No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics – National' Category

October 26, 2009

Club for Growth says Hoffman leads in NY-23, NRCC hardest hit

by @ 15:56. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

The Club for Growth released a new 300-person poll conducted by Basswood Research that gives Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman a 4.3-percentage-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens and a 11.6-point lead over RepubicRAT Dede Scozzafava in the special election to be held next Tuesday to fill the House seat vacated by long-serving Republican John McHugh, recently confirmed as the Secretary of the Army. Before I continue, I do have to note a couple of things:

  • New York politics is a unique animal; while the successful candidates (almost) always come from either the Republicans or the Democrats, their success depends on getting on the ballot lines of “minor” parties such as the Conservative Party and the ACORN-affiliated Working Families Party (which Scozzafava has used in the past).
  • Despite both Scozzafava’s voting record of being to the left of the majority of Democrats in the New York Assembly and her repeated electoral ties to ACORN, the county “Republican” party chiefs made her the “Republican” nominee behind closed doors.
  • As Ace points out, a 300-person sample isn’t exactly reliable. Worse, a cursory search of late-season Basswood Research polling data seems to indicate they consistently overstate the conservative candidate’s support by 4-5 percentage points.

With that stated, this has become a battle for the soul of the NotDemocrats. On one side, you have the the other half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, represented by the RNC, the NRCC, and Newt Gingrich, endorsing the RepubicRAT for the sake of keeping the P-I-G intact. In fact, after spending over $500,000 for what is clearly going to be a third-place result, the NRCC will be reinforcing failure to the tune of $300,000 in the last 9 days of the election cycle.

On the other side, you have pretty much every right-of-center pundit, including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Alaska governor/Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and now Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty endorsing Hoffman.

I guess the GOP has chosen to become the 21-Century Whig Party. All I can say is, “Help them get there by giving to Doug Hoffman.“

Next Up On the “Rights” Hit Parade…

by @ 5:08. Filed under Defending the American Dream, International relations, Lawgivers-In-Black, Politics - National.

Individual “Rights” come in two forms.  There are the rights that are spelled out in the Constitution.  A right to bear arms, a right to a fair trial and a right to free speech are just a few of the examples of these rights.  These rights, while guaranteed by the Constitution, are time and again “rights” that we have to fight to retain.  It seems hardly a month goes by where one or more of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are assaulted in small and large ways by Congress, the Judiciary, any of a number of interest groups are not comfortable in a free society, or even, the President.

Along with the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, there are a whole separate set of “rights” that have been established, not by the Constitution, but by the government.  This set of “rights” are no where to be found in the Constitution.  This set of “rights” are not even “rights”, at least not if you believe a “right” that you have doesn’t require anyone else to give up something they have.  Included in this set of “rights” are; the “right” to an abortion, a “Right” to government provided financial support and a “right” to an equal educational opportunity for every child.

It’s ironic that we have to fight to get the set of rights provided by the Constitution remembered and yet any number of people and groups are happy to increase the number of the unmerited “rights”.

Right now, Congress is debating the addition of another unmerited “right”.  While there are numerous rationals for the desire to implement health care reform, the core essence of the Left’s argument is that health care is in fact a right.  Can you find it in the Constitution?  No.  However, the Left is undaunted in this argument and believes “it’s the right thing to do.”

If you think health care as a right is offensive, get ready for the next “right” that is now germinating within the thinking of the Left; a right to housing!

In this video, Raquel Rolnik, a UN “special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing” (think “Special Investigator”), is coming the the US to make a determination about New York and six other cities, affordable housing.

If you have any questions about my concerns regarding housing becoming a  focus of “rights”, let’s look at Ms. Rolnik’s own words:

“I am representing the right of adequate housing as a human right.”

In past times a US President would have taken insult in a UN inspector nosing around the US when the UN’s record is one of support for Socialists and Marxists.  This time, Rolnik is likely to receive the Medal of Honor from President Obama.

Following her town hall in New Orleans, Ms. Rolnik made the following comments:

“Well, the feeling is that we definitely need to have a discussion, open discussion and re-appraisal of housing policies. I think a lot has been done in this country. This country has a history of intervening in housing sector, of building public housing, or intervening in the homelessness sector on innovating programs like rent subsidizing and other schemes. But in a way I think that was stuck in some point now. And I think the way forward need to be discussed.”

Just what Obama needs, support from the UN to completely take over yet one more industry!

 

 

October 23, 2009

No Free Lunch

by @ 11:18. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

The folks pushing Placebocare are wanting us to believe that other than the $800 Billion or higher increase in the deficit, Placebocare won’t cost anyone another penny to provide all of its wonders.  On it’s face, this doesn’t pass the smell test.  How do you add tens of millions of additional users to a system without increasing costs?  How to you accept all health conditions without increasing costs?  How do you dramatically reduce the ability to rate differently for different health situations without increasing costs…at least on someone?  How, how, how?

The Politico is reporting that another set of Placebocare studies have been done by WellPoint.  While not received directly from WellPoint, Ben Smith has the studies posted on his blog.  Want to see the potential impact of Placebocare on your health insurance premiums?  From the studies posted on Smith’s site:

HEalth costs

Note that these are projections of the increase in health insurance premiums. While they do assume that new taxes on things like hearing aids etc. are passed on via increased health care premiums, it does not include increases in your taxes that will be required to offset the significant increase in the deficit Placebocare will cause.

So, what do we see here?  Well, we see some very basic economic principles being reflected. 

In regular insurance analysis, the amount of risk assumed directly impacts the fees charged to assume that risk.  This principle is why in today’s health insurance, we see young, healthy people being charged significantly less for insurance than older, less healthy people.  Placebocare, like so many other government programs, does not treat people as groups of similarly situated individuals but rather, attempts to treat everyone the same.  The result is clear in the information provided from these studies.

Looking at the result of the studies we see several things.  First, the people or groups who are closest to the blended average of all have the least increase in their insurance costs.  Second, those who typically pay the least amount for their insurance will see dramatic increases in their rates so as to bring them closer to the “norm”.  Finally, we see that those who today, pay the higher premiums, will actually see some reduction in premiums.  Of course in this last case, the reduction in premiums will also come with a reduction in the overall services they receive as this will be the group that feels the required effects of reducing the provision of health care in an attempt to keep Placebocare from completely bankrupting the nation.

Folks, none of this is suprising.  There has never been a government run social program that hasn’t cost dramatically more than budgeted and resulted in increased deficits or costs over time.  Does anyone really think Obama and his acolytes have found a way to break this trend?  If they have, why don’t they focus that pixie dust on Social Security which is the number one problem for long term budget deficits.  Better yet, why don’t they fix Medicare and Medicaid, places where they already have near complete control on benefits and reimbursements?

Through Divine insight or shear luck, the Founding Fathers did not allow for the government to be involved in social programs.  If through insight, perhaps we can learn as every time the government wades into the social economic programs, they become a bigger mess than had it been left alone.  When government gets involved with social economic programs it does not create a “Free Lunch” but it sure as heck will create less liberty and an increase in taxes!

Does A Party Toady Dither In The Media?

by @ 9:37. Filed under Politics - Minnesota, Politics - National.

That should be answer that replaces “does a bear shit in the woods” as the response to all obvious answers.

In case you haven’t been watching, there is an interesting race shaping up in NY-23.  Dede Scozzafava is the Republican backed candidate, Bill Owens is backed by the Democrats.  Doug Hoffman is running under the banner of the Conservative Party.

While the Republicans have backed, and are providing significant financial support for Scozzafava, there is significant concern not just whether Scozzafava is a conservative but, as the The Jawa Report lays out, wether she shouldn’t actually be running as a Democrat.  On the other hand, there is no doubt about Hoffman’s conservative credentials. 

In a move I’m afraid we will see even more in 2010, the Republican establishment chose to support Scozzafava, the person they believe is “more electable,” than the person, Hoffman, who clearly supports Republican principles.  Who the party is supporting has become so contorted that you have

Fred Thompson, Club for Growth and Bill Kristol on one side, Newt Gingrich, Daily Kos and Michael Steele on another side, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on yet another side

One of the things that has been interesting in watching the race is that as it bits conservatives against “the establishment,” non of the purported Presidential hopefuls had taken a position or supported a candidate in this race.  That is they didn’t until yesterday.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin came out in support of Hoffman.  Her reasoning was clear and sound:

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a “time for choosing.”

Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.

Palin goes on to point out the problems with the establishment within the Republican party:

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of “blurring the lines” between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party’s ticket.

Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.

Another Presidential hopeful was asked yesterday, what his position on NY-23 was.  While he does have positions on the VA and NJ Gubernatorial races, Tim Pawlenty claimed to be unaware of a race that has become an icon for the future of the Republican party:

“You know I haven’t been following that, I haven’t studied the race at all,” he said. “It’s not that I would or wouldn’t, I just don’t know anything about it. I haven’t taken the time to study their positions, their records, so I haven’t taken a position on it.”

Yeah, right, Tim. 

Mark Tim’s response in your note book for the 2012 Presidential campaign.  For all the talk about a Pawlenty Presidential run, it really should be that, just talk.  Pawlenty has been successful in his vow to keep taxes down.  However, on the social side, think George Bush’s passionate conservatism. 

It should be clear to all Republican politicians that the political landscape has shifted.  Running a party under the header of “we’re not the other guys,” is a strategy that will not work in 2012.  A significant portion of what has traditionally been the Republican base are asking for representation that is specifically and concretely committed to the principles of smaller government.  We (I’m one of them) believe that much of the problem with the last few election cycles is that allowing the “electability” factor to outweigh the “principle” factor has brought us a party that is rapidly and consistently brought us to our current state of “Democrat Lite.”

For Pawlenty to miss this opportunity to firmly endorse the candidate who clearly represents the “government = bad” part of the Republican platform, should show to all that he is too beholden to the “status quo” of the Republican machine to be considered a serious candidate for 2012.  

I don’t hold out much hope for a 2012 Presidential run by Pawlenty.  While he’s my Governor and I appreciate his ability to out fox the Democrats and keep a lid on taxes, there are too many times where he has shown that he is just another “Compassionate Conservative.”  If Pawlenty wants to change this image he will need to find sound, principled reasons to vocally buck “the machine.”  If he doesn’t, he’ll end up behind Huckabee and Romney in the “next in line” and behind Palin or someone else as the “True Conservative” on the ballot

October 22, 2009

Fight for Anita

by @ 13:35. Filed under Politics - National.

I’m just a bit late to this since I’ve been out of it all week, but in case you missed the addition to that sidebar to your left, Anita MonCrief, who has been blowing the whistle on ACORN’s attempts to corrupt the electoral process needs your help. She has become a target of a lawsuit brought by her former employers at Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN. She is not taking that attempt at intimidation lying down, as she and her lawyers has filed a counterclaim, as well as a motion to dismiss the original lawsuit.

I cannot tell the story better than either Anita or Michelle Malkin can, so if you have any doubts on whether Anita is a person worthy of support, go read, and then head back to donate to her defense fund.

Needless to say, legal representation is not cheap. It also is necessary, because Anita, and James O’Keefe/Hannah Giles/Andrew Breitbart are just their first targets. If ACORN is successful here, they will continue to use the courts to try to silence every other critic.

Hot Read Thursday – William Ahern’s “Can Income Tax Hikes Close the Deficit?”

by @ 11:13. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

William Ahern of The Tax Foundation asks the question, and pretty much answers it in the negative. You’ll have to go over there for the lengthy explanation as well as the charts, but I’ll give you a feel for the analysis for the “ebb tide of deficits” year of 2012, as well as a note that the analysis assumes that the higher tax rates won’t influence the larger economy:

This analysis assumes that individuals would not change their income-earning or tax-planning behavior in response to higher tax rates. That is, they would earn the same amounts as they would with current tax rates, and they would fill out their tax returns in the same way they do now. But of course they would alter their behavior. With high-income people paying a federal tax rate over 90 percent, and most states adding on about 8 percent, plus local income taxes and payroll taxes, tax rates would be over 100 percent for many households. In other words, beyond some point government would be taxing away all earnings and there would be no incentive to work….

…(E)ven in 2012 and 2013, when projected deficits are the lowest, according to the Administration, tax rates would have to be levied at prohibitively high levels to erase the deficit. For example, in 2012, even after the top two tax rates have been raised from 33% to 36% and from 35% to 39.6%, all the rates would have to be multiplied by 1.87 to raise enough to erase the deficit (see Table 3).

Average tax payments would rise precipitously in 2012 if that were the year targeted for eradicating the deficit, though not as steeply as in 2010.

Table 4 shows the effect on average tax payments in 2012 if Congress decided to close the deficit that year. Low-income filers (AGI between $0 and $20,000) would pay $248 instead of $129; middle-income filers (AGI between $75,000 and $100,000) would pay about $13,700 instead of $7,000; and the highest-earning filers (AGIs over $1 million) would pay about $1,650,000 instead of $935,000.

Going down, down, down, down

by @ 8:44. Filed under Politics - National.

Rasmussen Reports has the mostly-bad news for Barack Obama in today’s edition of the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, a 3-day rolling average of 1,500 likely voters asked to rate the President’s job approval. The dirty details:

  • Total disapproval beats total approval 52%-47%, the twelth consecutive day that more people disapprove of Obama’s job performance than approve of it (at least to the nearest whole percentage point). Also, it has been 17 days since more people (again to the nearest whole percentage point) approved of Obama’s job performance than disapprove of it.
  • The Presidential Approval Index, which is the percentage of those who strongly approve minus the percentage of those who strongly disapprove, is once again tied for its lowest rating at -13, marking the first time it has been in double-digit negatives for 7 consecutive days. Worse, the last time it was not in negative territory was on 6/29, when it was +1.
  • Among independents, the Presidential Approval Index is a whopping -22 (18% strongly approve, 42% strongly disapprove)
  • Forgot to mention originally the 26% Strong Approval overall is Obama’s worst performance to date, and that Obama is within the error of rounding of losing “Strong Approval” among Democrats (if it already hasn’t been lost; the publicly-available numbers are rounded to the whole percentage point, and that is at 50%).

No wonder he and his ilk want the opposition, whether it be Fox News, insurance companies, the financial services industry or the US Chamber of Commerce, to be shut up.

Revisions/extensions (8:53 am 10/22/2009) – Forgot to include one key bad element.

October 21, 2009

Crap, Double Crap and Triple Crap

by @ 5:48. Filed under Politics - National.

Lots of bad new of you’re a Democrat

It’s got to be depressing look up from that ever deeper hole each day!

Can you tell which party is in control by these stats?

Finally, Congratulations Republicans, you’re more trusted on every issue. The question is, are people voting for you or are they just really pissed with the Democrats? One leads to electoral victory, the other means you’re the lesser of two evils which only holds votes until a Democrat arises who is anywhere to the right of President Obama

October 20, 2009

How Do You Hide $475 Billion

by @ 5:18. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

As amusing as the answer might be, the correct answer is not, “With a REALLY large mattress!”

A couple of weeks back, the Senate Finance committee passed the Baucus bill version of Placebocare.  Much heralded at the time, was the announcement that the Baucus bill had managed to meet President Obama’s promise that socialized health care would cost less than $1 Trillion for the first 10 years.  In fact, the Baucus bill purported to leave lots of wiggle room for CBO fine tuning, with a price tag of merely $829 Billion dollars.

Philip Klein at the American Spectatortook a look at the Baucus costs and found something interesting; the 10 years of costs really only included 4 years of the Baucus program being full implemented.  In the words of Desi Arnaz, “Oh Lucy, you forgot something!”

The graphical presentation from Klein clearly shows the problem in the cost analysis:

Baucusbill

You can see that while there are some costs in the early years, the Baucus bill costs don’t hit their trend line until 2016. The graph shows clearly that 2010 through 2015 do not reflect the same program as that from 2016 on.

OK, we have a gap. The logical next question is, “If $829 billion isn’t the true 10 year cost, what is?”

I began with the information provided by Klein and look at the per person costs of the Baucus plan based on the projected estimation of the US population.  This review shows that the Baucus bill assumes that after adjusting for population, they have baked in an average of a 7% inflation rate from 2016 on.  I used this same 7% inflation rate and worked backwards from 2016 and further adjusted for the projected inflation.  I then did a calculation of what the Baucus bill might cost, with these assumptions, if it was fully implemented from day 1 in 2010.  The calculations are in the following spreadsheet:

Baucus cost

Column “B” is in 1,000’s, “D” and “E” are $.  The others are in billions.

Assuming a 7% inflation rate and increasing population growth, my calculation shows that if the Baucus bill were fully implemented on day 1 rather than 6 years later, the total cost for the 10 years would be well over President Obama’s commitment of $1 trillion dollars.  In fact, the cost would likely be $475 billion, 57% more than what was trumpeted by the Finance committee.  Rather than $829 billion dollars, the true 10 year cost would be over $1.3 trillion dollars!

Q: How do you hide $475 billion dollars? 

A: Claim to pay for the program for only 40% of the time!

October 19, 2009

Set Your DVR

by @ 10:42. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

The latest Rasmussen poll is in and it’s not good for Placebocare.  Only 42% now support “reform” that is anything but.  24% strongly support the legislation and 42% strongly oppose it.

While most of the numbers in the latest poll, other than support is back near its lowest level, haven’t changed, there is one statistic that I found very interesting.  When asked what effect the proposed legislation would have on the cost of health care, 18% answered that the legislation would cause those costs to decrease!  Who the heck are these people?  I can only believe that they are the same folks who believe that the final plan will be a “bipartisan plan!”

While the tact the Democrats will take to attempt to pass this atrocity is not yet certain, one thing is certain.  The last time the polling dipped towards the low 40’s% support, President Obama showed up in prime time to buoy it.  With insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations now coming out against Placebocare, the public momentum is not on the side of the Democrat’s.  If polling support drops below 40%, even the Democrats won’t be able to hold together to push this through.  Expect to see another prime time address from President Obama.  You can set your DVR by it!

This Just In….

by @ 5:33. Filed under Obama worship, Politics - National.

The latest White House attempt to marginalize Fox News was on display this weekend. In separate interviews, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod attempted to say that Fox really wasn’t news. They both went on to say that Fox does things to make money.

Quick, someone contact ABC, NBC and CBS!  I think we have a news flash!

There was a time where the “Big 3” nearly financed the rest of their viewing offerings with the money they made off of the commercial revenue of their nightly news broadcasts.  As recently as 1980, nearly 55 million people nightly, watched the Big 3 network news each evening.  Last year that number was down to 25 million.  In the latest week, less than 21 million people watched the Big 3, a drop of nearly 20% from just last year.  The chart below shows the steady downward trend of network news viewership of the past 3 decades:

news

If that all wasn’t bad enough, in a recent survey, the total percentage of people who identified one of the Big 3 as the news organization they turned to most was a combined 27.3%. That number for the Big 3 was down almost 3% from 2007. In the same survey, Fox news was identified as the news organization people turned to the most by 28.4%, up nearly 2% since 2007.

I’ll bet the White House thought the Big 3 folks generated “news” when they made lots of money.  Are they now saying that NPR is the only arbiter of what is and isn’t news?  I suppose with all of the newspapers that are going out of business due to lack of subscribers and profit, they could also be purveyors of “news?”

Does the White House really believe that their words will convince those who trust or rely on Fox news not to?  Well, if they believe we buy the line about our insurance not changing with Placebocare, I suppose they could believe this as well.  The problem is, too many folks have now learned the line and repeat each time they hear a whine from the White House about how someone has maligned them, “Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

October 16, 2009

Weekend hot read – Robert Stacy McCain’s “NY-23 EXCLUSIVE PROFILE: Conservative Doug Hoffman: ‘Citizen Who’s Had Enough'”

by @ 22:26. Filed under Politics - National.

Robert Stacy McCain took a look at the special election taking place in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, where a liberal Repubicrat, a no-name Democrat, and a Conservative Party candidate are vying for the seat vacated by freshly-minted Secretary of the Army John McHugh (R). I do have to point out that there are a bunch of political parties in New York, though everybody ultimately caucuses with one or the other of the major national parties. Let’s let Stacy pick up the tale mid-stream (you will need to go to The American Spectator to get the links, and trust me, you’ll want to follow the links):

The Democrats’ first-choice candidate begged off, leaving the party’s nomination to Owens, a Plattsburgh lawyer. What shocked and angered many Republicans — both in New York and nationwide — was the way the state GOP leadership hand-picked Scozzafava, a state legislator so liberal as to be to the left of many Democrats in Congress. Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin described Scozzafava as an “ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing.”

Hoffman has explained that Scozzafava’s connections with county GOP chairmen likely influenced the state party’s decision to choose her over eight other candidates seeking the Republican nomination. “It was an anointment . . . The party bosses, the lords of the backroom, made this selection,” Hoffman said Wednesday in an interview with reporters and bloggers….

Ninety percent of House Republican members have reportedly refused to donate to the Scozzafava campaign, and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana has notably refused to endorse her. When conservative Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, under pressure from House GOP leadership, spoke up in support of Scozzafava, he drew a firestorm of criticism from conservative bloggers.

Hammered by hard-hitting ads from Hoffman — as well as from the free-market Club For Growth, which has backed the Conservative Party candidate — Scozzafava’s campaign was reportedly nearly broke earlier this week. But Friday, the Republican National Committee confirmed to Congressional Quarterly that it had made a “six-figure” transfer to the NRCC in order to fund the Scozzafava campaign — producing yet another round of conservative denunciations of national GOP leadership. The grassroots outcry grew even louder when it was learned that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also supporting Scozzafava.

Go, read it all.

Can Obama Constitutionally accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

by @ 18:01. Filed under International relations, Law and order, Politics - National.

(H/T – Hot Air Headlines)

Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham address that in today’s Washington Post. Within the confines of a relatively-short column that is optimized for print (specifically, no links) and briefly goes beyond the bounds of the Nobel and into the Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit (Saudi Arabia’s highest honor) accepted by both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, it is in the main a decent look. Before I get to my non-scholary look, however, I do have a point of order to make – as far as the Enoulments portion of the Constitution is concerned, the Constitution, and the laws and regulations set within the bounds thereof, do not care whether the impetus for an award issued by a foreign government is for past actions or the hope of future actions. Other portions of the American body of law may well distinguish between the two, but the discussion of that point, or the merits (or lack thereof) of the award itself is not germaine to this post.

Like Routunda and Pham, I start with Article I, Section 9, which states, “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Obama does hold an office of Trust, specifically the Office of President. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which has announced that it will award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, is appointed by and reports to the Norwegian parliament, which makes it an agent of a foreign State.

Congress can pass a resolution consenting to Obama receiving the Peace Prize and all of its associated awards and gifts. If that is done, that would be the end of the Constitutional question. However, if that is not done, other mechanisms are in place to govern the implemtation of the Emoulment Clause.

While Routunda and Pham rely on a 1993 opinion from the White House Office of Legal Council that the clause applies when a foreign government acts through “instrumentalities”, I’ll head to 5 USC § 7342, which deals with the “(r)eceipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations”. By definition, the United States Code applies to the President, and also by definition, it defines a “foreign government” as:

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is appointed by the Storting, Norway’s Parliament, which makes it a unit of foreign governmental authority, and makes anything given by it subject to the United States Code.

Continuing with 5 USC § 7342, as well as the eCFR version of 41 CFR § 102-42 (current as of 10/14/2009, though I note that the official 2009 version of 41 CFR § 102 has not been released even though it was supposed to be released on 7/1/2009), it actually has different definitions for “gifts” and “decorations”, which is important because the 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million at current exchange rates) given to the Laureate is not part of the Nobel award ceremony, and the US Code defines the disposition of the two differently. It defines a “gift” as “a tangible or intangible present (other than a decoration) tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”, while it defines a “decoration” as “an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or award tendered by, or received from, a foreign government”.

While the US Code is silent on who the “employing agency” of the President is, 41 CFR § 102-42.70 states, “The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member of the President’s or Vice President’s family.” Do keep this in mind because I will come back to it.

Since the US Code deals first with the disposition of “gifts”, I will first deal with the cash prize. 5 USC § 7342(c)(1) gives automatic Congressional consent to four types of gifts: those with “minimal value” (defined as under $335 as of last year), travel outside the US if allowed by the employing agency regardless of value, those of any value if the gift is accepted on behalf of the United States and the gift is given to the United States government upon acceptance, and those above the “minimal value” if refusal of the gift would “likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States”.

In that last case, 5 USC § 7342(c)(2) says the person who accepts a tangible gift has 60 days to turn over that gift to his or her employing agency for disposal or official use. While 5 USC § 7342(e)(1) authorizes the employing agency to return the gift to the person who received it, 41 CFR § 102-42.20(b)(2)(ii) requires that all cash gifts that have “no historic or numismatic value” be deposited into the Department of the Treasury.

Allow me to restate that for those who missed the lengthy explanation – While Obama can accept the $1.4 million in cash without Congressional approval if he claims that refusing it would harm foreign relations with Norway, by law he must turn it over to the Department of the Treasury.

Now we can get to the Medal and Diploma, as well as the title itself. All three are inarguably “decorations” under the US Code. 5 USC § 7342(d) allows employees, including the President, to accept and keep decorations without specific Congressional consent only if they were “tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use, (or) for forwarding to the Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(1)….” Since the Code of Federal Regulations states that the National Archives and Records Administration handles gifts and declarations foreign governments give to the President, unless they decide that it is being awarded for “outstanding or unusually meritorious performance”, while Obama can still be the person to temporarily take possession of the award, he must by law do so on behalf of the United States instead of himself, and must relinquish everything to the National Archives.

I may not have access to Nexis-Lexus, but a quick search through both Yahoo News and Google News yields no sources saying that the National Archives has done so. Of course, there are several weeks left for them to do so, or alternatively for Congress to explicitly consent to Obama receiving the award.

Again, let me restate – Without either National Archives or Congressional approval, while Obama can temporarily take possession of the non-monetary instruments of the Nobel Peace Prize, he must by law do so not in his name but in the name of the United States, and then by law must relinquish all instruments of same to the National Archives.

October 14, 2009

The utter hypocrisy of the Nobody but Fucking Liberals gang (formerly known as the National Football League)

by @ 20:58. Filed under Politics - National, Sports.

What do you suppose the difference is between this…

NFL owners meeting in Boston this week approved (Stacy Ann “Fergie” Ferguson,) the Black Eyed Peas singer as a part owner, but the team has yet to complete an agreement with her, Dolphins chief executive officer Mike Dee said in an e-mail Tuesday.

…and this…

(Rush) Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a group headed by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts. Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh’s participation had become a complication in the group’s efforts and the bid will move forward without him….

Three-quarters of the league’s 32 owners would have had to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh’s potential bid would be met by significant opposition. Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh’s potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh’s bid….

At the NFL owners meetings this week in Boston, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed Limbaugh’s potential involvement in the league and said “divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.”

Goodell added: “I’ve said many times before, we’re all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL — absolutely not.”

I guess singing about being a nymphomaniac while being an ardent member of the ObamiNation counts for far more than decrying the gang infusion of the NFL (something that Mr. Jane Skinner is supposedly against) while not being a card-carrying, or any other kind of, member of the ObamiNation.

Complete this statement – “When history calls,…”

by @ 9:00. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

In case you haven’t heard the (lack-of-)reasoning Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) gave for voting for the Baucus Vaporware version of PlaceboCare, she said, “When history calls, history calls.” I’ve got my fair share of Morons that supposedly read this place, so I know you can do better than the second half of that.

Have at it, and don’t worry about keeping it clean. I’ll even get you started off right…

“When history calls, I take a shit the size of Rhode Island.”

October 12, 2009

Unprecedented Consensus

by @ 20:18. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

“Unprecedented consensus” from Republicans is what President Obama is calling the support of several RINOs and other Republicans who are not, and haven’t been in leadership roles for a number of years.

I don’t have much time to totally fisk his comments as I’m traveling and have little/weak wifi. Suffice to say it this way:

Drugs attached to the Presidency began with Bill Clinton claiming “he didn’t inhale.” They were elevated in stature when Barack Obama admitted he had tried cocaine. It now appears that drug use is regular fare at the White House. It’s the only way one could hallucinate any kind of “consensus” in support of placebocare amongst Republicans.

October 9, 2009

The appropriate award for the Norwegian Nobel Committee

by @ 12:25. Tags:
Filed under International relations, Politics - Milwaukee County, Politics - National, Politics - Wisconsin.

Charlie Sykes of 620 WTMJ here in Milwaukee named the Norwegian Nobel Committee the winner of this week’s Almost-Somewhat-Not-Quite-Deep-Enough Tunnel Award.

For those of you not familiar with the Deep Tunnel Award, it’s named after Milwaukee’s not-quite-deep enough Deep Tunnel, which was sold as a couple-million-dollar solution preventing sewage overflows into Lake Michigan and the local rivers during all except the 100-year rainfall while allowing portions of Milwaukee and Shorewood to keep combined sewers, and which turned out to be a $1 billion+ boondoggle that doesn’t even stop overflows from a twice-yearly rainfall and which is causing parts of downtown Milwaukee to sink into the ground. As Charlie says every Friday about 11:40 am when he awards it, it’s awarded to “the person, politician or institution who…is the most full of it”.

The Nobel Committee did beat out some stiff competition from:
– Wisconsin State Senator Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa), who is using a toughening of the drunk-driving laws to raise taxes.
– Congressman Steve Kagen (D-WI), who doesn’t want you or his fellow Congressmen to be able to view bills before they’re voted upon.
– Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee Holloway, who doesn’t let little things such as Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker explicitly telling David Duke to his face that he has no place in the Republican Party get in the way of comparing Walker to Duke.

In related news, the ultimate expiration date

by @ 11:06. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

I’ll simply let Jim Geraghty deliver the kicker (note; I somehow missed this yesterday, as did the rest of you given the lack of notes in Open Thread Thursday, so “today” is actually “yesterday”)…

The New York Times, today:

President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

That’s right; Obama is preparing to hand Afghanistan back to the people goat-fuckers whose wholescale destruction of non-Islamic religious symbols, use of soccer fields as mass public execution venues, and subjugation of women that would make even Iran’s Mad Mullahs blush made Afghanistan the number one place for Al Qaeda to relocate after they got kicked out of Somalia.

Your 2009 Nobel Piec…er, Peace Prize Winner is…

by @ 7:06. Tags:
Filed under International relations, Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

…Barack Hussein Obama II

No Runny Eggs has obtained the first draft of the award resolution:

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama II took the office of United States President on January 20, 2009 on the promise of Hope and Change, and…

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama II promised surrender to the Islamokazis, and…

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama II gave new hope to Communists worldwide, and…

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama II has encouraged Iran to pursue nuclear weapons with which it will wipe out the biggest threat to the Religion of Pieces, Israel, and…

Whereas Barack Hussein Obama II has ended American Exceptionalism,…

Therefore, we the idiots of the Nobel Piece Committee award Barack Hussein Obama II the Nobel Piece Prize.

I wish I were kidding about either the award or the reasoning, but the only thing that is semi-tongue-in-cheek is that first-draft resolution.

Revisions/extensions (7:19 am 10/9/2009) – Hot Air commenter reaganaut answers the inevitable baseball question – “Well, now we know Obama will win the AL Cy Young for throwing out that pitch.” What other undeserving awards will Obama get?

R&E part 2 (8:56 am 10/9/2009) – (H/T – Doug Mataconis) Daniel W. Drezner did one better by getting into the final deliberations of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. It is a must-read.

R&E part 3 (9:07 am 10/9/2009) – Read about just some of the nominees that lost out to President Present. What didn’t they do that Teh Won did? They didn’t support Communism and Radical Islam. In fact, several of those who didn’t make the final cut oppose Communists and Islamokazis.

R&E part 4 (9:26 am 10/9/2009) – Dr. Dave lists the new qualifications for the Nobel Piec…er, Peace Prize.

R&E part 5 (10:50 am 10/9/2009) – Steve Padilla over at the Los Angeles Times’ Top of the Ticket blog came through with the full text of the Nobel announcement:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Damn if that isn’t close to my exclusive first-draft resolution.

R&E part 6 (12:46 pm 10/9/2009) – A couple more for the linkage:
– Phineas put up a few more of Obama’s “accomplishments”, as well as the “qualifications” of a few recent Piec…er, Peace Prize winners.
– Slublog broke out the Slushop. I’ll give you just one of them; you’re going to have to go to Ace’s place for the rest.

R&E part 7 (12:57 pm 10/9/2009) – I bow to the master of Teh Funny, Iowahawk, who got a copy of Obama’s invitation to the Nobel Peace Player’s Club.

R&E part 8 (7:20 pm 10/9/2009) – I called this one even before I posted it here (see my first comment at the Hot Air thread) – The Wall Street Journal agrees with my assessment that it was an award for the end of American exceptionalism:

The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, called America the “indispensable nation” a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a “city on the Hill,” an example to the world.

Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world’s challenges, he emphasized yesterday, “can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation.” What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called “American exceptionalism.” This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary.

October 8, 2009

The doctors who don’t need to play dress-up

by @ 14:54. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Once again, the two doctors of the Senate, Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. and Sen. John Barrasso, M.D, will be taking to the Ustream airwaves at 4 pm Central (5 pm Eastern, 3 pm Mountain, check your watches on the Left Coast). They’ll likely be talking about the Baucus non-bill and the CBO’s scoring of said non-bill.

If you missed it; here’s the show courtesy YouTube…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdmGFzF-ME[/youtube]

Revisions/extensions (6:13 pm 10/8/2009) – Replaced the Ustream video of the previous show with the YouTube video of the current show.

October 7, 2009

Treatment of Illegal Aliens to Blame for Olympic Loss

by @ 5:54. Filed under International relations, Politics - National.

Now that the dust has settled on the selection of the 2016 Olympics, some of the delegates are providing some insight on why the Chicago bid failed.  According to this article, a Pakistani IOC member said that one of the reasons Chicago lost out was that entering the United States could be:

“a rather harrowing experience.”

President Obama was quick to point out that as President, things will change:

“One of the legacies I want to see is a reminder that America at its best is open to the world.”

Even the President of the US Travel association took the feedback seriously:

“When IOC members are commenting to our President that foreign visitors find traveling to the United States a ‘pretty harrowing experience,’ we need to take seriously the challenge of reforming our entry process to ensure there is a welcome mat to our friends around the world, even as we ensure a secure system.”

I’ve traveled to a few countries and have had the opportunity to experience how non residents are treated by their entry port agents.  I’ve also watched how our entry agents treat non residents entering the US.  I’m hard pressed to say that in comparison to other countries, entering the US is difficult.  Based on my observations, describing the US entry process as “harrowing” could only be done by someone who felt that a hangnail was a “harrowing” medical malady.

The only people who would generally find entrance to the US as “harrowing” are those who are attempting to do so illegally.  The irony is that Chicago is a sanctuary city and doesn’t care what the legal or illegal status of some one’s entry to the US was so even that shouldn’t have been an issue.  Maybe, in all the focus on themselves, the Obama’s forgot to mention that as a selling point to the IOC?

It’s For The Children!

by @ 5:43. Filed under Politics - National.

Hardly an issue goes by that the left doesn’t invoke “the children” as a reason to see things their way.

Healthcare Placebocare – It’s the Children

Stimulus plan – It’s the Children

Cap and Trade – It’s for the Children

Has the left ever seen anything that was bad “for the children?”  Apparently so.

In this audio posted by Breitbart, President Obama’s Safe School Czar, the same guy who seems to be generally OK with Man/boy relationships doesn’t know rape when he sees it, knows that heterosexuality is bad for the children.  At a 2000 GLSEN event, Kevin Jennings made the accusation that:

“Kids are being aggressively recruited to become heterosexual in this country.”

What?  No!  How dare they!!!

Oh….wait.  That’s a good thing isn’t it?  Not according to Kevin Jennings.  Listen to the whole clip below.

H/t Breitbart

October 6, 2009

More Talk About Placebocare

by @ 17:09. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Don’t miss the latest addition of the Senate Doctors show.  Unlike what’s contained in the various iterations of Placebocare, these guys actually know something about health care and how to provide reform that would actually be beneficial to Americans.  You can watch the latest episode below.

Free video chat by Ustream

First AstroTurf, now Placebos?

by @ 10:32. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Throughout the August recess, town halls across the country, were attended by grass root Americans who told their Representatives that they wanted no part of Obamacare.  As the pressure on the Representatives increased, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat leaders attempted to discredit the notion that this was real angst, from real Americans, that was being projected towards their Beltway Masters.  Rather, Ms. Pelosi asserted that the angst was all ginned up and that it was not real grass roots but rather AstroTurf.

“I think they are astroturf, you be the judge.“

Yesterday, President Obama staged another photo op in an attempt to convince folks that the country supports his takeover of health care.  President Obama had 150 doctors attend the photo op.  He tried to use these doctors as representatives of the entire medical industry.  Obama’s logic seems to be that if the doctors say the medicine to fix health care is good, than you should take it.  Except, there’s a bit of a problem with the foundation of his argument.

Turns out, most of the doctors at yesterday’s event (those who brought their white coats and those who had to have one assigned to them) were members of Doctors for America.  Turns out that Doctors for America is not a new group.  Nope, DFA is the new reincarnation of the former Doctors for Obama.

If Doctors for America, formerly Doctors for Obama, had previously drunk the kool-aid for hope and change, is there any credibility in their support for more ingestion of the sugary drink?

If Nancy Pelosi thought the Grass Roots attending the town hall were nothing more than AstroTurf, can I now assume that support from a medical group that had already drunk the kool-aid is not real medicine but just a placebo?

October 5, 2009

Something’s Missing

by @ 5:35. Filed under International relations, Politics - National.

Tooth brush?  Check!

Deodorant?  Check!

Clean suit?  Check!

Extra, clean white shirt just in case some frikadeller gets spilt? Check!

TOTUS?  Check!

Yes, President Obama and his aides packed everything they needed for the trip to Copenhagen.  They packed everything they needed to give an impressive presentation.  Unfortunately, for all their planning and packing, they did not bring the one thing that has provided President Obama and others from the Left, a shot at a voting victory.

Barack Obama and ACORN have been largely inseparable throughout his adult and political years.  The Wall Street Journals’s John Fund, documents that the Obama ACORN relationship goes back to at least 1991 when Obama ran a get-out-the-vote campaign for an ACORN affiliate.  Later, Obama would become ACORN’s attorney and a trainer for ACORN programs.  During his presidential campaign, Obama gave ACORN over $800,000 for what was ultimately identified as get-out-the-vote activities.  Any guess as to who the voters garnered by ACORN voted for?

Prior to the “save-the-prostitute” activities and the “bring-in-the-underage-sex-slaves” efforts that have been recently documented, ACORN was best known for it’s voter registration activities.  ACORN is currently under indictment for these later activites in 15 states.  That’s 15 states and counting.  There are numerous states, Minnesota being one, where ACORN registration activities have been at the least concerning, but where the Secretary of State refuses to do even the most rudimentary of investigations. 

Barack Obama hasn’t won an election where Chicago politics and/or ACORN weren’t at the center.  As much as his speeches and personal appeal may win votes, Barack Obama needs groups like ACORN to do the dirty work to ensure his victory.

The IOC is many things including political and at least at times, corrupt.  However, while political, they don’t care about Chicago politics and while corrupt, there have been no allegations of dead or fictitious people voting for the Olympic host city.  That left President Obama relying on the strength of his personal charisma to persuade the IOC voters to do what President Obama believed to be the right thing.

On the strength of Obama’s charisma, on the strength of his international popularity, Chicago was rejected in the first round, getting only 18 votes.  18 votes!  Giving Chicago only 18 votes was a clear sign that Obama’s charisma and popularity was not only lacking, it was rejected.

Each speech that President Obama has told the world that the US has been self centered and egotistic in its dealings with others, has been a snip in a self neutering surgery.  He’s repeated the US apologies so many times that if he has any stones left they have been mutilated beyond the point of having any effect.  The result is that Obama has left himself with little but his charisma and popularity in attempting to deal with international issues.

Iran is in the process of creating a nuclear bomb.  If, is not a question.  When, appears to be sooner than later.  The IOC rejected Obama’s charisma, do you expect Iran to be any more impressed?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]