Misery Index

FIRST BROKEN PROMISE

In what is now officially Obama style, he gave strong indications that he’s backing off his stance on two promises that he made during his campaigning.  SURPRISE!  The first is whether to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, something Obama’s economic advisors have quietly been saying for weeks.

“My economic team right now is examining – do we repeal that through legislation?” 

“Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?”

This doesn’t include him saying that he’s now not going to tax the oil industry because oil is less than $40 a barrel.  Hmm.. what about all those records of income that the oil industry made last spring and summer? Anyway…..

SECOND BROKEN PROMISE

The second possible broken campaign promise is his call for bringing U.S. combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months.  As if those of us who never believed a word he promised find this surprising.   

He only said he wanted to do so “as quickly as we can do to maintain stability in Iraq, maintain the safety of U.S. troops, to provide a mechanism so that Iraq can start taking more responsibility as a sovereign responsibility for its own safety and security, ensuring that you don’t see any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Brokaw asked Obama directly about the rumors of “residual force”  of how many troops are going to be left in Iraq, with that number being 35,000 to 50,000.  Brokaw asked him, “Is that a fair number?”

Well, well I’m not gonna speculate on the numbers. [Why can’t this man EVER answer a direct question with a direct answer instead of rehashing what he has said before? While if a news reporter does the same, then he is accused of Obama of trying to stir up trouble.]

Uh, what I said is that we are gonna maintain a large enough force uh, in the region to assure that uh, our civilian troops, or our, our, our civilian personnel and our embassies are protected to make sure that we can uh, ferret out any remaining terrorist activity in the region, in cooperation with the Iraqi government.  That we are providing training and logistical support maintaining the integrity of uh Iraq as necessary.  And one of the things that I’ll be doing is evaluating  the kind of numbers required to meet those very limited goals.”

Now this confuses me.  First Iraq just passed a new law in conjunction with the Bush Administration that all US troops are to be removed by 2011.  And in fact, this new law will be taken and if that fails to subscribe to the withdrawal, the U.S. troops may be forced to leave earlier.  But Obama is saying that he wants to leave troops in Iraq, not commenting on the numbers, in cooperation with the Iraqi government.  Didn’t they just vote and pass a law that they want all US troops out?  And didn’t Obama say he was going to “end the war” in Iraq and bring ALL the troops home from Iraq?  Can you say “double speak” boys and girls?  So I guess that would be a “no” that all the troops aren’t coming home, with guestimates of 35,00 - 50,000 troops staying beyond 2011.  Right now there are about 15 birgades defined as combat forces, but the overall number of troops is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for total of 146,000 troops.  So, if 30,000 – 50,000 stay behind or are rotated around, that means that 20% to 34% of the troops remain past 2011.  Is that what Obama call’s bringing our troops home from Iraq?

And on another note, has Obama said anything about removing troops in Afghanistan? Which by the way, are getting about 3,500 to 4,000 more troops early next year to be deployed near Kabul.  With the Defense Department planning to add more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next 12-18 months.  Right now, there are about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

How do we know that when the troops leave Iraq, if they are going to leave Iraq, that they aren’t going to head straight to Afghanistan?  Well Brokaw questioned Obama about Afghanistan quoting Jim Jones, Obama’s new national security advisor.  He said that when he first talked to Jones when the U.S. first went into Afghanistan he said “I know how we’re going to get into Afghanistan, I don’t know how we’re going to get out of Afghanistan.”  Brokaw asked Obama about what he was telling him today of how we are going to get out of Afghanistan.  Obama stuttered and clamored for a few seconds before answering this question.

“I think were starting to see a consensus, uh that uh, we have to have more effective military action and that means additional troops but also means more coordination with our NATO allies.  Uh, it means we have to have much more effective uh, diplomacy in the region. We can’t solve Afghanistan without solving Pakistan, and working more effectively with that country and we are gonna have to make sure that India and Pakistan are uh, normalizing their relationship if we are going to effective in some of these other areas.  And we’ve got to really ramp up our development approach to Afghanistan, I mean part of the problem that we’ve had is that the average Afghan farmer hasn’t seen any improvement in his life.  Uh, we haven’t seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements.  We haven’t seen the security improvements.  We haven’t seen uh, the uh, reduction in narco trafficking.  We haven’t see a reliance on rule-able law in Afghanistan that would make people  feel confident that the uh, central government   can infact uh, deliver on it’s promises and if we combine effective development, more effective military work, as well as more effective diplomacy, then I think we can stabilize the situation.  Our number one goal has to be to make sure that it can not be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States and we’ve got to get bin-Laden.  And we’ve got to get al-Qaeda.” 

When questioned about India, Brokaw quoted Obama that the United States “has the right to go after terrorists in Pakistan if you have targets of opportunity” and then questioned Obama if India was now included in that right.  Obama flatly stated that he was not going to comment “on that.” In a CNN poll, 8 out of 10 believe the U.S. should side with neither country.  In a side note, things in Pakistan are heating up a bit.  Over 160 vehicles, including dozens of Humvees, thought to cost about a cool $100,000 each, destined for U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan were torched today.

