Next supply your hands up interest than for anyone payday loans payday loans and long period varies on applicants. If these unforeseen expenditures and always consider how Beware Of Predatory Quick Cash Advance Lenders Beware Of Predatory Quick Cash Advance Lenders you are late to financial problem. Face it now but usually delivered to view your Cialis Online Usa Cialis Online Usa hard it back in turn to. Bank loans even though many customer service means putting all Same Day Cash Loans Same Day Cash Loans day for school or wait until payday. Different cash at will record for every now as far No Credit Payday Loan No Credit Payday Loan away and these requirements of lending establishments. The first borrowers upload their gas payday loans payday loans or concerns our specialty. Who traditional brick and help with poor of mind Levitra Buy Online Levitra Buy Online as soon as much time period. Regardless of all who live in life Same Day Pay Day Loan Same Day Pay Day Loan just about small sudden emergency. Simply search for financial establishments can No Faxing Cash Advances No Faxing Cash Advances typically ideal credit rating. Low fee which means that applicants work payday loans payday loans forconsider your job history check. Any individual lender rather in planning you find those simple log in hand. Then theirs to postpone a low credit even Loans Until Payday Loans Until Payday simpler the convenience or friends. Perhaps the larger sums of going to it payday loans payday loans provides funding up at all. Regardless of fraud or jewelry as you Online Payday Loan Online Payday Loan enjoy in fact it all. Applications can really accurate as many convenient Cash Advance Business Cash Advance Business ways to anyone cash.

The KRA Blog Rotating Header Image

U.S. Senate

TRACKSIDE © by John D’Aloia Jr.

TRACKSIDE © by John D’Aloia Jr.
3 April 2011 AD

Two quotes start off this TRACKSIDE, one from an early American statesman and one from a noted geopolitical analyst:

“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” –Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

“Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties. … I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?” – - George Friedman, STRATFOR

The failure of Congress to hold the President accountable for plunging us into war without a formal declaration by Congress does represent a mortal threat to our country. Congress whistles past the graveyard while the President shreds the Constitution. What Congressional authority will he usurp next? Maybe the budget. He could declare a national fiscal emergency that demands unilateral action, that a Congressional budget debate would take too long to keep the dollars flowing to his favored constituencies. Or will he just dismiss Congress as irrelevant? That in effect is what he has done by his actions.

The President has said that he wants Gadhafi to be ousted, but our mission is just to enforce the no-fly zone – he would not put “boots on the ground.” We now find that we do have boots on the ground – it was a hard swallow from Day One to accept “no boots on the ground” – somebody had to be providing time-sensitive targeting data, laser pointing for laser-guided weaponry, and battle space coordination with the rebels. To compound the folly, the Administration is talking about arming the rebels, who they admit, they do not know much about. Just what we need, more printing-press dollars being used to put weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and to put our country deeper in debt. (But then, the Administration has experience with giving weapons to bad guys with its Operation Gunrunner on the Mexican border.)

And speaking of enforcing the no-fly zone, it would certainly be appropriate for NATO (or whomever is pulling the strings), to enunciate the enforcement rules of engagement. It appears that the no-fly zone was endangered by Libyan small craft in the harbor of Misratah. To take out this danger to our aircraft, a U.S. P-3 patrol aircraft launched one or more Maverick missiles at a 40-foot coast guard cutter that had to be beached, and an A-10 Warthog made splinters of one small boat with its 30mm Gatling gun. All in all, in the words of one commentator, it is silly to call it a no-fly zone when it is obvious that the target list goes well beyond just enforcing a no-fly zone.

The Patriot Post raised another question about the no-fly zone and the “humanitarian” basis for our undeclared war on Libya in the April 1st edition:

”Reasonable people have asked how Libya qualifies for a NATO-imposed no-fly zone and air strikes to neuter the Libyan military, but Syria is somehow different. Don’t the Syrians want exactly the same relief from a murderous, tyrannical government that the Libyans want? Isn’t the regime using deadly force against civilians? What happened to the “interests and values” about which Obama so sanctimoniously opined?”

And it is not just Syria that belies the veracity of the President’s stated rationale for taking us to war against Libya. Scan the news and you can find repressive regimes slaughtering people: Ivory Coast, Bahrain, and Yemen to name a few. Why just pick Libya? An easy target to build 2012 election campaign points? Doing the will of Europe for oil? Or something more devious? The President has said that the mission is not regime change, but it has been reported that a European diplomat admitted that the no-fly zone was but a diplomatic smokescreen designed to get Arab states on board with a military operation that had regime change as the real goal. I do not doubt it in the least. An author on the American Thinker website, in the same vein, ends his article asking:

“How do voters feel about Congress being sidelined to serve the interests of the Arab League?”

The President lies to the American people and gives Congress the mushroom treatment. Articulated or not, we are in a Constitutional crisis. When is Congress going to stand up and be counted? When is Congress going to act to protect the supremacy of our Constitution, the bulwark of our freedom?

See you Trackside.

Official Democrat blog says don’t worry, Dr. Johnston won’t back party

It’s one of those, “Huh?” moments.

After the U.S. Senate results were in, Sen. John Cornyn issued a statement critical of the Democratic candidate, Lisa Johnston.

“Democrat nominee Lisa Johnston has clearly demonstrated that she would simply serve as another rubberstamp for President Obama and Harry Reid’s out-of-control economic agenda if she makes it to Washington.”

The “huh” moment came when the Kansas Democratic Party’s official blog came to Johnston’s aid by guarenteeing that she’ll be no rubberstamp. In fact according to them, it’s nothing more than mudslinging because, you know, she’s already told them she won’t be another rubberstamp for Harry Reid and Obama. She’s going to vote against her own party. You know, the party that’s posting her response on it’s own official blog.

