Tonight, at 7:00 p.m. Central, Americans will have the honor and privilege of, once again, viewing the President of our country, Barack Hussein  Obama, as he comes into our living rooms, against the  advice of the Pentagon, to  announce the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, just  in time for the US presidential election.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 31% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will remove its remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year as scheduled, and that includes just three percent (3%) who say it’s Very Likely.  Sixty-five percent (65%) believe a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end is unlikely, with 21% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

Attorney General of the United State Eric Holder, made a special  announcement yesterday, in a speech to the American Constitution Society:

We have reinvigorated the important work of our Civil Rights Division. Not only is this office once again open for business, it has never been stronger.

Now, some of you know during this administration’s first fiscal year the Department filed a record number of civil rights criminal cases. We’ve also expanded enforcement efforts to guarantee that in our work places, our military bases, in our housing and lending markets, in our voting booths in our border areas, in our schools and places of worship. And I mean all places of worship.

That’s pretty funny. 

While AG Holder is speaking  nobly about locking up those who deny us of our basic civil liberties, he himself refused to prosecute the New Blank Panthers for “violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station”.

He also neglected to mention that he and his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) are under investigation by Congress.

Holder and Obama ordered the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program “Operation Fast and Furious” to allow gun stores near the Mexican border to sell semiautomatic weapons in bulk to “straw purchasers” and then track their journey. As a result, many of the guns were linked to crimes, including the killing of a Border Patrol agent.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, under the leadership of its Chair, Darrell Issa (R-CA is engaged in questioning witnesses in an effort to get to the bottom of this potentially impeachable offense.

The committee’s quest is to find out who at ATF and the Department of Justice knew and authorized the program.

Rep. Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have issueda report on “Operation Fast and Furious,” which says border patrol and ATF agents were told to “surveil” weapons and not interdict.  According to the report, agents were warned of devastating consequences, including criminal activity, but supervisors ignored their warnings.

According to  ATF Agent John Dodson, who terstified before the committee:

Every time we questioned that order, there was punitive action.

Also, according to Dodson, the ATF stopped tracking the weapons once they traveled too far from the border.  By doing this,  the ATF lost track of 1500 – 1800 weapons.

Rep. Issa has accused the administration of ignoring committee requests for documents on “Operation Fast and Furious.”

Issa sent out  a subpoena on March 31, 2011 to the acting Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) Agency, Kenneth Melson, to find out what he knew and if he signed off on the program.

While in  committee, Congress is trying to determine whether or not, the administration actually needs to respond to the subpoena. Issa hasthreatened a “slew” of subpoenas in response to the Department of Justice’s refusal to provide information.

Several witnesses have been called, including the family of a slain border security agent, ATFE agents and Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

By the way, you remember the New Black Panther Party case, don’t you?

In an article posted on washingtonpost.com, on 1/27/11, Jennifer Rubin summed it up succinctly:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on the commission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work.

In the words of The Naked Gun’s Lt. Frank Drebin:

Move along.  Nothing the See Here.

In closing, you, no doubt, noticed that I highlighted the phrase,  And I mean all places of worship.  While,  in and of itself, that is another very noble thing for AG Holder to say, when you examine Holder’s background, perhaps it isn’t.

Everyone knows how anxious the AG and the president have been to stage the Dog and Pony shows euphemistically called “Civilian Trials”  for the Islamic Terrorists who have murdered out countrymen.

There’s a reason for AG Holder’s eagerness.  Per Andrew Breitbart’s biggovernment.com:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder’s admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November [2009] by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.”

…Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

Suffice it to say, with all this baggage accompanying his United States Attorney General, Obama, in all good judgement, should ask for his resignation, before the trail of corruption leads all the way back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

That probably will not happen, though.  Shady  operations seem to be S.O. P. for this administration.

Why, good morning, Mr. President!  It was a pleasant surprise when you called, saying that you were passing through and wanted to meet me here for breakfast this morning.  Please allow me to order for you:

Waitress, please bring President Clinton a Rooty Tooty Fresh ‘n Fruity with a big glass of Sweet Tea, please.

It’s been a heckuva a week, huh, sir?

It has just been announced that America’s Misery Index, which adds together the unemployment and inflation rates, is at an all time high.

You remember the Misery Index. It was first thought of in the 70s, by economist Arthur Okun.

The other day, when  President Scooter lamely joked, that…

Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected…

he actually got something right, for once.

The index, is showing an extremely economically- sick 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation.  Americans have not experienced this number since 1983.

By the way, Mr. President, did you know index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008.

Of course, back in the 80s, during the reign of Ronaldus Maximus, Paul Volcker, leading the Federal Reserve, brought the Misery Index down sharply, as America recovered under president Reagan’s leadership.

Man, I miss him. How about you, Mr. President?

You do, too? I thought so.

I read in an article at cnbc.com, written by John Carney, where Paul Dales, the chief U.S. Economist at Capital Economics said that:

The good news is that other measures suggest conditions aren’t quite that bad and over the next 18 months the gloom should lift a little. The bad news is that households won’t be in the mood to boost their spending significantly for several more years.

Dales says all the misery may not be as bad as it appears. An alternative measure, put forth in 1999 by Robert Barro, encompasses a wider swath of misery, measuring employment against the so-called “natural rate” and compares inflation against the previous 10 years. The Barro measure also looks at whether gross domestic product is below its “potential” and compares yields on the 10-year Treasury note against the yields of the previous 10 years.

With all that rolled in, Dales says the Barro index is indicating that while things aren’t expected to get dramatically better, the level of misery is probably at a peak and should roll back over the next 18 months.

But, hey, Mr. President, Americans are not alone in our misery.  Republican candidate Mitt Romney feels our pain, just as you did.

According to politico.com:

Mitt Romney sat at the head of the table at a coffee shop here [in Tampa, Florida] on Thursday, listening to a group of unemployed Floridians explain the challenges of looking for work. When they finished, he weighed in with a predicament of his own.

“I should tell my story,” Mr. Romney said. “I’m also unemployed.”

Romney is, of course, worth several hundred million dollars and unemployed by choice. In fairness to him, Jeff Zeleny notes that the voters he was speaking with “joined him in laughter.”

Perhaps you could give lessons to Mittens on how to speak to average Americans, Mr. President?

Anyway, that’s enough about the economy.  I read this week where Hil, and her assistant, Huma Weiner, returned this week from another State Department trip.

What a mess, huh?  No wonder you’re sitting here in an IHOP in Northwest Mississippi with me.

I heard that Anthony Weiner called you to apologize, since you guys have been so close in the past,with her working for Hil as her assistant all these years, and you officiating their wedding last July.

I read in the Wall Street Journal that Huma called your wife, seeking her opinion before the pervert, err, I mean, the Congressman confessed publically on Monday.

I heard that Huma hit the roof, and rightfully so, when Weiner told her the truth last Monday.

I know you guys are upset about the whole thing.

When he finally resigned on the 16th, I know that it must have been both sad and relieving.

But, something has me puzzled.  Why did the Democratic Leadership  jump all over Weiner’s dalliance, and yet, they defended you from impeachment to their dying breaths?

Was it because Anthony Weiner was an abrasive jerk, who presented a poor public image, while you were a presidential Ric Flair:  a wheelin’-dealin’, kiss-stealing, limousine-ridin’, jet-flyin’, saxophone-playin’, glad-handin’, son-of-a-gun?

Or, was it because there were a lot of politically powerful people out there who owed you favors?

Even though all of that is true, I think the reason is deeper and more Machiavellian than that.

You held the most powerful position in the Free World. The Democratic Party was not about to give that up.  Weiner was just one Congressman out of 435, just one vote among many.  The Beltway Elite have little tolerance for anyone who rocks the boat, especially if they belong to the lower echelon of political power, such as a Congressman.

Once Weiner became a national punchline, he became about as welcome as Rosanne Barr singing the National Anthem.

But, don’t worry about Weiner, Mr. President.  Did you hear that Hustler Magazine Founder and Professional Pervert Larry Flynt offer him a job?

Really!  Flynt, speaking to huffingtonpost.com, said that:

He is a natural pornographer who has a skilled eye for unusual views and acrobatics … It’s clear he’s better suited to join our team than be the governor of the state of New York.

I think that he turned down the offer, though.

Anyway, it’s been great to speak with you this morning, Mr. President.  Safe travels and…behave yourself.

About that last part…never mind.

I thought that the Democratic Party and the Labor Unions were supposed to support working Americans?

Per foxnews.com, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government will hold a hearing in South Carolina on June 17th, looking into a federal labor lawsuit against Boeing Co.

The National Labor Relations Board filed the lawsuit, claiming that the company moved manufacturing facilities from Washington state to North Charleston in order to avoid unionized workers.

The National Labor Relations Board is a U.S. government agency, charged with administering the National Labor Relations Act (1935). The three-member of the NLRB are appointed by the president. The board organizes elections to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a labor union in collective bargaining. They also monitor labor practices by employers and unions.

The NLRB does not initiate investigations.  It becomes involved in a labor dispute, such as the  Boeing factory, after being contacted by employers, individuals, or unions.

The National Labor Relations Board has no enforcement powers. But, it can, and will, especially under a Democratic Administration,  go after perceived offenders in court.

In April, the National Labor Relations Board sued Boeing. The NLRB claimed that the manufacturer located a new 787 passenger aircraft assembly line in South Carolina, which happens to be a right-to-work state, in order to retaliate against Washington state union workers who went on strike in 2008.

The NLRB is demanding that Boeing return the jobs to Washington.

The only problem with that idea, is the fact that Boeing has already built a new South Carolina plant and has hired 1,000 workers.

Yesterday, in another battlefront in the Liberals’ War on Prosperity, the Obama White House blocked a proposal from House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to speed up the process of oil and gas leasing and energy infrastructure permitting in an Alaska reserve.

Obama and his bureaucratic minions claim that permitting this production of energy by American companies on American soil could force federal regulators to flout environmental laws and would, by necessity, include a costly, redundant resource assessment.

Mike Pool, deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, while announcing that his agency will hold lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve, known as NPR-A, in December 2011 and each year after, also emphasized that his agency, which oversees 191 lease tracts covering 1.6 million acres, has all the tools it needs to facilitate development of oil in the reserve while balancing protections for wildlife habitat and subsistence users.

According to Pool, holding lease sales in the areas most likely to produce commercial oil and gas and set permitting deadlines could be detrimental to the agency’s public land management process, including the National Environmental Policy Act:

Systematically over time we have been responsible to conduct and make available leasing in NPR-A. There’s no delay in permitting and processing as it involves BLM responsibilities in NPR-A.

Pool added that his agency has no pending backlog of rights of ways or other projects.

According to another Interior official, there is no reason to reassess or update the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent assessment of oil and gas resources in the reserve, as called for by Hastings’ bill. The most recent survey found about half a billion barrels ofoil at prices near current levels.

Pool said:

I think we have everything in place and we have demonstrated that over time. We currently have all the regulations and the authorities we need.

Hastings, fresh off a trip last week to NPR-A with Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R), said:

Producing oil and natural gas in the NPR-A is pointless if there’s no way to get it out of there. The real problem is the federal government’s blocking and delaying of permits for necessary roads, bridges and pipelines needed to transport the energy out of the NPR-A.

According to committe spokesman Spencer Pederson, speaking after the hearing, the decision of the Interior Department suggests the Obama administration may be responding to the panel’s hearings:

However, if Interior paid attention to our NPR-A Access Act hearing, they would have learned that simply issuing lease sales does not solve the problem of producing oil in the NPR-A and transporting it for use.

He also added that, according to the Interior Department, it would be posting a 30-day request for nominations to industry in the coming week to help identify the potentially most productive areas to lease in the December sale.

And to bring today’s post into focus, here’s a little gem I discovered.

In return for a $5 donation to his reelection campaign, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is offering his fans a chance to to win a “casual” dinner with him at an unstated location, by participating in a raffle, whose proceeds go to his re-election campaign.

Obama announced that his campaign will raffle off four tickets for the casual dinner in an e-mail to his supporters:

We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford–and I want to spend time with a few of you. So if you make a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner. Please donate $5 or more today.

The e-mail goes on, trying to rally the troops, neglecting to mention that Obama himself has conducted several high-dollar fundraisers in the weeks since his announcement that he is seeking re-election:

Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests. We didn’t get here doing that, and we’re not going to start now. We’re running a different kind of campaign. We don’t take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs–we never have, and we never will.

Really, Mr. President?

Found on americanthinker.com, in an article written by Mallory Factor, on September 22, 2008, is the following refudiation:

On June 26 [2008], the AFL-CIO brass officially endorsed Barack Obama for president. With Big Labor’s largest umbrella organization and its member unions pouring unprecedented resources into the general election campaign, the public ought to fear the legislative payback that would ensue if Obama were elected.

…The two largest union coalitions — the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation, a coalition of the American labor unions formed in 2005 as an alternative to the AFL-CIO — have publicly admitted they will spend at least $300 million combined on federal elections alone. When combined with political action committees and local unions and other union funders, at least $1 billion of union money (mostly in forced union dues coerced from workers as a job condition) is being dumped into electioneering.

And, looking back on the Obama Presidency, in 2011, it certainly appears that Big Labor got its money’s worth.

The term carpetbaggers was used in the South after the Civil War to describe Northerners who came to the South during Reconstruction to make money off of the defeated and disadvantaged populace.

Southerners regarded them as interlopers who were just passing through because of the carpetbags in which they carried their possessions (hence the name carpetbaggers).

The majority of the carpetbaggers planned on settling down in the South and taking advantage of the war-ravaged South and the commercial opportunities that itsa Reconstruction offered.

History has made the term carpetbagger synonymous with corruption in political affairs.

Unfortunately, America now has a new group of carpetbaggers profiting from our national misery.

For example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) increased her net worth by 62 percent last year, basking in the glow of her status as one of Congress’ wealthiest members.

According to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday, the former Majority Leader (Thank you, Lord) was worth at least $35.2 million in 2010. She publically claimed at least $43.4 million in assets and around $8.2 milion in liabilities.

In 2009, Pelosi’s minimum net worth was $21.7 million.

Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.

Pelosi’s enormous gain in personal riches was due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.

Paul Pelosi’s acquired stock in Apple Corporation rose from at around $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. And, if that’s not enough, Nancy’s main squeeze’s investment in Matthews International Capital Management was worth at least $5 million last year, as compared to $1 million in 2009.

Paul Pelosi also scored big with his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., which rose to at least $5 million in value.

And, just for fun, Paul Pelosi also dabbles in the United Football League, holding a $1 million partnership interest in the Jacksonville, Fla., franchise and a $5 million partnership interest in the Sacramento Lions.

However, San Fran Nan is not the only one who doesn’t have to worry about getting a new job when they lose this one.  On August 31, 2010, foxnews.com published the following list of the Top 10 Wealthiest members of Congress, which includes 7 Democrats (8, if you include Pelosi) and 3 Republicans:

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million

2. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.); $70.2 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million

10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million

And, while, our erstwhile public servants were lining their pockets, washington times.com reported, as of April 13, 2010, that:

Real personal income for Americans – excluding government payouts such as Social Security – has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office.

“This is hardly surprising,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can’t spend its way to prosperity.”

According to the bureau’s statistics, per capita income dropped during 2009 in 47 states, with only modest gains in the other states, West Virginia, Maine and Maryland. But most of those increases were attributed to rising income from the government, such as Medicare and unemployment benefits.

With America in such a horrible economic recession last year, what did Congress spend our money on? On October 13, 2010 wsj.com reported the following:

Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009’s $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don’t think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events.

The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. “Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years,” CBO says.

Somewhat faster. You’ve got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only “somewhat faster” than normal.

What did Washington spend more money on? Well, despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion. The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all “other activities” of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am a Capitalist.  However, in the following Congressional Oath of Office, I don’t see a Growth of Personal Wealth Clause, do you?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:  So help me God.

Perhaps, especially for our Democrat Congresscritters, we should add the following phrase to the end of the oath:

Now…Show me the money!

This Sunday will complete 90 days since President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) told Congress that he had sent U.S. troops to Libya, in what his bureaucrats labeled a Kinetic Military Action, in order to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, designed to protect the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.

Yesterday, House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama  that, unless he seeks authorization from Congress for the ongoing military action in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

Boehner sent an official letter to Obama yesterday afternoon demanding that the president provide a clear justification by Friday for sending our troops to Libya.

The letter reads:

The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.

The House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution two weeks ago, urging Obama to provide detailed information on our actions in Libya. At the time, Boehner hinted that Congress might cut off funding for the deployment if the administration didn’t comply.

The time for the Obama White House to comply with the nonbinding resolution runs out on Friday.

According to Obama and his Administration, they have already complied with the law by alerting Congress to the initial deployment, and, through their testimony at more than 10 hearings and providing 30 follow-up briefings about the pace and extent of U.S. troops’ commitment.

The catch is, the administration has never sought approval from Congress.

White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Tuesday evening:

We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya.

He added that the White House will also present its legal analysis of the War Powers Resolution.

What is the War Powers Resolution?

In 1970 the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 289 to 39 a bill recognizing that the president “in certain extraordinary and emergency circumstances has the authority to defend the United States and its citizens without specific prior authorization by the Congress.” Instead of trying to define the precise conditions under which presidents may use military force, the House preferred to rely on procedural safeguards. The bill required the president, “whenever feasible,” to consult with Congress before sending American forces into armed conflict. He was also to report (1) the circumstances necessitating the action; (2) the constitutional, legislative, and treaty provisions authorizing the action, together with his reasons for not seeking specific prior congressional authorization; and (3) the estimated scope of activities. The Senate did not act on this measure.

…Senators, regarding the House bill as too favorable to presidential power, decided to spell out the conditions under which presidents could act alone without Congress. Armed force could be used in three situations:

To repel an armed attack on the United States, or its territories and possessions, to retaliate in the event of such an attack, and to prevent the direct and imminent threat of such an attack.

To repel an armed attack against U.S. armed forces located outside the United States, or its territories and possessions, and prevent the direct and imminent threat of such an attack.

To rescue endangered American citizens and nationals in foreign countries or at sea.

The two houses settled on a compromise measure. Instead of the 120-day House limit and the thirty-day Senate limit, the final bill allowed the president to use military force for up to sixty days, with an additional thirty days to permit disengagement. The bill directed the president “in every possible instance” to consult with lawmakers, and required the president to report to Congress within forty-eight hours. At any time during military operations, Congress could pass a concurrent resolution directing that U.S. troops be removed.

Here is an excerpt from the final bill:

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 judgment 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 indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(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.

(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.e Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but makes the president commander-in-chief. Those dual roles have caused tension throughout the nation’s history.

The resolution is due to be considered in the Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday.

To this point in America’s history, Congress has been unwilling to challenge America’s CIC, the president, with legislative restrictions, limiting an undeclared war.

Additionally, courts will not back Congress up in such a matter unless our representatives have exercised the powers available to them.

Because of this malaise of responsibility by Congress, presidents have been able to initiate and conduct wars whenever and wherever they like.

That’s fine and dandy, if you have someone of character and integrity sitting in the Oval Office. Unfortunately…

In this case, our leadership must return to our Founders’ system of checks and balances, which is set up to facilitate each branch’s ability to fight off Constitutional violations from other branches, with the power to initiate war securely vested in Congress.

This president is launching Drone Attacks in Yemen, even as I write this post. That’s our fourth theater of war, under a man whose bureaucrats renamed Terrorist Acts, Man-caused Disasters.

Please excuse me if I don’t feel comfortable in his ability to effectively prosecute a war.

Using the Republican Candidates’ Debate on CNN last night as a launching platform, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann began her campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, is the first female contender to throw her hat into the ring.

Rep. Michele Bachmann is not some demure little flower.   She made this statement within a fundraising letter, sent out within one hour of her announcement:

We cannot risk giving President Obama four more years to dismantle our nation. We must act now. That’s why I’ve made the decision to get in this race.

According to her official biography at bachmann.house.gov:

Elected in 2006, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. From the beginning, Congresswoman Bachmann has demonstrated bold reform, pushing to fix Washington’s broken ways. Every day she puts her constitutional conservative values to work as she represents the people of Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District, a district which contains parts of six counties, stretching from Stillwater past St. Cloud, including suburbs of the Twin Cities.

Congresswoman Bachmann is a leading advocate for tax reform, a staunch opponent of wasteful government spending, and a strong proponent of adherence to the Constitution, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

…Prior to serving in the U.S. Congress, Bachmann served in the Minnesota State Senate. She was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000 where she championed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Before that, she spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on hundreds of civil and criminal cases.

…Congresswoman Bachmann also led the charge on education issues in Minnesota calling for the abolishment of Goals 2000 and the Profiles of Learning in its school. She recognized the need for quality schools and subsequently started a charter school for at-risk kids in Minnesota.

Congresswoman Bachmann sits on the Financial Services Committee (FSC) and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The FSC is tasked with oversight of numerous financial sectors including housing, real estate and banking.

…Serving on the Intelligence Committee was a welcomed opportunity for Congresswoman Bachmann as she has consistently advocated peace through strength to ensure America’s national security. As a mother of five children and 23 foster children, she has a deep appreciation for that portion of the Oath of Office in which members of Congress vow to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In July 2010 Congresswoman Bachmann hosted the first Tea Party Caucus meeting because she saw the need for Tea Partiers to have a listening ear in Congress. She is seen as a champion of Tea Party values including the call for lower taxes, renewed focus on the Constitution and the need to shrink the size of government.

Congresswoman Bachmann is a graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University. She received her J.D. at the O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University and an L.L.M. in Tax Law at the College of William and Mary. She has been married to Marcus for more than thirty years and they live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs nearly fifty people. The Bachmanns have five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia. In addition, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children, which has inspired Congresswoman Bachmann to become one of Congress’ leading advocates for foster and adopted children, earning her bipartisan praise for her efforts.

Bachmann brings the qualities of high energy, charisma and proven fundraising ability to the Republican Primaries. She does not back down from her beliefs and backs them up with a quick wit and biting commentary., as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews found out on the night of November 2nd, 2010:

As I have been profiling the Republican Candidates, I have been reviewing what they stand for by stacking them up to the infallible measurement of the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism.

How does Rep. Michele Bachman measure up?

1.  Fiscal Conservatism – From her own biography, quoted above:

Congresswoman Bachmann is a leading advocate for tax reform, a staunch opponent of wasteful government spending, and a strong proponent of adherence to the Constitution, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

Fiscal Conservativism – Check!

2.  Social Conservatism – On the second Monday in April, Bachmann spoke to a crowd of around 200 during a visit to the University of Iowa.

Bachmann told the crowd that marriage between a man and a woman is a foundation block for a strong America, but marriage has been under attack. She also noted the financial implications of pregnancies to unwed mothers, through welfare and other government spending. She said:

Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism. “You can’t separate” the two.

Social Conservativism – Check!

3.  National Defense – On May 4th, she issued the following stateconcerning Defense Spending on her website, bachmann.house.gov:

Our government is in a fiscal crisis. As debt skyrockets, the spending decisions before us in the coming months and years will have a deep impact on the future of our nation. Lawmakers and the American public must debate the merits and faults of each category of spending. But, as we work to reverse the tide of deficit spending, I urge that we exercise great caution before anyone takes a scalpel to the defense budget.

Adequate funding is critical for our military, intelligence, and security agencies to fulfill their Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. This is not a partisan issue and must not be a political one either. While the numbers are negotiable, and specific programs should be fully vetted, the underlying responsibility is undeniable. Defense funding deserves a high place in the priorities of this, and any, Congress.

National Defense – Check!

Per reporter Brian Bakst, of the Associated Press, in an article published in the Houston Chronicle:

Her popularity with tea party activists and her credentials as a social conservative make her a credible threat to other candidates courting conservatives who make up the core of the Republican Party.  Her impact may be felt most in Iowa, the first stop in the nomination battle and where Christian evangelicals dominate.

While she hasn’t built the broad campaign infrastructure of some GOP rivals, she has gradually patched together a blend of tested and fresh-but-determined advisers. She’s also shown an ability to raise money from a network of small-dollar donors, including $13.5 million she put toward the nation’s most expensive House race of 2010.

While Bachman is a staunch Reagan Conservative and a leader of of the new Conservaitve Vanguard of the GOP, does she have enough national support and name recognition to garner the party’s Presidential Nomination?

As this time, that seems to be a daunting task for this firebrand.

However, her efforts should be fun to watch.

17% of citizens in these United States remain reliant upon our Federal Government to provide food for their families.  Unemployment remains at an unacceptable level.  And all the economic soothsayers are predicting double-digit inflation in our very near future.

Job growth in May was almost non-existent while unemployment rose again to 9.1 percent. Manufacturers cut 5,000 jobs last month, making those the first job losses in that industry in seven months.

The captain of this sinking Ship of State, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) will be visiting Durham, N.C., today for a brainstorming session with his jobs council on how Washington can encourage private-sector hiring. Council members and administration officials will also be hearing from businesses in the region.

Here’s an idea, Scooter:  Don’t raises taxes on hard-working Americans. And while you’re at it, drop the Corporate Tax Rate, so American Corporations will stay in America. (Novel idea, I know.)

Obama announced an effort last Wednesday by the private sector, colleges and the National Association of Manufacturers to help half a million community college students become trained and certified for manufacturing jobs. They would get a credential guaranteeing that they are skilled.

During his Weekly Address Saturday, Obama said:

We’ve just come through the worst recession since the Great Depression, and while our economy as a whole has been growing and adding private sector jobs, too many folks are still struggling to get back on their feet. I wish I could tell you there was a quick fix to our economic problems. But the truth is, we didn’t get into this mess overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. It’s going to take time.

Excuse me, Mr. President.  How can we have come through the Recession and still not be out of it, yet?

Back to his Weekly Address:

The good news is, when it comes to job-creation and economic growth, there are certain things we know we can do. Now, government is not – and should not be – the main engine of job-creation in this country. That’s the role of the private sector. But one thing government can do is partner with the private sector to make sure that every worker has the necessary skills for the jobs they’re applying for.

On Wednesday, I announced commitments by the private sector, colleges, and the National Association of Manufacturers that will make it possible for 500,000 community college students to get a manufacturing credential that has the industry’s stamp of approval. If you’re a company that’s hiring, you’ll know that anyone who has this degree has the skills you’re looking for. If you’re a student considering community college, you’ll know that your diploma will give you a leg up in the job market.

…We know that more and more jobs are being created in the clean energy sector, so we’re investing in wind power, solar power, and biofuels that will make us less dependent on foreign oil and clean up our planet for our children. These are steps we know will make a difference in people’s lives – not just twenty years from now, or ten years from now, but now, and in the months to come.

According to the president, all of these proposed feel-good initiatives, such as providing students with a quality education and investing in new jobs in the clean energy sector, will aid economic growth.

Not to mention lining the pockets of all of his friends, such as Jeffrey Immelt, whose company, General Electric, has invested heavily in the unfulfilled promise of a clean (green) energy-driven economy.

So, while America is in the process of circling down the basin of an economic porcelain receptacle, wouldn’t you think that our elected representatives in the hallowed halls of Congress would be doing everything that they could to save the livelihoods and homes of their constituents?

Au contraire, mon frere.

The men and women that we, the American citizens, elected to conduct business on our behalf in our nation’s capitol, have spent the last week, not worried about the fate of the shining city on a hill, but, instead, worried about the professional fate of a pervert.

Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Obama’s new Sexting Czar (I kid), announced Saturday that he was entering professional treatment at an undisclosed location and requested a leave of absence from Congress.

His emergency trip to Rehab comes amid calls from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and Democratic Party Lead Debbie Wasserman Schultz that Weiner must resign.

Other Democrats, such as Charlie Rangel and Chuckie Schumer, are vaguely supportive of Weiner. Republicans, for the most part, are sitting back and allowing this soap opera to play out, with visions of electoral ad campaigns dancing in their heads.

Meanwhile, President Obama assures us that everything is going to be alright.  Trust him:

…In the end, the folks I hear from in letters or meet when I travel across the country – they aren’t asking for much. They’re just looking for a job that covers their bills. They’re just looking for a little financial security. They want to know that if they work hard and live within their means, everything will be all right. They’ll be able to get ahead, and give their kids a better life. That’s the dream each of us has for ourselves and our families. And so long as I have the privilege of serving as President, I’ll keep fighting to put that dream within reach for all Americans.

Our leadership in Washington continues to supply us with bread and circuses, while American families are being buried by the overflowing mountain of bills on their coffee tables.

How can they handle the serious business of dealing with our country’s tanking  economy when they can’t even handle what to do about a pervert?