The answer to the census question may be decided by the Supreme Court, but watch Obama’s clandestine maneuvers to assign “responsibility” for the census from the Secretary of Commerce to the White House.
“The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.”
As I read it, the Director of the Census must, by law, be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the (Senate approved) Secretary of Commerce who then reports to the president. Am I missing something? Correction: From reading through Title 13, Chapter 1 it appears obvious to me that the POTUS has no role in the census whatsoever beyond, with Senate approval, selecting the Secretary of Commerce and, also with Senate approval, selecting the Director of the Census who ” shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by law, regulations, or orders of the Secretary.” Hhmmm… No president mentioned.
The Secretary of Commerce is the only authority the law recognizes. Since as commenter Laird points out, the Constitution did not place the census function in Article II - the Executive branch but in Article I - the Legislative branch, it is not at all within the President’s reach unless the legislature places it there.
And watch for Obama to still try and put ACORN in charge of the census ….
Any question about WHY there are so many Obama-watch sites on the web???
HERE’S a good question: why doesn’t Obama tell us specifically HOW this money will resolve his “now or never” crisis? We won’t see any jobs outta this political payback package for years.
– Obama has again voted “present” on this bogus stimulus plan. How to hype a crisis in two steps …. So where exactly is the change we (?) hoped for??? Forget it. It’s the same ole way with a Chicago twist ….
– BREAKING: Obama tells Gates to “stand down” on the troop surge in Afghanistan …..
Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.
And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.
The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."
Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.
For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) made a round of calls yesterday to freshman Democrats, some of whom recently returned from trips to Iraq and made news with their positive comments on military progress. "I'm not finding any wobbliness on the war -- at all," Emanuel said.
The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, pleading: "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."
"For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House press secretary who is helping to head Freedom's Watch.
GOP leaders have latched on to positive comments from Democrats -- often out of context -- to portray the congressional majority as splintering. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), an Armed Services Committee member who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said many of her colleagues learned a hard lesson from the Republican campaign.
"I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."
"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.
But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator John Edwards issued a scathing attack on Clinton's remark. But he said there has been "progress in Al-Anbar province."
"Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. "You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning."
Sounds as if the Fat Lady will be allowed to sing that song after all.
Yeah. Maybe to John McCain 75% of Americans are a "small wing," but I'd hate to meet the big bird they loft.
McCain is wrong.
The Immigration Reform Bill was not defeated by a "small wing" of Republicans. It was defeated by a coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. A very large coalition, Senator.
Senator John McCain says it was an organized and vocal opposition in his party that kept the immigration bill from going forward last week.
“I think that the Senate works in a way that relatively small numbers can block legislation,” the Republican presidential candidate told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview aired Sunday. “But I also think that the — particularly the more conservative anti-immigrant, anti-legislation group were very well backed up by a very vocal group of people that were supporting them.”
Stephanopoulos should have corrected McCain, but didn't. He could have at least have asked McCain to compare the small coalition with the coalition that drafted the bill behind close doors .... He didn't.
When asked by Stephanopoulos how he would like history to judge him, McCain said as, “A person who served his country.”
Indeed, Senator McCain. You have indeed served your country. At ease, Sir. You may now stand down.
God forgive them if this is true. I certainly won't.
If this is true, the Sunshine Patriots have now stooped to the lowest of lows in politcal gotcha's. They have demonstrated where their allegiance lies -- not with the American people, but with their own politics and their collective hatred of George W. Bush.
FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed to respond appropriately ..... Why DID local authorities NOT ask for immediate federal assistance? Were the LA governor and New Orleans mayor taking cues from the DNC in a(nother) attempt to sacrifice human lives in order to discredit George Bush?
This blogger (who, coincidentally lost two friends in that tragedy) believes that BDS and the blind-hatred of George Bush are far stronger motivations than any regard for the lives and safety of the American people.
Why did Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius subsequently withdraw her charge(s) that critical National Guard equipment had been sent to Iraq?
This is a radio interview of the breaking story from Hannity Radio.
Check out the ONLINE trail of posts, letter from a DNC attorney to FreePress and the radio station, and comments from PowerLine blog.
I was listening to the Quinn & Rose show this morning on XM radio when Host, Jim Quinn told his audience that Howard Dean called Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath.
He also said that she, Gov. Sebelius, called Senator Sam Brownback's office only to learn he wasn't there but then called him on his cell phone and reached him while he was in his car were she confessed to him that she had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for the lack of immediate response.
That would explain her public statements to the press that proved later to be untrue. She made statements to the effect that the Iraq war and the deployment of the national guard units to Iraq from her state has left Kansas without the equipment and man power needed to respond more quickly to the tornado's aftermath. This all turns out to be false and the governor herself has back tracked on her own claims.
Mr. Quinn also revealed that she confessed to Brownback that she couldn't pass up such an opportunity like this to attack the President whose approval ratings, in this hostile political climate, is so low.
These revelations are startling and if true should call into question the governors competence and her judgment. Quinn adamantly stressed that his source, who he didn't name because he was sure it would jeopardize his job, was extremely reliable and in a position that would give him direct knowledge of these revelations.
The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons, we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original story appeared.
Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you intend to comply with these requests.
The attorney who sent the letter on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies. Here's why.
Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not.
Accordingly, our reader's Free Republic post based on the statements of Jim Quinn is constitutionally immune from a defamation claim. Whether Quinn and those who broadcast his program have such immunity is a different question, but the same constitutional protection applies to them. Professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh coincidentally makes a closely related point based on the Sullivan case today.
"Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public concern.
Sandler's letter to Free Republic incorporates no element of "actual malice." It is couched in the traditional common law of defamation that the Supreme Court killed for public figures in the Sullivan case. Sandler's letter carries Governor Dean's denial of Quinn's assertions, but it does not even allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.
We therefore associate ourselves with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.
I have minimal legal background, but wholeheartedly concur. No entity -- especially Howard Dean and the DNC -- has the right to control the blogosphere. So sue us, too. Sue every blogger who dares to exercise their right to speak.
Maybe Brownback will be asked to comment about this during the debate on Thursday. He should be.
Maybe it is also time to revisit the Katrina tragedy -- with a review of actual cell phone and email records from the DNC to LA.
The Over-the-Hill Oracles are ready when they are.
If the voters in Nevada don't have the clout to demand a recall, if the Senate does not have the will to vote Harry Reid OUT as Majority Leader, then Republicans and Democrats who support our troops MUST encourage Joe Lieberman to either switch parties or caucus with Republicans.
Will he?
Lieberman is not a Sunshine Patriot. But whether he has the courage to take an affirmative, positive step toward saving our troops and our national security remains to be seen.
Harry Reid must go. By replacing him as Senate Majority Leader, a balance in Congress will be achieved and dems will be deterred from using the WOT as a tool of political revenge against George Bush.
Credit and more info (email address and phone numbers): Perish the Thought
Send this message to your representative by email. If your rep is listed as a Sunshine Patriot, fax the link to Bob's site or the YouTube link. Do everything you possibly can to let your representative know that YOU SUPPORT FUNDING THE TROOPS WITHOUT TIMELINES or DEADLINES FOR WITHDRAWAL!!
I'm ashamed of the members of Congress who recently voted to support a "non-binding" resolution criticizing our involvement in Iraq; in effect, sending a message of encouragement to our enemies. I refer to these elected officials as sunshine patriots.
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.
Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?
This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.
And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.
This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.
If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?
Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.
Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?
As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."
As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.
And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.
If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?
On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.
The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.
Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.
They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.
As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.
Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.
You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit The Fight."
"The Summer Soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country..."
~Thomas Paine
Sunshine patriots come in all shapes, sizes, political affiliations and positions of leadership. The focus on this blog shall be those elected leaders who have seemingly forgotten who they represent. Too many of our legislators have placed their own careers and egos above the basic needs of their constituients. They have failed to hear the voices of those who elected them ....
