Category Archives: featured opinion

Obama-Care Is A Big Success

OK it is settled, Obama-Care is a big success, at least that is what the President has told us and if he tells us it is so, it must be, because Obama would never lie to the American people. There is something I do not understand, there are supposedly about three-hundred- fifteen million people in this country, there were supposedly over forty million people who were uninsured and over six million people supposedly had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obama-Care. So, because seven million people have signed-up for Obama-Care, that means it is a success? Something just does not compute.

The president says “this law is doing what it is supposed to be doing.” And he went on to thank the Democrats in Congress who pushed this law through. “They should be proud of what they’ve done,” he said. Again, something does not compute. Six million people lose their policies, that they were happy with I might add. People cannot keep their doctors or their hospitals. Their premiums have risen along with their deductibles and they are forced to take coverage that they do not want. Again, Obama says the law is working as it was meant too, well I guess that means the Democrats knew that those things would happen all along.

In his speech in the Rose Garden, Obama also said, “Under this law, the share of Americans with insurance is up and the cost is down,” but if you look at the stats that is not the case. Less people are now insured, while premiums and deductibles have risen, someone needs to make the President aware of that. He also said, “We didn’t make a hard sell,” while the total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press, including more than 400 interviews, celebrity and athlete endorsements and heavy use of social media to engage a younger audience. Now that seems like a pretty hard sell to me.

Obama also said, “The debate over repealing this law is over,” “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

I got some pretty bad news for Obama, the debate is not over, because a majority of Americans are still against the law. What makes matters worse for Obama-Care is that people who are uninsured are turning against it as well. Americans without health insurance have never seen Obama-Care in such a negative light. Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly health tracking poll found that in February, 56 percent of the uninsured view Obama-Care unfavorably. The percentage of uninsured with a positive view reached its lowest point since Kaiser began tracking reactions in March 2010 when Obama-Care was passed into law. Just 22 percent of uninsured Americans have a generally favorable opinion about the law.

Obama-Care is a terrible law, that is doing more harm than good and it needs to be repealed, but I think it will eventually crumble under its own weight. Democrats who are up for re-election are still running from the law, they will have to answer for voting for a bill that they did not even read and are now paying for that decision.

My biggest peeve is the mandate; the government should not be able to force people to buy any product. Anyway, I have always said, if this thing called Obama-Care is such a wonderful thing, why do they have to force people to buy it? If it is such a glorious thing, people would be running to buy it, not running away from it. It is a law that must be repealed.

“Hey! Alan Colmes I read Your Book” (a Republicans Rebuttal) Available here.

Care PixThis is one man’s opinion.

World Vision’s Secular Myopia

Even better than having 'Vision' in your name is having it in your brain.

Even better than having ‘Vision’ in your name is having it in your brain.

Maybe it was a Mexican divorce.

Last Monday World Vision President Richard Stearns walks hand–in–hand down the aisle pledging fealty to homosexual marriage until death do they part. This is big news, because World Vision is a Christian charity and the nation’s 10th largest.

Then, only 48 hours later, the happy couple is fighting over who gets to keep the china as Stearns backpedals furiously.

And through all the uproar Stearns has this slightly baffled aspect, as if he’d just spent the last two days selling flowers in Terminal A for the Moonies, and now his parents have whisked him back home where he decides joining the Jaycees isn’t that bad after all.

For those who missed the controversy, in Christianity Today World Vision announced it “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman” — an implied endorsement of homosexual marriage.

Stearns characterized this surrender as a “very narrow policy change.” Yet AP described it as “a dramatic policy change on one of the most divisive social issues facing religious groups.”

During an interview Stearns became defensive, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope…This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues.”

Which makes one grateful World Vision didn’t have any members of Westboro Baptist on the board.

Still you can’t help but wonder what version of the Bible Stearns and the board is consulting. “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture. People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.”

This is sophistry. Bart Ehrman is James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the UNC and a best–selling author, yet he denies the divinity of Christ, which at the time this is written World Vision still supports. Evidently Stearns and the board pick–and–choose among theologians as they pick–and–choose among Bible verses.

Then demonstrating his utter cluelessness regarding fundamental issues of church doctrine and how the secular world views the faithful, Stearns remarked, “I don’t want to predict the reaction we will get. I think we’ve got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we’re doing this, and it’s my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us.”

I suppose this type of reasoning makes sense when your reading matter is limited to The New York Times and Sojourners.

But in the Evangelical Christian world his “persuasive series of reasons” produced a stunning backlash. In the ensuing 48 hours World Vision lost money, support and credibility. Approximately 5,000 individual sponsors and contributors canceled, costing the organization upwards of $2.1 million. 60 church partners called the office to withdraw their support. And a number of employees at headquarters resigned. Some in protest, some because of the stress of dealing with the fallout from Stearns’ colossal stupidity.

Wednesday a chastened Stearns and board chairman Jim Beré signed a contrite letter that read, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.”

Later in a conference call with reporters, Stearns elaborated, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness” and if he “could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders.”

But he just ran out of time, what will all the meetings with The New York Times editorial board, the Human Rights Campaign and the cast of The Laramie Project.

The rapid retraction is a good first step, but the fact remains World Vision’s current leadership is unfit to run the organization.

In a post–divorce interview with Religion News Service, Stearns is taken aback by the notion he bears any responsibility. “No, there have been no serious requests for my resignation. I would certainly under- stand if the board wanted to make a decision around that. Some of the board members have asked the question about their own resignation. Right now, our feeling is we were all in this together. We made certainly, in retrospect, a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations.”

Here we agree. Stearns and the board are all in it together and they should all take the honorable path and resign.

Here’s just a brief rundown of the unnecessary havoc these morally blind people have caused:

  1. Seriously damaged a reputation in the Evangelical community it took 63 years to build.
  2. Proved themselves totally unfit to manage the reputation and public relations of a billion dollar organization by demonstrating a basic failure to understand the culture and media.
  3. Potentially endangered employees working in Africa where governments are passing laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.
  4. Cost the organization millions of dollars.
  5. Opened World Vision up to scrutiny and attack from militant homosexual organizations and a hostile Obama administration.
  6. Distracted the staff from the mission of serving the world’s poor.

Any one of these offenses is enough, but all are an indictment that only resignation, reflection and repentance will answer.

Naturally many Christian leaders are welcoming World Vision’s return to the fold and urging Christians to resume financial and prayer support.  But as for me, if I want to make a contribution to an organization run by leadership that is this slippery and disingenuous, I’ll send a check to Congress.

Deportation: “What, Me Worry?”



koffler
As Keith Koffler at Whitehouse Dossier says, “Unless the Obama administration starts allowing non-citizens to send absentee ballots from Mexico, is does Democrats no good to deport all these future voters.”

Key Words: “future voters.” When what Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama is currently doing (or not doing) is examined through a future voter lens, his actions make perfect sense.

Although most illegal immigrants come to the attention of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because of proven or alleged criminal behavior, the Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama administration deports only about a quarter of the illegal immigrants it retains. According to a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report:

In 2013, ICE reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens, only about one-fourth.

About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute.

ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.

Under current policies, an alien’s family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case.

Over 541,000 illegal immigrants were released in 2013 alone, 68,000 (35%) with criminal convictions. A majority of the releases occurred not because the illegal immigrants had legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States, but because of current policies that shield most illegal immigrants from enforcement of our laws.

And the situation is only getting worse. The Obama administration’s pending review of deportation practices, its “prosecutorial discretion” policy, has, since 2011, caused a 40% decline in deportations. The administration may further relax its lenient “prosecutorial discretion” when deciding whether or not to deport illegal immigrants. And it is possibility that enforcement is being reduced now that Obama has been reelected.

The CIS report notes that the administration’s claims to have deported record numbers of illegal immigrants is based on its redefinition of “deported:”

An independent analysis of ICE records … showed that ICE was able to achieve these “record” departures only because the agency was taking credit for removing a large number of individuals who were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Such cases made up the majority of ICE’s reported deportations in 2013, but they had never been counted that way in previous administrations.

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson recently admitted to a House committee that the administration’s deportation figures are not comparable to previous administrations because of the large number of border removal cases.

Where is the MSM on this? Oh, yeah, they want to protect Obama regardless of the cost to the U.S.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my very conservative web site!

Should All Political Parties Embrace Liberal Values? The Left Seems To Think So.

donkey and elephantThe concept that the whims of public opinion, the fads of the moment, or the opinions of an ideological opponent should fundamentally alter what a particular political party stands for has always seemed rather odd to me. It is an argument I see trotted out in articles from Left leaning sites on a regular basis. The argument is always, without fail, that the Republican Party needs to become more like the Democratic Party. Yet the reverse is never suggested for consideration. Great “concern” is showed time and time again by often very radical and liberal writers, as well as general media types, that the Republican Party will fade away into oblivion and cease to be relevant if it doesn’t reject the “extremist” factions and beliefs that it currently contains.

As if they really care.

A healthy and robust representative government has political parties that represent different views and positions in that society, not ones that are merely pale shadows of one another. Now it would be nicer if we weren’t constricted by the two-party system and had more ideologically pure and clear parties to choose from, but in reality we do not. So the two political parties we do have should, in general, reflect different views and positions so that people have an actual choice between differing political philosophies when they go to polls.

If I was interested in voting for political candidates that are for bigger government, the redefinition of marriage, higher taxes, abortion on demand, a decadent popular culture, socialized medicine, gun control, amnesty and open borders I’d vote Democratic. I’m not, so I vote for the most conservative Republican candidate that I have the opportunity to do so.

Such appeals to turn Republicans into “Democrat lites” are little more than a crude attempt at reverse psychology. The fact that liberals and progressives are so “concerned” about the future of the Republican Party that they’ve decided to offer free and supportive advice for its future success is rather touching. Aren’t Republicans both lucky and fortunate?  Of course, the advice offered is simply to become more like them and to adopt their particular political positions. The argument seems to be that to succeed in running against liberals then one should just simply become more liberal. So in effect you end up with a liberal running against a slightly different shade of liberal which inevitably ends with virtually no real choice for the average voter and little difference in political governing views or policy in the long run.

There should be no shame in continuing to advocate for constitutional governance, protecting the traditional marriage and family structure that has been the foundation of society and civilization for thousands of years, or advancing the concept that the rights that come with personal freedom (ordered liberty) are inherent natural ones, not mere privileges bestowed or removed at will by the powers of government. In fact, these are tried and true timeless principles that have shown their worth through the ages. That is their strength and why they are seen as a dire threat to those who advocate the various isms of the Left. Marxism, fascism, National Socialism, and anarchism all have at one time or another been the inevitable political ism championed by  the young, the masses, and a culture at large and yet were ultimately proved to be riddled with weaknesses and incorrect beliefs. And the inability of enough people and institutions to stand against them has caused an immense amount of damage to human civilization.

Color me unimpressed that yet another ideology arising on the left side of the political spectrum once again seeks to smash the traditional rituals, traditions, morals, values and cultural institutions that came before it so that it can lead us all into an age of utopia. The words and phrases have changed in some instances but the motives and desired outcome in many ways have not. The attempt to water down the Republican Party is just one aspect of their attempt to conquer and capture academia, entertainment, mainstream media, the military, the courts, voluntary private entities like the boy scouts, and the political process all in the name of the common good. Words and phrases like privacy, women’s rights, tolerance, equality, diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism are all used with great effectiveness by the Left which has shown an amazingly effective ability (think 1984) to twist and redefine all of these concepts into Frankenstein versions of what should be acceptable and logical. We, as a society, are faced with a discomforting and distorted reality as constructed by the Left where right is wrong, good is evil, and the right to not be offended is the greatest right of all.

There are those who believe that there are no differences between the two parties anyway and claim that none of this even matters. But anyone who actually pays attention to the realm of politics and ideological warfare understands that this is not truly the case in reality and, while it may be moving in that direction, it certainly has not yet arrived at that destination. Just try to sell that line to a very frustrated, often stymied, and perpetually complaining Barack Obama who has had to contend with a Republican opposition that to a member voted against his health care plan and has refused to play nice with his administration since the very beginning. Try telling him there is no difference between the political parties. I’m afraid he’d beg to differ. And if there were in fact no significant differences that really mattered, the constant plaintive calls for the Republican Party to become more like them would not be echoing across the fruited plains from our Democratic friends. They would have no need to do so.

It is a sad truth that there are always those in the GOP who are willing to sell out and play along with the progressive agenda and that they exist in important and influential positions within the party. But at the same time it must be remembered that there are significant numbers that do not. That is worth noting and remembering.

One should always be very suspicious any time there is a systematic push to impose the principles and views of one political party onto another. There is a reason and agenda at work when you see that happening. All the platonic, friendly “warnings” from the Left, and the media in general, about how the Republicans are self-destructing, or losing their way, or radical, or leaning too far to the right, or are too extreme, or out of touch with the American people is actually revealing to us the fact that they are still very worried about the conservative Republican message. If they were not, they would be far less concerned about the internal affairs of the Republican Party and instead be focused on spending a little more time getting their own abysmal act together and putting their own house in order.

The Left would desperately love to see a de facto one-party state, and one way for them to do that is to help turn the Republican Party into a subservient, 2nd tier mirror image of the Democratic one  that’s just barely alive and effective enough to maintain the illusion of a two-party system of government. They hope, pray, and are at hard at work hoping to achieve that day.

Texas A&M: Obama 5th Best President

I am a big enough man to admit when I made a mistake. All this time I have been claiming that Obama was the worst President in my life time, even worse than Jimmy Carter. But how can I argue with Texas A&M, when they come out with a study that says Obama is the 5th best president, after reviewing the study, I have to admit they make a pretty strong case. So, I have to say that I agree with them and I think you will as well.

1236477_515805335198438_1964740940_n

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” (A Republicans Rebuttal)  Available here.

This is one man’s opinion.

Why Not Rand Paul?

“Mr. President, we will not let you run roughshod over our rights. We will challenge you in the courts, we will battle you at the ballot box. Mr. President, we will not let you shred our Constitution… It is decidedly not a time for the faint of heart. It is a time for boldness and action. The time is now. Stand with me, let us stand together for liberty.” – Senator Rand Paul

That message is the heart and soul of a possible Rand Paul run for the White House. He has urged us to imagine electing a President that is a “friend of liberty” who will defend the Constitution and push back against a federal government that is trampling our individual rights. Now is definitely the time for a “national revival of liberty” to restore the constitutional rights that have been under assault by the progressive cabal who have seized control of the Republic.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the junior senator from Kentucky is seriously considering a presidential run in 2016. Like any smart, potential candidate he has consistently found a way to be up front on the great debates of the day and a perpetual center of media attention.

He was a huge hit at the recent CPAC event and his appeal has continued to grow across the political spectrum in general, and within the Republican Party specifically.  After the last State of the Union address there was an official Republican Party response delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and an official TEA Party response delivered by Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee. Then there was the official Rand Paul response by Senator Rand Paul. Who expected any less? Rand Paul is increasingly a movement all his own and his appeal is not constrained by the more traditional, and even newer, political power blocs.

Paul shot to national prominence when he led a filibuster against the nomination of John O. Brennan as CIA director and dared to question the “right” of the Obama administration to order drone strikes on US citizens on American soil. His rise and popularity has continued unabated since then. The message he has crafted and the image he has cultivated has helped to bridge the gap between the libertarian and the conservative movements.  Paul is immensely popular among young males in particular, as well as with those who oppose big government and government invasions of privacy. Not to mention the great numbers who don’t necessarily fit into any conventional political mold. Those who have no interest in living under the soft tyranny of socialism, arming Islamists overseas, or waging additional wars of choice have found someone who articulates their own thoughts and feelings with intelligence and wit.

The fallacy of the thinking of the liberal elite currently in power is that they think their rules should only apply to others because everyone else is too stupid, ignorant, or less valuable than themselves. They want to confiscate your guns but have concealed weapons permits and armed bodyguards. They want to invade your privacy yet expect to keep theirs. That is the progressive fallacy that eventually explains why all the political ideologies that ultimately emerged from the philosophy of Marx don’t work in practice. Hypocrisy is the most fanatically followed religion in the world and its adherents are legion.

Rand Paul has dared to directly challenge them on this and therefore has become a grave threat to their power, ideology, and agenda. The 4th is just as important as the 2nd amendment and the religious and speech protections of the first, and all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights must be preserved and defended vigorously for us to remain a truly free people.

The supporters of Rand Paul span the range from traditional and civil libertarians to constitutionalists and conservatives, from the TEA Party to evangelicals and the Christian Right. All those who see danger arising from those who peddle the doctrines of statism and the progressive, nanny state have found his message of a return to liberty and constitutional governance free of undue governmental spying, interference, and regulation to be extremely appealing. It is the right message at the right time and he is increasingly finding a receptive audience for it. The fast paced creation and increased implementation of the turn-key tyranny and surveillance state, by necessity, must be the foremost issue in the next presidential election. We are at a pivotal moment in history and if we go down that path as a civilization and a nation then all the other major issues that are of vital importance to you will have been lost as well. If that domino falls, then they will all fall without fail.

Paul’s own family brand of libertarian politics and reputation handed down by his father helps make significant inroads into younger, independent votes as well as others who are less likely to traditionally vote for a Republican. For the more traditional conservative and values voter he has made great efforts to signal that he is in fact pro-life and not a champion of the gay agenda while reassuring evangelical Christians that he is more supportive of the state of Israel than his father was seen to be. It seems to be a “wink wink, nudge nudge” relationship with cultural conservatives and Christians. While he may not be wearing such issues on his sleeve like potential GOP rivals Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee for example, he has sent the proper signals that he is genuinely acceptable on the issues that are important to them. That message seems to have been received.

The more one listens and pays attention to both his words and deeds the more appealing a possible run becomes. Paul just seems to “get it” more than any other potential GOP presidential candidate and is currently standing head and shoulders above the rest of the possible field when it comes to the most fundamental issues of the day and the ones that most directly affect the vision of the Founding Fathers. Additionally, he is currently polling remarkably well from New Hampshire to Colorado, not only among Republican party presidential wannabes but in general head-to-head polls against Hillary Clinton. That is something worthy of note.

Rand Paul and his supporters do need to prepare themselves for the onslaught of hate and character assassination that the liberals, and the GOP Establishment and elite, are going to throw at him as he continues to increase in stature and viability. The more he is seen as a credible threat to the status quo and those who perpetuate the Washington business as usual mentality, the more shrill and vicious the attacks will become. No man or candidate is perfect, but in a time when traditional looking and sounding politicians are increasingly loathed he doesn’t look or sound like one and that may be of significance over the long haul.

The simple but effective message that the government is spying on, and intruding upon, nearly everything you do and it needs to stop is a powerful one that resonates across the political spectrum and is one that is very hard for a political opponent to argue against. In the end, there are still a vast number of Americans that really and truly just want to be left alone and live free as they go about their daily lives. Such sentiments, when properly appealed too, could very well provide a strong base of support for a Paul presidential bid. That conversation, and the discussion of the potential merits and liabilities of a possible Rand Paul candidacy, is one that needs to take place.

Photo: #HillarysWorstNightmare

“I am talking about electing lovers of liberty. It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two evils. We must elect men and women of principle, and conviction and action that will lead us back to greatness.” – Rand Paul

Shame On You! What’s Your Consumption Factor?

It is interesting how wealthy liberals are continually blaming the American middle class for global warming, terrorism, and pretty much all of the world’s problems.
Simply put, it is all your fault.

Our Consumption Factor Imperils Us All

“People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists…The only way out is to make consumption rates and living standards more equal around the world. We could have a stable outcome in which all countries converge on consumption rates considerably below the current highest levels.”
 
And if the guilt and emotional blackmail over the melting glaciers and shrinking polar bear genitalia wasn’t enough, now the fact that not all of the world shares our lifestyle (or conversely, we are not as poverty stricken as they are) is cause for serious self-examination and self-blame.  I don’t think I can bear it. After staggering under the “white man’s burden” for 2,000 years of colonization and exploitation of those of a darker hue, now I must shoulder the burden for causing Islamic terrorism and the devastating changes to our planet that will quickly lead to the extinction of the human race.
All because my children have clean water to drink and live in a heated home while their father drives a vehicle to work and buys his socks, toothpaste and corn flakes at a big box store. Even worse is the fact that their mother washes their clothes in a machine instead of scrubbing them clean on the rocks in the river and has the audacity to make them pop tarts once in awhile.
For that, we are to blame for the impoverishment of Kenyans, the envy of those less fortunate, the actions of fanatical suicide bombers, and the waste and consumption of the world’s resources by those seeking to attain the lifestyle of the average American.
Yet such hand wringing and finger pointing essays never mention the percentage of the world’s wealth, innovation, food, and scientific and medical advances that should be rightly credited to those greedy consumers of natural resources and unfair users of electricity and air conditioning. If it wasn’t for the technological and medical breakthroughs originating in the West, there would be far fewer than 30 million Kenyans. Consumption is directly related to productivity. Those who don’t produce, don’t consume.
The “solutions” offered to solve this grave problem of Western over-consumption is always little more than authoritarian socialism and forced reallocation of wealth. It may be disguised as higher fuel taxes, carbon taxes, and luxury or consumption taxes or be little more than manipulation of regulations to control or inhibit industry, refineries, manufacturing and drilling under the guise of environmentalism. But the overall goal to sharply reduce the lifestyle of the average American (and Westerner) has been laid out in clear and unapologetic terms by globalists and the liberal elite. It used to be that the goal was to raise the lifestyle and condition of the impoverished and disadvantaged. That seems to be no longer the case.
The wealthy West as spent countless billions in an attempt to improve the condition of other peoples, with very little gratitude to show for it. And now the focus has shifted away from helping those unfortunates have access to clean water, rudimentary medical care, or not be butchered or starved for political purposes, but towards attacking those in the West for daring to have a computer to blog with while corrupt governments continue to allow their citizens to dwell in dirty, crime ridden shantytowns.
So, with my eyes newly opened to the plight of those other dwellers of planet earth, I decided to take stock of what I now feel guilty for having or providing for myself, my spouse, and my three daughters. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
  • Electricity for lighting my home and powering appliances (my Christmas lights were definitely unnecessary).
  • Running water
  • Refrigerator and deep freeze for preserving food for later use.
  • Washer and dryer
  • DVD players
  • Stereo.
  • A couple of computers.
  • Multiple TV’s
  • Toaster
  • Dishwasher
  • Stove
  • Microwave
  • Hot water heater
  • Two cars. (My wife and I both have to get to work)
  • Store bought clothes made from synthetic fibers, undoubtedly manufactured by oppressed peoples in Sri Lanka, Mexico, or China.
  • And I won’t even begin to detail the unnecessary trips for a big gulp, a burger and fries, or those wasteful stops at the dollar store.
My wife and I have worked very hard to achieve a semblance of a middle class lifestyle and to provide a decent and comfortable standard of living, education, and medical attention for ourselves and our children. I refuse to feel guilty for managing to own a toaster or for watching a football game once in awhile. Yet that is what we are, in effect, told to feel.
There are far greater solutions for helping to alleviate the all too true sufferings of far too great a number of the world’s population. For starters, the formation of governments that are not unbelievably corrupt, inefficient, brutal, exploitative, and backwards would be a start. The reevaluation of foreign aid (by the evil West) including who it is distributed to and what it is used to purchase, should be completely overhauled. Innovation will go a long ways in bringing in everything from tourist dollars to foreign investment.
Responsible stewardship of funds, natural resources, and the elimination of corruption would do far more to improve the lot of the third world than any policies fueled by guilt or jealousy of the lifestyle and modern technological advances we have managed to achieve in the First World.
Only the village idiots truly believe that if an American didn’t buy a television it would help a Kenyan, or that by not purchasing some DVDs he would help ease the driving envy of the Chinese or defuse the potential jihadist. The agenda is now far less about helping the rest than just about tearing down the West.

No Political Fix to America’s Death Spiral

The question is not, “Is America falling?” but, rather, “Why is America falling?”

I’m currently writing from CPAC 2014, the nation’s largest gathering of conservative political junkies. The event is being held at the beautiful Gaylord National hotel, adjacent to the scenic shoreline of the historic Potomac River. We’re just a few short miles from Washington, D.C., which, at least for now, remains the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire.

I say “at least for now” because America finds itself skipping along the primrose path to Rome’s ill-fated finale. I needn’t trouble you with evidence to that effect as this tragic reality is hopelessly inescapable. It’s a self-evident truth. Unless our next generation of leaders – Gen-Y Millennials – can successfully turn things around, we’re up the Potomac without a paddle.

The day’s speeches have ended and conference-going night revelers are about. The indoor balcony to my 12th-floor room faces, as the hotel website accurately boasts, a “spectacular 18-story glass atrium.” My balcony door is open wide, and the bustling din from several parties across the cavernous vestibule soaks the room.

A chorus has begun. What is this? Have party-goers launched an impromptu rendering of “America the Beautiful”?

No, this is a chant, joined by scores – a hundred or more perhaps – of young conservative bacchanalians on multiple suite balconies and from the open air bar below. What is that they’re chanting? Is that, “Amer-i-ca! Amer-i-ca!”?

At first, it’s hard to tell. It’s a booming echo that reverberates throughout the entire hotel.

And then it becomes clear.

Alas, our next generation of conservative leaders are not chanting, “Amer-i-ca! Amer-i-ca!” They are, instead, chanting, “F**k O-bama! F**k O-bama!”

And I hang my head.

So, now, children at the hotel, parents, staff, tourists – both foreign and domestic – and every other conceivable variety of guest who happens to be staying at the Gaylord National hotel during CPAC 2014 has a skewed, and likely irreversible, first impression of America’s conservative movement.

Or is it skewed?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m certain that the vast majority of CPAC attendees, both young and old, are as appalled and embarrassed by these drunken yuck monkeys as am I.

But I think the very fact that these blazer-clad, Cro-Magnon morons could even imagine, for a moment, that it’s somehow cool to publicly chant “F**k Obama!” – or “F**k” anything for that matter – speaks to a much larger problem, not just within the conservative movement, but, more importantly, within our entire culture.

