Archive for Constitution

When Democrats Disagree

Do they become disagreeable?

Dianne Feinstein corrects the leader of the free world:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein sharply contradicted President Barack Obama on Monday, disagreeing with his claim that the Islamic State is “contained.”
“I’ve never been more concerned,” the California Democrat and Intelligence Committee ranking member told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Monday. “I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding.”
Story Continued Below

“They just put out a video saying it is their intent to attack this country. I think we have to be prepared,” she continued. On Monday, ISIL warned it could attack Washington if the U.S. participated in France’s response to the events in Paris.

The reality is that the President has more power than the other two branches combined, and Feinstein can whine all she wants, we aren’t going to do anything aggressive against ISIS.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Yale Then, Yale Now

Jew hatred never goes out of fashion

In 2003, I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed freshman at Yale when the Afro-American Cultural Center invited the late Amiri Baraka to speak under its auspices. Baraka (né LeRoi Jones) had been a founder of the Black Arts Movement, Black Power’s artistic arm, but had more recently gained notoriety for his Sept. 11 themed poem “Somebody Blew Up America?,” a long-winded, malevolent tirade whose most infamous verse asked, “Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers/ To stay home that day/ Why did Sharon stay away?” Calls came to revoke from Baraka the honor of Poet Laureate of New Jersey, and, legally prevented from stripping him of the title individually, the New Jersey state legislature abolished the position altogether.

Naturally, the decision to host Baraka upset many people on campus, not least Yale’s Jewish community. Appeals to the Afro-American Cultural Center to reconsider its invitation were dismissed. As a 19-year-old Jew from the affluent suburbs of Boston, whose only direct, personal knowledge of anti-Semitism had been as the recipient of elementary school joshing for not celebrating Christmas, I was therefore privileged to witness an eminent Jew-hater being welcomed to an institution I venerated and that I hoped would be my home.

Like my successors at Yale, I could have yelled at the dean responsible for the invitation and demanded her resignation, though I imagine that the sight of a white, male student calling a black, female administrator “disgusting” to her face—in observance of prevailing norms of campus—would have been met with something less than the indulgence that Yale officials show to their current batch of clamorous undergraduates. Challenged to explain Baraka’s visit, the then-dean of the Cultural Center replied with non-sequiturial whataboutery, criticizing a former Israeli military officer for “shar[ing] anti-Palestinian remarks” at a speaking engagement she had not attended. You Jews, read the barely disguised threat, are in no place to cry about anti-Semitism, and I will be more than happy to expose the racist skeletons in your closets if you don’t shut up.

Had Baraka spoken about his artistic career instead of merely reciting his poem and making assertions as to the factual validity of its deceitful claims, his presence on campus would not have been so objectionable. Baraka’s assertions of Israeli complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks, which he reiterated after reading the poem with vague citations to Arab newspapers, were met with applause and a standing ovation from the assembled Yale students. When he noticed my skeptical expression from the back of the room, he diagnosed me as suffering from “constipation of the face” and being in need of “a brain enema,” to the uproarious laughter of my classmates.

I did not insist upon the establishment of a “safe space” to sulk in my humiliation. Instead, I retired to my dorm and wrote about the event, in my capacity as a budding columnist for the Yale Daily News. Baraka’s speech, and, more importantly, the rapturous response, I wrote, “was one of the most disturbing events in my entire life.” That this trial by fire was provoked not by the white skinheads or Muslim anti-Zionists I had naively assumed were the only purveyors of anti-Semitic hatred, but by blacks, who, because of our shared history of oppression, I had been brought up to believe, were supposed to be my allies, made it all the more distressing.

Today, I look back on the entire incident as a formative event in my evolution from teenager to adult. My experience at Yale of confronting painful ideas, emotionally vexing situations, and learning how to cope with them, informs my opinion about the events roiling the campus today. Looking back on 12-year-old news clips of l’affaire Baraka, it’s jarring to read the misplaced appeal to free speech offered by the former Dean of the Cultural Center, who defended Baraka’s visit by insisting that, “The Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale and the Black Student Alliance at Yale declare their belief in the importance of free speech as a fundamental tenet of the university.” Free speech is all well and good, apparently, when the speaker is a bigoted lunatic from a “marginalized” group; not so good when the person in question is a Yale professor advocating for her students’ freedom to choose a Halloween costume.

The rest of the article is about the ridiculous attack on three professors in the Yale community and how little free speech matters. But the most interesting part, to me, is that being a Jew among leftists always means: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.

On a related note, Eli Lake tweeted this out:

Are we ok with Bibi saying ISIS is medieval? Are we sure western culture with its drones and insensitive halloween costumes is so superior?



Hillary: Full-Blown Investigation

FBI getting closer

Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former Secretary of State’s home-made email system, and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.
The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and DOJ officials inteviewed by POLITICO.
Story Continued Below

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

Question for the philosophical sorts in Bloothirstan: If an investigation discovers wrong-doing, and the case is referred to the Justice Department, but the Justice Department squashes it, did the investigation happen?

– Aggie

Comments (4)

Reports That Obama Intends To Blow Off The Court

On Amnesty

A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.

More at the link. Honestly, why wouldn’t he just ignore the Fifth Circuit? Who is going to stop him? He’s kind of like a metrosexual Vladimir Putin, isn’t he?

– Aggie

Comments (3)

Rand Paul Lied About Filibuster

He spoke for a whopping 20 minutes

entucky Republican Rand Paul kicked off the third filibuster of his Senate career, a denunciation of the debt limit negotiated between GOP leadership and the White House — and then he walked off the floor. “This filibuster will go on to about 1:00 in the morning and then we will find out who the true conservatives in this town are,” he said on the Senate floor. “It disappoints me greater than I can possibly express that the party that I belong to that should be the conservative party doesn’t appear to be conservative. This is a big problem.”

Uh, we are not impressed, dude.

– Aggie


Keep Arms, Deport Illegals

If this doesn’t cement 2nd Amendment rights in perpetuity, I don’t know whay will:

In the case of a Milwaukee man deported over a single .22-caliber cartridge, a federal appeals court ruled last week that even unlawful immigrants can be part of “the public” that enjoys a Second Amendment right to keep a gun for self-defense.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said even undocumented immigrants can be part of “the people” protected by the Bill of Rights, though it upheld the man’s conviction on a specific law that prohibits most such people from having guns.

“It is now clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no second-class entitlement, (and) we see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded,” Judge Diane Wood wrote for a panel that included Judges Frank Easterbrook and Joel Flaum.

“No language in the Amendment supports such a conclusion, nor, as we have said, does a broader consideration of the Bill of Rights.”

I know many conservatives are fearful of extending rights to illegal aliens, as am I, but there are some rights that are inalienable. You can’t be here, and we’re going to kick your ass out when we catch you, but while you’re here, you can speak without government interference, you can decline to incriminate yourself, and you can pack heat. Having said that, if you’re an illegal, the odds of you owning a gun legally are exceedingly small.

But I still celebrate this ruling. If illegal aliens can own guns, who can’t? The 2nd Amendment has never stood on firmer terra.


Why Trump Is Obama-For-The-Right


I have but one disagreement with Mr. Podhoretz. He believes that we should avoid the excesses of ObamaAmerica. I disagree. We lost the core of our country when we hired a race-baiting community activist to lead us for eight years. It doesn’t matter at all what we do next. I would personally prefer a calmer President – Rubio, Kasich, Perry, whatever – but we have become a bombastic, celebrity-driven society and, most of all, Elections Have Consequences. One of the consequences of the Obama era is that law doesn’t matter anymore.

Donald Trump keeps rolling along, with new polls (caveat: polls stink) showing him far ahead of the GOP pack in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Not content with the evidence that he’s connecting with voters, Trump has continued with his signature campaign approach — insulting people. In the past two days, he’s taken to Twitter to trash-talk bête noire Megyn Kelly of Fox and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a fellow presidential candidate who poses absolutely no threat to him.

Trump’s startling affect — half-borrowed from the World Wrestling Federation’s scripted banter and half-stolen from shock-jock disc-jockeys — is a sea change from past elections.

Sure, they featured all kinds of ad hominem attacks jaw-dropping in their ugliness, but previous sophomoric assaults on media figures and other campaigns were the exclusive province of Red-Bull-chugging campaign spokeschildren who all sounded like they were on the verge of failing the eighth grade.

Trump has cut out the middleman. He is his own spokesman, his own opposition-research director and his own campaign hitman.
That’s why he’s so entertaining, and it’s also why most political professionals have found themselves aghast and agog at his rise. …

So how is this happening? Many say it’s because of his hard line on immigration. Trump believes this. Others, Bill Kristol in particular, have observed cleverly that Trump is the only unrestrained nationalist in the race.

I think there’s something else at play here. Trump has basically declared himself the anti-Obama, an all-American (he still believes Obama was born in Kenya) who has built things and run things and hasn’t just been an egghead and government guy.
In fact, what Trump is promising is simply a different form of Obamaism, and that is what perversely makes him attractive to so many people.

Obama’s astonishing second-term efforts to do an end-run around the constitutional limits of the presidency have given Trump’s approach peculiar resonance with certain conservatives.

They’ve watched in horrified amazement as Obama has single-handedly postponed parts of the Affordable Care Act; unilaterally installed people in federal jobs (at the National Labor Relations Board) that require congressional consent and announced in November 2014 that he’d cease enforcing certain immigration laws and effectively grant protection to 5 million so-called “dreamers” — when it is his constitutional obligation to enforce existing laws passed by Congress.

Trump is, in effect, promising to be a right-wing Obama, to run roughshod over the rules to fix things Obama and other politicians have broken.

Conservatives and others who dislike Obama see him acting with impunity. They believe the media cover for him. They think Republicans in Congress are too weak to challenge him. And so he gets whatever he wants.

So far, so good. Here’s where I disagree:

They’re largely right about the media, but they’re wrong that he gets away with whatever he pleases.
His immigration scheme was basically thrown in a garbage can by a district judge in Texas only three months after his speech, and his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Right-wing Obamaism is just as dangerous. The American system is designed to restrain our politicians, not to give them a free hand.
Trump is uninterested in such niceties, and he is canny enough to declare that anyone who disagrees with him is simply too weak or cowardly or too controlled by “political correctness” to see that his strongman tactics are the only way to fix what’s broken.
But the answer to Obamaism isn’t more Obamaism. The answer to a president who acts like a strongman isn’t another strongman. The answer is to restore the proper balance to the American government.

Restore proper balance? That ship has already sailed. Notice how he doesn’t mention the unilateral changes to ObamaCare in his defense of our judicial system? Wanna know why? Because Obama did change the law, many times, to suit his fancy. And the courts (insert verb plus angry description of their weak behavior here). In the state of Massachusetts, and self-employed couple earning just over $49,000.00 will pay 1/3rd of that in ObamaCare coverage. And lots of bitter clingers work for themselves and earn very restrained sums. Or how ’bout that Iran “deal”? Shall we just call it by its real name? It is a treaty. And treaties require Congressional approval.

Sorry, but we threw away our Constitution and the results for our nation, whether we elect Trump or Hillary or someone else, are not pretty.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

What Say We Take ObamaCare to the Supremes Again?

Third time’s the charm:

This past week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of four judges on that court, denied rehearing en banc (legalese for an entire court rather than just a panel of three judges) in the case of Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Sissel is a case against Obamacare led by the Pacific Legal Foundation, arguing that Obamacare is invalid because it violated the Origination Clause.

Now, the challengers have ninety days to file a writ of certiorari (an appeal) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This important case deals with the Origination Clause of the Constitution— which reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Founders included this clause primarily to balance out the unique powers the Senate wields, and to ensure that the power of drawing revenue from the people by taxing them would be initiated by the branch that was closest to them (remember, at that time the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote) and whose members would have to stand for re-election every two years.

Cast your mind back to the time: “taxation without representation” was a big effing deal, as Joe Biden once said of ObamaCare. It is not a mere technicality that the framers of the Constitution explicitly put revenue-raising powers in the House, whose members can (and often should) be tossed out after two years. You want to raise taxes? You’d better be able to make your case to the people.

That was then, as they say. This is now:

But if it’s a tax, shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House?

As it happens, Obamacare “originated” in the House in only a very formalistic sense.

H.R. 3590, the bill that became Obamacare, was originally titled “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” and had nothing to do with health care.

But to secure passage of Obamacare, the Senate decided to take this bill, which had passed the House, and gut it entirely, replacing the entire text of that bill with the Obamacare title and text and keeping only the bill number.

After it passed the Senate, the House then approved the new Senate-drafted bill through a reconciliation bill.

The problem is that this doesn’t look like the bill “originated” in the House in any meaningful way.

It was as though the Senate bulldozed a house and erected an entirely new structure, but said it was the same house because it had the same address.

And so Pacific Legal Foundation has sued.

Recently, they lost their challenge before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court, [Judge Nina] Pillard argues, has defined the Origination Clause as a “purposive” clause.

In other words, the original three-judge panel contends that since the main purpose of Obamacare was to expand health insurance coverage, rather to raise revenue for the general treasury—well, then the law is not a bill to raise revenue (even if, as the Supreme Court stated in its NFIB decision, the legislation has the potential to raise “considerable revenue”).

Under this precedent, the Senate could originate any tax bill, so long as some federal court was willing to hold that the “purpose” of the bill wasn’t primarily to raise tax revenue, but to do something else.

If that is the case, so much for the protections provided by the Origination Clause.

So, a law found Constitutional only because it was a tax, cannot Constitutionally be a tax. If this is what Scalia wrote after Round 2, God knows what he’ll write if John Roberts and Co. issue another get-out-of-jail-free card.

[T}his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax … “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by liti­gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

No wonder we label his signature piece of shi—sorry, legislation—with Obama’s name. It is as deceitful and as full of fecal matter as he is.

On a related matter:

Most federal insurance cooperatives created under the Affordable Care Act are losing money and could have difficulty repaying millions of dollars in federal loans, an internal government audit has found, prompting the Obama administration to step up supervision of the carriers.

Daniel R. Levinson, the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services, said that most of the insurance co-ops enrolled fewer people than they had predicted, and that 22 of the 23 co-ops lost money last year.

Even as overall enrollments for insurance have increased, many of the co-ops are still losing money, a review of 2015 data by federal health officials shows.

Is that a Butterfield-ism I just read? Maybe they’re losing money because of increased enrollments.

We’ve covered this before, but I had to stop again to admire a 22-out-of-23 failure rate. That’s impressive, even for government work. Even for Democrat government work. Even for Obama government work.

And what’s this about not paying back loans?

Over all, co-ops have received $2.4 billion in federal loans to help pay start-up costs and to meet state solvency requirements.

“The low enrollments and net losses might limit the ability of some co-ops to repay start-up and solvency loans and to remain viable and sustainable,” Mr. Levinson said in a report analyzing the insurers’ financial condition.

That sounds a lot like “I don’t have your money.” Are you sure that’s what you meant to say?

I didn’t think so.

Dr. Martin E. Hickey, the chief executive of the New Mexico co-op, who is also chairman of the National Alliance of State Health Co-ops, said it was unrealistic to expect them to achieve a surplus right away.

“This is inherently a risky venture, a tough, tough business,” Dr. Hickey said. “There will likely be a handful of co-ops that fail. I don’t deny that. But you will probably see the red ink disappear for some plans starting next year.”

The Kentucky plan lost $50 million last year, more than any other insurance co-op, as it paid out $1.25 in claims for every dollar it collected in premiums.

“We attracted many consumers with serious illnesses,” Ms. Dunlap said. “One of our most popular plans had low premiums, low out-of-pocket costs and a large network of providers. It’s difficult, it’s uphill, but we are energetic and hopeful. Trends are going in the right direction.”

Enrollment in the South Carolina co-op stands at 70,000, up from 46,000 at the end of last year, Mr. Burgess said. “We are still losing money,” he said, “but will break even in 2016.”

