President George Washington, Born February 22, 1732
From the Heritage Foundation blog …
The true Washington still has much to teach us, in particular when it comes to the presidency, foreign policy and religious liberty. Although much has changed in the past two centuries, his sage advice and conduct in office have lost none of their relevance, anchored as they are in the timeless principles of the Founding and a sober assessment of human nature.
Washington, like every President after him, swore the following oath upon taking office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Unlike many presidents in the past 100 years, however, Washington took the oath seriously and did not try to place himself above the Constitution.
He understood himself to be the President of a Republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws–not some visionary leader who must define what Progress requires and lead the unenlightened masses there.
Washington took care “that the laws be faithfully executed,” as when he quashed the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He did not try to make the laws himself, either by issuing executive orders that circumvented Congress or by regulating what could not be legislated. He left behind no “signature” legislative accomplishments as we would say today. He only used his veto twice–once on constitutional grounds and once in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
Washington gave, on average, only three public speeches a year while in office–including the shortest ever inaugural address. And, of course, he had to be persuaded to serve a second term.
As a president who took his bearings from the Constitution, Washington devoted considerable attention to foreign policy. Our first president sought to establish an energetic and independent foreign policy. He believed America needed a strong military so that it could “choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.” His Farewell Address remains the preeminent statement of purpose for American foreign policy.
No survey of Washington’s legacy would be complete without acknowledging his profound commitment to religious liberty. Many today seem to have lost sight of the crucial distinction he drew between mere toleration and true religious liberty. As he explained in the memorable letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport:
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.
On this day, as we celebrate our greatest president, let us remember why he–and not Polk or, heaven forbid, Wilson–deserves a national holiday.
RINO Cong. Jeff Flake is running for the Republican nomination to replace the retiring U.S. Senator Jon Kyl. But Flake’s performance in 11 years in the House of Representatives has some glaring holes in it – like his support for one of the prize bills of the homosexual agenda. Flake twice voted for ENDA – the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill which if passed into law will require businesses and ministries to hire people who don’t agree with their beliefs. Or pay severe federal fines.
Flake joined with a virtual who’s who of left-wing radicals, including some in the Republican Party, in supporting this dangerous bill. Extremists supporting ENDA include:
Human rights campaign
ACLU
NEA
Cong. Nancy Pelosi
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Sen. Harry Reid
Cong. Barney Frank
Cong. John Conyers
Cong. Raul Grijalva
Cong. Henry Waxman
Cong. Ed Pastor
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Barbara Boxer
Cong. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Sen. Tom Harkin
Cong. Debby Wasserman-Schultz
Sen. Richard Durbin
The late Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Do we really want our next U.S. Senator voting with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Raul Grijalva and agreeing with the ACLU?
This past Friday (January 20th) an article appeared in this paper about the mismanagement that has taken place in Paul Babeu’s department. This, in and of itself, should be troubling to taxpayers who will ultimately foot the bill for the $3.1 million that Babeu’s office overspent their budget.
However, later in the article it was indicated by Babeu’s official spokesperson that he was in D.C. doing what his spokesperson referred to as “his job as Sheriff.” He then went on to say that Babeu’s trip to Washington D.C. had nothing to do with his campaign for Congress.
That’s simply not true.
There is ample evidence that Babeu was in fact doing work on his Congressional campaign. Amongst this evidence was a news article in the Politico newspaper where Babeu met with a reporter for that paper while in DC and talked exclusively about his campaign for Congress. In addition, it is apparent that Babeu did in fact meet with at least one other group about his campaign for Congress.
Now, I have no problem with a candidate going to Washington D.C. and meeting with reporters and groups who have interest in the race. However, I do have a problem with a candidate having a spokesperson claim that his visit had nothing to do with his Congressional race, when it is apparent it did. And I suspect voters do too.
Mixing official and campaign business may be the norm in Babeu’s former state Massachusetts, where Babeu ran for office at least four different times and worked in a political patronage job for the Massachusetts state treasurer, but it doesn’t make it right.
It is this kind of lax attitude and sense of entitlement that taxpayers and voters despise. They expect those of us elected to office to do our job and do it to the best of our abilities.
I don’t know how Babeu paid for his trip out there. It is logical to assume that if, as his spokesperson stated, he was out there doing his job as sheriff, then it was probably paid for by the taxpayers. If it wasn’t, then good for Babeu.
But if taxpayers paid for it, then Babeu had no business conducting campaign business while on trip paid for by taxpayers.
Coming on the heels of reports that Babeu authorized expenditures in excess of $50,000 to take what can fairly be called a junket to a sheriff’s convention, Babeu needs to explain to voters what he was really doing in Washington.
State Sen. Ron Gould is a candidate for Congress in Congressional District 4. Babeu and Cong. Paul Gosar are all contending for the Republican nomination for that seat.
Chad Groening writes today on OneNewsNow.com of the controversy surrounding Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu …
A pro-family activist who works to expose the truth about homosexuality is concerned that Pinal County (Arizona) Sheriff Paul Babeu may become a poster boy for the radical homosexual agenda now that the lawmaker has confirmed he’s homosexual.
Babeu is a first-term sheriff who has risen to national prominence because of his tough opposition to illegal immigration. That reputation earned him a speaker’s spot at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC 2012) hosted by The American Conservative Union.
But Babeu, who is running as a Republican candidate for Congress in a newly drawn district in his state, was forced to admit over the weekend he is homosexual. A Phoenix-based alternative magazine known as The New Times reported that a Mexican national and former campaign volunteer claims Babeu threatened to deport him if their past relationship was made public.
“Homosexuality is a sin. It’s nothing to be proud of. It’s a problem,” he tells OneNewsNow. “I would hope that he would not try to run as an openly [so-called] conservative … homosexual Republican.”
And LaBarbera says if there is one thing the liberal media loves to promote it is “[homosexual]” Republicans.
“And they will promote [homosexual] Republicans because they want to undermine the Republican Party platform which has for years, if not decades, stood against the homosexual activist movement,” he observes. “And so the media loves [homosexual]Republicans — and if they can say that he is one, they will promote him.”
Arizona Right to Life Political Action Committee (AZRTL PAC) today announced its endorsement of Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary. AZRTL PAC endorsed Rick Santorum based on his strong pro-life record and his leadership over the years.
Santorum authored the law banning partial-birth abortions, as well as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, providing appropriate care for infants who survive an abortion. He was a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, and also sponsored legislation related to end of life issues. He continues to be an outspoken opponent of federal funding of abortion. The AZRTL PAC considered Santorum’s support of these priority issues in deciding to endorse him.
“There are few who are as articulate and passionate on life issues as Senator Santorum,” said Michelle Clements, president of Arizona Right to Life. “He not only voted the right way, he talks about the dignity and value of every human life whenever he has the opportunity, and he lives out those values in his own personal life. We are grateful for his leadership and proud to endorse him.”
AZRTL PAC acknowledges that all the Republican presidential candidates have declared they are pro-life, and that other candidates have strong pro-life voting records. Arizona Right to Life commends them for their support and defense of life.
“The one person we know is unapologetically pro-choice, even supporting partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortion, is President Barack Obama,” said Clements. “This is a critically important election, and we take comfort in knowing that the Republican nominee will take a strong position in contrast to President Obama who is the only pro-choice candidate.”
“We encourage Arizonans to support Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary election Tuesday, February 28.”
By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
John Semmens
The recent flap over the Obama Administration’s edict that all employers must provide birth control, including abortifacients, as part of heath insurance benefits for employees has given us a “teaching moment,” says representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.).
“We have established the fundamental principle that employers may not force their views on employees by refusing to cover the costs of birth control measures,” Wasserman-Schultz crowed. “The days of employer oppression of employees are over. The government has stepped in to defend the working class.”
The Congresswoman dismissed complaints that the Obama Administration’s move wrongfully violates individuals’ rights to act in accord with their own consciences. “We had an election in 2008,” she pointed out. “Obama won that election. He has a mandate from voters that overrides the supposed individual right to freedom of conscience. This is what democracy is all about.”
“In contrast, employers have no mandate to decide what they will or won’t pay for if elected authorities say otherwise,” she continued. “Obligations to invisible deities or claims of purported ‘inalienable rights’ cannot be used to set aside one’s responsibility to obey the laws laid down by our President.”
In related news, a quartet of Senate Democrats denounced a Republican initiative aimed at protecting the “right of conscience” to not be forced to participate in a government program that they believe to be morally wrong. “We can’t have people deciding for themselves whether they ought to be required to participate in funding someone else’s birth control or abortion rights,” declared California Senator Barbara Boxer. “This would put anarchic individualism ahead of social welfare. It would set the country back 200 years.”
Ironically, it was a little over 200 years ago that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the government from interfering with an individual’s right of conscience.
Capitol Police Arrest Pro-Life Demonstrators Near White House
Six pro-life demonstrators were arrested for holding a prayer vigil on the sidewalk outside the White House earlier this week. All were released after paying a ransom of $100 apiece.
One of the arrestees, Fr. Denis Wilde, the Associate Director of Priests for Life, pointed out the disparities between how his small protest was handled when compared to the police response to the Occupy Wall Street protest. “Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months, but when we kneel in prayer, the police are called in and we are arrested,” Father Wilde complained.
Spokesman for the Capitol Police, Amir Kalid, maintained that “there is no animus against these people. We don’t hate Catholics. But let me point out that they have their own places of worship they can use to pray. They have no inherent right to pray on the sidewalks. The sidewalks are public places and there is a separation of church and state in this country. Keeping them clear of unwarranted activities is our duty.”
“As far as any claimed disparities between these and other protesters goes, officers were merely following orders,” Kalid added. “We can only speculate as to the reasons why some are allowed and others are not.”
Former President Jimmy Carter attempted to answer Kalid’s speculation, by pointing out that “Catholics are clearly a minority, while Occupy Wall Street represents 99% of the population. Perhaps this is a sufficient explanation for how Capitol Police are instructed to handle these different groups.”
Obama Recovery Plan a Great Success, Says Biden
Vice-President Joe Biden gives President Obama high grades when it comes to his handling of the economy. As he sees it, the bailouts and stimulus spending have been a “great success.”
“Statistical nerds are saying that the economy has lost construction and manufacturing jobs since the President’s program was adopted, but I don’t know any of these people,” Biden said. “Everybody I know has a job. Why should I believe the numbers the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) trolls are reporting?”
Biden admitted that “occasionally I’m approached by somebody who says he’s unemployed and would like some help. But how do I know it’s not just some sort of hustle? Voters have got to immunize themselves against GOP propaganda. The key question they should ask themselves is whether they are better off than they were four years ago. Once they focus on that there’s no doubt in my mind that they will reelect the President.”
Battle over School Lunches Shaping up
The government’s effort to force feed America’s youth with nutritionally approved food raised its ugly head in a North Carolina pre-school this past week. The issue gained notoriety when a mother complained that school officials declared the sack-lunch of a turkey sandwich, fruit, chips, and apple juice she had prepared for her daughter was substandard and gave the child a school meal composed of chicken nuggets, milk, and a vegetable. In the end, the girl ate only the chicken nuggets.
The principal of West Hoke Elementary, Jackie Samuels, defended the program as “a crucial step toward ensuring that all children are properly fed. The lunches parents send vary considerably in their nutritional content. Some are down right awful. It is apparent that too many parents are either ignorant of or indifferent to their child’s nutritional needs. The question is whether we are going to tolerate this ignorance and indifference or take measures to insert expert guidance into the process.”
The inspection of students’ bagged lunches was characterized as a “more moderate intervention than authorized by law. We are within our rights to forbid lunches brought from home,” Samuels asserted. “If all food consumed at school were prepared by the school a more balanced and standardized nutritional offering could be put in front of every child. No child would be left to the mercy of the possibly ill-informed efforts of a parent.”
Parents who might be dissatisfied with the program were reminded that “this is a publicly funded school. As such, it will be governed by state standards. Those who can’t abide these standards are free to send there children elsewhere or home-school them if they are so inclined.”
Whether Obamacare Is a Tax Depends on Venue Aide Says
A key argument of the Obama Administration’s legal defense of the President’s signature health care legislation was called into question by acting White House budget director Jeff Zients’ testimony before the House Budget Committee. Zients was arguing that the penalty assessed by Obamacare on a person who fails to purchase insurance is NOT a tax.
On the other hand, Obama’s lawyers have been arguing that the penalty IS a tax. This argument is necessitated in order for the Obamacare law to appear to be Constitutional. While Congress lacks the authority to require a person to purchase a product—heath insurance being such an item—it does have the authority to impose a tax.
Zients attempted to finesse the issue by contending that offering contradictory arguments in different venues is okay. “Look, from the legal perspective it is imperative that the penalty be classified as a tax,” Zients told Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ). “So, that’s what the lawyers say it is. But from a political perspective it is important that the President not be perceived as reneging on his promise not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000 a year. So, that’s why I’m telling you it is not a tax.”
Congresswoman Vows to Silence Key Republicans If Dems Take Back Majority
Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called Republicans John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R-Va) “demons,” and vowed that “once I am at the head of the Financial Services Committee these men will never be seen or heard from again.”
While chairing a Congressional committee is a powerful position with many perks and privileges, it has yet to authorize the complete silencing of political opponents. Perhaps this is about to change because as Ms. Waters argues, “these men are out to destroy President Obama. The good of the country demands that we Democrats not shy away from the stern measures needed to protect his mission to transform America.”
DOJ Refuses to Enforce Voter Registration Act
The Obama Administration Department of Justice is refusing to carry out provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requiring that the names of voters known to be deceased be purged from registration rolls. The rationale for this failure to execute the laws of this country was explained by a DOJ attorney: “removing dead people from the rolls doesn’t increase turnout. It stops people from voting.”
“We’d rather err on the side of inclusiveness,” explained Attorney General Eric Holder. “How do we know for sure a person is dead? I mean, unless I’ve seen the body how can I rule out the possibility that the voter’s so-called death might be a mere clerical error? We can’t take the chance that a person be disenfranchised by a clerical error. This would be a monstrous injustice. I’d rather risk a 1,000 bogus ballots than deny one person his human right to cast a vote for who will rule over him. This human right is fundamental to our democracy.”
“I believe that [Holder], and many sheriffs in Arizona believe that, he has perjured himself,” Babeu said during an interview with TheDC at this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. “His story has changed. After there was evidence produced that he did know — he was given briefings, he was given emails — he then started to walk back his statements to say that, ‘well, I misunderstood the question.’”
“As a police officer before I was a sheriff, when somebody I’m talking to starts to change their story — that’s a clue they’re not telling the truth,” Babeu continued. “So, this guy is in charge of the Department of Justice, still — to this day — from Dec. 15, 2010, so it’s been over a year and there’s still been no accountability, we still don’t know who’s approved this program. How can that be? In the Department of What?”
Babeu went on to say that he thinks Holder should have resigned long ago and that President Barack Obama should fire him. “I believe that whoever made these decisions to facilitate [the sale of] 2,000 high-powered weapons into the hands of the drug cartels that we’re fighting in Arizona — they should face criminal charges,” Babeu added.
Babeu said that as a candidate for Congress, he hears about Fast and Furious from voters across Arizona on a regular basis.
“Time and time again, we see our Constitution trampled upon by this government — by Eric Holder, by Janet Napolitano [the Secretary of Homeland Security], by Barack Obama — they’re suing my state and they need to stop suing my state, we’re trying to enforce the law,” Babeu said. “So it’s those issues in combination with the most important issues facing our country which is our economy. It’s the same assault against our free market, capitalist society that we’re trying to turn our back from the greatness of our country, which has made us strong.”
There are currently 103 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who think Holder should resign or be fired, have signed an official resolution expressing “no confidence” in him, or both, as the two lists don’t perfectly overlap. In addition, three U.S. senators, two sitting governors and all major Republican presidential candidates have demanded Holder’s resignation or firing too.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-District 2), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Subcommittees on both Emerging Threats and Strategic Forces responded to the Obama administration’s consideration of sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons:
“To consider unilaterally drawing down our nuclear inventory beyond levels not seen since 1950, even while China, Russia, Iran, and other countries alike are striving to increase their nuclear capabilities is beyond reckless; it is ludicrous. Not only is Mr. Obama creating unnecessary and grave vulnerabilities to our national security, he is also creating an environment that encourages global proliferation.
“Many of our allies depend on our nuclear capability for their security. If these assurances are lost, not only will the number of nuclear states multiply, but our control over when, where, and how nuclear weapons are used will diminish exponentially. This president is playing Russian roulette with our national security, only he does not know and/or he does not care that the gun is fully loaded.”
