What is a false or misleading statement made to deceive the people of the United States?

From Art. I of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon:

"making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct."

From our current president, "If you like your policy you can keep it." As shown in this link Dear Leader said this and similar things more than once. Why did he say this? Was he trying to mislead the people of the United States?

Are these false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States?

So, Dear Leader made false public statements that were misleading the people of the United States into believing ObamaCare didn't do the very thing it does: cost a lot of folks insurance that they seemed to be happy with. Or at least as happy as one can be with health insurance.

Bill O'Reilly is a carnival act!

Last night in responding to a viewer's question (why didn't O'Reilly mention Christ's conversation with the thief on the cross in "Killing Jesus"?), O'Reilly replied "because there's no historical evidence that the conversation happened." He then offers his opinion that it would have been impossible to talk because crucifixion kills by suffocation.
I can see his point--after all there are mounds of historical data supporting the resurrection and, comparatively speaking, being resurrected is oodles more possible than talking while hanging on a cross.
O'Reilly's a carnival act!

What? Obama doesn't follow his own legal advice!

There is a problem with following a by-the-seat-of-your pants approach to constitutional interpretation; the Constitution has no settled meaning. But whether you subscribe to the absurd notion of a "living Constitution" or to the more sensible textual-interpretation method, you ought to at least have some idea what you think the Constitution means. Unfortunately, our president (a  former constitutional law professor or senior lecturer) can't meet this standard.

In a 2008 interview with The Boston Globe, Obama said, "The President [sic] 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." So, according to the professor/senior lecturer the before a president can "unilaterally authorize a military attack" the country must be faced with "an actual or imminent threat."  

But Obama is prepared to, "authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the [United States]." We know there is no "actual or imminent threat" because Obama says so. On September 9, 2013, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Assad "doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States." He was even more direct with Fox News's Chris Wallace; telling him, Assad's "threat [is] not direct and imminent to the United States[.]" But he went to Congress anyway despite, in the president's words,  "me believing I have the authority to take, uh, action." (As a matter of grammar our highly educated president should have said, "despite my believing . . . .")

So, where does he get this authority? The Constitution hasn't changed since 2008 when the president lacked this authority. It's not enough to say, "presidents have always claimed this power." Why? Because when Obama snookered citizens into voting for him, he promised to be different than Geo. W. Bush. He was a cut above all the rest!  Obama let his mouth overload his behind when he started tough talk about red-lines and the consequences of crossing them. Obama's problem has been and remains that he thinks he's special, but he's not. And Putin and Assad are about to make a fool of him and this country.

Shame on Columbia University!

Forty-three years ago, the Weather Underground bombed the home of a New York state judge. Here is an article by the judge's son reminding us about this terrorist attacks. Today, a member of this terror group, Kathy Boudin, is a professor at Columbia University's School of Social Work.
According to the university's website, she's been an educator and working for social change since 1964. No mention of her life of crime!
Her crime spree came to an end in the early 80s on a New York thruway, but not before she tricked the police into lowering their weapons so that her bank-robbing cohorts could ambush the police. Her social change resulted in the death of a policeman.  Oh, and before some in her group blew themselves up, they planned to bomb the officers' club at Fort Dix. And Columbia thinks she's worthy of teaching its students. Thanks to Dr. John for the tip about this article.

Liberals should at least try to get some facts before attacking!

As I mentioned earlier, I had a piece in Sunday's The Jackson Sun rebutting another lawyer's attack on the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the link to my piece.

Read my Op-Ed in Sunday's The Jackson Sun

Two weeks ago, local (Jackson, Tennessee) plaintiff's lawyer Robert Hill wrote an uninformed attack on the Supreme Court of the United States and Justice Scalia. In tomorrow's The Jackson Sun you can read my Op-Ed piece in response to Hill. Here is the link to The Jackson Sun's opinion page.

Here's something worth watching!

The weak-minded Ted Kennedy died and the media lamented the passing of "the Lion of the Senate." If that were true, then I must have had my lions and my hyenas confused. But Robert Bork--an intellectual and man of character dies--and the media practically ignored it.
On Sunday, turn to C-Span's Book TV and watch Judge Easterbrook discussing Judge Bork's Saving Justice: Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, and Other Adventures of a Solicitor General. Here are the details.

"A Time for Choosing": Has that time come again?

In October 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a great speech in favor of Barry Goldwater for president. It is a classic!

Joe really loves his shotguns!

Joe Biden is in love with his shotguns. Well, maybe love is too strong; it's his "little over and under" that he likes. He likes shotguns so much that he told his wife, "'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!" I just hope the Secret Service's agents don't fire back! Boy, that would take some explaining! "But sir, she fired first."
If Joe Biden weren't the vice-president and if he hadn't played a role ruining or trying to ruin so many people's lives from his position as senator, he would be a joke!

The distractions in Killing Lincoln

Sunday night I couldn't decide whether to watch Killing Lincoln. The reason: Tom Hanks's role as narrator. But I decided to watch. Hanks's repeated mispronunciation of cavalry distracted me. And I was shocked that such an intellect couldn't grasp the difference between cavalry and Calvary. I adjusted. Then he delivered the biggie: He used "lay in wait" in the present tense. He only used it once. But that was enough!
I'm sure his excuse would be, "I was only reading." That excuse wasn't allowed for Dan Quayle. (I know, I have issues.)
Killing Lincoln must be under a usage jinx. In the opening page of the book, O'Reilly or whoever wrote it, says that Lincoln "furled" his brow. That must have hurt!

If you don't know anything about the Constitution, you're in good company!

Nancy Pelosi wants you to know that she will defend your right to own guns. (Except for assault weapons, she sees no justification for owning assault weapons.) Nancy is very informed on this issue. So much so, that she knows that the First Amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms." Hey, I don't make this stuff up; it's what she said!
Here is some more of her interview. After watching this video I think you'll agree Nancy's really good at burning up oxygen.

Does Benghazi matter? Apparently not to Hillary!

Clinton Erupts Over Libya: 'What
Difference at This Point Does It Make?'

Princess forgets that Congress tried to get her to testify a long time ago, but poor baby kept falling and hitting her head. That's an excellent defense: "What difference at this point does it make?" Hmmm. Let's try it out. By the time Congress started having hearings on Watergate it had been a while since the break in. Seems the passage of time didn't dim the importance of the investigation. And the "it" to which she refers involved the murder of four Americans. 

I do like those glasses though! Softens her don't you think? Quite a contrast she's working: Glasses to soften her look as she pounds the table to give herself the appearance of the put-upon victim. Why one almost forgets four people were murdered while she slept.

 

 

 

 

Let's use our heads for something other than hat racks!

I don't know the origin of that saying, but my dad used it and it fits this short Sunday-morning post.
MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell said that the president should not use a Bible during the inaugural because the president doesn't believe what's in the Bible. Here's the story. (The president is using two Bibles at his inauguration.) I don't care what O'Donnell says and, if ratings mean anything, nor does anyone else.
But here's where we have to use our heads for something other than hat racks.
Fox News's religion contributor, Father Jonathan Morris, took to the airwaves this morning to denounce the Left's attempt to drive religion from the public square. Ok, so far so good. Then he went on to tell us that the irreligious in our country won't be satisfied until they've removed the mention of God from our Constitution. There is nothing to remove because God is not mentioned in our Constitution! He then went on to lament that one day "In God We Trust" would be removed from our money. This motto first appeared on the two-cent piece around 1864. A few years later, Congress allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to add it to other coins. The motto was added to paper money in 1957. Here's the history of the use of the motto.
And, as we all know, "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. Interestingly, Francis Bellamy a socialist minister wrote the original pledge in 1892. It first appeared in The Youth Companion. He wanted it said in different countries so it wasn't until 1923 that the words "the Flag of the United States" were added. Before WWII, when the words "the Flag" were said, you would extend your arm, palm down, toward the flag. Because it resembled the Nazi salute the procedure changed so you keep your hand over your heart throughout. Here's the story about the pledge's history.
History is rarely as cut-and-dried as we would like it. After all, fallible people do the things that make history and some of their acts are historical. Our legends are nice, but let's try to separate fact from the way we wish history were.
So, we use our heads for dual purposes: hat racks and thinking.

John Adams said,

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious

 people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

― John Adams

Last night's vote is a tax increase!

The U.S. Senate and the W.H. will, no doubt, claim last night's Senate vote is a tax decrease. But it's not. If you don't believe me, here's what CBS News says, in part, about the vote: "The measure is the first significant bipartisan tax increase since 1990, when former President George H.W. Bush violated his 'read my lips' promise on taxes. It would raise an additional $620 billion over the coming decade when compared with revenues after tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, during the Bush administration. But because those policies expired at midnight Monday, the measure is officially scored as a whopping $3.9 trillion tax cut over the next decade."
Oh well, it's only what Dear Leader calls it that really matters.