With the greatest respect to the late great James Gandolfini, I think Tony Soprano would say something like: “You better fu**in’ hope so, or that’s not all that’s gonna break in 2016! I want my money, you piece of sh*t, every fu**in’ penny of it, or I’ll show you ‘energetic’! You sure picked a ‘tough, tough business’—mine! And I collect. This is me askin’ nicely. I have to ask again, and you’re going to need all those doctors to fix you up after I get t’rough with you.”

God, I miss him.

PS: In my research (if that’s not too grand a word), I noted that we’re now at about 90% coverage rate for health insurance. That number has been greeted with glee. But the number before this cluster[bleep] was around 85%. Ninety is better than 85, I get it, but were those five percentage points worth all this deceit and absurdity? Or couldn’t they have been achieved in a more honest, more direct, cheaper manner? I have to think so.

Comments (1)

As A Conservative, You Are Not Quite A Full Citizen Of The United States

The British have some sort of weird system of citizenship – one bean, two bean, three bean. Maybe someone can write in and explain this to me. Whatever it means, we have obviously developed the same system.

This comes from a site devoted to tax issues, and links to government reports. If you go to the link, you will be annoyed mightily. You have to reload – not once, not twice, but three times – before the ad disappears.

Lois Lerner’s political beliefs led to tea party and conservative groups receiving disparate and unfair treatment when applying for non-profit status, according to a detailed report compiled by the Senate Finance Committee.

Because of Lerner’s bias, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax exempt status over a period of more than three years:

“Due to the circuitous process implemented by Lerner, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012. Lerner’s bias against these applicants unquestionably led to these delays, and is particularly evident when compared to the IRS’s treatment of other applications, discussed immediately below.”

Ok, what that means is that conservatives have been denied the opportunity to fully participate in the US system We are second class citizens, at best. And, of course, if you own a small business, you pay a disproportionate tax fare, especially when looking at ObamaCare. I don’t know what to do about any of this, other than to complain.

Perhaps the answer is to go Gault?


“Going Galt” doesn’t simply mean getting angry. That would be “Going Postal.” It means having righteous indignation at the injustice of a political system that bails out individuals and institutions for irresponsible behavior and at the expense of those like you who prosper through hard work and personal responsibly.
“Going Galt” means asking in the face of new taxes and government controls, “Why work at all?” “For whom am I working?” “Am I a slave?”
“Going Galt” means recognizing that you’re being punished not for your vices but for your virtues.
“Going Galt” means recognizing that you have a moral right to your own life, the pursuit of your own happiness, and thus to the rewards you’ve earned with your labor.
“Going Galt” means recognizing that you deserve praise and honor for your achievements rather than damnation as “exploiters.”
“Going Galt” means recognizing that you do not need to justify your life or wealth to your neighbors, “society,” or politicians, or bureaucrats. They’re yours, period!
“Going Galt” means recognizing that the needs of others do not give them a claim to your time, effort, and achievements.
“Going Galt” means shrugging off unearned guilt, refusing to support your own destroyers, refusing to give them what Ayn Rand termed “the sanction of the victim.” It means taking the moral high ground by explicitly rejecting as evil the premise of “self-sacrifice” that they sell to you as a virtue— in fact “self-sacrifice” is an invitation to suicide.

Now, in my opinion, Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst written books in the English language. I can’t read it guys. Terrible. But she (Ayn Rand) had real insight into the Age of Obama.

– Aggie


Judge Blocks Release Of More Planned Parenthood Videos [Update]

It appears that the releases are limited to the material from one company, because this came out today. Note: If you don’t want to see the gross stuff, stop at about 8:57. The material leading up to 8:57 is all about money, lawyers, etc. Having said that, the conversation is fascinating and informative after 8:57. Eyeballs, brain, another boy!!

This is what free speech looks like in the Age Of Obama

The pro-life group behind a series of undercover Planned Parenthood videos accused the bioservice firm StemExpress late Wednesday of trying to “cover up this illegal baby parts trade” after the company obtained a court order blocking the release of footage.

The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary injunction Tuesday stopping the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video showing three officials from StemExpress, a company that transfers fetal tissue from abortions performed at Planned Parenthood and other clinics to medical researchers.

I understood that there are nine more tapes. Most of us get it by now, but this is a typically fascist move. Next they will arrest the videographer in the middle of the night, perp walk him to jail, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will blame the riots in Baltimore on him.

– Aggie


Obama: I Could Win A Third Term


President Obama told the African Union Tuesday that he felt he had been a “pretty good” president and if he were allowed to run for a third term, he’d probably be victorious.

Obama made the remarks while criticizing leaders on the continent who wouldn’t step aside at the conclusion of their terms.

“Now, let me be honest with you,” Obama said. “I do not understand this. I am in my second term. It has been an extraordinary privilege for me to serve as the President of the United States. I cannot imagine a greater honor or a more interesting job. I love my work. But under our Constitution, I cannot run again.”

The crowd cheered appreciatively.

“I actually think I’m a pretty good president,” he said. “I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law.”

The law is the law? Really? I think he’s playing around with the idea of somehow staying in office.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

So True..

You Can’t Keep Up With Obama’s Corruption, Incompetence and Hyperactivity

People ask me if I ever lack ideas for opinion pieces. Au contraire: Like a Malibu firefighter encircled by blazing brush, I can’t decide where to aim my hose. I spent most of Wednesday trying to pick which of that day’s Obama-fueled infernos to douse. I awoke to the news that Obama has fallen way behind on his promise to train moderate Syrians to fight ISIS. After budgeting some $500 million to instruct and equip 3,000 anti-ISIS troops by year’s end, Obama, in fact, has unleashed 60 such combatants. That’s 2 percent down, 98 percent to go. But, hey, what’s the rush? Even before the advent of ISIS, Obama originally touted this effort as a bulwark against the brutality of Bashar Assad, the dictator of Damascus. “We are particularly interested in making sure that we are mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria,” Obama declared at a presidential debate on October 22, 2012. Thirty-two months later, Obama’s moderate Syrian force boasts a whopping five dozen members.

“The number 60, as you all recognize, is not an impressive number,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. “The number is much smaller than we hoped for at this point.” Obama exhibits little urgency. His policy recalls what a Jamaican waiter might say after your conch fritters remain unserved after 45 minutes: “Soon come, mon. Soon come.” Apparently, placing non-American boots on the ground is not so important in the battle against ISIS.

“Ideologies are not defeated with guns,” Obama explained Monday. “They are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision.” If only we had deployed copies of The Federalist Papers on Omaha Beach, rather than GIs. We could have crushed Hitler in a jiffy. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) told Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum Wednesday, “In all the years that I have observed different conflicts and American conduct of foreign policy and national-security policy, this is the most bizarre.”

Also, bizarre is the IRS political-harassment scandal. Former IRS official Lois Lerner initially blamed “our line people in Cincinnati” for subjecting conservative and tea-party groups to excessive scrutiny, stifling paperwork demands, intrusive interrogations (“please provide the percentage of time your organization spends on prayer groups”), and endless delays in their applications for tax-exempt status.

Wednesday’s headlines revealed a far broader and darker abuse of power. If you like Obamacare and Obamanet, you will love Obamahood. Having wrecked the medical industry and nationalized the Internet, Obama now wants Washington to dictate the demographic makeup of America’s neighborhoods. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection, and this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining the IRS files of innocent Americans,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. The conservative watchdog group uncovered an IRS document that shows how the agency furnished the FBI with 21 computer disks bearing 1.25 million pages from some 113,000 tax records. This transfer included the improper disclosure of “confidential taxpayer information,” which is covered by two laws that carry criminal penalties: Internal Revenue Code Section 6103 and the federal Privacy Act. Given Team Obama’s Chinese-style stonewalling, congressional investigators are unlikely to solve this mystery. They also lack police power to do much about it. Thus, it’s time for a special prosecutor.

More at the link. What in the world happened to this country? When we were kids, it wasn’t without fault, but it was a decent place. I can’t say that any longer.

– Aggie


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »