Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird - Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird

Happy New Year

The Chinese have had a greeting for … maybe centuries: May you live in interesting times. I think I can safely say we have done that for the past couple of years. Let’s just hope that at the end of 2010 we can say it was a great year … one that puts us back on the path of personal liberty and indivudual freedom.

Happy New Year to you all.

New Super Cops?

Obama signed an executive order Dec 17 that went completely unnoticed in the main stream media:

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425

– – – – – – –

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

December 16, 2009.

Seems innocuous enough … so why would the MSM bother, right? Well, this little stroke of the pen has given INTREPOL, the international criminal police organization, the same immunity from searches,  seizures and diplomatic immunity as foreign embassies have. Why would Obama do such a thing? His order effectively gives Interpol more freedom to operate within our borders than any US agency has.

Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton over at ThreatsWatch reported on this over a week ago. Their investigation uncovers some very troubling facts.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

President GW Bush refused to join the United Nations treaty that would give the International Criminal Court (ICC) authority to prosecute US citizens without due process, in violation of the US Constitution. Since then, several US citizens have been threatened with prosecution for “war crimes,” including former VP Dick Cheney.

Would amending Executive Order 12425 allow INTERPOL the ability to grab a US citizen and take them to France or the Hague? This is very scary stuff!

Follow this link to read Schippert and Middleton’s conclusions.

UPDATE: Bush didn’t refuse to join … in 2002 he “unsigned” the Rome Statute, the UN treaty establishing the ICC, that President Bill Clinton signed in 2000 and Congress subsequently refused to ratify. An aside … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated last August the she thought it was “a great regret” that the US was not a part of the ICC.

What is a “Right?”

I have often argued with my liberal associates (it seems I no longer have liberal friends … the last decided he could no longer be my friend because I wouldn’t vote for Al Gore in 2000) that if the government had to take something from one person in order give it to someone else, that which is “given” couldn’t be a “right.” Stealing from Peter to pay Paul cannot result in a “right” for Paul.

Well, I just encountered a video that does the best job of defining what a right is I’ve yet to hear. Judge Andrew Napolitano, sitting in for Glenn Beck last Friday, lays it out rights succinctly:

Healthcare is not a right!!

Obamacare inevitable?

This is the $64000 question (or in today’s world, $64 Trillion). Is passage of Obamacare inevitable?

Some say yes and some say no, it’s not inevitable. Time will certainly tell, but I’d say chances are better that 90%. However, we can’t live our lives on … dare I say it? … HOPE! To hope that this foray into socialism won’t happen isn’t a plan. You can be certain the Democrats aren’t ‘hoping’ they will have the votes so it will pass.

The Dems have approached this legislation very strategically. I think they were taken aback in August by the ferociousness of grassroots opposition from the ‘tea parties.’ However, by November, they decided to ignore their constituents’ protests an just push forward. This point was made abundantly clear this morning when Sen. Jim DeMint (R – SC) read the provision Sen Harry Reid (D – NV) slipped into the bill prohibiting repeal of certain provisions of Obamacare by future Senate:

there’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section C, titled “Limitations on changes to this subsection.”

and I quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

My first thought upon hearing of this was “how can any Congress write a law prohibiting future Congress’ of repealing said law?” DeMint goes on to call this a “rule change;”

This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

I still say “how can any Congress write into any bill a provision that prohibits future lawmakers from changing or repealing that law?” Even amendments to the Constitution can be repealed, e.g. the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment which introduced Prohibition.

Back to my main point; The Dems have been very strategic in their approach but it doesn’t appear the Republican are being strategic in either their opposition to the legislation nor in plans to challenge Obamacare in court once signed into law. Lastly, the Reps need let the Dems know that a major effort will be undertaken to repeal this monstrosity beginning Jan 3, 2011. Maybe the GOP doesn’t want to telegraph their moves, but their past actions couldn’t be termed ‘strategic’ by any stretch of the imagination.

I guess we can HOPE!

UPDATE: I was too quick on the draw about work being done on the legal side.

Agreement in Copenhagen … NOT!

Obama spoke today at the Climate Change Circle Jerk Conference in Copenhagen and in an unusual bit of specifics, committed us to the following:

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change.  I’m pleased that many of us have already done so.  Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made:  cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Do you have any idea what would be required to cut CO2 emissions in the US by 17 percent in the next 10 years? Further, where is the money going to come from to pay for the measures that countries would have to put in place? With the US debt at its current $1.5 to $1.7 trillion, our economy will not withstand the kind of taxation that would be needed to support such expenditures. Cutting our emissions by 80 percent would require that our emissions equal the US emissions at the beginning of the 20th century … when we had a population less than 100 million. Can you say stone-age?

