Below are 2 websites your may find of interest. The first is an avenue for people to get active in the campaign to fix the nation’s debt. The second is a petition that can be signed to bring a Presidential debate on the debt and each candidate’s solutions. I do not think that there is a partisan slant to either, you decide!
Obama and imperialism. What Constitution? (See 1 below.)
Any group that votes overwhelmingly for a particular candidate above, say 75%, either is not thinking, are incapable of reasoning or have become slaves. That is just what black Americans have become and Rep. Col. West is right in pointing it out as I have been for years.
It is understandable that certain segments of society have favorites but when the vote tally exceeds 90% something is amiss. Black Americans are suffering the most under a black president so something must be wrong with the model and it starts with lack of education, breakdown of the family and government dependence - all brought upon them by Progressive thinking and Liberal policies that bought them off and destroyed their prospects for all that hope and change mirage.
Liberals have been sending this cynically subtle message to black Americans for decades suggesting they are incapable and inferior and thus need handouts, special consideration and government largess because they cannot stand on their own two feet. Black Americans bought into this tripe and demeaning message because the Sharpton's and Jackson's sold them on it as they engaged in shaking down American Corporations in order to line their own pockets.
Liberals, supported by their fellow advocates in the press and media, have done black Americans a disservice by telling them they are lesser beings and Conservatives have been vilified for wanting to treat them as anyone else.
That was Romney's recent message for the NAACP attendees and I suspect many are beginning to see through the charade perpetrated on them by Liberals who bought their vote with tax payer money.
Liberals have played the "Trojan Horse" game with the consequence black Americans have been screwed over!
But if you do believe you can trust a benign government ask an American Indian.
Back from Denver and Cheyenne but off to Tybee to be with some of our kids and our two new granddaughters for a week.
Your reprieve , therefore, will continue.
1)Strassel: Obama's Imperial Presidency
When Congress won't do what he wants, he ignores it and acts anyway.
The ObamaCare litigation is history, with the president's takeover of the health sector deemed constitutional. Now we can focus on the rest of the Obama imperial presidency.
Where, you are wondering, have you recently heard that term? Ah, yes. The "imperial presidency" of George W. Bush was a favorite judgment of the left about our 43rd president's conduct in war, wiretapping and detentions. Yet say this about Mr. Bush: His aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power—the commander-in-chief function.
By contrast, presidents are at their weakest in the realm of domestic policy—subject to checks and balances, co-equal to the other branches. Yet this is where Mr. Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Mr. Obama working with Congress. The more "persistent pattern," Matthew Spalding recently wrote on the Heritage Foundation blog, is "disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action."
Put another way: Mr. Obama proposes, Congress refuses, he does it anyway.
For example, Congress refused to pass Mr. Obama's Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some not here legally. So Mr. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to no longer deport certain illegal immigrants. This may be good or humane policy, yet there is no reading of "prosecutorial discretion" that allows for blanket immunity for entire classes of offenders.
Mr. Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana. Congress has not repealed the law. No matter. The president instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, yet rather than get Congress to repeal it, he stops defending it in court. He dislikes provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, so he asked Congress for fixes. That effort failed, so now his Education Department issues waivers that are patently inconsistent with the statute.
Similarly, when Mr. Obama wants a new program and Congress won't give it to him, he creates it regardless. Congress, including Democrats, wouldn't pass his cap-and-trade legislation. His Environmental Protection Agency is now instituting it via a broad reading of the Clean Air Act. Congress, again including members of his own party, wouldn't pass his "card-check" legislation eliminating secret ballots in union elections. So he stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with appointees who pushed through a "quickie" election law to accomplish much the same. Congress wouldn't pass "net neutrality" Internet regulations, so Mr. Obama's Federal Communications Commission did it unilaterally.
In January, when the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Obama's new picks for the NLRB, he proclaimed the Senate to be in "recess" and appointed the members anyway, making a mockery of that chamber's advice-and-consent role. In June, he expanded the definition of "executive privilege" to deny House Republicans documents for their probe into the botched Fast and Furious drug-war operation, making a mockery of Congress's oversight responsibilities.
This president's imperial pretensions extend into the brute force the executive branch has exercised over the private sector. The auto bailouts turned contract law on its head, as the White House subordinated bondholders' rights to those of its union allies. After the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Justice Department leaked that it had opened a criminal probe at exactly the time the Obama White House was demanding BP suspend its dividend and cough up billions for an extralegal claims fund. BP paid. Who wouldn't?
And it has been much the same in his dealings with the states. Don't like Arizona's plans to check immigration status? Sue. Don't like state efforts to clean up their voter rolls? Invoke the Voting Rights Act. Don't like state authority over fracking? Elbow in with new and imagined federal authority, via federal water or land laws.
In so many situations, Mr. Obama's stated rationale for action has been the same: We tried working with Congress but it didn't pan out—so we did what we had to do. This is not only admission that the president has subverted the legislative branch, but a revealing insight into Mr. Obama's view of his own importance and authority.
There is a rich vein to mine here for GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Americans have a sober respect for a balance of power, so much so that they elected a Republican House in 2010 to stop the Obama agenda. The president's response? Go around Congress and disregard the constitutional rule of law. What makes this executive overreach doubly unsavory is that it's often pure political payoff to special interests or voter groups.
Mr. Obama came to office promising to deliver a new kind of politics. He did—his own, unilateral governance.
2)Romney at the NAACP
Next time he should go over the heads of the liberal black elite.
Mitt Romney dared to speak to the NAACP convention on Wednesday, and for his trouble the Republican earned headlines reporting that he had been booed for some of his remarks. There's a lesson here about Republicans and the black liberal establishment.
President Obama won 96% of the black vote in 2008, and no one thinks Mr. Romney is going to do much better than John McCain did. But the GOP candidate still deserves credit for making the attempt. A President represents the whole country, and voters like to see a candidate who speaks inclusively.
Mr. Romney may even win a few converts with his message, which stressed economic opportunity and education reform. He pushed hard for school choice, especially the promise of charter schools, though it's too bad he didn't press vouchers for private schools as forcefully as he did this spring.
The mistake is thinking that the NAACP represents average black voters. While it has a venerable history through the civil-rights struggle, the group has become a partisan liberal operation that is less and less relevant to the real problems of black America.
The group supports the usual government transfer programs that lead to permanent dependency, rather than the empowerment that is the only path to advancement for the black poor. That's why Mr. Romney was booed. To most of the NAACP activists, the black agenda these days is defined entirely by how much a candidate is willing to tax and spend. The far more important civil-rights struggle of our time is education reform, but that would mean breaking with the NAACP's union allies.
Mr. Romney is right to fight for the black vote, but he'd probably have more success if he ignored the usual black liberal gatekeepers and went directly to the neighborhoods that need education reform and more economic uplift. Visit a successful charter school that needs a better building, or a community college trying to retrain high school drop outs, or a small business in Detroit struggling against the odds.
The comfortable elites at the NAACP will never support a Republican. The people who understand the hardship of the status quo just might.