I don't know why they're blocking this information. Because when labor participation hits a three-decade low and you're contemplating starting a war in the Middle East, don't you want to show Americans that you're meeting with TOP MEN?
"Good evening, everyone. President Obama says we have reached a “pivotal moment.” In his UN debut today, he challenged the world to work together to solve the problems facing all of us. And in a break with the “go it alone policies” of his predecessor, he said the United States is ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation."Remember when "going it alone" meant Congressional approval and an international coalition? Now, with Great Britain backing away, Obama still appears ready to lob some cruise missiles into Syria. Because...red line.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."Unless you've imprudently drawn a "red line" then let's go NATO.
Al Gore: "The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The numbers all go to six. Look, right across the board, six, six, six and..."More fun at Watts Up with That? "Al Gore compares climate skeptics to racists, homophobes, and alcoholic families." Al thinks that deniers "fly into a rage" - it's called "laughter" dude.
EKi: Oh, I see. And most storms go up to 5?
Al Gore: Exactly.
EK: Does that mean it's stormier? Is it any stormier?
Al Gore: Well, it's one stormier isn't it? It's not 5.
Obama is not the rogue usurper of conservative imagining. Rather, he has been understandably aggressive in wielding executive power while remaining within the lines. Still, those lines bear constant watching, whatever Republican president holds office.There, I fixed it. In case you didn't catch the scare quotes around "lawless" Ruth doesn't think anything Obama's doing is above the law. Because Republicans:
But Obama has also been bolder in deploying the power, acting even when the Senate was holding brief sessions designed to frustrate recess appointments. Bush refrained from this in-your-face move, although, notably, his Justice Department concluded that would be constitutional.Too bad Dubya wasn't a Constitutional Law adjunct professor - they've read the back of the board game cover.
The administration argues that Obama acted with restraint -- the appointments were only to agencies at risk of not functioning -- and in the face of Senate intransigence. But another president could use this tactic to gut the advice-and-consent requirement. The legality of Obama's appointments is now before the Supreme Court.Hey, I'm not a high-falutin' Washington Post columnist or nothin' but it seems relevant to point out that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed two lower court decisions that Obama's recess appointments were unconstitutional. But, hey, now it's to the Supreme Court who may decide that - well, gosh - these weren't real important appointments and the Republicans were being jerks in the Senate. The musty old "originalist" Scalia will hold tight to his belief in original text and we'll all laugh at him.
Facing a different trade-off, 55 percent opposed reducing benefits for all seniors in order to allow younger workers to opt-out of the Social Security program.In other words: you kids stay in this Ponzi scheme and send us money!
When facing this trade-off, younger and older Americans significantly diverge in their policy response. Even when faced with the trade-off of reducing benefits to current seniors to allow younger workers to opt-out of Social Security, a majority (52 percent) of Americans under 35 favor the proposal. In stark contrast, 62 percent of Americans over 35 oppose the proposal. Instead, if allowing younger workers to opt-out of Social Security meant only paying Social Security benefits to seniors in financial need, then 60 percent of Americans under 35 favor the proposal, while a majority (53 percent) of Americans over 35 oppose the proposal.
These results paint a complex picture of Americans’ attitudes about Social Security. Those who have already paid in expect to receive promised benefits, those currently paying in are less eager to do so if they believe they may not get that money back.Just wait until 2033.
Bud: Why are you watching Spanish television?Like most MSNBC viewers and, apparently, its interns.
Kelly: Spanish? I thought they were just English words I didn't know.
Asked at a press conference today to discuss concerns about whether his administration has the authority to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate, President Obama declined to explain his administration’s authority and instead to simply assert it. But not before casting blame on Republicans. “In a normal political environment,” Obama said, he would have been able to call up House Speaker John Boehner and work out a fix. “We’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to quote unquote Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so.” There you go. Obama says the White House had the authority. Next question?So Obama can change the law because he can. Who's going to tell him differently - Eric Holder? Oh boy, that's not gonna happen.
Thank you so much. Yes, I get called "bitch" on a daily basis and yes I do think I'll get called "bitch" on a daily basis for years to come. But to be honest, I don't really mind because I like being called "bitch."So polite...for a bitch! I assume somebody says "Live Long and Prosper" to Leonard Nimoy about a zillion times a day.
Yes, I know that this was often bad politics, not sound public stewardship. But we have to treat decisions made by elected officials as, well, decisions made by the citizens of those locales. If the citizenry can demand to renege at any time because they don’t like the outcome, government can’t function at all -- not even the bits we like, like police and roads.A perfectly rational opinion...assuming there's a tax base to support these civic obligations. What happens when the workers of today decide they're not to be impoverished by the over-the-top promises of yesterday?
There is, in the end, a limit to how tightly past taxpayers, or their representatives, can bind the citizens of the future. It is a genuine tragedy that people who worked hard for the city of Detroit for 30 years should lose pension benefits. But that doesn’t mean that the city of Detroit should turn off the streetlights and get rid of schools and ambulance service in order to fund those lost pensions. And it’s hard to argue that the taxpayers of other places are morally obligated to step in.If there's one lesson I've learned about my (fruitless) argument for entitlement reform, Washington and/or Americans will exhaust every avenue to avoid the problem until it's at our doorstep. It's unthinkable that Detroit would sell its art collection to pay for pensions...until it's thinkable.
But how much should cities have to cut, once the tax base is exhausted? Senior centers? Parades? Maintenance at city parks? We’d better start asking those questions, because pretty soon, we’re going to need to answer them.
Federal authorities investigating the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi have filed charges against Ahmed Abu Khattalah, leader of a Libyan militia that officials believe was involved in the assault, people briefed on the investigation said. The charges under seal are the first criminal counts to emerge from the probe.And only eleven months later...not bad. As Hot Air notes: "See what happens when non-Fox networks turn up the heat on Hopenchange?" Suddenly it's less phony.
Seattle-based Amazon will have no role in the purchase; Bezos himself will buy the news organization and become its sole owner when the sale is completed, probably within 60 days. The Post Co. will change to a new, still-undecided name and continue as a publicly traded company without The Post thereafter.Bezos is paying a quarter-billion in cash which should empty about half the wallet in his walking-around pants.
The deal represents a sudden and stunning turn of events for The Post, Washington’s leading newspaper for decades and a powerful force in shaping the nation’s politics and policy.