Democrat Tim Bishop recently sent an e-mail to his constituents blaming Republicans, although they only hold the House while Democrats hold the Senate and the White House, for being against bipartisanship. So what does Tim Bishop do when the opportunity for bipartisanship presents itself? He cements his far left credentials by voting against it.

Three free trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, passed the House by wide margins (262-167, 278-151, 300-129, respectively). They passed the Senate by similarly large margins (66-33, 83-15, 77-22, respectively). President Obama supports the passage of all three. So, Tim Bishop, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid hung tough in their fight against a strong bipartisan measure.

Proponents of the trade deals, including Mr. Obama, Republican leaders and centrist Democrats, predict that they will reduce prices for American consumers and increase foreign sales of American goods and services, providing a much-needed jolt to the sluggish economy.  — New York Times, October 12, 2011.

The House also passed a measure that would provide expanded benefits for workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hailed the deals Wednesday as an important victory for American foreign policy. And she said she expected that the South Korea pact alone would create 70,000 American jobs. “By opening new markets to American exports and attracting new investments to American communities, our economic statecraft is creating jobs and spurring growth here at home,” Ms. Clinton said at a Washington event.

Perhaps instead of having to fight Washington so that Long Island vintners can get their wine bottles and labels approved, Tim Bishop should encourage the US Trade Representative to promote those wines to Columbia, South Korea and Panama. How about Tim Bishop doing something useful rather than spending money we don’t have, loading debt upon his constituents to pay for government spending elsewhere in America, trying to prop up a bankrupt postal service, and asking constituents how we can make Washington bigger and more costly and get more deeply involved in our lives. Please, Tim, don’t help us any more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

You almost have to wonder, why in the world did he run for president? Was he swept up in the ego trip? Was he reading too much into his own press clippings? Did the historic opportunity of being the first real black president, sorry Bill Clinton, in U.S. history overwhelm a careful consideration of what the job entailed?

For those who believe in federalism, as James Madison said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” As the powers of the federal government are (supposed to be) few, so are the responsibilities of the President of the United States; important and focused, yes, but few. So why does President Obama look to avoid those few responsibilities and get involved in so many that are not in his purview?

From golf, to beer summits, to healthcare, to golf, to conferences on bullying, to golf, and now on guns, he seems to find that which is least related to his job to focus his energies and those of his administration. Even senators from his own party decry his lack of leadership on perhaps the most important issue of the day, spending and the debt. The Middle East is in flames and he talks tough but does nothing.

A Gun Summit

A deranged man in Tucson, Arizona, slipped through the cracks of existing laws that prohibit the sale of a gun, under both Arizona law and federal law to someone who is mentally ill or a drug user. Jared Loughner is guilty of both, but no one bothered to take the step to have a court declare him mentally unstable and no one made sure the system was updated with his drug use. If the laws on the books aren’t enforced, what will the addition of more laws do, other than further curtail liberties?

Of course that does not stop President Obama from wading in. On his team he picks Eric Holder and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope I am not being overly critical by saying, with the Middle East crumbling into chaos, a major ally recovering from an earthquake and tsunami in the Far East, and the function of the State Department being how we interface with other nations, am I the only one who thinks HRC is probably a little busy right now, or should be?

Then there is Eric Holder, who wouldn’t know a terrorist if he were jumping up and down on his desk screaming Allahu Akbar, while sweeping a sword inches over his head. Who sees Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia as just a couple of guys from the ‘hood hanging out. Who will twist himself in paroxysms to avoid saying in Congressional hearings that the possibility that Major Nidal Hisan was a radical Islamist, instead saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”

One of the knee jerk comments you hear from the gun opponents if you criticize gun restrictions is, “Should we allow machine guns!!” Considering that the U.S. government and this president have abdicated their responsibility to defend our border, even to the point of putting signs up 100 miles inside our country warning travelers that it is unsafe to travel in parts of Arizona, the idea of a couple of .50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of some rancher’s home in that area might not be a bad idea. With drug cartel members active in that area with automatic weapons, why not?

A Simple Approach

Let me suggest a simple approach. The laws should not be about what property you own, but what you do with it. Laws should apply to actions, not who we are, what we own, or what we think. The rules can and should be different for people who have violated laws by their actions or who have diminished capacity to safely operate something that could be dangerous. Felons should not be allowed to buy a gun nor someone who is mentally unstable. We are allowed to drink. We are allowed to drive. We are not allowed to drink and drive. The prohibited action is the combination of the two. If you drink and drive repeatedly, you don’t get to drive at all.

Our government should not stand in the way of its citizens being able to defend themselves. In a Supreme Court case Warren v District of Columbia, it was ruled that a police department is not responsible for failing to protect its citizens. It should be my responsibility to protect myself and my family. The Supreme Court seems to agree that you cannot blame the police if they do not respond.

So Hillary, go back to the State Department and focus on foreign policy not on guns. Mr. Holder, try being our chief prosecutor not a busybody. Mr. President, put away the golf clubs and start figuring out how to cut a very large slice out of the $1.6 trillion deficit you are running. If you didn’t want the job in the first place, you shouldn’t have asked for it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The bedrock principle of the First Amendment is to protect political speech from government censorship. That is what the Founders intended as a way for the citizens to disagree with their government without fear of reprisal.

Over the years we have seen some bizarre applications of the free speech doctrine to include such things as flag burning, and evolving into freedom of expression, whatever that really means. What the progressives want is that they and their main stream media chorus are alone in conveying their message. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned using corporate or union money for “electioneering communications,” which meant broadcast advertising that identified a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election. In other words, it is the “Incumbent Protection Act.” As incumbents have the name recognition and the communication platform of their office, they begin a campaign with a considerable advantage. The particular timeframes in the act are when most people start paying attention, so if you can choke that off, the victory circle is that much closer.

In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, at issue was a documentary film that was critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was running for president at the time. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Citizens United brought the scorn of President Obama upon the Court in his State of the Union address last year.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling was not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens’ argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

This is an historic moment to be celebrated as another victory in the war to roll back government before it rolls over us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn739hxpGNI

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

In today’s New York Times there is a story about Rick Lazio latching on to the Ground Zero mosque issue as his new campaign theme.  The first television ads I have seen regarding his run for governor are about this issue.  He is strongly opposed.  Okay, but he wants us to  elect him governor to do what, exactly?  New York has a lot of problems, from a state government that is completely dysfunctional to being broke and since everyone seems to agree that the mosque at Ground Zero is not about the right to build there but about the propriety of building there, what does it have to do with the office of governor?

When he pinch hit for Rudy Giuliani running for the senate against Hillary Clinton, after Mr. Giuliani dropped out of the race with prostate cancer, Mr. Lazio took a similar tack.  You probably remember their first debate when Mr. Lazio famously walked across the stage to a startled Mrs. Clinton and asked her to sign his pledge on campaign finance reform.  She refused and that was his theme.  The problem is that although many people feel our political process is corrupt, when it comes to campaign finance reform, most people don’t care about it.  Those who care about it are incumbents, who want to cripple those who run against them.  Some of the so called “reforms” have politicians spending so much time chasing $50 donations that they can’t do what they were elected to do.  Either that or we can only run multi-millionaire candidates who can spend their own money without limits.  (Simple solution: let anyone contribute any amount to any campaign at any time and just post the information on the Internet within 72 hours in a database that is fully searchable. Done.)  It only took a little time for the novelty of the debate video to fade and Mr. Lazio had no campaign.

Another challenger in this year’s governor’s race, Carl Paladino, one of the aforementioned millionaires, has been hitting the airwaves more frequently and more effectively than Mr. Lazio.  He is not a one trick pony.  His first ads hit Andrew Cuomo on being a career politician and that he, Paladino, was a business man who knows how to create jobs.  What do we desperately need now?  Jobs.  What are we sick of? Career politicians, like Mr. Cuomo, who played a role as HUD Secretary in the Clinton administration of feeding the real estate frenzy and the subsequent housing collapse that created the financial crisis.

On the mosque situation, agree or disagree with him but Mr. Paladino says exactly what he will do about it.  He will take the property away under Eminent Domain (thanks to the activist judges on the Supreme Court who gave us Kelo v. City of New London) and use the property to create a war memorial.  He doesn’t just say he will oppose it he tells us what he will do about it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed to Rick Lazio’s senate run in 2000 and I have no connection with the Paladino campaign.  But if Mr. Lazio is serious about defeating Andrew Cuomo for governor, he has to find some issues that not only resonate with the people of New York but that are the responsibility of the governor to address.  If not, rather than split the conservative vote, he should step aside and help ride the anti-incumbent wave that Carl Paladino is surfing.

Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan was an aviator in the 1930s.  In 1938 he mistakenly flew from New York to Ireland when he was supposed to fly from New York to California, because he claims he misread his compass.  It later turned out that he really intended to fly to Ireland but couldn’t get permission.

What’s Hillary’s excuse?  As the Obama Administration has called the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zalaya a coup d’etat, more attention is being focused on what the law in Honduras really says.  The Congressional Research Service looked into it and had this to say:

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings.”

—Congressional Research Service, August 2009

So why is Hillary Clinton now attacking the Honduran Supreme Court by pulling the visas of all fifteen members of the court?  The U.S. sided with Hugo Chavez and Costa Rica to reach a “negotiated” settlement that would put Zalaya back in the presidency.  Honduras said, sorry, that would violate our constitution.  He broke the law, we dealt with it according to our constitution, and that’s that.

Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country’s independent judiciary.

Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya’s violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their “human rights.”

When will the apology tour end and we start standing up for liberty and democracy?  Is it more important that Hillary have an accomplishment she can brag about than following  the rule of law?  This administration has so much, so backwards it is hard to keep track of it.  They focus all their time and energy doing things they are not constitutionally authorized to do (health care, taking over car companies and banks, funding ACORN), and ignoring their fundamental constitutional duties of foreign policy and national defense.  Let’s hope some pressure can be brought to bear on the Obama Administration to back off before Chavez puts a puppet in place.

The statists like dissent if they are dissenting from a conservative view point, as Hillary Clinton explains here:

Hillary Defends Challenging the Administration

But if you stand for liberty and against big government dissent is a very bad thing, as Nancy Pelosi explains:

Nancy Pelosi Hints Town Hall Opposition are Nazis

So if you bash Bush, you are a patriot.  If you question Barack Obama, you are a Nazi.  So our statist friends only believe the First Amendment applies to them and it is not available to those who oppose them.  Turn them in to the White House!  Have union goons give them a beat down.

Camerawoman is Hit by SEIU member

In this raw video an SEIU member attacks a man for selling flags that say, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

SEIU Member Attacks a Black Conservative

Does this not sound like Hitler’s brown shirts? his Gestapo?  The left who like to throw down, in addition to the race card, the Nazi card look more like Nazis than conservatives ever did.

It now appears that both sides in the Honduran standoff are waiting on the United States to weigh in.  Despite those on the left (Chavez, Castro) continuing to push for less involvement by the U.S.  in Central and South America so they can step into the void, they are now calling on the United States to take a stand, on their respective sides, of course.  Chavez had this to say:

“Do something,” Mr. Chávez had said to reporters. “Obama, do something.” – NY Times, July 12, 2009

Hillary Clinton has joined with Castro and Chavez in calling for the return to power of Manuel Zalaya.  But as Mary Anastasia O’Grady reports in today’s Wall Street Journal:

“If there is anything debatable about the crisis it is the question of whether the government can defend the expulsion of the president. In fact it had good reasons for that move and they are worth Mrs. Clinton’s attention if she is interested in defending democracy.”

There’s the rub, if she’s interested.  It seems that the Obama administration has an aversion to democracy, once they get in office.  When polls in the U.S. show that 68% of the people believe a second stimulus is coming while 60% oppose a second stimulus, that tells you something about their feelings about democracy.  Their silence on Iran and their speaking out on Zalaya’s behalf, reinforces that belief.   The Obama administration’s goal is to get power, and do whatever they can as quickly as they can to consolidate it.  It seems like a page out of any tin pot dictator’s playbook.  Chavez could have written it himself.

Now the Obama administration has gone silent on the situation in Honduras.  Will they find their voice?  Will it be the voice of our Founding Fathers, or Che, Hugo, and Fidel?

I was wondering how long it would take for Barack Obama’s lack of experience or a power base to manifest itself, but it appears the moment has arrived, and the problems keep coming.

His recent announcement or leak by his aides that Leon Panetta is his choice for head of the CIA is confounding, to say the least.  Panetta may be a nice man, and a good administrator, but in the midst of the War on Terror who but a rookie would put a rookie as head of the CIA?  Apparently Obama couldn’t push back those on the left who want no one who agrees with the Bush Administration in the post.  Two other potential appointees got hooted down by Obama’s supporters so he had to go with this pick.  The CIA is notorious for not liking outsiders.  Panetta has no intelligence experience, other than listening in on security briefings as Clinton’s Chief of Staff.

Bill Richardson withdraws his name from nomination as Commerce Secretary, due to a gathering scandal.

Eric Holder as Attorney General pick approved pardons for the FALN terrorists while working in the Clinton Justice Department and now he is responsible for prosecuting terrorists.

The Blagojevich scandal doesn’t want to go away and now the Democrats are battling over whether or not they will seat the man appointed to replace Obama in the Senate

We have the Coleman/Franken fiasco in Minnesota; Charlie Rangel under investigation for not paying taxes despite being chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws (Ways and Means); an item in the NY Times about a donation to the Clinton library from an individual who benefited from legislation supported by Hillary Clinton…

How long before the press decides the honeymoon is over?