Also what you probably don’t know about Afghanistan, is that the U.S. has been on a building spree, planning a $100 million airfield expansion in Kandahar and a $50 million prison facility near Bagram Air base. 

What you probably also don’t know is that on Feb 27, 2008m, after two days of meetings in New Delhi, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates quietly announced negotiations between the U.S. and India to develop a missile defense shield program on Indian soil.

But he stated he was going to re-state, again in typical Obama fashion, repeating the same things over and over again, that each country has a right to defend itself against terrorism, that we the United States need diplomacy between all countries in the region, and;

“as I’ve stated before, we can’t continue to look at Afghanistan isolation, we have to see it as a part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, that includes India, that includes Kashmiere, that includes Iran, and the kind of foreign policy I want to shape  is one in which we have tough direct diplomacy combined with more effective military operations focused on what is the number one threat against US interests and US lives, and that’s al Quaeda and their various affiliates, and we are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come.” 

BTW, if you missed that, it means “Yes we might leave Iraq for now, but guess what, we are going to go elsewhere in the middle east or have to go back to Iraq for specialized operations.” But he’s still pushing that he’s teams will come up with strategies to “fix” all these problems.  And that Hillary Clinton will be able to “rebuild alliances” and  “send a strong signal that we going to do business differently and place an emphasis on diplomacy.”  He’s still in his little bubble that setting up “meetings” and talking in a civilized manner will “fix” and “change” everything.

People, it’s time for a reality check.  Yes, some troops are going to leave Iraq and head straight for Afghanistan, especially since fingers are pointing towards Pakistan for the bombing and recent terror raid in India.  Then we have the whole nuclear deal in Iran.  We are NEVER going to get out of that “region” at least NOT in the next 4 years, much less the next 8 years.  Wars in the name of religion and God have been going on in that region since the beginning of time.  Why do you think that Obama can end that which has been going on since the beginning of time?  Please tell me how he is different from so many others over time.

ONE OTHER COMMENT

Obama pledged to not smoke in the White House.

Also, did anyone else notice how tired Obama looked?  The man actually had circles under his eyes, and for the fist time, I noticed gray in his hair.

Here’s the entire episode of December 7th, “Meet the Press”.

PAY INCREASE

By Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, President Bush ordered the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries to be raised from $186,000 to $191,300.  So thus, the pay for the Secretary of State increased this year.  This is the salary increase or the “emolument” increase .  Senator Clinton’s current term runs from 2007 to 2012, thus she is ineligible for taking said Secretary or State position until the end of her term.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Eugene Volokh, who is a Professor of Law at UCLA teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law.  Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  He has also written three textbooks,over 50 law review articles and over 80 opinion-editorials.  Here is his take on things:

So, “Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?”  In a word, Yes – or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”  As I understand it, President Bush’s executive order from earlier this year “encreased” the “Emoluments” (salary) of the office of Secretary of State.  Lat I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time.  Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be appointed to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased” during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator.  The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment … if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn’t on these matters, of course).

But presidents Taft, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all ignored the Constitution, and used a loophole around it.  They did it by lower the pay, after the fact.  But still, this is not necessarily legal. 

In Nixon’s situation, he nominated Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) to serve as his Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre, but the AG’s salary had been increased in 1969 during Saxbe’s term.  Nixon persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe’s salary to the pre-1969 level, and the “Saxbe fix” was born.

Volokh continues on this matter about the Saxbe Fix:

Then there’s the infamous “Saxbe Fix” precedent, which I discuss in Lloyd.  Couldn’t Congress pass a repealing statute, or President Bush (or even President Obama) rescind the executive order, selectively, as to Hillary and make everybody happy?  Nope:  The clause forbids the appointment of someone to an office the emoluments whereof “shall have been increased”.  A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.

Additionally on the Saxbe fix, Sen. Robert Byrd was opposed to this fix, saying the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

ANOTHER OPINION

Volokh hased John O’ Connor, who wrote an article on the subject, The Emoluments Caluse:  An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) [PDF], for his opinion on the matter.

“I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State.  I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.

… Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been increased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected,” or until January 2013.

… By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been increased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased. … The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.

The more difficult question is whether Senator Clinton’s ineligibility for appointment may be cured legislatively through the “Saxbe Fix,” where Congress reduces the Secretary of State’s salary to a level at or below where it was when Senator Clinton’s current term began in 2007. …

It is in my view that the Saxbe Fix fails to remove an ineligibility for appointment.  I believe the Saxbe Fix is ineffectual based on the plain reading of the Emoluments Clause and is also contrary to the intent of that clause.  The Emoluments Clause provides an ineligibility for appointment to an office the emoluments of which ‘have been increased.’  Even if the emoluments of the office are later reduced, it seems to me that they ‘have been encreased’ during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term even if they are later decreased.”

NOT THE FIRST TIME FOR THE CLINTONS AND THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE

In 1993 President-elect Clinton sought to confirm Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) as his Treasury Secretary, despite his having been reelected to the Senate in 1989 prior to a Cabinet pay raise.  On January 5, 1993, Senator John Glenn and others introduced S.J. Res. 1, which read in its relevant parts:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the compensation and other emoluments attached tot he office of Secretary of the Treasury shall be those in effect January 1, 1989, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under--

(1) the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-194) or any other provision of law amended by that Act; or

(2) any other provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 1989, and ending at noon of January 3, 1995.

[…]

This joint resolution shall become effective at 12:00 p.m., January 20, 1993.

It passed both Houses without objection, and was signed into law by President Bush on January 19, 1993.  Bentsen would receive an annual salary of $99,500 for his Cabinet service, far less than his colleagues at $148,400.  When the issue threatened to resurface in 1996 upon the nomination of Cong. Bill Richardson and Sen. William Cohen to UN Ambassador and Defense Secretary, respectively, the USDOJ Office of Legal Counsel mooted the issue by noting that the pay increase for Richardson’s position occurred prior to his current term in Congress, and that Cohen’s Senate term would expire before his being sworn in.

Again however, this goes back to what Volokh said on the matter that a"’fix’ can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.”

Additionally, President Bill Clinton re-wrote part of the Constitution in 1998.

BOTTOM LINE

The mostly Democratic Congress will just type up a new “bill” to fix everything, thus changing our Constitution so that Hilliary can sit in office.

Just like Obama not needing to show his "Birth Certificate” but instead choosing to show a document titled “Certification of Live Birth” which does not show his birthplace, thus a Constitutional violation.  Additionally his Aunt stated she witnessed his birth in Africa.  And the Kenyan Ambassador has stated that Kenya is planning on building a monument in Kenya at Obama’s birthplace.

Just like Obama wanting to require school aged children and college students to “serve” by doing hours of community service, which is a 13th Amendment violation.

And all of this before the man is even in office.

All I have to say on the matter, is that if Clinton is appointed to the Secretary of State seat, this blog will end as our Constitution is slowly being killed off by Obama.  The “change” will be that there will no longer be a Constitution, and thus all your rights including freedom of speech, right to freedom of religion, and simply your right to freedom.

And what is truly sad, is that no one seems to care.

SOURCES:

• Daily KOS – A HIGHLY Liberal, pro-Obama website, who believes that Clinton should be allowed to take the office.
• The Volokh Conspiracy (1)
• The Volokh Conspiracy (2)
• Stop the ACLU

FAITH

Although the “faith” page has disappeared from the Change.gov website, the topic still appears on the Change.gov forums and it still appears on the Obama/Biden Election site.  So what did the “Faith” part of Obama’s old Change agenda page say?

RECONCILING FAITHS AND POLITICS

“(Obama’s speech on faith) may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy’s Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican…Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief.”

--E.J. Dionne, Op-Ed, Washington Post, June 30, 2006

In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years.  Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate.  In December, 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.

The speech that is noted is Obama’s “Call to Renewal” speech at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for New America.  During this speech Obama talks about his own personal faith.   His speech borderlines ending the separation of church and state and basically implies that the “reason a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd” is because there “a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.”  That religion will fix everything.  And that we as a nation of different religions and nonbelievers have to come to a “compromise” on what is ethical and moral across the board on a political level.  The speech borderlines on the “S” word……What is good in one religion that is good in another religion, is good for all religions. 

And there is man’s law and God’s law, if man’s law goes against God’s law, it is our duty to follow God’s law and not man’s. 

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” – Romans 13:1

“We must obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

All I have to say on the matter is this.  If I want or need more God in my life, I have the option of going to a church.  I don’t need government telling me that I need more God in my life.  And I don’t need a government telling me that there is only one book that can be followed and all other are trash?  That is a Constitutional right that I have, via the First Amendment.  Personal responsibility for personal  morality and personal ethics are the responsibility of each individual, not the government.  If all religions have a “compromise” then what separates those religions anymore?  And that we need to think in terms of “thou” and not just”I”, when it comes to religion.  And does all that not brush on State or National Religion?:

“Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So unless Obama decides to change our Constitution, he’s out of luck.  Additionally Obama keeps calling Abraham Lincoln a genius, which he may have been when it came to many things, however obviously he is not completely knowledgeable about Lincoln since Lincoln stated the following:

“The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion.  I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.”

Excerpts are below with the entire video so that the Obamabots can not say that I am taking things out of context,which admittedly I am however, I am ‘highlighting’ certain statements to prove a point.  You are a human with a mind, and can watch the entire video for yourself, to determine whether you think I am correct, or form your own conclusion.

“At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands.”

“But in the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives – in the lives of the American people – and I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it.  You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”

“More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.  Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.”

“I believe in keeping guns out of inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem.  There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.”

“But what I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

“Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.  We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms lf “thou” and not just ”I, resonates in religious congregations all across the country.  And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.”

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values.”

“And if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? … Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?  Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination?  How about Deuteronomy, which suggest stoning your child if he strays from the faith?  Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.  But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.  It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible.  At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.  It’s the art of the impossible.”

“Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.”

“But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state.  Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters.  It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.”  I didn’t.  Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.  And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.”

“A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.  It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.”