However, Obama left a back door for himself:

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner.  These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty.  They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we’re living up to our obligations.  Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

I don’t know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments.  That doesn’t make sense.  It would be a hollow victory.

China will never agree to the reduction verification regime envisioned by the other industrialized countries and Obama knew this was a likely outcome:

Obama, in his highly anticipated speech, declared: “The time for talk is over.” He acknowledged that the leaders were still far from a deal. “At this point, the question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. Whether we prefer posturing to action.”

But his eight-minute speech offered nothing new or concrete about America’s actions on global warming, and he was as indisposed to be conciliatory as China.

He, like France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, also used the speech to take a shot at China for refusing to bow to American and European demands to submit to inspections of its actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “I don’t know how you have an international agreement where you don’t share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory.”

Obama can promise anything as long as he can say “if only China would have … ” However, Obama remains disposed to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a taxing policy based on our “carbon footprint,” but the money spent to reduce carbon output will not match the taxes imposed. However, all of this … Copenhagen, global disaster, human tragedy-in-the-making, and a global agreement (or lack thereof) is not what the whole Climate Change Extravaganza is about.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that astronomers in several countries, just say the US, France, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Russia, Iceland and Indonesia among others all announce the discovery of a five kilometer diameter asteroid that was on a collision course with the earth. All also agree on the estimated date of collision to be three years hence. Let’s also say that this discovery is confirmed by a number of respected amateur astronomers. Now we can be fairly certain that this is settled science. Sure, we’ll get some people who disagree, but their position isn’t based on anything other than, oh, let’s say their religion.

Do you believe that under the above scenario the major countries of the world would be unable to come to agreement to collectively develop a strategy to somehow meet this grave threat? I doubt it. They may have difficulty agreeing on exactly what form the strategy should take … send nuclear weapons to blow the asteroid into small pieces, attempt to attach multiple rocket engines to one side to “push” it on another trajectory, whatever … it doesn’t really matter. Most everyone sees the threat and knows something needs to be done, otherwise some or all of us will not survive.

So why wasn’t an agreement reached in Copenhagen to do something about Global Climate Change? Why couldn’t the developed countries reach an agreement on what everyone will do to reduce the “cause” of the so-called “climate disaster?”

First, there isn’t one single overriding reason for attending for all the countries that in fact are participating. No one big purpose. Some countries of the developing world are there for no other reason than to see how much they can shake down the first world for. Others are there so that if there is a hand-out, they won’t miss theirs. Some first would countries are attending because their leaders feel guilty for their predecessors’ colonial adventures; they need to give away their citizens’ hard-earned money to anyone with dark skin and a hand extended. Others just want an excuse to increase taxes.

Second, I suspect very few of the conference participants truly believe there is problem needing a solution. They all spout the doctrine of climate change, but if in fact most of them believed it, they would have a much less difficult time developing an agreement to do something about it.

Third, many are there because of the money … vast amounts of money. In addition to the transfer of wealth that many third-world countries would love to be the recipient of, there will be massive amounts of money from a commercial perspective. Questionably effective green technology, shoved down the throats of consumers through regulation by pliable governments, will create many very wealthy people so long as they can buy the right politicians or bureaucrats.

Lastly, the elitist are there for power … more power over the lives of any country stupid enough to buy into this global warming/climate change clap-trap. These generally have a “UN” somewhere on their business cards, or at least wished they did.

In my opinion, Climategate did much more damage to this conference than any of the participants would ever admit. Was it the cause of the failure? Probably not entirely. Lack of a central purpose was probably the primary reason for failure. When the participants all want more than they are willing to give, it’s a recipe for failure.

… and you want the Government to run your healthcare system II

Remember last summer when we were told there was a pandemic awaiting us in the autumn? Remember being told the government was in control and developing a vaccine to protect us all? Remember the delivery of that life-saving vaccine being a little bit late and in quantities not quite sufficient to take care of those most at risk?

From Fox News:

ATLANTA —  Hundreds of thousands of swine flu shots for children manufactured by French drug company Sanofi Pasteur have been recalled because tests indicate the vaccine doses lost some strength, government health officials said Tuesday.

The recall is for about 800,000 pre-filled syringes intended for young children, ages 6 months to nearly 3 years.

The shots were distributed across the country last month and most have already been used, according to the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Doctors were notified of the voluntary recall on Tuesday.

And you still think the government can assume total control of the American healthcare system, provide coverage for every American, keep the services at the same level as we enjoy today, and do all this at a lower cost than we are currently paying? If you believe any of these, you’ve never dealt with the Post Office, DMV, the Veterans Administration, Social Security, the IRS, or any other “service organization” run by the government.

And to my great chagrin, Sen. Lieberman just bought into Harry Reid’s latest rejiggering of Obamacare.  I’m not sure there are any others willing to stand up to Obama/Pelosi/Reid … unless Ben Nelson sticks to his guns of the payment for abortions issue.

Congress is acting like a wimp!

“The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a ‘command-and-control’ role over the process in a way that could hurt business,” Fox News reports:

While administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won’t be pretty.

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Congress has abdicated its responsibility for so long that they’ve forgotten that it is they who should be telling regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency what they are allowed to do. Their reason for pushing things like carbon tax off on the EPA is simple enough … come election time they can tell their constituents “it wasn’t me that raised your taxes … it was those dirty regulators!”

But this move by the EPA has an added benefit; the Democrats in Congress no longer has to worry about dealing Cap and Tax and Tax and Tax; it is now Obama’s problem … he just took responsibility … though most likely without realizing it. The EPA is an agency and therefore part of the Obama administration. He now owns the “climate change taxing authority,” thereby relieving Congress of the responsibility.

But that still doesn’t fix the problem of Congress continuing to shirk their responsibility. The Obamacare bill in the Senate has … at last count … almost 2,100 pages. Were it to be put into law the Department of Health and Human Services, among others, would then have responsibility of creating the specifics rules and regulations to make it work.

I suspect those 2,100 pages would end up being the table of contents to one of the most massive sets of regulations ever created in the history of government. And then when the feces hit the rotating air movement device, our elected “officials” would point the finger and say “it wasn’t us … they did it!”

As responsible citizens of this great country, let’s resolve to hold our elected representatives responsible for their actions. No more finger-pointing … you help craft and then vote for the law … you are responsible from then on!

Second opinion on Obamacare

I’ve been really torn by this whole issue of Obamacare, so I thought I’d get a second opinion on my view of the current state of affairs. I went to that deep thinker and endless font of knowledge, Pootwattle, the Virtual Academic (TM). He advised me thusly:

The politics of indeterminacy is symptomatic of the epistemology of metaphoric exchange.

Somewhat non-pulsed, I turned to  Smedley, the Virtual Critic (TM), who came back with the snappy retort:

Pootwattle’s loosely organized musing on the relationship between the politics of indeterminacy and the epistemology of metaphoric exchange illustrates the intellectual depths to which the field has sunk.

I guess that settles it. Now we know where Reid, Pelosi and Obama go for guidance.

Obamacare at the balancing point

The Senate has spent every day since returning from their Thanksgiving Harvest Festival holiday focused on cobbling together Obamacare in some fashion or other in order to get all the Democrats on board and achieve cloture.  I cringe when some organization such as the National Right to Life Committee comes out saying they can no longer support the bill following the defeat of an amendment to prohibit funding for abortions:

The amendment rejected today, supported by NRLC, was sponsored by Senator Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  It contained the same substance as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which was adopted by the House of Representatives on November 7, 240-194.  Both amendments would prevent the federal government insurance program (the “public option”) from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest).  In addition, both amendments would prevent federal subsidies from being used to purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion, but would not restrict the sale or purchase of such policies with private funds.

What they are basically saying is that had the amendment passed, they would support the bill! Why in the name of all that’s holy would they support the so-called “Health care” legislation the Dems are pushing? As an aside, as I am a Constitutional constructionist, I am against the Federal government having any say the the abortion issue at all; it should be left up to the states … but that’s not the subject of this post. A number of organizations and individuals have wrapped their arms around one issue or another related to this bill and put a stake in the ground and announced that unless their issues is included/excluded … they would not be able to support the passage of Obamacare.

The Republicans have adopted the strategy of pushing as many amendments as they can that, in their mind, will cause some Democrat Senators problems in the general elections next November if they vote against any specific amendment. In my mind, this strategy is similar to the NRLC’s reaction descried above. They appear as if they are trying to “fix” legislation that they otherwise agree to!

