Category Archives: Washington Post

Ezra Klein, Constitution has no binding power, Text confusing, 112th Congress reads US Constitution

Ezra Klein, Constitution has no binding power, Text confusing, 112th Congress reads US Constitution

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post was interviewed on MSNBC. He was asked to respond to the 112th Congress reading the US Constitution on January 6, 2011. His response, though stupefying, was consistent with the attitudes of the left and what would be expected from an associate of the Washington Post.

In the interview he states:

“it has no binding power on anything.”

“The text is confusing”

Ezra Klein, which of these provisions of the US Constitution do you consider confusing and non binding?

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Amendment XV

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–”

“Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Ezra Klein, after being bombarded with responses to his idiotic statements, posted a “clarification” of his remarks. The problem I mostly have with Mr. Klein is his cavalier attitude in regard to the US Constitution. He must have a great many followers on the left.

“This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP’s plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is. It’s our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It’s also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn’t impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.”

“But my inbox suggests that my comments weren’t taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I’d said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I’d said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/yes_the_constitution_is_bindin.html

Yes, Ezra Klein, the fault is yours. And once again, which provision is ok for you or the Supreme Court to declare not binding?

Ezra Klein, welcome the the US Constitution Hall of Shame.

USS Cole trial on hold, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Obama administration, Political decision

USS Cole trial on hold, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Obama administration, Political decision

From the Washington Post.

“The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.
The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that “no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future.”

The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri’s attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration’s plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.
Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded.

Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

“It’s politics at this point,” said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html?wprss=rss_nation

Arlen Specter loses, Rand Paul wins big, Blanche Lincoln in runoff, Democrats Tim Holden Larry Kissell Heath Shuler voted against health care, Fared well

Arlen Specter loses, Rand Paul wins big, Blanche Lincoln in runoff

From the Washington Post May 19, 2010.

“How (and why) Arlen Specter lost”

“1. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defeat at the hands of upstart Rep. Joe Sestak made him the second Senate incumbent to lose an intraparty battle in the 2010 elections — the largest number since four incumbents fell in 1980.

Specter’s loss will be endlessly examined (and then re-examined) in the days to come but, at its root, there were two main factors to blame for it: the perils of party switching and an anti-incumbent national environment.

Party switchers almost uniformly struggle the first time they are on the ballot after the switch. The party they abandoned detests them and will do anything to try to bring about their demise while the party they joined is distrustful of both their motives and loyalties.

Specter never seemed to adequately explain to Democrats why he switched parties — beyond the fact that it would allow him to be re-elected. Sestak, in what is the early frontrunner for ad of the year, brilliantly exploited Specter’s seeming lack of principle on the switch with a commercial that said the incumbent’s party switch was designed to “save one job…his…not yours.”

Specter’s inability to articulate why he had decided to go from “R” to “D” after spending nearly three decades on the GOP side was compounded by a strong sentiment among voters that the people they have been sending to Washington aren’t getting the job done and a course correction is required.

Specter, 80 years old and having spent five terms in the Senate, was a living and breathing embodiment of the traits that voters across the country seem fed up with these days. Sestak, again, brilliantly played to voters’ resentments about politics-as-usual — casting himself as a part of a “new generation” of leadership who could bring about real change.

While Specter’s defeat is somewhat unique due to his party switch, the loss will have considerable implications on how incumbents — in both parties — run their races moving forward this fall. Running with the establishment is clearly out; outsider messages are, ironically, in.”

3. Ophthalmologist Rand Paul’s (R) victory in Kentucky and Lt. Governor Bill Halter’s (D) pushing of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) to a June 8 “runoff didn’t come as big surprises. More telling than the head-to-head battles in each state, however, is what the ballots cast reveal about voter intensity this cycle.

Paul’s win wasn’t just big — it was massive. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Paul won with 59 percent of the vote, 24 points ahead of Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R). Over 350,000 voters took part in the GOP primary — all of them registered Republicans, given the state’s closed primary system. As Post pollster Jon Cohen notes, that’s the highest GOP primary turnout in at least twenty years with about one-third of registered Republicans casting ballots.”

“* Rep. Tim Holden, who voted against the party’s health care bill, won 66 percent to 34 percent against Sheila Dow Ford, an unknown and underfunded candidate. Holden joins Reps. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) as Members who voted against health care and experienced similar primary results.”

Read more:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-3-4.html

William M. Daley, Democrat party, Obama approval rating, Listen to American people, Alabama Representative Parker Griffith, Washington Post warning, Far left agenda

A warning to the Democrat Party from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative rag) to listen to the American public and embrace centrist viewpoints.

“Keep the Big Tent big”

“The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith’s decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation’s majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent — that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party’s ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama’s victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower — 41 percent — among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup’s generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html

Obama administration, Fall flu shots, Fall 2009, three flu shots, 3 unprecedented, new swine flu virus, annual seasonal influenza, Washington Post article May 6, 2009, federal health officials, pandemic experts are working with the administration

Be on alert, the government is “watching out for us” again.

From the Washington Post, May 6, 2009:

“Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The Obama administration is considering an unprecedented fall vaccination campaign that could entail giving Americans three flu shots — one to combat annual seasonal influenza and two targeted at the new swine flu virus spreading across the globe.
If enacted, the multibillion-dollar effort would represent the first time that top federal health officials have asked Americans to get more than one flu vaccine in a year, raising serious challenges concerning production, distribution and the ability to track potentially severe side effects.

Another option, said Dale Morse, chairman of the advisory committee on immunization practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is adding to the seasonal flu shot an ingredient targeted at the new virus.
Experts in and out of the administration are evaluating a raft of complicated issues, including who ought to receive an inoculation against the swine flu and whether private vaccine makers can simultaneously manufacture the standard 180 million doses as well as up to 600 million rounds of a new vaccine.

“We are moving forward with making a vaccine,” said Robin Robinson, a director with the Department of Health and Human Services who oversees pandemic response programs. Robinson said that although a formal decision about the swine flu vaccine has not been made, if the government goes ahead, it would probably produce two doses for all Americans. If the threat diminishes, he said, health officials could decide to produce doses for only a portion of the population.

Vaccine and pandemic experts are working with the administration to determine how to produce, test, track and educate the public about two different influenza vaccines in the same flu season.

“They have never tried this before, and there is going to be a great deal of confusion,” said William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Memories of the nation’s earlier experience with a swine flu vaccine present another challenge. In 1976, hundreds of Americans developed neurological disorders after they were vaccinated for a swine flu strain. The public was asked to receive one of two vaccines developed to combat the strain.

Health officials have asked manufacturers to ramp up production of the seasonal vaccine scheduled for rollout this fall to make way for the possible mass production of a swine flu vaccine.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/05/AR2009050503378.html?hpid=topnews

Make certain you stay informed on this subject.