CNS News reports:
The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs — annual operation and maintenance positions — meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs. {Read the entire piece}
<>
…but asserts that the Governor is bound by the Constitution, even when it comes to declaring a war:
After Senator Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney, he got grief from a lot of his libertarian supporters, especially after the GOP nominee stated that the president can wage war on Iran without Congressional approval. Anyone wondering how Sen. Paul would react, as I’ve been doing, need wait no longer. In a piece published Tuesday afternoon at National Review Online, he reiterated his dissatisfaction with President Obama’s domestic agenda, and then proceeded to write:
… I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war. The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war. Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict. No president is above the law or above the Constitution.
Paul criticized the Obama Administration’s foreign policy too:President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever. I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken. I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy.
As interesting as the piece itself is its venue, National Review Online’s group blog, The Corner, which isn’t generally friendly to non-interventionists. The comments beneath the post were as heated as you’d expect.
<>
…in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. The Blaze elaborates:
Rather than serving as a discriminatory practice, the new policy is intended — at least according to Major John Diggs who oversees the chaplain program — as an effort to respect people of all faiths.
“[It’s a] matter of respecting that people may have different faiths and that it is not aimed at any one religion or denomination,” Diggs told WSOC-TV.
But while Diggs claims that the decision is rooted in not offending non-Christians and that it is not geared toward any particular denomination, some are voicing their disapproval. Take, for instance, Pastor Terry Sartain, who is the senior faith leader at Horizon Christian Fellowship and who has been a chaplain with the police department for seven years.
Sartain was scheduled to speak recently at a government event where he planned, as per usual, to use Jesus’ name in his invocation. Just before the event, he received a phone call informing him of the new-found ban. Naturally, he was saddened and made the decision not to attend the event.
“When I heard this I was sad,” he explained. ”I asked if I could withdraw, because Jesus is the only thing I have to bless people with.”
In the end, the pastor was told that his decision not to attend and pray at the event will hurt his standing as a chaplain. Despite this incident, Sartain pledges to stay with the ministry, as he believes his work with the police officers is important. That being said, he has asked to have his name removed from the roster of individuals who would offer up public prayers at local events.
Despite some protesting, some, like Jim Groquist, a former Methodist minister and a lawyer and member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are elated.
“It’s improper to mix up religion with the function of state agents, and as long as they’re state agents, they should not be able to do that,” he proclaimed after learning of the news.
<>
This is what Sen. Rand Paul said in response to those who think he has compromised his agenda:
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul wants people to know that his endorsement of Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination does not signify an abandonment of his libertarian political beliefs.
When Paul endorsed Romney on Fox News last week, many supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential bid took great offense. But Rand Paul said in an interview with Daily Paul Radio that he was “compromising on strategy, not on principle.”
“My participating and saying that I will support the nominee doesn’t change me at all or any of the issues that I’m fighting for, but it does change the ability of us, or the liberty movement, to have a voice in what becomes here,” Paul said. “We have the ability to have more say and more influence by saying that we will ultimately support the nominee.”
He told Daily Paul Radio that his recent record of pushing bills that would end the Transportation Security Administration, audit the Federal Reserve System and ban drone surveillance over the United States without a warrant shows that he has not abandoned his beliefs, and that there is a difference between politics and governance.
“I guess what I would say to detractors is that we need to focus on the issues and moving forward and not be too caught up in politics, which is a messy business and not always what everybody wants it to be,” he said.
Paul also urged delegates who have pledged their support to his father Rep. Ron Paul to still support the Texas Republican, as a way to influence the platform at the Republican National Convention.
He said that he waited to endorse Romney until his father’s campaign announced it would not have enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination, and that anyone who doubts his commitment to the Paul campaign is misguided.
“I sort of take it as an insult that people think that somehow I don’t support my father or haven’t done an adequate job in the sense that I have traveled thousands of miles and been to thousands of speeches both with him and by myself,” the senator said. “And so I think there’s probably nobody in the liberty movement that has done more to support my dad than myself.”
Paul cited a few reasons for his endorsement, including Romney’s promise to give all 50 states waivers from President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, and his support for auditing the Federal Reserve.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/rand-paul-endorsing-romney-was-compromising-on-strategy-not-on-principle/#ixzz1xmlRJbf7<>
In the modern world, our pagan states are at war with their own peoples. Sometimes an enemy country harms us, but it seems that people all over the world can depend on their own country to be constantly at war with them. But what else can you expect from godless states? The answer is not a futile resistance but to re-Christianize one’s country. Until then, a godless state will only do evil. —R.J. Rushdoony<>
Robert Wenzel elaborates on Rand’s rather strange endorsement of Romney on the Hannity Show:
By far, I think the most damaging thing Rand Paul did last week was attempt to link the Mitt Romney views on the Fed as being the same as those of his father.
In second place, I don’t put Rand’s endorsement of Romney (I put that in third place). In second place, I put these words said by Rand during the same Sean Hannity Show where he endorsed Romney:
My dad has a legion of young followers who are on the internet, and they think they rule the internet. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t.
Perhaps he was just talking out loud about his calculations as to how damaging his endorsement of Romney will be to him among internet followers of his father. But there also seems to be a cockiness to his words. It’s as if he has made the calculation and dismissed the internet followers of his father. He sounds as though he has calculated his internet support is stronger (or will be) than that of principled libertarians on the internet. He’s almost taunting the internet libertarians who follow his father.Even Business Insider gets how dangerous a move this is:
Hindsight may show that these remarks underscored some serious political hubris. Rand Paul’s political clout depends, in part, on his ability to rally these grassroots internet activists, and get them to make noise and moneybombs.
Does Rand have an internet following that is larger than his father’s?At this point, I don’t think so. The only way he could grow such, as far as I can see, is through more sellouts, perhaps to the warmongering evangelicals. Is that Rand’s plan, to diss his father’s base and carefully choose what libertarian principles he will sell out?It’s one thing to build coalitions on top of a libertarian base, but Rand’s comment suggests that this is not his plan. It sure sounds like he is throwing the followers of his father overboard, in a grab for power via sellout.
<>
Have you ever noticed how almost all the leftist politicians who hate and want to punish the rich with draconian tax increases…are filthy rich themselves? Confusing, isn’t it?
Actually, once you know the truth it’s really quite easy to understand.
Take France’s new Socialist President Francois Hollande. He never stops talking about his dislike and disgust for the rich. He is almost more obsessed with hate for the rich than Obama is. Yet it turns out Hollande is…drumroll please…filthy rich himself.
<>
Charles Pena writes decisively that it was not and is not. He concludes:
Not only is al-Qaeda not a threat to the United States in Afghanistan, but it’s not much of a threat to the United States period. Bin Laden’s desire to assassinate President Obama because “killing him automatically makes Biden take over the presidency. … Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will led the U.S. into a crisis” seems more like wishful thinking with a hint of desperation.
Moreover, bin Laden was concerned about all the various al-Qaeda offshoots (under the umbrella of the al-Qaeda name, but not under bin Laden’s direct control) because they were killing Muslims in Muslim countries and not focusing on America. He worried that “it would lead us to winning several battles while losing the war at the end.” In other words, to the extent that al-Qaeda was (or is) a threat, it’s more of a local threat to Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq than a global threat to America. More than 10 years after 9/11, how ironic is that?
<>
McDurmon summarizes:
Examiner.com reports a statement released by the Paul campaign after its supporters overcame further attempts at cheating by the GOP establishment, then physical assaults, and won most of the delegates anyway:
“The Ron Paul campaign condemns the unfortunate activities that took place at the Louisiana Republican State Convention in Shreveport.
“However, we also wish to highlight and applaud the fact that the convention ended on a high note reflective of the cooperation all Republicans wish to see toward the mutual aim of defeating President Obama in the November general election.
“The unnecessary conflict, and positive conclusion as we understand it, transpired as follows.
“LAGOP officials ignored the vast majority of duly elected delegates and attempted to use illegally adopted rules to deny Ron Paul supporters an opportunity to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Louisiana has 46 delegates. Five were pledged to Mitt Romney based on the March 23rd primary result and Rick Santorum received 10, meaning most delegates were contestable at the state convention.
“Delegates to the state convention were chosen at caucus meetings on April 28th. Ron Paul slates won four of six congressional district contests. Of the approximately 180 delegates attending the state convention, 113 voted to remove the LAGOP chairman when he failed to respond to requests for information and other motions from delegates. Nearly two-thirds of the delegates began physically moving their chairs, literally turning their back on the GOP chair appointed by the party hierarchy.
“In another instance, State Central Committeeman and Ron Paul supporter Henry Herford Jr. of Franklin Parrish was attacked by some security officials who didn’t realize that the body had voted out the previous chairman. Mr. Herford has a prosthetic hip and according to a doctor at the scene it appears as though the prosthetic was dislocated and may require replacement. The injury occurred as he was beginning to call to order the newly re-formed convention.
“In yet another instance, Ron Paul supporter Alex Helwig, Chairman of the Rules Committee who made the motion to remove the chair, was arrested by Shreveport police and released. During his brief detainment, some of his fingers were broken and when he returned to the event he was walking with aid of a cane.
“By 10:50 a.m. today, the newly formed convention completed its work. Newly-elected national delegates met with the Romney campaign’s Louisiana Chairman, Scott Sewell, who graciously said ‘that he supported the effort and would do everything he could to make sure the delegation was seated’ in Tampa.
<>
Kuyperian Commentary Podcast