All of this bill … Obamacare … is BAD!!!! Terrible! Horrible ! It is the last major step through the door of socialism.

I have said before that if this bill were to pass the Senate, it doesn’t really make any difference what is in it or what it says. It will next go to committee … a meeting of the Senate and House leaders … where anything the Dems really want will be put back in and then sent back to both houses of Congress for a floor vote. That means it will only require a majority vote in both houses to pass. The Dems have more than enough votes to pass the bill in in both houses and allow some of the so-called “blue dog Democrats” to vote no … so they will be able to go home and tell their constituents, “hey, I voted against that healthcare bill. Just look at my record!”

I said in a post here that if this bill gets through cloture, the only one that gets to vote on the final bill is Obama. Any guess as to how he’ll vote?

We must do everything we can to stop this thing dead in its tracks … burn up the phone lines to your Senators, donate to the conservative candidate running against Blanche Lincoln (AR), Michael Bennett (CO), Evan Bayh (IN), Arlen Spector (PA) and last but not least … Harry Reid (NV). Whatever!

Just remember … 97% of every bill ever passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President is still the Law of the Land! It will be far more difficult to undo this legislation than to stop it dead in its tracks now.

Get on it … or get out!

I have been a staunch supporter of George W. Bush’s defense policies since he ordered our troupes into Afghanistan in October 2001. This means I also backed his decision to invade Iraq and to stick it out there through some very rough times. The Islamofacist ended up choosing Iraq as their “last stand” and Bush was right in sticking with the mission.

What I understood was that if we didn’t take the fight to our enemy, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamofacist groups, they would bring the fight to us, al-la 9/11. We had to bring order to those stateless regions that our enemies used as bases for training, such as Afghanistan and Somalia; areas where these crazies could control the local population and recruit other young crazies to go out and do jihad.

Several recent events have started to cause me to change my position on this now so-called War on Terror. I suppose I began to take another look following the terrorist attack at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, which I wrote about here.  The idea that the leaders in our military would allow someone with such seemingly radical beliefs, but more-so … actions, was rather a wake call to me. I had no idea that our military had changed so drastically in terms of its political correctness since my time in the Navy in the mid-1960’s. Mind you, bureaucracies protecting well-connected individuals within their ranks is older than Homer and the ancient Greek civilization.

What has been happening to our military is really nothing more than has been happening to our culture. We are becoming not only soft, our society is being feminized … emasculated. We have elected leaders that push this “kinder, gentler” crap not only on our institutions and society at large, but also on our military. From that, someone like Major Hasan is allowed to work within our most trusted institution at will.

The next event that continued to eat away at my belief that what we were going off kilter was when the AG, Eric Holder announced the government was going to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the brains behind many terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, along with four of his fellow jihadist to New York and put them on trial in Federal Court. As I said in my post on this,

There can be only one of three outcomes of such a show trial:

  • The trial will end in acquittals for one or more of the terrorists, which will make the outcome of the first Rodney King trial look like a birthday party,
  • The trial will end in a life sentence for the terrorists … the same outcome had they continued being held in Gitmo, or
  • The terrorists will be sentenced to death, giving them the world stage on which to declare their martyrdom, enticing thousands of wanta-be jihadists to take up the cause for Allah.

There is no way of turning this around, with the possible exception of terrorists pulling off a successful attack on our shores before the trial opens. Oh wait … that already happened!

What ever the outcome at the conclusion of such a show trial … we lose.

A couple of weeks ago the news broke that three Navy SEALs were facing a courts-martial for splitting the lip of Ahmed Hashim Abed, thought to be behind the slayings and mutilation of four U.S. security contractors in Falluja, Iraq. They are facing charges based solely on the word of Abed. This is in the same context of the courts-martial of six US Marines in the infamous Haditha case, where they were accused of massacring Iraqi civilians, only in this case the accuser was a combatant. Both events were driven by politicians more interested in political correctness than in defeating those who wish our society dead.

Last Tuesday evening, Obama gave is lackluster speech on his plans for the future of our military presence in Afghanistan. While I was pleased he was going to at least somewhat meet General Stanley McChrystal’s request of another 40,000 to 60,000 troupes, his putting a timetable on our continued presence there without regard to results was stupid. When a Presidential candidate, he espoused the same “strategy” for Iraq. This whole notion of an “exit strategy” being anything other than victory is ludicrous. You don’t put the lives of those willing to put themselves into harms way at risk without being willing to do whatever it takes to win.

His delivery at West Point was not something that inspired the cadets in attendance. What must they have thought, they themselves actually going into harms way in the next one to four years? “Hmmm … this guy isn’t interested in what happens way over there in Afghanistan … do I really want to stick my neck out for someone who worries more about how much the war costs than he does about winning?” Obama is trying to find a way of getting out without being accused of losing the war. His real interests lie in defeating Americanism, not the Taliban,  al-Qaeda or Jihadism.

Lastly, on Thursday I read an article by Andy McCarthy where he laments the fact that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Louay Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Read Andy’s article, but I suspect it will anger you just as it did me. More political correctness to be sure, but this has taken PC to a new height.

It has become blandly obvious that neither our political leaders nor our military leaders are serious about winning in Afghanistan, and possible anywhere else either. That said, why are we putting our best and brightest at risk or even in a position where they could be accused of a “crime” and potentially spend time in prison for doing what we sent them out to do in the first place? I now say start pulling them out and bring them all home. After all, we have already become what Osama Bin Laden accused us of being … the weak horse.

I’m afraid that the only thing that will bring back the resolve we had in the Autumn of 2001 is for us to suffer another major attack. However, if such an attack doesn’t happen, we will most likely end up being defeated the way Briton and France are being defeated today … by a fifth column of liberals and jihadist slowly taking away our freedoms, one Amendment at a time.

Beyond the Message

The day following Obama’s victory speech after his win in the Iowa Caucasus, I read the transcript. The speech was among the 10 best delivered speeches I’d ever heard, but I wanted to understand precisely what he said. I was flabbergasted! It was the emptiest speech I have ever encountered.

I had no illusion that I would ever support Obama’s run for the presidency, but I thought it important I listen to the man, and following Iowa I listened to maybe two or three more speeches in full. After that I couldn’t take it any more. I came to the conclusion he was an empty suit, full of platitudes and a lot of talk without saying a thing. Later I found it more and more difficult to withstand an entire speech … until tonight.

I do not believe the politicos in Washington have taken our presence in Afghanistan seriously for several years and our service men have taken a beating as a result, both physically and emotionally. So I wanted to watch Obama tonight and see what had taken him so long to decide.

I suppose you could accurately say my expectations were not very high and I wasn’t disappointed.  Of the pundits I’ve read over the last couple of hours, Victor Davis Hansen best captures my read on what was said:

That was such a strange speech. Deploring partisanship while serially trashing Bush at each new talking point. Sending more troops, but talking more about when they will come home rather than what they will do to the enemy. There was nothing much new in the speech, yet apparently it took the president months to decide whether even to give it.

Ostensibly the talk was to be on Afghanistan; instead, the second half mostly consisted of the usual hope-and-change platitudes.

Still, the president, to his credit, is trying to give the best picture of the Afghanistan war. Obama started well in his review of why George Bush removed the Taliban. But that disinterested narrative lasted about two minutes. Then came the typical Obama talking points that characterize his reset-button foreign policy and don’t offer a high degree of confidence that our commander in chief wants to defeat the enemy or believes that he can win the war:

Be sure and read his entire take. It captures classic Obama.

Back to Obama and his actual delivery … I actually watched the entire speech, and I really mean watched. I saw something I had not noticed before, even understanding he relies heavily on Teleprompter. He began the speech looking toward the audience on his left and from that point forward, his head moved from the left to the right and back, never looking at the audience directly in front of him … just left to right and back to left.

He was reading! Reading his teleprompter! Left … to right… and back. READING!!!!

It is no wonder his speeches are so “intellectual,” delivered in “such measured tones,” “thoughtful.” “measured,” and so-forth. His doesn’t deliver passionate, heartfelt speeches because … he’s reading the words, not feeling a message!

I’m going to force myself to watch his next speech and I expect that the moment he stops shifting back and forth, left to right and back, and starts looking directly into the camera (not at the audience directly in front of him), the speech is about to come to an end and he has reached the only part of the speech he’s memorized, as he did tonight.

Lastly … I felt his discussion of how he has personally “seen first hand the terrible wages of war,” “traveled to Dover,” “visited soldiers at Walter Reid,” was about the most self-serving statements a so-called Commander-in-Chief has ever uttered!  PLEASE!!!

An empty suit! What a phony.