[FOXNEWS] Secretary of State John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State... said Wednesday he will appoint a special department liaison to help Congress with unanswered questions about the 2012 fatal terror attacks on a United States outpost in Libya.
Kerry said the appointment will be made as early as Thursday, following repeated questions about the incident, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I strongly recommend FBI clean up man Special Agent Richard DesLauriers for the liaison job. He should be finished in Boston by the week end.
[Iran Press TV] The US Senate has rejected a bill to expand gun-buyer background checks, a victory for the country's top gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
... and a victory for the second amendment and the people of this great country!
[POLITICO] National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford's suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned -- a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor's dramatic comeback bid.
Blindsided by news that Sanford's ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford's behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.
"Mark Sanford has proven he knows what it takes to win elections. At this time, the NRCC will not be engaged in this special election," said Andrea Bozek, an NRCC spokeswoman.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What I can't understand is why the hell anyone from SC would have voted for the guy in the primary to begin with. Is SC an open primary state with Democrats voting for him, or something?
#2
Apparently his opponent in the primary run-off had problems. The voters decided the devil they knew was better. I am amazed that none of the other 13-odd candidates who ran in the primary were thought to be better.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2013 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am amazed that none of the other 13-odd candidates who ran in the primary were thought to be better.
#4
Er, huh, ....there is the unsightly Security Clearance Periodic Re-investigation, and the question of foreign travel and contact with foreign nationals.
[THEHILL] Sen. Lindsey Graham ... the endangered South Carolina RINO... (R-S.C.) has his first official primary challenger: Attorney Richard Cash (R) has announced he'll run against the senator.
Cash, a social conservative activist who narrowly lost a House primary runoff election to now-Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) in 2010, said Graham has lost touch with South Carolina values in announcing his candidacy on his website.
"I am running to replace Senator Lindsey Graham because I believe that after 20 years in Washington he is out of touch with South Carolina values and voters. Although Senator Graham might be hard-working and sincere, I cannot distinguish his core principles and can no longer trust his judgment," he said. "It is time for a new voice in Washington. We need a voice that represents Christian, conservative, and Republican principles instead of the latest bi-partisan 'deal' that simply makes matters worse."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
[THEHILL] Sen. Barbara Call me Senator! Boxer Senator-for-Life from Caliphornia... (D-Calif.) on Tuesday proposed legislation that would require hospitals to maintain a minimum nurse-to-patient ratio at all times, and allow the government to audit and penalize hospitals that fail to comply with this rule. And who better to supervise provision of medical care than a politician?
Boxer said her bill, S. 739, is meant to help address the nation's shortage of nurses, and would also ensure patients get the care they need while in the hospital. It sez that's the kinda thing the Senate's supposed to do right there in the Constitution. You could look it up if you don't believe me.
"I am proud to introduce legislation that will help save the lives of countless patients by improving the quality of care in our nation's hospitals," Boxer said Tuesday. "We must support the nurses ...and especially their unions...
who work tirelessly every day to provide the best possible care to their patients." "People are dying all around us! Dropping like flies!"
Her bill would apply to hospitals across the country that participate in Medicare and Medicaid, and is similar to bills that failed to advance in the last few Congresses.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just discharge the excess patients. That will take care of the patient/nurse ratio!
#7
Any you guys laughed at MY health care reform bill back in '92.
Geez, MY reform bill was much better than this mess. At least everyone understood what was in it and it WAS health care reform and not yet another bone thrown at the insurance industry and the greed and gluttony of the AMA.
When you look at health care policy, you realize we really do not have any overarching philosophy of health care, we just respond to bleeding heart stories, and knee jerk responses to health care problems.
Doesn't this moron realize there is a vast shortage of nurses world wide? Where in hell does she think we are going to get the nurses? AND what about the nursing schools in the US closing because they can't find faculty?
Okay Barbs, so do you staff for your maximum patient capacity and have nurses sitting around doing very little or do you staff for your average hospitalization rate and go to a temp agency when you have a spike in admissions?
Do you even understand what you are proposing?
Lord have mercy, we need a health care policy not a pile of health care legislation.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/18/2013 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Democrats petition businesses to have minimum employment levels, beginning with hospitals.
Sen. Max Baucus (Dumbocrat-Mont.) said Wednesday he fears a "train wreck" as the Champ administration implements its signature healthcare law. Routinely happens when you sign before you read.
Baucus, the chairman of the chamber's powerful Finance Committee and a key architect of the healthcare reform law, said he fears people do not understand how the law will work. The little people once again, failing to understand.
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," he told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Wednesday hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet."
Baucus pressed Sebelius for details about how the Health Department will explain the law and raise awareness of its provisions, which are supposed to take effect in just a matter of months. Oh, so it's a advertising and sales problem.
"I'm very concerned that not enough is being done so far -- very concerned," Baucus said.
#3
You know of course, the legislation is much too complex.
They should have broken this beast down into easily comprehensible pieces and enacted it in a logical order.
Now we have about six agencies and three departments of the Federal government writing legislation not counting the IRS who are licking their chops at getting their hands into our pockets for more money.
I think Baucus is right, the devil is in the implementation and what he sees he doesn't like.
The Democrats will repeal Obamacare before it is all said and done. When the entire thing falls apart, those who voted for this mess will have to run for cover or lead the charge to repeal it or get voted out.
As things stand the midterm elections are going to be very hard on the jackasses.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/18/2013 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There is a more fundamental and bigger problem: the ones who created the problem are declaring themselves the only ones qualified to fix the problem they created. This doesn't apply only to Obamacare, but also to illegal "immigration".
The solution for this KIND of problem is to REPLACE the people who created the problem with DIFFERENT people capable of FIXING the problem. The first step of implementing this solution is to RECOGNIZE the STUPIDITY of the people who created the problem.
In a democracy, the way of implementing the solution to the more fundamental problem is VOTING THE STUPID PEOPLE OUT. This is hindered at the outset by a complicit media who actively prevent the recognition of stupidity and the identification of the stupid. Citing Jefferson on his trust of a Free Press evades the fact that this Press is totally unlike the Press that locked horns with the government of Jefferson's day.
Obviously, in a democracy/republic, the ballot box is the preferred way of getting the stupid out, but it is not the ONLY way: The Declaration of Independence was a justification for the Bullet Box, the OTHER (admittedly much less preferable by all reasonable people) way. In recognition of this, the Declaration laid down markers by which one could distingush between a short-term stupid government and a malicious one (see this article on a red herring argument).
By the way, the applicability of the Declaration of Independence today needs to be viewed in the context of Merchantilism, which was an implementation of the BCG Matrix in the 18th century. In a nation implementing Merchantilism, colonies were seen as distant "cash cows" providing funds to the Monarch without the need of imposing taxes on the locals, and thus avoiding the risk of tax revolutions from local people. What the monarch forgot was that, like dirt under the rug, the potential for a tax revolution was not eradicated by merchantilism, but was merely displaced: If the English in Britain were treated exactly the same way as the British colonists in colonial America were, then the revolution would have happened in London, not Boston.
In our "politically correct" day, colonies in which merchantilism can be enthusiastically practiced (such as the Belgan Congo colony) is rightly condemned. BUT, because equal taxation in a high spending environment is political suicide, the Democrat/Socialist Left has implemented a class based merchantilism: AKA welfare, where cash is moved from the capable and productive to the voting lazy non-productive. If one sees the similarities between the implementation of British Merchantilism and the implementation of Welfare, then the arguments of the Declaration of Independence begin to make sense. What also makes sense is the hostility of government officials and workers to those who insist on adherence to the Constitution and the applicability of the Declaration of Independence: The British monarchy disliked the Declaration as well, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS.
It is truly argued that the Declaration of Independence is "not legally binding, since it is not the law of the land". Of course: it was NEVER made the Law of the Land, because laws can be abolished, and it is the nature of the Declaration of Independence to NEVER be abolished. "Laws", per se, are created by the Government and enforced by the Government, but the Declaration is a recognition of natural laws created by God and is intended to be enforced By The People. Governments create, enforce, and abolish laws, but the Declaration gives the People the right to create and abolish GOVERNMENTS. The continual references of those waging the Revolutionary War to the grace and actions of God helping the colonials to successfully throw off the British yoke were not spouting pious palatitudes and empty thanks: The success of the Revolution was seen as a Divine endorsement of the validity of the premises in the Declaration that moderated and informed the commands of Paul in Romans 13:1-7. Paul, in that passage, emphasized the positive side of government that obligated citizens to obey that government. The Declaration asserted that there was a flip side: a government that did NO good did not deserve obedience. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, denied such a flip side, but the founders argued that the success of the Revolution proved them right and him (and all liberal "c"hristians) wrong.
#11
Barack Obama can't pass gun control despite 90 per cent support. Truly, he is a lame-duck president - hat tip, TW
Liberal ire was particularly strong against the four Democrats who voted against the Toomey-Manchin background check compromise: Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Mark Pryor (Ark.). - hat tip Instapundit
It's still the United States of America not the Federal Urban Peoples Republic. The 'Liberals' aka neo-socialist believe party and orthodoxy first. In a truly representative republic the agents elected by the people respond to the desires of their constituencies. In such a governmental construct, those constituents come first before party. Those four Donks do not come from states dominated by urbanists hive mindsets or perspectives.
..and what is this 90% figure from? An Amercian Historian and a Constitutional Lawyer should tell you it is supposed to be difficult for government to pass laws; that's the point. In fact, the reason for the senate to have a term of 6 years is so they are able to make the tough decisions and be relatively isolated from the passions of elections. That is, insulated from the voters' emotions. Yet, still it failed. Somebody famous once said, "The system worked."
#15
More specifically where did the 90% figure come from because I seriously doubt support for it is so high. Perhaps 90% in manhattan, DC or a federal prison but no among the general civilian population
#18
At least Sen. Mark Begich D-Alaska voted against the bill. That shows at least basic political survival instinct. Next we will have to deal with the mutant 1500 page so-called immigration bill.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2013 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Sounds like liberal lawmakers are clinging bitterly to their laws and legislation.
#21
We will keep our heat. The people your DHS Spanish speaking people are training south of the border in El Salvador are the kind of people we do not trust.
#22
By combining, apparently in his head and on the fly, the demonstrably inaccurate 80,000 plus people a year with the debunked claim that 40% of gun sales in America dont require a background check, Mr. Biden reaches the completely unverifiable claim that between 30,000 and 50,000 who get a gun who are not qualified. Probably higher. That claim, the child of two other blatantly inaccurate claims used to forward gun control agendas, is, of course, itself used to forward a gun control agenda.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/18/2013 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#23
"Truly, he is a lame-duck president."
That's his general everyday description.
You're a whiny-assed little girl, Bambi. (Apologies to little girls everywhere.)
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/18/2013 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#24
From the CBS poll I looked at on April 16, if they asked people if they were for gun control about 90% said "yes".
But if they asked people if they if they were in favor of the current gun control laws being voted on, support fell to below 47%.
The bill concerning transportation of guns accross state line had about 51% support. All other seperate bills recieved less than 46% support.
Out of some lefty's ass, rjschwarz. (Theass that sits on top of his neck.)
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/18/2013 20:20 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Gun control is the ability to control your weapon so the bullet goes where you want it to go.
Gun control laws are enacted to direct law abiding citizens from owning or using firearms.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2013 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#27
How do they get 90%?
Q: "In light of the deaths of innocent children at Newtown, reasonable people are recommending common sense safe measures like extended background checks...and a list of gun owners. Are you in favor of these common sense safe measures that could save those dead children fluffy bunnies and unicorns? You are in favor, right?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2013 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[FOXNEWS] Secretary of State 
Lindsey Graham
Barbara 
