Merry Christmas

No politics or current events today - It's Christmas morning.

The kids are playing their new PS3 game, the dogs are sleeping, and my wife is fussing over her turkey, figuring out the optimal minute to put it in the oven. That's something I don't worry about, because after she takes it out she lets it stand for quite a while before we cut it up anyway.

Today is a good day to just kick back.

I'm tired anyway, since the grown kids with their husbands didn't leave until after 1:00 am this morning.

And the two youngest, 12 & 15, were up well before daylight pulling down their stockings, in the hopes of getting I-Pod Touches in their stockings (Dream on, those things are $279/ea at COSTCO) or some other goodies.

The Son-in-laws did well, in addition to their 'joint' christmas presents they received with my daughters, they each got a nice gift from me. Why? Because if they aren't taking care of my daughters, and if they weren't looking after them, I'd have to be still doing it, and I'm truly appreciative for what they do!

I learned that from an old friend of mine, who's oldest daughter was a very trying child, a real she-bear sometimes. When she was going to her Senior Prom in ND her boyfriend said something to irritate her, and she broke the side window out of his car, tore his rearview mirror off and hit him with it, etc.

My buddy, who was a single Dad, sat her down, and told her not to be acting like that, and how she needed to behave herself, and unbelievably, the boyfriend married her, and they're still married.

Every year my friend gives him something 'real nice' for Christmas, I'm talking like a nice Bulova watch, or a shotgun, a gas grill, or something like that.

I understand that.

Well, I wish all you bloggers & lurkers a Merry Christmas.

Obama & Copenhagen

Is The Great Leader above the Constitution?

Can he void it at will?

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Apparently not.

Yet, the Great Leader, The Messiah, The Protector of the Poor,
President Obama is headed to Copenghagen, for the Climate Summit,
intending to sign a treaty.

There is no way that 2/3 of the Congress is willing to go along with this scheme to take US taxpayer funds and give them to the rest of the world.

And there is no way 2/3 of our Congress is willing to shut down our industry to acheive some mythical global warming goal.

President Clinton & Al Gore made such an attempt in 1997 (Kyoto), and there was so little support for it that they didn't want to be embarrassed by sending it to Congress, and they didn't.

Yet, today, The Great Leader is asserting that the constitutional principles governing Gore and Clinton in 1997 don’t apply to him in 2009.

Say that again?

Fortunately, I wasn't the only one who noticed - here is a cut & paste of a letter sent to President Obama about this subject;

Dear Mr. President:

I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.

Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator


What do you think ?

Is President Obama ready to go it alone ?

Will the Congress go along with it ?

Conrad Burns hospitalized

I see on the news today that
our former County Commissioner and US Senator,
Conrad Burns is today hospitilized
in Washington DC after reportedly suffering a stroke.

I've always supported Senator
Burns, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

Democrats in real trouble

Looking over the latest polls, the Democrats
are so busy fighting their own internal battles
that they've started really irritating the voters;

In a recent Rasmussen poll, when asked
who they trust on every important issue
the majority of voters are choosing the
Republican party;


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot


Why are the Democrats in such disarray?

And why is the media ignoring it?

First, you have to consider the make-up of the Dems -

They have nothing resembling a united front, they are a loose coalition of groups, sitting around a table, each one with their own agendas -

They are currently divided over health care reform, which includes abortion, and a public option;

They are divided over The Great Leader and his troop surge in the middle east;

They are divided over the climate bill, the budget, and a variety of other issues.

And to make it better (worse for them, better for conservatives) the recent elections where the voters have tossed out Democratic governors has rightly scared the hell out of a lot of House Members who are up for re-election next year. And yet they are being pushed by Nancy Pelosi to vote for her liberal agenda - or else.

Obama at West Point -

Last night, The Great Leader, The Messiah,
The Protector of The Poor, President Obama
made a speech at West Point Academy,
to tell the world he was sending 30,000 more
troops to Afghanistan.

It looked very 'staged' and the applause was
less than enthusiastic.

This speech was purely political, and a bad idea.

First, as I suspected, he didn't use the word 'Victory' anywhere in his speech.

He has no plans for winning this conflict, it appears that his handlers don't want him discussing the concept of winning.

Second, if it was a military decision, you'd simply send the soldiers, you wouldn't advertise your plans to the enemy.

So obviously it isn't military, it's political.

When Obama was campaigning, he attacked the Bush administration, saying that the war in Iraq was taking the interest off of Afghanistan, and that he'd focus on Afghanistan.

BUT - earlier this year - over three months ago, the press found out that he had only met once with his hand-picked military commander over there, and that he was ignoring the request for more soldiers.

That put him in a tough spot. If he ignored the request, which is what he wanted to keep doing, he would look even weaker on the war on terror. He was willing to do that until another terrorist attack happened, at Ft. Hood, when an American muslim-extremist-soldier attacked and killed fellow soldiers. He had to do something.

But politically, if he agreed to send more soldiers, he'd piss-off the anti-war Democrats, and he'd leave all the Democrats who worked so hard to engineer defeat in Afghanistan hung out to dry.

So he pledged not to send in the 40,000 troops his general requested, but to send 30,000.

Then in the next breath he promised to bring them home right away.

Ridiculous.

Plus, the reason I say it was a bad idea was because it showed both our allies, and the opposition in Afghanistan that we have no resolve to finish the job.

The Taliban, starting today can simply put away their rifles and bombs, because the Americans are leaving in 2011.

So you won't see many of the population joining the US-led coalition, because they were just told that the US is pulling out.

How would you describe Obama as a military leader?

The words I use are 'Weak' and 'Hesitant'.

Obama's Vietnam

The Great Leader, The Messiah, The

Protector of the Poor, President Obama,

has finally decided what to do about the

war in Afghanistan.

~

He's going to make a speech at West Point Academy,

and I suspect that the reason he's doing it there is that

the 'stage' set there will give him some credibility

as a military commander.

~

What will he say? I'll be surprised to hear any more of the "YES WE CAN!" rhetoric from his campaign, since the only word to describe his military policy would be 'Hesitant'.

~

I'll be surprised if he talks about 'victory' or 'success' also, because the Dems did everything possible to President Bush to engineer failure in Iraq & Afghanistan, and they'll be upset if he undermines their efforts. In fact, they'll be calling for his head for not cutting & running.

~

More tomorrow -