Is Chris Dodd retiring due to his habitual lying? YEP!

I guess he knows, his time is up. I wonder if Obama Baby, was talking to all these old codgers, when said it was time for some to step aside and let others lead? With all the announcements of folks choosing not to run for re-election, it appears some are getting the word. Maybe Pelosi and Reid will see the writing too. This admins agenda and the rampant spending is going to cost seats in congress. Was this all a grand plan to enslave the American citizens? IMHO Definitely!

Following are some prognostications from the Heritage Foundation a very reliable source.

Quote:

Why the Stimulus Failed

The Democratic Party was shaken to its core on Tuesday when Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO) announced they would not run for re-election in 2010, all on the same day. The source of these Democrats’ fears in facing the American people at the polls is no secret: the American people believe the state of the economy is poor and getting worse. Responding to this dismal environment, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told the Fremont Tribune on Tuesday: “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.” While we agree with Nelson that President Barack Obama’s health care priorities have been grossly misplaced, we shudder to think what more “time on the economy” would have meant from this White House.

Recent Entries How Big A Failure Was Copenhagen? China Is Not America’s Banker Let’s Make a Deal: Immigration Reform Unions Using Obamacare to Punish Small Business Beware a Public Health Plan in Private Disguise

Just last month in a speech to The Brookings Institution, President Obama outlined his proposal for a third round of stimulus funding on top of the $787 billion stimulus he signed into law last February. Third stimulus you say? Yes, third stimulus. Any fair accounting of government deficit spending in response to this recession must also include President George Bush’s failed 2008 $168 billion economic stimulus bill. Why did these first two economic stimuli fail? For the same reason any third stimulus will also fail: government spending does not inject any new money into the economy. Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Brian Riedl explains: Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. … Yes, government spending can put under-utilized factories and individuals to work–but only by idling other resources in whatever part of the economy supplied the funds. If adding $1 billion would create 40,000 jobs in one depressed part of the economy, then losing $1 billion will cost roughly the same number of jobs in whatever part of the economy supplied Washington with the funds. It is a zero-sum transfer regardless of whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent. The fact that the money for government spending does not just fall from the sky is no secret. As Senior Research Fellow Ronald Utt has detailed, multiple government entities acknowledge this fact, including the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service, who concluded: To the extent that financing new highways by reducing expenditures on other programs or by deficit finance and its impact on private consumption and investment, the net impact on the economy of highway construction in terms of both output and employment could be nullified or even negative. Like government spending, the wrong kind of tax cuts can also be worthless in spurring economic growth. Riedl explains: Many tax cutters commit the same fallacy as do government spenders when asserting that tax cuts spur economic growth by “putting spending money in people’s pockets.” Similar to government spending, the tax-cut cash does not fall from the sky. It comes from reduced investment and a higher trade deficit (if financed by budget deficits) or from government spending (if offset by spending cuts). Permanent cuts to marginal to high marginal tax rates can encourage more business investment and economic growth. But Bush’s 2008 tax cuts and Obama’s 2009 tax cuts were both just tax rebates which, especially when they are given to people with no tax liability to begin with, are economically indistinguishable from government spending. The economy’s own self-correcting mechanisms have already begun to move the economy out of recession. Now is no time to stall the recovery before it gets going with another round of deficit spending on top of our existing $1.4 trillion deficit. QUICK HITS After seven Senators sent a letter to the White House demanding to know what the Obama administration knew about Transportation Security Administration nominee Erroll Southers’ misleading statements to Congress about his improper personal use of FBI databases (and when they knew it), the White House admitted they did not know about Southers’ misstatements until this November. Democrat Mayor Sheila Dixon of Baltimore, who was convicted of embezzlement last month, said she will resign from office in early February. In his State of the State address on Wednesday night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the Senate health care bill was filled with “bribes, deals and loopholes” and added: “California’s congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk.” For the second day in a row, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs continued to dodge questions about President Barack Obama’s broken promise to the American people to have health care negotiations on C-SPAN. New York City projects that the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other suspects in civilian court will cost them more than $400 million. comment print forward donate FIX HEALTH CARE POLICY Get all the latest health care news as the battle heats up in Washington. It will be constantly updated as we get news. Click here for the latest on health care. Know anyone who shares your conservative values and principles and may want to receive The Heritage Foundation newsletters? Please refer them to Heritage today! Facebook Twitter YouTube The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002 Call us at 202-546-4400

Kentucky's Answer to Unconstitutional Federal Actions

There is indeed nothing new under the sun. The answer to the federal government's current expansion far beyond the limits set by the Constitution lies in Thomas Jefferson's response to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The Sedition Act blatantly ran afoul of the First Amendment by forbidding any speech against the government. It stated in part.

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish ... writings against the government of the United States, ... then such person, being thereof convicted ... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Over the course of the past two hundred and twenty-two years, we have forgotten many of the basic principles that were fresh in Thomas Jefferson's mind when he drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions lay out the proper response to the federal government's unconstitutional actions and are quoted in the sections below.

Foremost of the forgotten principles is the fact that the states were fully autonomous before uniting under a contract known as the Constitution. Each state voluntarily gave up a portion of its sovereignty, but never surrendered it completely, in joining the United States. Thus, every state is a party to the Constitution, with the other states as co-parties. Here are some excerpts from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution ... they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government.

The Constitution is the equivalent of a partnership agreement, with the states as partners and the federal government as managers and employees. Take for instance Benny and Gerald, who wish to form a partnership selling ice cream. Each agrees to contribute certain amounts of money and time and set up a framework for the duties of managers and employees to run the business. The managers and employees work for Benny and Gerald, not the other way around. Let's assume that the partnership agreement gives the manager the authority to set prices for ice cream and conduct sales as he sees fit. If he sets prices too low so that Benny and Gerald lose money, they will fire the manager; however, they must accept the loss because they gave the manager the authority to set the prices. However, if he decides to give half of the sales price of the ice cream to his favorite charity, then he has stolen from Benny and Gerald, who in turn have a right to demand the money back from the manager and take it out of his paycheck.

8. Resolved ... that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy; that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact ... to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.

The proper remedy for unconstitutional acts conducted by the federal government is to nullify those acts within the borders of the states finding them unconstitutional. This right belongs to the states based solely on the fact that they are parties to a contract. They owe a duty to abide by the contract only to the other states; they owe no duty to abide by anything outside the contract.

8. Resolved ... that with [the States] alone ... [are] parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely a creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified.

The final word concerning what is and what is not acceptable under a contract goes to the parties of the contract. The Supreme Court is a creation of the Constitution; it is not a party. So then if Congress, for instance, passes the Fairness Doctrine and the president signs it, then the great state of Missouri has the right, regardless of any Supreme Court decisions one way or the other, to declare the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional and thus null and void within her borders. Missouri would have to answer to her sister states, but not to anyone else.

1. Resolved ... that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

8. Resolved ... that without this right, [the States] would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.

The answer to the vast expansion of the federal government is that the states need to be willing to nullify unconstitutional laws. Federalists shouldn't worry so much about changing the federal government to respect state sovereignty as they should about working within their own states to throw off unconstitutional acts of the federal government. If the states cannot nullify unconstitutional acts, then the federal government is able (and willing) to do whatever it wants, with no real constitutional limits in place. Our country is then only a few steps away from despotism, with the final arbiter of what is "constitutional" as the supreme dictator.

---

Ifyou are receiving this newsletter from a friend and have not signed thenationwide petition to Impeach Barack Obama, you can do so by using thebutton on the right.

---

Also, please take the time right now to add impeachobama@impeachobamacampaign-news.com to your Contacts List, Buddy List or Safe Senders List so you do not miss a single issue.

The defense and intelligence communities are skeptical when dealing with Democratic Presidents. Democratic presidential candidates must trash both departments to win the primary votes of liberal activists. They make promises to decrease Pentagon budgets and redirect the spending to domestic programs. Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton was largely due to his ability to rhetorically express anti-war sentiment.

By the time the campaign was over, it was no secret that the CIA and defense establishments were skeptics and against many of his more radical plans. Unfortunately, a byproduct of this distrust is a renewed vulnerability to foreign terrorists. Obama alienated the front line, his boots on the ground.

Obama’s presidency was not helped by his decision to neglect meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the chief general in Afghanistan, until almost nine months into his term. During this extended period, Obama bothered to speak with his general only once over the phone. This lack of communication violated Obama’s campaign promise to listen to America’s generals. To compound this error, Obama dithered, taking months to finalize a new strategy for his Afghan offensive.

Obama also instructed Attorney General Eric Holder to pursue an irresponsible investigation of the methods used to interrogate suspected terrorists after 9/11. The interrogation probe, which is largely seen as a witch-hunt against George W. Bush’s administration, is opposed by seven former CIA chiefs from both political parties. Obama brazenly ignored the warnings of these bipartisan experts and has allowed Holder a free hand.

On December 29, Obama issued Executive Order 13526 which declassifies the most sensitive of national secrets, including the daily presidential briefing. By issuing this controversial executive order, and rolling back precedents set by the Clinton and Bush administrations, Obama is further threatening his relationship with the intelligence community. By divulging sensitive documents, the methods and contacts of U.S. spies become part of the public record. His decision creates an incentive for the agencies to withhold or hide information. Naturally, spies never want to years later appear on the front page of the newspaper to have their decisions critiqued by the uninformed.

Obama’s reaction to the underwear bomber has further strained relations. He condemned what he called “systemic failures” in the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for failing to “connect the dots,” and announced “he would not tolerate it.” This is a classic example of passing the buck. CIA officials had sent all relevant data to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in Washington, which was set up after the 9/11 attacks as a clearinghouse where raw data should be analyzed. Ironically, the Obama administration had planned deep budget cuts for the NCTC before the terrorist attack.

Obama has also met tough resistance in the Pentagon for his pipe dream of a nuclear-free world. Obama loves traveling the world making silve- tongued promises which are dangerous. For example, Obama wants to unilaterally disarm in the hopes that our enemies follow suit. The second contentious part of Obama’s policy is to issue strict guidelines that lay out in detail to the public when the United States would use nuclear weapons. This policy is meaningless because our enemies won’t believe our statements anyway. And, if we do follow these protocols, we will then be handcuffing ourselves as to when we’ll protect the nation. Does anyone really believe that Obama, when he couldn’t even get world leaders to agree to a global climate treaty, will be able to convince them to throw down their nuclear weapons?

Barack Obama with his managerial incompetence, his willingness to deflect blame onto others, and his utopian worldview, are alienating two of our important assets in the global war on terror. The bottom line is that this president is willing to sacrifice American lives in order pursue dangerous policies that are popular only with leftists worldwide.

Floyd Brown

To comment on this blog post click here: