Enlarge As diplomatic crises go, this one has had more twists and turns than a Wild Mouse. First there was the endless hand wringing over red lines turning pink and America losing its credibility in the world. When it seemed inevitable that US bombs…
News of the allegations that U.S. Senator Bob Menendez sexually exploited Dominican teen aged girls during his trips to the DR on a campaign contibutor’s private jet slipped into New Jersey main stream media coverage last weekend when Bob Ingle blogged about the sentor’s spokesperson telling FoxNews that the allegations were “unsubstantiated garbage.”
Yesterday, Brietbart caught up with Menendez who said he would not dignify the story. Click here to listen to Mendendez refusing to dignify.
“Unsubstantiated garbage” and “I’m not going to dignify that” are not denials. I can not imagine a dignified substantiation.
New Jersey State Senator Sam Thompson, in his capacity as Chairman on the Middlesex GOP, wrote to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics last November asking that they investigate Menendez’s accepting illegal travel for his DR sexcapades. Thompson tells MMM that he has not heard from the committee.
It would seem that Mendenez, who officially becomes Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee upon John Kerry’s confirmation as Secretary of State, is getting a pass from the Select Committee on Ethics. The FBI won’t confirm or deny that they are investigating him.
In the unlikely event that any of the challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy for a second term makes it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and succeeds, then what?
Before the case even got that far, would Judges and Justices appointed by Obama be eligible to hear and rule on the issue? Can you imagine Hannity or Limbaugh if they do rule? Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (if he gets a job) if they don’t?
If Obama is ruled ineligible to serve as President of the United States, is he immediately removed from office? If so, who becomes President? If Obama’s 2008 election was invalid, it seems that Joe Biden’s election as Vice President would also be invalid. Next in line would be House Speaker John Boehner.
If John Boehner assumes the presidency, would the GOP nominate him as the 2012 candidate? Boehner isn’t ready to retire. Why would he want to give up the Speakership in order to be President for a few months. Would Boehner appoint Mitt Romney as Vice President? Would the Senate confirm Romney? Would Romney accept the job?
Would Boehner pardon Obama?
Who do the Democrats nominate for President? Biden? The party never warmed to him as a presidential candidate in his multiple tries. Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Keith Ellison (a real American Muslim)? Cory Booker? Dennis Kucinich?
What happens to all the laws, executive orders and appointments that Obama signed? Is ObamaCare the law? Are Sonya Sotomayor and Eleana Kagan Supreme Court Justices? Did Sandra Fluke really need all of that birth control?
Obama hasn’t signed a budget sinced he’s been President, but is the debt ceiling valid? Is all of that debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America?
Would Obama owe the U.S. Treasury his salary, rent on the White House? Would he have to reimburse the Treasury for his security and vacations? Does he has to reimburse all his donors from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns?
I can understand why Judges would look for procedural or jurisdictional grounds not to hear such a case.
What would be better for the country? To pursue the issues raised by the Objectors or look the other way?
Massachusetts Senator and failed Presidential Candidate John Kerry recently went on a rant before a Boston Chamber of Commerce. Among the things he said was this little bon mot. “We’re in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don’t weigh in.”
The Senators little tantrum was brought on by his frustration at the shellacking his party is about to receive in Tuesdays election.
In response I say to Senator Kerry that the on the contrary people are finally looking at the truth.
The truth is that almost every massive Government program of the last 70 years has failed and in many cases made the situation worse.
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Johnson’s war on poverty failed and enacted policies that contributed to the break up of families and the degradation of society (don’t believe me this was pointed out by the great Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan). Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy. We just recently saw government housing programs contribute to an economic collapse. The No Child Left Behind Act has not improved our schools. These and myriad other programs had grandiose ambitions and failed. Yet what is the response of Democrats. Keep piling on the Government programs. Increasing regulation and taxes are strangling businesses and killing our competitive edge. Yet when Kennedy and Reagan lowered taxes we prospered. Keynsian economic policies touted by Democrats consistently do not produce results while those of Milton Friedman and Charles Laffer which are touted by Republicans have historically produced stellar results.
What is happening today is the continuation of an argument as old as this great Republic. It is an argument about what is the proper role of the Federal Government.
The Ironic part is that leaders who the Democrats claim they descend from Jefferson and Jackson where stalwart defenders of a severly limited role for the federal Government. However even Federalists like Adams and Hamilton would be appalled were they to see our governments reach today.
No Senator you are wrong. People are looking at the facts and based on those facts they are repudiating your Party’s policies of bigger government and returning to our Founding Fathers vision of limited federal government.