moment, elected officials are not filling that void. This could be a chance for a Republican presidential candidate to stand out from the other GOP hopefuls as well as from those currently in power if he or she presents a plan people can trust.

Chris Christie: 2012 Presidential Profile

Update: August 16, 2011- Speculation still continues to swirl around a possible run for the White House by Chris Christie. See “In The News” for updated news article.

Chris Christie has said numerous times that he will not be running for President of The United States of America in 2012. In fact, after much speculation, rumors, pleas, suggestions and questions regarding a possible run for leader of the free world Mr. Christie made the comment that it looked like the only thing that would prove he is not running for President is to commit suicide.

It has been reported that Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh met with Chris Christie to ask him to run for President. It appears as though Mr. Christie stood his ground, even with El Rushbo and the Chairman of Fox News.

I am a member of the crowd who would absolutely love for Chris Christie to throw his hat into the ring.  I am sure it is wishful thinking on my part, as well as the other people who fall into the category I do.

Even though Chris Christie says he is adamently opposed to entering the presidential race, let’s dig deeper into the facts about New Jersey’s new governor. We’ve seen him stand toe to toe with the teacher’s unions. We know he is exactly what this country needs fiscally. But is he a true Conservative?

Personal Information

Chris Christie was born in Newark, New Jersey on September 6, 1962 to Bill and Sondra Christie. He was raised in Livingston, New Jersey. With the exception of when he was in college, he has lived in New Jersey all of his life, so he “has a deep affection and strong commitment to New Jersey.”

He is of Irish and Sicilian descent.

Religious Affiliation
Roman Catholic

Family
1986- Chris Christie married his college sweetheart, Mary Pat. They have four children. The family currently lives in Mendham Township, New Jersey.

Education
1980- Graduated from Livingston High School
1984- Graduated from the University of Delaware with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science
1987- Graduated from Seton Hall University School of Law with a Juris Doctor degree

Official Lawyer
December 1987- Admitted to the Bar of the State of New Jersey
December 1987- Admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey

Legal Career
1987- Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, a lawfirm in Cranford, New Jersey where it wasn’t long before he made partner
2002- Was named U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey
Served as one of the 17 U.S. Attorneys on the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ advisory committee

Political Affiliations
Republican

Political Career
2009- Elected as Governor of the State of New Jersey
January 2010- Took office as Governor of New Jersey
1999 to 2001- Lobbyist on behalf of GPU Energy, Securities Industry Association, Hackensack University Medical Center, Univeristy of Phoenix and other companies for various issues
November 2009- Elected as Governor of New Jersey, took office January 2010

Civic Affiliations
1994- Elected to the Board of Chosen Freeholders in Morris County
1997- Director of the Board- Morris County
Liaison for Morris County Department of Human Services
Little League Basketball Coach
Former Board Member of Mendham’s Daytop Village

Political Accomplishments
In his position as the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey (U.S. Attorney), he was praised by leaders of both the Democrat and Republican parties for his efforts in fighting political corruption, corporate crime, human trafficking, gangs, terrorism and polluters. He also gained national attention for his fight in each of these areas.

Chris Christie has proven that he does not care what political party you are affiliated with or how many political connections you have, if you break the law he takes action! Under his leadership, his office won convictions or guilty pleas from more than 130 public officials- on both sides of the aisle. He and his team never lost a single case.

When he left the U.S. Attorney’s office  in 2008, he was praised by every major newspaper in the state of New Jersey for his accomplishments as New Jersey’s US Attorney.

War on Terror
Chris Christie has been in the thick of the battle in the War on Terror. No, he is not in the military, but he led the team that prevented a terrorist attack at Fort Dix.

Chris Christie is known for standing up to the political games and underhanded dealings of the political elite. He has made it very clear that he will not tolerate the abuse of power by elected officials or stealing from the taxpayers in New Jersey.

On The Issues
Pro-Life- says every human life is precious
Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman
Pro-Economic growth, pro-jobs, pro-business
Supports making manufacturing a priority
Says we “can and must” lower taxes
Supports cutting taxes and the cost of doing business in New Jersey
Supports making New Jersey’s health insurance more affordable for small businesses
Supports cutting wasteful spending and enacting more fiscal watchdogs
Strong stand against child pornography and human trafficking
Supports eliminating the special interest labor union loopholes
Public education system if failing. Accountability for teachers and administration needs to be increased.
Supports renewable energy
Supports incentive energy manufacturing and wind turbines
Supports eliminating dual office-holding, dual public employment and conflicts of interest
Supports line item veto
Supports putting all legislation online
Supports eliminating the legislature conflicts of interest
Supports changing the ethics laws to require strict disclosure
Believes government officials should be held accountable for their actions
Supports putting citizens back in charge of their government
Has a 10-point plan to punish elected officials who commit crimes

The Man With A Plan
One thing is for certain- Chris Christie is a man with a plan! I have been impressed with what I have seen in his now numerous and infamous showdowns with the Teacher’s Unions. He also has a written plan of 88 different ways he will fix New Jersey.  In reading his plan it appears he has an answer for almost every issue we face as a country. He is dealing with the issues on the state level within New Jersey, but the issues he is faced with in governing the state are the very same issues we are facing as a nation. Mr. Christie shows that there can be a realistic way to address each one of these issues. Are we going to agree with every single one of the 88 things he has planned? Absolutely not! I do not believe there is a single person I agree with 100% of the time! However, there is a plan in place. His plan is made public so the people of New Jersey can see what his plan is. Agree with him or not he knows how to get things accomplished!

His Reputation
Chris Christie has been called a lot of things in his short, yet very busy governorship.

He’s been called “a fiscal genius“.

It’s been said he:
“has charisma dripping out of every pore in his body”

It’s been said he “was missing in action

He’s upset:
The Obama Administration (this wins him HUGE points with me!!)

What If He Changes His Mind?
Though there are many speculations as to whether or not he will change his mind, Chris Christie is still standing firm that he will not run for President in 2012. The question has been asked whether or not his reputation will be ruined if he changes his mind between now and October 2012.

I am reminded of  George Washington when in 1787 he was approached- and eventually persuaded- to join the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It is said that upon hearing that the they wanted him to join the Constitutional Convention, he said (although somewhat disputed) “Have I not yet done enough for my country?” While these exact words may not be the ones he expressed I can imagine it was something very similar.

I can also assume this is very much the way Chris Christie feels, though in a bit of a different sense. While he has not served as President before, and has said that he does not feel that he is ready for the Presidency, I am sure it is quite a daunting thought to think about.  To know that many people have the confidence in you that you may not feel in yourself is probably a bit unnerving.

Then there is what I would consider to probably be the main reason why Chris Christie is not running for President at this point. I know that I have heard him discuss this, but I can just about bet that this is the number one deciding factor in this decision. His family. He is a family man and wants to be a part of his children’s childhood. He wants to be able to coach their basketball teams and other extra-curricular activities. Becoming President of the free world would put a bit of a dent in those plans.

Having this put before him cannot be easy on Chris Christie. I am quite sure he is very well aware of the state of this nation. I admire the fact that he wants to complete a full term in office as governor. But I also see the qualities in him that would make the kind of President we need right now.

We are at a very crucial point in the history of this great nation. We are on a collision course with destruction. If we do not find someone with strong morals and character to stand up and say, “Enough is enough!” when it comes to our budget I just do not see any hope out of the mess we are in. Without a doubt I know Chris Christie would be this man.

Is it fair to ask someone to give up their way of life, sacrifice their family life for the rest of this nation? I don’t know that there is really an answer to that question. What is fair? Life is not fair. I think it goes well beyond asking if it is a fair question or not. What that question is I honestly do not know. But I know that we are in a dire situation.

I believe Chris Christie is the kind of man that is not willing to sell his soul, principles, morals and character out to the lobbyists and special interests. Is he perfect? Absolutely not! But I believe he understands what it takes to lead. There are very few people that are able to make the hard decisions that must be made as a leader. I believe this is what defines a good leader from someone who is in a leadership position. ANYONE can be given a title. It takes an exceptional person to be able to stand up to the naysayers and do what must be done. That is the mark of a true leader.

In Chris Christie I see a good leader. This country needs a good leader right now, more than ever!

Is Mr. Christie the man for the job? Only time will tell!

In The News
Speculation of Chris Christie Presidential Run Continues After Rick Perry Joins Race 
Chris Christie to Obama- You Can’t Lead From Behind 
Chris Christie Out Polls Obama in New Jersey 

On The Web
Due to the fact that Governor Christie is adamant that he will not run for President there is no official campaign website.
State of New Jersey- Governor Chris Christie Official Website
Governor Chris Christie on Twitter
Governor Chris Christie on YouTube

_______________________

Sources:
The Official State of New Jersey Website
Wikipedia
Conservative New Jersey
OnTheIssues.org
VoteSmart.org
ReligionFacts.com
Squiddoo

 

 

See the profiles of other potential 2012 GOP Candidates

Reform Will Lead to Work Avoidance by Doctors

TUCSON, Ariz., May 31, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On May 26, three physicians, including Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX), briefed Congressional staffers on the effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes called ObamaCare, on the patient-physician relationship and patient care.

Patients and physicians are the people you don’t find on the complex organizational charts describing ObamaCare, stated Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which sponsored the briefing.

Americans were promised that the ACA would save money and reduce the federal deficit. Dr. Burgess warned, however, that “entitlements are a raging fire, and the ACA is a gasoline tanker fixing to dump its contents on the fire.”

The cost explosion will not be translated into more patient care, the doctors explained. ACA may create much higher demand by increasing the number of insured patients, and mandates to cover “preventive” services for the healthy, but who will do the work of caring for the sick?

The new “accountable care organizations” (ACOs), like the managed care organizations they resemble, are supposed to contain costs by changing the incentives. Instead of fee for service (more pay for more work), doctors will be paid more for treating by the numbers, and keeping numbers like blood pressure within a certain range. From personal experience, Dr. Burgess described the pressures that managed care and government agencies put on physicians to limit care.

The costly, onerous regulations in the ACA will also drive more and more physicians out of independent practice and into salaried positions. Dr. Amerling predicts that once physicians become salaried hospital employees, they will revert to the nearly universal work-avoidance behavior of physicians in training, who receive the same meager salary no matter how many patients they see. The most obvious manifestation is “turfing”—attempting to have a new admission or difficult patient directed to someone else’s service.

“Fee for service has been wrongly blamed for runaway health spending,” Dr. Amerling said, “when the real culprit is the third party system, unrestrained by meaningful co-pays or deductibles.” Fee for service is necessary to ensure that patients are treated promptly.

The U.S. single payer system called the VA also discourages hard work. “Doctors can often provide the best care for their patients only by violating the rules,” Dr. Orient said.

To protect quality and access to care, the patient-physician relationship must be protected—and ObamaCare repealed—the panel concluded.

 

National Home Prices Hit New Low in 2011

NEW YORK, May 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Data through March 2011, released today by Standard & Poor’s for its S&P/Case-Shiller(1) Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the U.S. National Home Price Index declined by 4.2% in the first quarter of 2011, after having fallen 3.6% in the fourth quarter of 2010.  The National Index hit a new recession low with the first quarter’s data and posted an annual decline of 5.1% versus the first quarter of 2010. Nationally, home prices are back to their mid-2002 levels.

As of March 2011, 19 of the 20 MSAs covered by S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices and both monthly composites were down compared to March 2010. Twelve of the 20 MSAs and the 20-City Composite also posted new index lows in March. With an index value of 138.16, the 20-City Composite fell below its earlier reported April 2009 low of 139.26. Minneapolis posted a double-digit 10.0% annual decline, the first market to be back in this territory since March 2010 when Las Vegas was down 12.0% on an annual basis. In the midst of all these falling prices and record lows, Washington DC was the only city where home prices increased on both a monthly (+1.1%) and annual (+4.3%) basis.  Seattle was up a modest 0.1% for the month, but still down 7.5% versus March 2010.

The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, which covers all nine U.S. census divisions, recorded a 5.1% decline in the first quarter of 2011 over the first quarter of 2010. In March, the 10- and 20-City Composites posted annual rates of decline of 2.9% and 3.6%, respectively. Thirteen of the 20 MSAs and both monthly Composites saw their annual growth rates fall deeper into negative territory in March. While they did not worsen, Chicago, Phoenix and Seattle saw no improvement in their respective annual rates.

“This month’s report is marked by the confirmation of a double-dip in home prices across much of the nation. The National Index, the 20-City Composite and 12 MSAs all hit new lows with data reported through March 2011. The National Index fell 4.2% over the first quarter alone, and is down 5.1% compared to its year-ago level. Home prices continue on their downward spiral with no relief in sight,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Indices. “Since December 2010, we have found an increasing number of markets posting new lows. In March 2011, 12 cities – Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago,Cleveland, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, Portland (OR) and Tampa – fell to their lowest levels as measured by the current housing cycle. Washington D.C. was the only MSA displaying positive trends with an annual growth rate of +4.3% and a 1.1% increase from its February level.

“The rebound in prices seen in 2009 and 2010 was largely due to the first-time home buyers tax credit.  Excluding the results of that policy, there has been no recovery or even stabilization in home prices during or after the recent recession. Further, while last year saw signs of an economic recovery, the most recent data do not point to renewed gains.”

“Looking deeper into the monthly data, 18 MSAs and both Composites were down in March over February. The only two which weren’t, are Washington DC, up 1.1%, and Seattle, up 0.1%. Atlanta,Cleveland, Detroit and Las Vegas are the markets where average home prices are now below their January 2000 levels.  With a March index level of 100.27, Phoenix is not far off.”

As of the first quarter of 2011, average home prices across the United States are back at their mid-2002 levels. The National Index level hit a new low in the first quarter of 2011; it fell by 4.2% in the first quarter of 2011 and is 5.1% below its 2010Q1 level.

Eleven cities and both Composites have posted at least eight consecutive months of negative month-over-month returns. Of these, eight cities are down 1% or more. The only cities to post positive improvements in March versus their February levels are Seattle and Washington D.C. with monthly returns of +0.1% and +1.1% respectively.

 

Consumer Confidence Index Declines

NEW YORK, May 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® , which had improved in April, decreased in May. The Index now stands at 60.8 (1985=100), down from 66.0 in April. The Present Situation Index decreased to 39.3 from 40.2. The Expectations Index declined to 75.2 from 83.2 last month.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey® , based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by The Nielsen Company, a leading global provider of information and analytics around what consumers buy and watch. The cutoff date for May’s preliminary results was May 18, 2011.

Says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center: “A more pessimistic outlook is the primary reason for this month’s decline in consumer confidence. Consumers are considerably more apprehensive about future business and labor market conditions as well as their income prospects. Inflation concerns, which had eased last month, have picked up once again. On the other hand, consumers’ assessment of current conditions declined only modestly, suggesting no significant pickup or deterioration in the pace of growth.”

Consumers’ assessment of current conditions, while still mixed, was somewhat less favorable than in April. Those claiming business conditions are “good” decreased to 14.6 percent from 15.5 percent, while those claiming business conditions are “bad” increased to 37.1 percent from 35.9 percent. Consumers’ appraisal of the labor market was also less favorable than last month. Those stating jobs are “hard to get” increased to 43.9 percent from 42.4 percent, while those stating jobs are “plentiful” increased to 5.6 percent from 5.1 percent.

Consumers’ short-term outlook, which had improved marginally in April, turned pessimistic in May. The proportion of consumers expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months declined to 17.0 percent from 19.2 percent, while those anticipating business conditions will worsen increased to 15.5 percent from 14.0 percent.

Consumers were also pessimistic about the labor market outlook for the next six months. Those expecting more jobs in the months ahead declined to 15.9 percent from 17.8 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs increased to 20.8 percent from 18.7 percent. The proportion of consumers expecting an increase in their incomes declined to 14.8 percent from 17.0 percent.

 

House to Vote on Libyan War Action This Week

The Republican-led House of Representatives will be voting on a bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich ( D- Ohio ) this week, according to TheHill.com:

The office of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Friday the House would take up a resolution introduced by anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that directs the president to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. The liberal Democrat is acting under authority of the  1973 War Powers Resolution, which enables legislators to force a vote on troop withdrawal measures under certain conditions.

For those of you who have forgotten about the controversial U.S. war action taken against the government of Libya, here is a reminder of just how this illegal action was started, and then obscured by the cloud of the NATO umbrella. The powers that be may  call it a “kinetic military action”, a world peace action, a move to install “Democracy”, or any other cutesy names that are based on the denial of the reality that the Libyan war action is simply an illegal war action against another country. A war action taken against a country that has not attacked any NATO country, as the NATO charter states that it was originally formed to protect against.  Just because the U.S. is now hiding behind the moniker “NATO” does not make this war action legal, or right.

 

The measure is not expected to pass, but a significant number of votes in favor could send a sobering message to the White House, which has struggled to win congressional support for the military intervention in Libya. Both Republican and Democratic leaders criticized Obama for a lack of consultation with Congress in the run-up to the military deployment, and the House has ignored his request for a resolution supporting the mission.

This bill appears to be nothing more than campaign rhetoric designed to waste time, when we consider the fact that there is almost zero chance of it passing. America still has no budget for over 2 years running now, with no resolution in sight, we will hit the debt ceiling again soon, our national debt has now surpassed the $14.5 trillion dollar mark, unemployment is still stubbornly high, as is the price of gasoline, and inflation that most officials in our government refuse to acknowledge,  is crushing the poor and Seniors on a fixed income , yet the wizards in D.C. want to attempt to make a statement by wasting time on this bill? Seems like common sense would tell them to start impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama if they truly  feel he is in violation of the 1973 War Power Act, instead of holding meaningless votes to send him a message. It is time to take a serious stand against the abuse of executive powers and the ignoring of Congressional authority in America today, yet it appears that our representatives in Congress lack the backbone and fortitude to take the necessary stand against Barack Obama’s bully pulpit. House leadership tried to make another statement concerning the illegal U.S. participation in the Libyan war, again from the Hill.com article:

The House last week overwhelmingly voted to add amendments to a Defense authorization bill to bar the president from deploying ground troops to Libya and stating explicitly that Congress was not, as part of the legislation, authorizing the military mission.

One example is the second F-35 engine program, which two administrations have wanted to terminate for several years, only to see Congress keep it alive.

Once again we see just why these types of votes are deemed meaningless. The military does not need or want the expensive second engine for the F-35 fighter jet, yet Congress keeps on demanding it be put into the spending bill again. Can you say the words Lobbyists and wasteful eamarks?  How about attempted vote-buying? No matter how many times the military says they do not want the super-expensive F-35 second engine program, some tyrants in Congress keep on pushing for it. How will we ever cut spending with this type of corruption going on? The answer to that is we will never be able to cut spending until we are bankrupt, period.

This takes us back to the illegal war in Libya and how much it is costing America to install an undefined fake Democracy there. The initial bombing cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. Who gave Obama permission to spend that money? Who tried to stop it? What is it costing us today? What is the mission in Libya? All of these questions go unanswered, while the American public is told to simply sit down, shut up and foot the bill for an illegal Libyan war. Is this what Democracy looks like?

 

 

1973 War Powers Act

The War Powers Act of 1973

Public Law 93-148 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542  November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution : Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.

PURPOSE AND POLICY

 

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the
framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective
judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction
of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances,
and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided
that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers
vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory
authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United
States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

 

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before
introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress
until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have
been removed from such situations.

 

REPORTING

Sec. 4. (a)

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States
Armed Forces are introduced–
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped
for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement,
repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed
Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction
took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may
request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect
to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces
abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into
any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall,
so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or
situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities
or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or
situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once
every six months.

 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a)

Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of
the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and
to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If,
when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has
adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they
deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of
their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress
in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to
this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the
President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to
which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the
Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such
use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day
period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon
the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an
additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress
in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United
States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the
course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces
are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory
authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so
directs by concurrent resolution.

 

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a)

Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least
thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in
such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the
case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill,
together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days
before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless
such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business
of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be
equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on
within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise
determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c)
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the
committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out
not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day
period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall
become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on
within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with
respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be
promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report
with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before
the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event
the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to
their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either
House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning
any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by
both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

 

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a)

Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least
thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in
such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the
case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such
committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless
such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of
the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be
equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on
within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise
determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c)
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the
committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out
by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days
and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted
on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House
shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with
respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be
promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report
with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the
legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule
in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or
concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be
acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference
report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours,
they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

 

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances shall not be inferred–

(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any
appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such
situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is
implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United
States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it
is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of
this joint resolution.
SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further
specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces
to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign
countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which
were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and
pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United
States prior to such date.
SEC 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term “introduction of United
States Armed Forces” includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to
command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or
irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such
military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces
will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution–

(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the
President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect
to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint
resolution.

 

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any
other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the
date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND

President of the Senate pro tempore.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.   November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to
reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning
the war powers of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the
United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it
originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of
Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of
Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS

Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES  November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint
resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled “Joint resolution concerning the war powers
of Congress and the President”, returned by the President of the United States
with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it
was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators
present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO

Secretary.

 

Acknowledgments

This file obtained from byrd.mu.wvnet.edu

Contributed by: “Andrew M. Ross” <aross@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>

Thad McCotter Receives Another American Conservative Union Ratings Award

Thad McCotterWashington, D.C. – For the seventh time, The American Conservative Union today named Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI) a winner of the American Conservative Union Ratings Award for 2010, which requires an ACU rating of 80 or above for 2010; and recognizes recipients’ commitment to liberty, personal responsibility, traditional virtues, and national security.

“I thank the ACU for their award; and for all they do to preserve and promote Americans’ liberty, sovereignty, security, prosperity, and cherished way of life.”

The ACU scored Congress on 24 House votes in 2010, including health care reconciliation, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal, campaign finance disclosure, and financial regulatory overhaul.

Too Good To Be True


This continues the story of our journey to have a family. The time frame for this chapter of our story is March 2008.
If you continue to read along, you will see first hand the reality of how broken the Foster Care system truly is.
____________________

When the battle was won in the last case, I was completely at peace when they came to pick him up. There was no inner struggle. For a long while I struggled within myself that there was no struggle. I was not opening the door and throwing him to the CPS Case Worker, but I was truly happy he was going home.

It took me a while to realize that this is truly what it is about. Many people will not understand. Most biological parents who have lost their children to the system because of their own bad choices cannot accept responsibility for their actions. So when I have previously said that these children should never have gone back to their biological parents, there are people that do not understand how I can say that. I have a friend who totally disagrees with me.

The previous little boy’s case proved to me that my heart was in the right place. After a while, you truly start questioning this whole process. Am I just angry and bitter that I have not been able to have my own children, so I am seeking to take children away from their parents? This previous little boy’s case showed me that this was not at all what this was for me. I truly was fighting for each individual child, for what was right for their lives. This little boy belonged with his biological parents. He just needed medical attention.

I did not mourn his leaving at all. I truly was happy that he was going to be reunited with his biological parents.

We went back to life as normal. Waiting. Wondering if we would ever receive another call.

During this time, the children’s therapist asked me if we were still interested in adopting more children. When I told her that we were, she told me that she counseled another sibling group- a brother and sister- who were already free to be adopted. She thought they would be a wonderful match for our family. I told her that I was definitely interested, but I would have to talk to my husband, and if he said yes, then we would have to increase our license again, because we were only licensed to have three children.

I talked to my husband, and he was all for it. So I made the call to increase our license yet again. But this time I had them license us for five children. It was better to be prepared. I still knew that I had heard God’s voice, but I could not imagine how this was going to work out.

I talked to the therapist a few days later to let her know our licensing was taken care of, and she told me that there was a family member that had come up out of nowhere who wanted the children.  She told me not to give up though, because she counseled a lot of children who needed good homes full of love. She told me she would help us find our children.

With that door closed, we waited to see what God had planned for us. Would it be another call from our therapist? Would we get a call from the Agency?

It was not long before we found out. I received a call from our Agency Case Worker telling me that there was a 7-week-old infant needing placement. She did not need to say anymore. I probably literally screamed in her ear, “YES!” I was so excited!

This Case Worker with the Agency was number five or number six for us, and we had not been in the Foster system but 8 months. This Case Worker knew the heart break that we had gone through when the 1-year-old was given to a family member, and she told me she would try desperately to help us get a baby.

Not only was this an infant, there was no real question whether or not he would be available for adoption. His biological mother’s rights had not been terminated at this point, because the court process had to take place, but it was next to impossible that she would not have her rights terminated. She was a foster child herself, and the baby was born addicted to cocaine.

As soon as I hung up the phone with the Agency I called my husband. I was so excited I could not sit still.  I told him I would let him know the details as soon as I found them out.

Within a few minutes the phone rang again. It was our Case Worker with the Agency. I knew as soon as I answered the phone that it was not good news. I could hear it in her voice. She said she was so sorry to have to inform me that the baby had already been promised to another couple. I thanked her and hung up the phone.

There were no words for me at this point. I called my husband and told him. I told him I had to go. He asked me if I was ok and I told him no, and at this point I just did not have any words. I am sure you have read enough by now to realize that it is very rare that I have no words. I could not even pray. I could not muster the strength or emotions to say anything or feel anything. My husband told me not to worry, that if the other family backed out we would be the first ones they would call. Sure, fat chance. I would not hold my breath, I told him.

When I hung up the phone, I just sat silently on the couch. The other two kids were in their rooms playing.

I sat there that day for almost an hour. All I could do was think about what had just happened, and the years of trying to have a child. Why would this happen? It was like dangling a gourmet meal in front of a starving person. As I sat dwelling on how this could have even happened I became very angry. I knew that my heart was in the right place, and yet time after time my heart was being broken. I am very much in tune with the fact that life is not fair, but we had gone beyond life not being fair to life being downright cruel! I just could not understand why God would allow this to happen! I would rather have never received the call than to have had this happen.

As I sat there by myself, my thoughts racing around in my head, my heart breaking once again, the phone rang again. It was the Agency. The other couple had decided they would not be able to take the baby. Did we still want him? Again I screamed, “YES!” And I begged her not to let him get away from us.

My husband had been right! I asked him later if God had spoken to him that day and he said no that he just had a feeling. Why did all of this happen? I do not really have the answer to that question. Maybe it was God’s way of showing me that He really is involved in our lives. There could be a million other reasons or explanations why. I don’t think I will ever know. But thankfully, this time it really was true! We were finally going to have our baby!

As we waited for them to bring him to us the next day I could not sit still. I had so much pent up excitement, knowing that we were really going to have a baby!

When they brought him to us, he was so very tiny. When they put him in my arms, I was so scared I would hurt him. He had been born 6 weeks premature, so he was just now gestationally 1 week old. He was still red and wrinkly. His little fingers and toes were so tiny. His nose was so tiny. But he was beautiful! And he was ours! Immediately I began calling him my Angel Baby.

Not only was he very tiny, he was also going through withdrawals from the drug addiction. If you have never witnessed a tiny baby going through drug addiction withdrawals you are blessed! It is one of the most painful things I have ever witnessed in all of my life! His entire body would shake as his body craved the drugs. His eyes would get so big, not understanding what was going on within his body. We would swaddle him tightly and hold him close until his tremors would pass.

I found a song that I began to play for him when he would start going through his withdrawal tremors- “Angel Baby” by Linda Ronstadt. I had never heard it before I went searching for a song with that title. Since this is what I called him from the first day, I thought it would be fitting to find a song with that name. This became our ritual. As his body would begin to shake from his withdrawals, we would swaddle him tightly, hold him close, play the music, and rock with him. We went through this process the first two months or more.

It is very rare occasions that I have seen my Dad cry. He cried at both of his parents funerals. Other than that, I do not recall any other time where he has actually cried, until he saw our baby during one of his withdrawals.

It is amazing how much we remember. After we got through the withdrawal tremors, we did not play our “Angel Baby” song as much. After a while, it had been months since I had played it for him and danced with him.

Probably 8 months or more had passed that we had not played the song at all. One day I decided to play it. As soon as the music started, he looked up at me with the biggest, most beautiful grin in the world! He was playing in his playpen and he stood up, reaching for me to take him. He wanted me to dance with him! He remembered! I was so amazed that he remembered our song!

It is now a very common thing that is heard in our home. My baby loves to dance with me. All of my children love to dance with me, but my baby has a very special bond with me, through this song and me dancing with him. It will forever be one of my most beautiful memories of his infancy. Once again, God has taken something traumatic and turned it into something very beautiful in my life- and my son’s life as well!

Just a few days ago I played our song. It had been a month or so since I played it for him. As soon as the music started he stopped what he was doing and came over and climbed up into my lap. He would lay against my chest for a while, just listening to the music with me. Then he would sit up and look at me- look into my eyes. It was the sweetest, most beautiful, most moving thing for me. The way he was looking into my eyes was like he was remembering. It was a deep, soulful look that you don’t expect from a child so young. He just turned 3-years-old; how does he know what this song is? Yes, I know he remembers…. but it was much more than just remembering. Though we have listened to this song quite often, and he always snuggles up to me when we are dancing or just sitting, there was something different about this time. I will never forget that look as long as I live!

This will be something that I continue to do all of his life.

I am now searching for a special song for each child. Since they all love to dance, I want each of them to have their special song. It is not a process that I am rushing through. I’ve listened to hundreds of songs, and have found 2 that are perfect.

I want each one of my children to have many wonderful memories of their childhood. Since they have endured so many bad things, anything I can do to help them have beautiful memories is a bonus. I do not ever want any of my older children to feel left out because they do not have a special song like the baby does. It is not their fault they were not with us as infants. So this will be a gift to each of them that will last a lifetime.

____________________

The Purpose Of  This Series:  Who Hears The Voice Of The Children?

The next chapter in this series: Full House

The previous chapter in this series: Fighting For Another Child

Foster Care: A Broken System- Video

 

 

 

 

Who Would You Vote For in the 2012 Presidential Primary

There is some contention between Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Tea Party members. Just how will the primary vote go? Well, that’s up to you. What kind of candidate are you looking for?

[poll id=”18″]

Marco Rubio: 2012 Presidential Profile

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background

Marco Rubio was born in Miami in 1971 to a blue-collar family. His Cuban parents came to America after Fidel Castro’s takeover of their home country.

Family

Rubio and his wife Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio were married in 1998 and have four children. They live in West Miami, four blocks from the home his parents bought in 1985.

Religious Affiliation

Although Rubio is a Roman Catholic, he belongs to the Christ Fellowship Nondenominational Church, leading some to believe that he is truly Protestant. About his faith, Rubio has said “For those who have the Christian faith and are in politics, there is a constant struggle between a desire to do what is right and how that sometimes may not coincide with what is popular,” he said. “I hope that, more often than not, I make the right choice.”

Education

After beginning his college education with Tarkio College in Missouri on a football scholarship, Rubio transferred to Santa Fe Community College. In 1993, he graduated with a bachelor of science from the University of Florida. He earned his juris doctor in 1996, graduating cum laude from the University of Miami.

Political Start

Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000-1008. While there, his roles included Majority Whip, Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. His agenda was one of lower taxes, better schools, a smaller more efficient government and free market empowerment.

Political Career

Before becoming speaker, Rubio traveled around the state for 2 years hosting “Idearaisers” to hear from his consitutents on ways to make Florida better. This resulted in the book “100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future,” on which he based his term. All 100 ideas were passed by the Florida House, and 57 became law. Newt Gingrich called this “a work of genius.”

Rubio has worked to develop a public school curriculum that would match the best in the world, increase performance-based accountability, allow for greater school choice and target factors which affect academic underperformance.

In 2010, Rubio was elected US Senator for Florida. He sits on the following committees:

  • Committee on commerce, science and transportation
  • Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Select Committee on Intelligence
  • Committee on Small business and entrepreneurship

Private Sector Career

After his time as Speaker, Rubio returned to practicing law. He also acted as a visiting professor at Florida International University, was Florida Chairman of GOPAC and a political analyst for Univision.

 

On the issues

Abortion- Pro-Life

Budget- Supports moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced

Economic- Supports a balanced budget and a line item veto

Economic- Supports a limit on federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate

Education- Supports more scholarships for private schools

Education- Supports less federal control of education with increased local control, including increased parental choice

Energy- Supports exploration of proven energy reserves including ANWR

Environment- Opposes Cap & Trade. Does not believe it has had an impact on the global climate

Environment- Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP

Healthcare- Supports the repeal of any government-run healthcare

Healthcare- Supports a marketplace of affordable health insurance

Healthcare- Supports alternatives to employer-based insurance

Immigration- Believes Arizona law may unreasonably single out some citizens

Immigration- Opposes counting illegal aliens in the census

Immigration- Supports in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens

Immigration- Opposes amnesty in any form

Immigration- Supports full implementation of current border security laws

Legislative- Supports identifying the constitutionality in every new congressional bill

National Security- Believes that Islamic terrorists are the greatest threat to America

National Security- Supports the 2007 troop surge

National Security- Opposes timetable for Afghanistan withdrawal

Other- Opposed Ground Zero Mosque

Other- Opposes card check & Employee Free Choice Act

Second Amendment- Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms

Social- Supported amendment to ban same-sex marriage and supports the ban of gays in the military

Tax- Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent

Tax- Supports replacing property taxes with state sales tax

Tax- Opposes capital gains tax

Tax- Supports flat-rate federal tax

Tax- Supports repeal of death taxes

 

Sources:

Rubio.senate.gov

Ontheissues.org

 

 

See the profiles of other potential 2012 GOP Candidates

Another Orchestrated Panic

PanicThe current political atmosphere in this nation is so diametrically polarized that any centrist or compromising position is seen as selling out. Take note of the fact that damage done by Newt Gingrich’s criticism of Republican efforts to constrain spending and stop piling on debt cannot be easily undone.  That is to say in the immortal words of the late Lee Atwater…”Perception is reality.” Never so true as in politics wherein most citizens suck up to what the mainstream media promulgates and are too mentally indolent to go forth and use the technological tools of the times to validate the truth of such messages. Gingrich has further enabled John Boehner to genuflect to Obama in agreeing to extend the debt limit and make it appear to be the acceptable option, which IT IS NOT. Whether he does or does not capitulate, Newt’s ill-advised comments will have been a push in that direction.

Medi-ScareIt is the same as the panic of “too big to fail” that was politically instilled in us by Little Georgie-boy Bush and exacerbated by the Oba-tyrant. Bush, without saying so, validated the lie that the demonRATs spread that this government will come to a screeching halt if said debt limit is not extended. That methodology is directed at instilling fear in the huge segment of the voting populace who are dependent on all manner of government benefits/entitlements for their day-to-day existence -senior citizens, like yours truly, that rely on Social Security and Medicare. Why is it then that I’m not in panic mode?

Doubt me? Here is the text of a letter from our esteemed Oba-collaborator Timmie-boy Geithner to the congressional leaders.  It is intended to be the hickory switch for our good shepherds to herd us into believing they have OUR best interests at heart while instilling fear and insecurity in us. This same pressure has worked with these same Republicans for Obama before. Read the complete text now please and contemplate, for yourself, the meaning.

Then…, consider that this letter was carefully crafted to convey fear, but without being able to be accused of spreading a lie. Consider the meaning of this ‘qualifier’ comment: “I will be unable to invest fully the portion of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“CSRDF”) not immediately required to pay beneficiaries. That “not immediately required” comment is key here, because it’s true and is why refusing to raise the debt limit will NOT bring benefit payments to a screeching halt. What the entire statement represents is a bold attempt at misdirection and deceit. How many people do you think will be confused by this wording and have to re-read it, or worse…will not do so and thus come away with the subliminal mental waterboarding message that it meant that benefit checks will cease. Many, many…I’d suggest! What this statement says as an affirmative confirmation is that ‘I will be able to invest that portion of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund immediately currently required to pay beneficiaries.’  His deceit is tied to the linkage of the phrase “unable to” and “not immediately required”.

And so it goes with this administration. A continuing practice of calculated deceit to fool the citizenry. It is up to we who understand this to spread the truth of such an agenda or stand by as observers as our rights evaporate and this constitutional republic slips further away.

It’s been about two weeks since this letter was sent out. I have not seen my take on this repeated in the print or TV media, have you? I haven’t even noted any serious comment on the Geithner letter.

We know that the disloyal opposition, the demonRATic leadership in congress, knows what this is all about, but why doesn’t the Republican Majority Leader in the House or the Whip hold a press conference to enlighten us all with this truth? Questions with an obvious answer. Capitulation to ‘business as usual’  for politicians when the public is crying out for statesmen to step forward and stand tall. The silence truly is deafening.