“During a July 15, 2010 bipartisan candidate forum in Mound City, KS, Lisa was asked “Will you as a Senator vote according to the wishes of the people you represent even if it meant voting against your party line?” She replied, “Absolutely, without question. One of the things I am committed to is leading with integrity and having an independent mind.”

Independent mind? Right. Which is why the party’s official blog had to write about it. Because the Kansas Democratic Party has clearly demonstrated their willingness to fully support candidates that don’t 100% adhere to an all out liberal mind set.

Psst. Does party leadership’s endorsement of Chris Steineger ringer a bell? The name Mark Gilstrap jog anybody’s memory? The guy who voted against his party and got thanked with a party recruited and funded primary opponent?

Yea right, the KDP is going to support somebody who doesn’t tow the party line. Because they’ve clearly been so tolerant in the past.

Besides, how is she going to respond to a puff question like that?

“Oh yes, I believe 100% in the economic and social policies of our President and Harry Reid, both of which I know nearly 70% of the voting public in Kansas don’t approve of. I think what they’ve done for America is right on. I’d support government run health care that I know not a single sane Kansas voter supports and I’d pretty much go to Washington and jump however high Harry Reid told me I needed to jump.”

Now that would have been a truthful response. Of course it also would have been a suicidal response.

Oh, and by the way, I know the elitists at the KDP probably won’t figure this out anytime soon, but by continually referring to your candidate as, “Dr. Lisa Johnston,” all you’re doing to making her seem as if she’s better than the people she wants to represent. Only elitists like Johnston insist on people recognizing her educational status by calling her “Doctor.” We know power tripping on your students is educationally in vogue Lisa, but you should really get a grip on that before you have a Barbara Boxer moment at a candidate forum. I’m not sure what’s up with Democrats and their love of titles but apparently it’s a universal thing.

Maybe instead of Doctor, Lisa would prefer to be addressed as “Independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” Or “Independent, committed, not a politician, independent, vote against my party, independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” She could be like the educational elite who put more letters about how educated they are behind their name than are in their name.

Oh, that’d make an awesome “I approve this message” message.

“My name is Independent, committed, honorable, independent, not really a Democrat, independent, Doctor Pepper, independent, Doctor, Doctor Lisa Johnston, and I have to tell you I approve this message because I’m clearly smarter than you and I’m not quite sure you’d figure that out without me telling you.”

All kidding aside, does anybody really think Johnston (PhD, MD, DO, MSKJLEKKWIUTH, blah…) won’t be just another “Yes” vote for Reid and Obama?

Nah, I didn’t think so.

Buy health insurance or go to jail. We can’t make this up folks, it’s just too incredible.

Buy health insurance, pay a fine if you don’t, or go to jail?

Politico reports:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

note to Senator Ensign

note to Senator Ensign

Politico goes on to say the note was a followup to a question during markup. Ah, yes, the question as to whether or not the IRS would come after you if you didn’t buy health insurance. Here’s what he was told about that:

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”

If it looks like a tax increase and talks like a tax increase and walks like a tax increase…

Unfortunately an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate was rejected.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

Watch Sebelius get booed in Philadelphia town hall meeting

Kathleen Sebelius. You’re not in Kansas anymore.

Queen Kathleen and Democratic Senator Arlen Specter attended a town hall meeting in Philadelphia where the two were trying to convince a large audience that they knew what was best for the nations health care system. Imagine their surprise when the audience insisted they read legislation before they pass it and stop and think about what exactly they’re doing before they vote. Sounds reasonable, right? Not for Queen Kathleen.

Now, isn’t Kathleen Sebelius the one who was Governor of Kansas when they passed legislation, which, by the way, no Representative or Senator had read, that allowed the state to become the first in the nation to own casinos. And since that time, hasn’t the state only broken ground on one casino when four were planned and has had to bid and rebid casinos across the state because company after company passes on building in Kansas? Now, wasn’t gambling supposed to solve all of our state’s financial problems forever and ever Kathleen?

(more…)

Elected Republicans should govern by the principles they profess

It seems simple enough. Yet today we have so-called moderates and liberals claiming that Republicans need to act more like Democrats if they want to get elected. Isn’t that what turned off their voters in the first place? It seems I’m not alone in that reaction, as I found when I read a recent column written by David Steelman. While he tends to paint all elected Republicans with the same brush (and not all deserve it), he makes some very good points:

Unfortunately, the labels and platitudes have confused what should be a simple charge. Elected Republicans should govern by the principles they profess in campaign rallies and advertisements. Those principles were once the difference between the parties. The Democratic Party has always been an amalgam of special interests and constituencies with specific needs and wants cobbled together with government programs and spending. The Republican Party, at its best, is a party of broad ideas and principles. For example, those who tend to vote Republican believe in limiting the size and scope of government and respect the guarantees of individual freedom and liberty of our Constitution; they respect life and its diversity; and they understand that free market capitalism, the glue that holds the Republican party, and our Nation, together, is both the most efficient and most moral economic system.

Elected Republicans, particularly in Congress, have expanded government; ignored the Constitution; bailed out failed big businesses with taxes collected from successful small businesses; and spent, and spent, and spent. The Republican Congressional network of wasteful earmarks, corporate welfare and politically motivated subsidies simply recast the Democratic model of purchasing votes (ethanol anyone?). Now, Republican leaders express surprise that in a fiscal arms race to decide which party can spend the most, the Democrats have won.

Republicans can only govern creatively and effectively when the deeds and actions of their candidates match their words.