Such as conducting oversight investigations into Executive Branch agencies and departments.

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president he was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.

Given the fundamentally unserious response of President Obama and his minions to this jihadi assault upon American military personnel on US soil – combined with the unserious response of the president to a jihadi assault upon military personnel on US soil last summer – it seems to me that Congress needs to seriously examine the operation of law enforcement and the military regarding the jihadi threat on our own soil.

But I do have to ask a question – wouldn’t we be hearing shrieks of outrage from Democrats and the media if such obstructionism were engaged in by a president named Bush instead of a Obama? Or does the standard once again differ when now that the unicorn-riding demigod is king, even if that means doing away with checks and balances and separation of powers?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

During the latter part of the Bush years, I complained about the pace of judicial confirmations. Sadly, the GOP in the Senate is now paying back the Democrats in spades for their obstruction of well-qualified Republican nominees by obstructing Democrat nominees. This is in addition to the delays caused by the failure of the Obama Administration to make timely nominations to fill many judicial vacancies and the focus on other legislative priorities by the Democrat leaders of the Senate.

Despite a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, President Obama is on pace to set a record for the fewest judges confirmed during a president's first year in the White House.

So far, only six of Obama's nominees to the lower federal courts have won approval. By comparison, President George W. Bush had 28 judges confirmed in his first year in office, even though Democrats held a narrow majority for much of the year. President Clinton put 27 new judges on the bench in his first year.

The slow pace of approving judges has gotten little attention while Democrats and Republicans have fought over healthcare, the budget and the economic stimulus bill. In mid-summer, Obama and the Democrats also won confirmation for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

* * *
Nationwide, there are 98 vacancies on the federal bench. Obama has 19 nominees who are awaiting votes in the Senate.

Obama's pace of nominating judges is also slower than previous presidents'.

Still, the obstructionism needs to cease. And so I am back to making a proposal that I made a couple of years ago – an amendment to the Constitution that places a time limit on the Senate’s advice and consent function so as to bring judicial nominees to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor within a reasonable time period. Such an amendment might read something like this one that I cobbled together as a proposal.

PROPOSED JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION AMENDMENT

Section 1 The power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts shall be vested in the President of the United States.

Section 2 Upon the formal submission of the name of a nominee to a judgeship of any federal court to the United States Senate by the President, the Senate shall vote to confirm or not confirm the nominee within 180 days..

Section 3 The Senate may, with a three-fifths vote, extend the time for confirmation by 90 days in order to allow additional inquiry into the fitness of the candidate or in order to permit the Senate to deal with other legislative concerns. Such an extension shall be permitted only one time.

Section 4 The consent of the Senate shall deemed to be given if the Senate fails to reject the nominee within the 180 days mandated under Section 2 of this Article, or within 270 days in the event of an extension of the deadline under Section 3 of this Article.

This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. This is an issue of ensuring the proper administration of justice and the filling of judicial vacancies necessary for that purpose.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Comes from the mouth of a union thug himself.

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the cityÂ’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

”We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said ”there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

Do you see the arrogance literally dripping from Balzano’s words? Citizens have no right to contribute to their community – they merely have the right to pay ever higher taxes in order to make sure the corrupt union bosses like Balzano get their cut from the bloated paychecks of union members.

The time has come for the people of this nation to rise up and insist that there be no more public employee unions, because they clearly are not operating in the public interest. That a union thug like Balzano thinks there will be no consequences to his making such statements is proof of that.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, you’ve got to hand it to Obama and his Democrat minions – they have managed to forge a new consensus on government run health care. And that consensus is NO, WE DON’T WANT IT!

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad.

The meaning of these results is very clear – the American people don’t want what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are selling. And even to the degree that Americans want to ensure that there is some safety net for their fellow citizens in need of medical care that is beyond their means, we are more and more convinced that the proposals coming out of the Democrats fail to address the issue in a manner consistent with our values and wishes.

Posted by: Greg at 08:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Could be, according to some numbers crunched by Red State's Moe Lane regarding the House seats seen as competitive next year.

And Lane's analysis of this data? Big GOP gains.

As you can see, there are a lot of Democratic incumbents in districts that typically vote Republican in Presidential elections, and almost no Republican incumbents in districts that vote Democratic. For that matter, something like 72% of the total competitive races are in Republican districtsÂ… which would sound like bad news for the GOP, except that Democratic-held seats make up 75% of both the total and particularly competitive races surveyed by Cook. The midpoint for that list is at R+3; below that point there are 14 GOP districts held by Democrats, and only 7 Democratic ones held by Republicans.

What does that mean, in terms of the 2010 elections? Well, if you assume that every district held by Democrats thatÂ’s at R+4 and above gets flipped, every incumbent between R+3 and D+0 keeps his or her seat, and that every Republican in a Democratic district loses his or her seatÂ… the Democrats lose 31 seats next year. Assume that an incumbent needs to at least break even (i.e., has at least a R or D+0), and the number goes up to 48 seats lost by the Democrats.

As a practical matter, the balance of power would change sharply. With the 31 seat change, we would see the partisan split change from 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans to 227 Democrats and 208 Republicans, which would give Republicans significantly more clout in the House. And if the change goes to the more extreme possibility suggested by Lane, the split nearly reverses, with Republicans holding a 225-210 edge over the Democrats, potentially giving the country a repeat of the 1994 election.

Of course, there is a lot that could happen in the next 12 months, and those events could turn the tables dramatically. But assuming there is not radical shift between now and the 2010 elections, the United States will have a radically different Congress during the second half of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term.

UPDATE: Don Surber points to the possibility of a 6 or 7 seat gain for the GOP in the Senate as well -- not enough for a majority, but certainly enough o allow fo the filibuster of the Obama Agenda.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 844 words, total size 31 kb.

You know -- the people's right to know, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, etc.

Guess it isn't patriotic any more -- at least now that a man who has no understanding of or appreciation for the military is in the Oval Office.

The Obama administration is increasingly exasperated by leaks of national-security-related information and is planning a major effort to root out and punish those responsible, top officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is “appalled” by a series of leaks surrounding the president’s deliberations about the way forward in Afghanistan and the investigation into last week’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.

How long until we see prosecutions and persecutions? And will we see the media turning over names at the demand of the demigod Obama and his minions?

And the Affirmative Action Presidency continues.

H/T Red State

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

In 1988, cult leader Fred Phelps was a delegate to the Democrat convention for candidate (later vice president) Al Gore. Over the years, perennial Democrat candidate Phelps has engaged in ever more vile activity in support of his twisted theology. No Republican, and no conservative, has ever embraced him as far as I can tell -- indeed, I can find only condemnation of the Phelps and his family.

So now that the Phred Phlelps Phreaks from his "Westboro Baptist Church" (really a cult composed almost exclusively of his family members) has appeared in front of the ritzy private school attended by the Obama girls and other children of privilege outside of Washington, DC, why are there calls from an anchor from MSNBC for conservatives and Republicans to denounce the protests?

The Westboro Baptist Church is telling the Obama daughters that God is their "enemy."

The Kansas-based far-right church known for its outrageous choices of protest venues picketed outside the private school attended by first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama on Monday morning, and in the process got embroiled in an angry war of words with an MSNBC anchor.

* * *

MSNBC anchor David Shuster described Monday's Westboro church protest as "beyond the pale."

"Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/Republicans will condemn this stuff today," he wrote on his Twitter account.

Good grief, even the hacks at Raw Story recognize that these folks are not considered acceptable by those of us on the right -- why can't a supposedly responsible journalist like Shuster?

And, of course, moonbats on the Left have jumped on the Shuster bandwagon.

But interestingly enough, there was silence from the Left when mainstream anti-war liberals engaged in precisely such tactics directed against the children of US military personnel invited to the White House. But then again, Code Pink has been doing such things for years without condemnation from liberals, so why should we expect outrage now at the targeting of children by this mainstream liberal group? Why should we expect an Obama shill like David Shuster to condemn such vile protests, even though he expects conservatives and Republicans to condemn the Westboro cult even after years of such condemnations?

And by the way -- I have long condemned Fred Phelps and his wicked anti-Christ family. Nothing has changed since the last time, except, perhaps, that my revulsion for the group continues to deepen.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.