I’m never going to win a popularity contest. It’s not my goal to be liked. I’ll probably never be a “Fox News contributor” or even broadly recognized as a dutifully compliant cog within the greater, GOP-heavy “conservative” political wheel.

That’s because I say things like this: There is no political fix to America’s death spiral.

We are drowning in a turgid river of postmodern relativism. This is a spiritual problem, not a political problem. This is a worldview matter, not a partisan matter.

Hitherto it has been “progressives” alone dumping buckets of moral relativist poison into the Potomac. But, in the last decade or so, self-styled “conservatives” have likewise begun drinking the subjectivist Kool-Aid.

Libertine libertarianism has infected the conservative movement like a cancer. Situational ethics, driven by emotional, anecdotal sob stories, are used to justify every moral wrong as an absolute right. “Get off the social issues!” they demand. “Gay marriage? No problem.”

These gun-toting, free-market “conservatives” (of which I’m both) grace us with beauties like this: “I’m a ‘pro-choice,’ ‘pro-gay’ conservative,” or, “Yeah, I’m shacking up with my girlfriend, big deal.”

Relativism blurs the fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong, which leads to the abolition of absolute truth, which leads to pockets of moral anarchy, which leads to Barack Obama and Eric Holder deciding which laws to ignore and which laws to enforce, which leads to lawlessness, which leads to chaos.

Welcome to chaos.

Yes. The “social issues” matter.

The battle is not Republican vs. Democrat. Neither is it conservative vs. liberal. The battle precedes time itself. The battle is right vs. wrong. The battle is moral vs. immoral. The battle is truth vs. the lie.

The battle is between good and evil.

We’ve been playing political Ping-Pong for decades. We’ve been, as they say, rearranging the chairs on the Titanic while Democrats take the helm for a spell, and Republicans take the helm for a spell.

The reality is that both political parties have driven us into the iceberg, and then pranced off together, hand-in-hand, to play best-of-three racquetball at the congressional bathhouse.

While here at CPAC I met an interesting fellow by the name of Frank Mitchell. Frank founded the Memphis-based, classically conservative group: “A Shining City on a Hill.” During our discussion, Frank said this: “There is no liberty without justice. Liberty without justice is only license.”

Libertine libertarianism.

America cannot survive under a worldview that embraces unrestricted moral license. Such license destroys the individual. And such license destroys the nation.

“Liberty without justice is only license.”

There is only one Arbiter of true justice. And justice is defined by Him, not by us. He sets the parameters. As both individuals, and as a nation, we are ill-advised to breach those parameters and well-served to maintain them.

America does not need a political fix. America needs a spiritual fix.

The “Reset” Has ALWAYS Been A Total Failure

Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

As CDN reported earlier, the Democrats are already rushing to defend Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s utterly failed foreign policy record, including the shameful, disastrous “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia. Some former Clinton State Department officials, such as P. J. Crowley, defend it on the spurious grounds that “the reset worked when Dmitry Medvedev was President” (i.e. from 2008 to 2012).

But they are dead wrong. The Obama-Clinton “reset” policy NEVER worked, even when Dmitry Medvedev (who was just a puppet of Vladimir Putin’s) was President.

That’s because Putin, throughout the whole time, was the man really in power, while Medvedev was never anything more than a figurehead. In that respect, Russia was, in those years, similar to the China of the 1980s: Deng Xiaoping was really in power, content with “only” the post of Chairman of the CMC, while other politicians held the posts of President, Premier, and CPC General Secretary. But – as with Putin – Deng was really “the power behind the throne.”

Only a fool could have ever thought that Putin had relinquished power for four entire years to Medvedev, and that Medvedev was ever anything more than a figurehead.

So let us recount how the Obama-Clinton “reset” policy has always been an utter failure THROUGHOUT the entire Medvedev years:

1) The New START treaty: Celebrated by the Obama administration and the entire Left as the crowning achievement of the “reset”, it is actually its most disastrous and shameful failure. This treasonous treaty requires the US to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by an entire third, from the 2,200 warheads allowed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty to just 1,550 warheads, while Russia is allowed to (and has taken many steps to) increase its own arsenal. Today, Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads, of which 1,500 are deployed and another 50 will be deployed. Russia also wields a huge arsenal of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 13 ballistic missile submarines, and 251 strategic bombers (171 of which are not even counted under New START treaty rules).

2) Iran: Russia has agreed only to minimal, symbolic sanctions against Tehran, and has fiercely opposed, and repeatedly vetoed, anything more than the weakest sanctions against Iran. It has also completed the construction of Iran’s first nuclear reactor, is now building the second, and has continued supplying tons of nuclear fuel to Iran. It has also pledged to deliver state-of-the-art S-300 air defense systems to Iran (and Syria). Contrary to the popular myth, Russia has NOT cancelled the delivery of those systems.

3) Syria: When a popular uprising broke out against Syrian dictator (and Hezbollah supporter) Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, he immediately began to attempt to quell this uprising by brute force. And Russia has continually supported him with weapons and diplomatic protection from the start. Even during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years, it vetoed draft UNSC resolutions aimed at punishing Assad.

4) America’s European allies: Throughout the entire Medvedev years, Russia continued to threaten America’s European allies with nuclear weapons and missiles, especially those who have agreed to host elements of America’s missile defense system – in response to which Russia continued, and continues, to threaten nuclear mayhem and withdrawal from the (useless) New START treaty.

5) The INF Treaty: It was during the supposedly halcyon Medvedev years that Russia began developing and fielding intermediate range missiles (such as the R-500, the Iskander-M, and intermediate range “air defense” missiles) that violate the INF treaty. The Clinton State Department did NOTHING to counter this obvious violation.

6) Missile Defense: Despite cancelling President Bush’s plan to build missile defense installations (intended to protect the US, not Europe) in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama and Hillary got NOTHING in return from the Kremlin. NOTHING. No concession whatsoever.

7) Bombers Flying Into US Airspace: As early as April and May 2012, when Medvedev was still in office, the Russians began flying nuclear-armed bombers close to and sometimes into US airspace – and said they were “practicing attacking the enemy.” They have also repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into Japanese and Swedish airspace.

So for the entire Medvedev period, and beyond, the Obama-Clinton “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been an utter, disastrous failure. America has not benefitted AT ALL from this idiotic policy. It has not produced ANY benefits to the US whatsoever.

Therefore, the reset’s defenders are dead wrong: the reset was ALWAYS a failure, even during the Medvedev years. Which is not surprising given that, as stated earlier, Vladimir Putin was always in power before, during, and after the Medvedev years, and still is.

For another superb article on the utter failure of the Obama-Clinton reset policy, see Charles Krauthammer’s excellent column.

It Is Time, Democrats, to Send Mr. Reid Home

In these ridiculous times, where transparency is clandestine, science proves instead of disproves, and falsely instilled self-esteem trumps real education, I truly don’t expect even the most honest of Liberal or Democrat – and certainly not any Progressive – to understand, or even hear, what I am about to say, but for the good of our country I pray that they do. Truth be told, we rank-and-file Americans cannot trust the “Frank Underwoods” who lurk inside the Washington Beltway – on both sides of the aisle – to do anything on behalf of their constituencies any longer. They are frauds and converts to the oligarch. It is time we start depending on ourselves to affect real, true and honest change.

The examples of just how power-centered and self-serving the oligarchs in the US federal government have become are too many to list, although, if push came to shove, we could start amassing a list, in and of itself worthy of entry into the Guinness Book for longest continuous list of political transgressions against a people. From the IRS coercion of Conservative non-profit groups, to the political payoff that the billion-dollar so-called stimulus was to Blue State governments and labor unions, to the “too-big-to-fail” redistribution of taxpayer dollars through TARP to the über-greedy financial elites for their irresponsible financial skullduggery, the Janus-faced disingenuousness of our elected class – a disingenuousness meant to stave-off the torches and pitchforks of the taxpaying public – knows now shame…and yet we continue to tolerate it.

Stunning. Have we become that self-loathing as a people?

But even while we tolerate the power-hungry manipulations of the elected class – the elitists, the Progressives, the oligarchs – they have always been careful to at least pretend to care about the people. The entire game Progressives play is based on the false-premise that the “better educated” know how to care for the masses better than the masses know how to care for themselves. The illusion foisted by a great many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans (read: establishment Republican…Ann) is that they are standing with and for “the people,” executing a pursuit of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. Yet we all know that government does everything (but for achieving military superiority) poorly and at a greater price than the private-sector. And we all stand witness as government keeps expanding, both in size and scope. Now we can add overt disdain for the American people to that list.

On February 26, 2014, United States Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stood on the floor of the greatest chamber of debate – or at least what used to be – and openly expressed his hatred for the American people. Once again, abdicating his responsibility to serve his constituents, while playing partisan politics at the expense of the nation, Mr. Reid said, in defending the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act:

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

I will overlook – for the moment – the fact that the most powerful man in the US Senate can’t speak proper English when entering his testimony into the Congressional Record. Lord knows there are members of Congress guilty of more egregious butchery of the English language.

It is beyond dispute that millions of Americans have been adversely affected by this unconstitutional piece of legislation. Millions have been denied the medical insurance they prefer while millions more have been told they must either pay more or go without; left to pay an IRS extracted penalty. Still hundreds of thousands more are being put into life-threatening situations where medical treatment deemed necessary for survival is not either outside their capability to afford, not authorized, or both. The putridly ironic thing about all of this is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was imposed on the American people under the ruse of it being “for the common good.”

To say that Mr. Reid’s comment adds insult to injury is to affect injury to insult. And while it is serving as great fodder for the elitist Washington punditry, it is much more serious an issue than that, and two-fold.

For those whose lives have now been called into question; whose life-saving treatments have become too expensive to afford; or whose treatments have now been denied, this is a direct threat – and a government mandated threat, at that – to the guaranteed right, offered us as US citizens under the bedrock understanding of Natural Law, to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” While self-serving, power-hungry, elitist manipulators like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stare, wax-faced, into the television cameras extolling all of the “common good” that the Affordable Care Act is doing, millions face the prospect of dying for the Progressive Movement’s dream of a one-payer, nationalized health insurance system…health insurance, not healthcare, system.

While this faux benevolence is continuously presented as compassionate, needed and “the right thing” to get behind by the oligarchs and their toadies – the Progressive mainstream media, it is neither compassionate, needed nor the right thing to do. It is a redistribution of wealth that is literally costing people their lives…here…in the “land of the free.”

And what does Mr. Reid say about those who are facing the loss of their lives because of the ACA? What does he say about the real-life, fact-based stories of those who have been denied “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” because of Progressive benevolence?:

“…Tales…Stories made up from whole cloth…Lies, distorted by Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements…”

And as egregiously rancid as this reality is – and it is, the idea that the most powerful man in the US Senate would openly call those facing debilitated health and/or death because of his Progressive ideological zealotry “liars” is not only unacceptable, it should serve as the defining reason for why he should be: a) removed from Senate leadership by his Democrat colleagues immediately; b) reprimanded and censured but the whole of chamber immediately; and c) retired by the people of Nevada at the next election.

Our American system of government was based on the idea that those who would be elected to office – be it at the federal state, county, township or municipal levels – would be understood as those in the service of the public; public servants. Today, this notion – this foundational understanding of our American governmental system – has been grotesquely bastardized , done so with all the Progressive glory that could be mustered in its execution; destroyed at first by expunging the check and balance of States’ Rights through the ratification of the 17th Amendment all the way through to the imposition of having to purchase a private-sector product (health insurance) to be considered a true and faithful American citizen. Our country has been fundamentally transformed…“top-down, bottom-up, inside-out.”

George Washington, a man who could have been king would he have wanted the title, warned – warned – in his Farewell Address of the evils of “factions” (read: political party):

“However combinations or associations of [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government – destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

“Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…”

We, the American people, should not suffer the unbridled arrogance of Mr. Reid, evidenced not only by his lust for partisan faction, but by his open and overt disdain for our fellow citizens; fellow citizens now disenfranchised by the Progressive understanding of “the common good.” Mr. Reid is the perfect example of the “evils of faction.” He is a disgrace to his elected office. He is a disgrace as an American. And he is not suited to his station in the US Senate.

If Democrats in the US Senate – as well as in general – do not seize this moment to make an example of Mr. Reid, then from this day forward let the Democrat Party be known as the toady to the Progressive Movement; the entirety of which is unworthy to lick the heel of Mr. Washington’s boot.

What The Hell Is Going On Here?

I can’t tell you how many times I sat in front of the TV shouting “WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY,” and it seems I find myself saying that more and more. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, when any public official takes office, they take a pledge to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said recently that state attorneys general are not forced to defend laws in their states that ban same-sex marriage if they believe it to be unconstitutional. A nation of laws no more.

Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers, R-Colo., voiced his opposition to Holder in a Washington Post editorial recently.“Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a ‘litigation veto’ may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defended and the attorney general can take credit. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances. Public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend,” These state laws are often state constitutional provisions or laws enacted by referendum (people voting directly at the polls), so some find it especially anti-democratic for a state Attorney General not to defend them.

The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws, if the laws are unpopular than change them, but you cannot just disobey them because you don’t agree with them. Not only is our top law enforcer a lawbreaker, but it seems that he is also a racist. The Department of Justice wants schools to directly consider race when disciplining students, taking care to ensure that some races are not punished more often than others, even if students of certain races misbehave more often.

Eric Holder’s DOJ co-wrote a letter with the Department of Education, and sent it to public schools across the country recently. First among its decrees: Schools should not strive to treat all races the same; rather, they should treat the races differently, levying weaker punishments when necessary, in order to effect equal outcomes among students of all races.

If schools are pressured to get their numbers right in this area, they will either start disciplining students who shouldn’t be or, more likely, will not discipline some students who ought to be. If unruly students are not disciplined, the kids who will lose out the most will be well-behaved students in classes with undisciplined classmates. According to the DOJ if a teacher disciplines a white student twice, that teacher can only discipline a black student twice, even though the black student misbehaved six times.

Joe Hicks, a member of the Project 21 (The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives,) says the attorney general is obsessed with racism. “My view of Eric Holder is that he is most racialized and the most ideological attorney general I think this nation has seen at least in the modern era,” he offers. “So here’s a man who constantly weighs in on the issues – and always weighs in from a racial aspect that black kids are being mistreated.”

Robert Laurie, wrote in The Canada Free Press – I’m pretty sure that Eric
Holder begins each and every day with a meeting where he and his team sit around brainstorming new ways to call Americans racist. If you support the 2nd Amendment, you’re a racist. If you want to enforce the nation’s borders, you’re a racist. If you favor voter ID laws, you’re a racist. If you think it’s criminal to run guns to Mexico, you’re a racist.

Let’s face it, the Left is at the point where whenever someone disagrees with them, they have to be a racist, to the people on the left, there can be no other explanation. How long are people going to put up with this? If someone on the Right said that we should not strive to treat all races the same; rather, they should treat the races differently, the media would have been all over them calling them racists remarks, yet we have an AG who not only said it, but truly believes it.

Our top law enforcement officer is a lawbreaker and a racist; well what can we expect, when he gets his marching orders from the lawbreaker-in-chief himself, Obama.

My new book, “Hey Alan Colmes I read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

roflbotThis is one man’s opinion.

 

Obama’s Trickle–Down Lawlessness

Virginia's new AG is following in the footsteps of America's #1 Constitution burner.

Virginia’s new AG is following in the footsteps of America’s #1 Constitution burner.

What Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) refers to as Obama’s “pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat” has trickled down to the new Democrat administration in Virginia.

On Saturday, January 11th Democrat Mark Herring was sworn in as attorney general of the Commonwealth. During the ceremony Herring recited his oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as attorney general according to the best of my ability (so help me God).”

Then Herring proved he was a fast Obama study by violating that oath before he had completed his second week in office.

Instead of defending the Virginia Constitution, Herring began actively working to undermine it. He declared on the 23rd that he would not defend Virginia’s constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. “It’s time for the commonwealth to be on the right side of history and the right side of the law,” he proclaimed.

Then Herring compounded the offense by joining the case of the plaintiffs suing the state to overturn the ban. This is breathtakingly unethical. It’s like Zimmerman’s defense lawyer deciding George violated neighborhood watch guidelines and asking to join the prosecution team. An honorable man when presented with the choice of doing his job and defending the Constitution or “being on the right side of history” would have resigned his office, but we’re talking about Mark Herring.

By way of background the Virginia homosexual marriage ban is an amendment to the Constitution passed in 2006 by a favorable vote of 57 percent. Herring was in the Virginia Senate at the time and he voted in favor of the amendment. But you can’t hold that against him because he ‘evolved.’

But now Herring says he is relying on the precedent set by former AG Ken Cuccinelli. Except the situations are entirely different. Cuccinelli did not defend a newly passed law that allowed the state to take over failing schools, because it violated Virginia’s Constitution. Herring is saying the Constitution of Virginia is unconstitutional because it violates the Democrat party platform and makes Ellen DeGeneres sad.

In an interview posted on TheDailyPress.com, Herring explained, “What you have to do is look at the facts and precedents and ask yourself — If this went before the Supreme Court, how do I think they would rule?” But Virginia voters didn’t elect Herring to choose the winning side in a court case. They elected him to do a job he appears unwilling to perform.

By contrast North Carolina’s Attorney General is also a Democrat who supported homosexual marriage, but he is defending his state’s law. Cooper issued a statement that said, “North Carolina should change its laws to allow marriage equality, and I believe basic fairness eventually will prevail. However, when legal arguments exist to defend a law, it is the duty of the Office of the Attorney General under North Carolina law to make those arguments in court.”

As Sen. Cruz pointed out in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one [or group] …is above the law.”

Herring’s legal operating theory is no different from jurisprudence and law in Venezuela or Mexico, where the question is not do you know the law? But rather whom do you know? The law under Democrats like Eric Holder, Barack Obama and Mark Herring is now a respecter of persons. Once feelings and fads replace the law and procedure we enter uncharted territory.

Naturally the Washington Post editorial page supports Herring’s switch. “We broadly agree with Mr. Herring’s reading of the law. The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection cannot be reconciled with denying, on logically flimsy grounds, equal access to civil marriage for a group that has for centuries been singled out for discrimination.”

But the same ‘logic’ applies to other formerly acknowledged taboos including polygamy and incest. “Love is love” is a justification that can overturn almost every sexual prohibition.

The WaPost also claims that Herring is not abandoning his client because the two county clerks being sued have their own attorneys. Under this remarkable doctrine there is no need to expect the fire department to show up when your house is burning if a neighbor has already stepped in with his water hose.

To demonstrate Herring’s utter moral bankruptcy we will close with a look at his message during last year’s campaign. Herring repeatedly promised to “take politics out of the office” and he assured voters that he would not be an activist AG like Ken Cuccinelli.

That promise lasted exactly 12 days. Now he’s the newest member of Obama, Holder & Herring the law firm that specializes in picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to enforce.

Liberal Rag: More Despotism Please

Il Duce Obama

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism. What a difference a few years makes.

Remember when “progressive” media types chided President George W. Bush till they were blue in the face for “going it alone” on Iraq? Well, apparently “going it alone” is totally cool if you have a “D” after your name.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief over at the uber-liberal Mother Jones is disappointed that an increasingly imperialist Barack Obama wasn’t imperialist enough during his recent State of the Union Address. He’s furious that our already chestless Commander-in-Hearing-Himself-Talk showed off his bona fides in weakness and “let the Republicans off easy.”

Wrote Corn:

“Obama didn’t use this opportunity to focus on the reason he has to go it alone: Republicans hell-bent on disrupting the government and thwarting all the initiatives he deems necessary for the good of the nation. Even when he quasi-denounced the government shutdown, he did not name-check House Speaker John Boehner and his tea-party-driven comrades.”

What? “All the initiatives” Obama “deems necessary”? “Go it alone”? Yeah, Josef Stalin – affectionately nicknamed “Uncle Joe” by Obama’s hero, FDR – had a lot of initiatives he “deemed necessary,” too. And like Obama, he also preferred the “go it alone” approach.

Seriously, has Mr. Corn never heard of the separation of powers? The president doesn’t get to just unilaterally “deem” laws into effect. He’s the chief executive, not the chief lawmaker. Neither should he be the chief lawbreaker.

Yet here we are and so he is.

More than any other president in American history (yes, Nixon included), Obama has done both – make the “law” and break the law. Just consider, for instance, his unprecedented, arbitrary, capricious and completely illegal “do-whatever-I-want-to-do” shredding of his signature dark comedy: Obamacare.

Get used to it. During last Tuesday’s SOTU Obama announced his intention to keep at it. In fact, he plans to ramp-up the lawlessness.

And why shouldn’t he? A gutless GOP establishment has let him get away with it at every turn. Corn was partly right. He was justified in taking a jab at the speaker of the House. On this we agree: John Boehner needs to be “checked,” just not for the reasons Corn supposes.

Even some liberals are waking up to the fact that, for the first time, America is living under – as Sen. Ted Cruz calls it – “the imperial presidency.” In a posting originally titled “Obama: Efforts to rein him in not serious,” the off-the-rails-liberal CNN.com took Obama to task for his autocratic misbehavior (CNN later changed the article title to “President Obama says he’s not recalibrating ambitions.” Amazing what an angry phone call from this White House can do to the Obama-natical state-run media).

Noted CNN:

“Once, Barack Obama spoke of what he wanted for his presidency in terms of healing a nation divided. ‘This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal,’ he said.

“Today, Obama is talking about executive orders and executive actions – with a pen or phone – if a divided Congress won’t or can’t act on an agenda he laid out this week in his State of the Union Address. …

“Sen. Ted Cruz described the actions as ‘the imperial presidency,’” continued CNN, “and House Republicans have threatened to rein in the president’s use of executive actions.

“‘I don’t think that’s very serious,’ Obama said. …”

Right. Most despots don’t take “very serious” efforts to rein them in, particularly when their political opposition has shown neither the courage nor the inclination to do so.

David Corn disagrees. He thinks more despotism is just what the “progressive” doctor ordered. He ended his Mother Jones rant – all but calling the president a weenie:

“Obama barely called out Republicans in this speech; he did not exploit this high-profile moment to confront the obstructionist opposition,” he complained.

Au contraire, my corny little friend. Barack Hussein Obama has stored up no short supply of exploitations. Most especially, he has exploited the very people he is sworn to serve.

“We the people.”

Democrat Retirements Signal Weakness in mid-terms

Democrats flee the sinking ship

The last few weeks has seen the retirement announcement of a few very senior Democrat politicians and many political analysts say that it shows that Democrats realize that their fate is sealed.

This week, Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced he would retire at the end of his term. George Miller (D-CA) will also leave at the end of this Congressional session. Jim Moran (D-VA) earlier announced he’s leaving the House after 20+ years and there are many others

The theory being offered is that if the Democrats had even a slight chance of re-taking the majority in the House of Representatives, these long-time stalwarts would have stayed around to enjoy the perks of being in the majority. Think of all the craptastic laws they could pass with no Congressional opposition and a guaranteed signature from the President. Those laws would have certainly had their names on them as they have been, and would be, chairmen of important committees.

Rep. Moran adds credence to the theory. When asked if he was leaving because being in the House majority was frustrating, he answered, “That’s part of it. . . . There is some frustration.”

On the other side of the argument is Rep. Waxman who clearly doesn’t believe their is any way Republicans can hold on to the House majority:

I don’t accept the idea that Democrats won’t get the House back. I think that the Republicans have nothing to offer. They’re against everything. They’re against everything Obama wanted. They have no alternatives on health care policy.

But alas, he scurries off into the obscurity of post-Congressional life.

What’s more interesting is the delusion present in Waxman’s comments. Of course the Republicans are against everything Obama wants – check the polls, so is the rest of America.

  • Americans want the Keystone pipeline, its jobs, its wealth, its opportunity. Obama does not.
  • Americans think that Obamacare is an expensive, oppressive and ineffective program.  Obama does not.
  • Obama thinks that immigration reform is the most important issue facing the country right now. Americans do not.
  • Obama is pushing equality of outcome. Americans want equality of opportunity.
  • Obama (and Hillary) wants to forget Benghazi. Americans do not.
  • Obama thinks cozying up to the fortune 500 will help long-term unemployment. No one else does.
  • Americans want lower taxes. Obama does not.
  • Americans want lower energy bills. Obama does not.

These senior Democrats are leaving because they have no chance at chairing a committee in the next Congress. Obama’s abysmal approval ratings make his coattails worthless and his policies a scarlet letter O.

Senior Democrats are leaving, because they have the experience to see the writing on the wall and the self-preservative instinct to get out before the roof falls on their heads.

Pure Comedy: Obama gets employers to agree to do nothing for long term unemployed

Obama interview apple, ford will hire unemployed

Just when I thought I’d seen everything from the President, he tells CNN about this naively-conceived plan to end long-term unemployment:

“What we have done is to gather together 300 companies, just to start with, including, some of the top 50 companies in the country, companies like Walmart, and Apple, Ford and others, to say let’s establish best practices,” President Barack Obama told CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper in an exclusive interview.

“Because they’ve been unemployed … so long, folks are looking at that gap in the resume and they’re weeding them out before these folks even get a chance for an interview,” said Obama.

As the economy slowly recovers from the recession, the number of workers who have not found a job for at least six months or more has grown.

“Do not screen people out of the hiring process just because they’ve been out of work for a long time,” said the President.

The way the story starts, you would think that Apple, Ford and the rest of the Fortune 500 had promised the President that they would hire the long-term unemployed before hiring anyone else – that’s not what the story says. It’s also not what those companies plan on doing.

While spewing his lack of understanding of basic economics on CNN (which hardly anyone pays attention to anymore) Obama fails to understand the difference between companies giving any priority to the long-term unemployed and employers not keeping people”out of the hiring process just because they’ve been out of work for a long time.”

Basically, the companies have agreed to find other reasons not to hire people who are otherwise unqualified for the positions they have open.

As weird as it might seem, businesses hire who they need when they need to – not just because the President asks them to do so oh so politely.

A huge portion of the electorate will swallow this logic – many of whom voted for the President.. twice.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »