Tag Archives: Obama

That Was No SOTU – It Was A Populist Wish-List

stateoftheunion

It is regrettable that we no longer have a true “State of the Union” (SOTU) speech. Rather than hearing a recapitulation of the condition of the nation and where it’s headed, we get what appears to be little more than another campaign speech replete with a veritable Christmas-list of populist proposals and recommendations. Predictably, there were errors, omissions, and outright prevarications, and very little mention of the problems that have been exacerbated over the past several years, in the president’s speech this week.

barack_obama_state_union-14First, however, a confession of sorts is in order. I didn’t watch the speech. When I was in college, I loved being lectured to by my ISU professors who were knowledgeable, competent, and capable. After all, that’s what I paid them for. Likewise, we pay our governmental leaders to be knowledgeable, competent, and capable and to keep their oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. When all they do proves their incompetence, and they obviously lied when they took the oath, I’m not going to subject myself to their self-aggrandizing propaganda. After all, I’m not a masochist, and I find it increasingly difficult to resist the impulse to throw things at my TV in response to superfluous rhetoric, grandstanding, self-congratulations, and mendacity. So I read his speeches, instead.

color-obama-st-of-union-webMuch of Obama’s lecture Tuesday night was dedicated to his inexorable class warfare theme, pitting the middle class (who have been most adversely affected by the policies of the past six years) against the wealthy (who have done better than anyone during this administration). In advance of the delivery, he media had hyped this iteration of the SOTU as his “Robin Hood” speech. The metaphor hardly seems appropriate. Since Robin Hood stole from the Sheriff of Nottingham (not the rich from whom the sheriff had extorted the funds). As the head of the government, the President is essentially the Sheriff of Nottingham, who’s doing the extorting.

The President said, “Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999.” It would be wonderful for the nation if his policies had been conducive to our economic recovery and accelerated job growth. However, as we’ve documented before, these are occurring in spite of his policies, not because of them. It’s amazing what capitalistic economies can do when new obstacles are no longer being hurled in the way to thwart and stymy them!

stateoftheunion“We are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we’ve been in almost 30 years. … Today, America is number one in oil and gas. … And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save about $750 at the pump,” Obama declared. Again, this is with no help from his administration. The massive growth in domestic oil production has been primarily on state and private lands, while his administration has done everything possible to curtail it on federal ground and waterways. And it’s been primarily with technology opposed by his party and his administration. And there’s the power of capitalism again – simple supply and demand benefiting the consumer with increased competition.

Enigmatically, the President queried, “Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned against one another? Or will we recapture the sense of common purpose that has always propelled America forward? … A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other.” It’s pretty difficult to take this counsel from one who has spent the past six years polarizing and dividing, based on income, party affiliation, ideology, and color.

sotu“In two weeks, I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan,” he said. This is encouraging. If he comes through on the promise, it will be the first time he’s offered anything to congress in six years that isn’t partisan. We won’t hold our breath.

“In the past year alone about 10 million uninsured Americans finally gained the security of health coverage.” This reminded me of an email I received from a friend last year that summarized the 2700 page ObamaCare legislation in four simple sentences. A. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured. B. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured. C. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. And D. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, free of charge to them. That explains a great deal of the President’s “10 million” figure.

“I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college — to zero.” I’m always amazed at the liberal mind that struggles with economic realities. The cost doesn’t go away, it’s just redistributed, or paid by someone else. And to the liberal politician, it’s always the taxpayer! Never mind that the cost is a scant $60 billion. What is that to a politician who can make a grandiose promise – and make someone else pay for it?

obama-hot-air-453x604It really would have been nice to hear an actual analysis of the State of the Union. But alas, we just got another populist campaign speech. And even as such, it wasn’t much different than the hand-dryer in the lavatory that had a sticker attached which declared, “Press button for a speech from the president.”

 

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Americans Are Brave Enough to Say It, Why Not Their President?

Charlie Hebdo

The contortions to which those in the Obama Administration will submit themselves in order to avoid calling Islamist terrorism just that would be comedic if the subject matter weren’t so deadly serious. Case in point comes to us in an announcement by the White House that a “summit on how to counter violent extremism” will be held next month amid fears amongst the American populace that Islamist terror attacks on US soil are all but certain.

The Washington Times reports:

“The White House on Sunday announced it will host a summit next month on how to counter violent extremism amid renewed fears among Americans that terror attacks on the homeland are inevitable.

 

 

“A Rasmussen poll released Sunday shows that 65 percent of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely an attack ‘on those critical of Islam’ in the US will occur over the next year. Just 26 percent said such an attack is not likely, the survey shows…

 

 

“‘The [ani-extremism] summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community,’ White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Sunday. ‘Through presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions, participants will build on local, state, and federal government; community; and international efforts to better understand, identify, and prevent the cycle of radicalization to violence at home in the United States and abroad.’”

Missing in this grand overture was the words “Islamist” and “terrorism”. Go figure.

The Rasmussen poll cited as the catalyst for this “summit” (as Mr. Obama would say, “Just words. Just speeches…”) centered on the American population’s concern about terror groups executing attacks on institutions of free speech here in the United States. It didn’t ask about “extremist groups,” which the Obama Administration has bastardized to include TEA Party groups and Second Amendment groups. It focused solely on Islamist terrorism, period. But, as then Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel famously (or infamously) said, one should never let a good crisis go to waste. So, the Obama Administration widens the focus area from Islamist terrorism to “extremism” providing a wider blanket of topic coverage, and purely for political gain. It is sickeningly disingenuous.

It is sad, really, that the American people possess the courage to call Islamist terrorism what it is, even as their elected President bobs-and-weaves to avoid even using the terminology, all the while conniving, manipulating and distorting the issue at hand to affect marginalization of his political foes. His actions are not only beneath the dignity of his office and a stain on American history, they are a harsh and wicked slap in the face to everyone affected by Islamist terrorism, and especially those affected by the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo and the people of France, America’s oldest ally.

I would identify Mr. Obama as a coward for his refusal to state the obvious where Islamist terrorism is concerned. But I fear his motives are much more nefarious that cowardice. They are political. I don’t really know which is worse.

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

pelosi

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

The Lightening-Fast Reflexes of the Obama Regime

obama

The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, announced October 28th that his agency has raised the security level for federal buildings in the aftermath of last week’s terror attacks in Canada:

“The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently,” Johnson said in a statement. “Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance in the protection of US government installations and our personnel.”

Aren’t you absolutely bowled over by the cat-like reflexes of the Obama Administration? I mean really, we have only seen the fall of every major town in Iraq, sans Baghdad, the engagement of even Islamist countries in the fight against the Islamic State, beheadings and actual declarations of violent intent from the Islamic State and associated Islamist terror groups. We have seen “faceless selfies” of wanna-be jihadis and jihadist sympathizers featuring signs with pro-Islamic State propaganda in front of buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC. And we have seen beheadings on American soil in the name of Islam. Why should we expect any meaningful and/or timely response from an administration that is still trying to figure out if an infectious disease should warrant a quarantine of travelers arriving from infected countries?

Oh sure, the brilliant mind that is Barack Obama doesn’t succumb to the knee-jerk decision, especially where national security and foreign policy are concerned. That’s probably why he is still deliberating the security of the US border in the face of Islamist terrorists who have declared they will bring car bombs and beheadings to US soil; and why he is purposely ignoring the transportation of infectious disease across the border in the form of Enterovirus 68. Titrated to the Obama Administration’s response rate to serious issues facing the American citizenry, he will probably see our border secured after the 27th car bomb goes off in New York (after he chastises politicians there for their kneejerk Islamophobic responses) and after all of the schools in every state on the Southern border are quarantined.

My deference to Mr. Obama’s intelligence, and his ability to react in a timely manner to any crisis, is Obviously mired in sarcasm. Truth be told, I am more inclined to believe that Mr. Obama – whose entire tenure has been an exercise in group-think and governance by committee – is the dullest crayon in the White House box. Do you think for a moment that if he had achieved exemplary grades at Harvard or had penned a groundbreaking essay for the Harvard Review that the Progressive Left wouldn’t have showcased that behind the altar at the Church of Perpetual Obamaisms? No, it is likelier that he was a sub-par student whose falsely elevated self-esteem afforded him the opportunity to be “good at the mouth” and little else.

We all should have known this – or at least the voters on the Left side of the aisle should have known this – prior to his election in 2008, his only accomplishment being the failure of his community organizing efforts at the Altgeld Gardens in Chicago, still a cesspool of poverty, drug dealers, prostitutes and welfare queens to this day.

Of course, to have discerned Mr. Obama as wholly unqualified for the job would have required Liberal voters to actually think for themselves – before they voted, and to possess the integrity to understand and accept that race isn’t a qualification for office – at any level. To have realized the mistake of Obama – preemptively – would have required those on the pretentious side of the aisle to acquiesce to the notion that their ideological mindset just might not be as “fantabulous” as they think they it is.

Sadly, and to the detriment of liberty, personal freedom and representative government, we all know that the likelihood of a Liberal epiphany is next to nil. Liberals, led like clueless lemmings, will continue to fall prey to the emotionally marketed manipulation of their Progressive overlords; overlords who have co-opted their political party; self-centered and opportunistic overlords who have hoodwinked them into the chains of ideological slavery.

Reject Obama’s Policies At All Levels of Government

imageMain_66_897

“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” said President Barrack Obama two weeks ago. There can be no doubt that the agenda of the past six years is a factor in the mid-term elections in two weeks, but for the president to so inextricably conjoin his policies with the election increases the significance and possible outcomes.

obamas-policy-bracketReactions to the president’s statement have been predictably mixed in political circles. The comment drew consternation from some Democratic Senate candidates who have been attempting to distance themselves from the president and his policies, even though they’ve historically been supportive. Some have reveled in the declaration believing that linking the president’s policies, and his now dismal approval rating, to the midterms increases the odds of Republicans extending their majority in the House and regaining control of the Senate.

Last Monday the president doubled down on his remarks in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Speaking of those congressional and senatorial candidates attempting to distance themselves from his policies, the president said, “These are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress. I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win.’”

There are two significant revelations embedded in that counsel. The first is that those of the president’s party are supportive of his agenda, regardless of what they may say. That verity is bourn out by near 100% support of the president by his party member’s votes in congress. The second revelatory counsel is for them to do whatever they need to do to win. Obviously that includes deceit to appear to voters as not amenable with the president’s agenda.

Obama spendsThis should be immensely disturbing to voters, that their Machiavellian tactics would so blatantly based on dishonesty. Disavowing the president’s policies, while having actively supported and voted for them, is counting on voter ignorance for success, and is clearly deceitful. In other words, they have to lie to hope for success at the ballot box. This comes as no surprise to many of us, but for it to be so explicitly disclosed by the national figurehead of the party speaks volumes not only of him, but the Party he leads.

A senior Senate Democratic aid said this week, “The ineptitude of the White House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing,” in reference to the president’s statements, and a series of other faux pas which are seen as damaging to Democrat’s election hopes. Another has called the president’s political team the “JV squad,” in clear reference to a January statement by the president when he referred to ISIS as a “JV” terrorist group. Even David Axelrod, Obama’s former senior adviser, said Obama made a big “mistake” tying his policies to the midterm election.

image001This increases in relevancy due to public perception of the president and his policies. Overall, his job approval numbers are between 39-42%, and his approval numbers on the economy are in the same range. They’re more dismal on his foreign policy, which range mostly from 31-35%. And of those polled on whether the country is headed the right direction, only 23-27% feel that it is.

According to YouGov Obama’s base is the only demographic segment that still supports him and his policies, even though that is somewhat waning. Nearly all of his 39% approval rating is coming from Democrats. Republicans and independents combined register less than 1% approval for the president. Which is not surprising in light of Gallup’s conclusion a couple years ago, “Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans Hard to Find.”

The dismal approval of the administration carries over to distrust of the entire government. According to a CNN poll just last month, only 13% of Americans agree that the government “can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.”

Clearly the president was right, that his agenda is on the ballot in November. His policies are the Democrat Party policies, and only they support them. This is undoubtedly what Bill O’Reilly was thinking when he said this week, “If a whopping 64% of Americans think the country is out of control under the Obama administration, why would anyone vote for a Democrat?” That is a superb question!

carson-on-undermining-usaThere is no discernable difference between the national party policies and those either implemented or supported at the state and local levels. Their core value, based on what they do, not necessarily what they say, is based in government solutions and control, at the expense individual liberty. This is manifested in all facets of governance from economic and foreign policy, to education and security, with but few exceptions.

If one is supportive of the direction the nation is headed now, it would be understandable to vote accordingly. But for all who are not pleased with the nation’s direction, Bill O’Reilly’s question is apropos, “Why would anyone vote for a Democrat?” Since we know where such policies lead, we might tenably add, “At any level.”

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Holder As a Supreme Court Justice? It Is Scary and It Is Plausible

Holder & Obama

With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.

If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:

“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.

“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.

“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”

No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.

The question now is this. What is Eric Holder going to do? Mr. Holder, as it the case with the total of the Obama Administration sans Joe Biden, is a young man in political terms. His has a long and influential future ahead of him as the first Black activist US Attorney General. My fear is that Mr. Obama may want to reward his political “bag man” with a nomination to the US Supreme Court. And while it is not a sure thing, it is a possibility.

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reports that while Progressives wish to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire so that President Obama might seat another Progressive activist on the US Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg is none too fast to agree:

“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”

Mr. Chait continues:

“The facts Ginsburg describes are true, but the conclusion she takes away from them is almost certainly wrong…

“It is true that Republicans retain the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They may use this power to restrain the president from nominating a particularly objectionable figure, as both parties have done in the past. But if they use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change. If Senate Democrats won’t sit still for Republicans using the filibuster to take away Obama’s right to appoint a federal judge, they surely wouldn’t sit still as Republicans prevent Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat…”

To wit, it is not only possible, but plausible that Mr. Obama, at the insistence of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago Progressive machine, could nominate his trusted social justice foot soldier – before the new Congress is convened – to his just reward as a candidate for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice. All they need to do is to move the arguably less radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the way to usher in Eric Holder, who would unquestionably serve as the most radically ideological justice ever to serve on the court.

So, the ultimate question for those who honor the Constitution is this. What is to be done to defend against this scenario becoming a reality?

One avenue to travel is to execute an all-out assault on every incumbent Senate Democrat running for re-election; an assault that would send the message that should they agree to confirm Mr. Holder as a Supreme Court Justice, extremely well-funded recall campaigns will be launched in the most vicious of manners against each and every one of them.

Another avenue that could be traveled is to take a page out of the Texas Legislature’s Democrat handbook. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could instruct the total of the Senate Republicans to refuse to return to Washington, DC, after the 2014 Midterm Election in an effort to refuse Mr. Reid a quorum call. Of course, Mr. Reid being the slippery politician that he is might find a way around that.

But one solid avenue would be for Republicans to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the idea of the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. Fortunately, there is a wee bit of latitude in the US Constitution for this measure.

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Emphasis mine)

That Mr. Holder was found to be in Contempt of Congress during his tenure as the attorney general, it is fair to say that he exhibited “bad behavior” during that time. In accepting a nomination to the US Supreme Court – and assuming the Reid-led Senate would confirm him, he would be taking the Oath of Office as a US Supreme Court Justice under false pretenses, as his past performance proved beyond doubt that he repeatedly violated the US Constitution by ignoring equal justice under the law for all Americans.

None of these choices are optimal but each presents a possible solution. And each should be considered seriously. An Eric Holder nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a direct threat to the United States Constitution, and one we can ill-afford.

Good Riddance to a Race-Baiting Divider

Eric Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Black man to be appointed as United States Attorney General, has resigned. Americans who suffered the slings and arrows of rising above the racial divide since – and before – the enactment of Civil Rights legislation are jubilant in his departure. Never before has an Attorney General belittled the American citizenry as Mr. Holder has in his comments on racism. Never before has an Attorney General abused the power of his office as Mr. Holder has in the pursuit of racial retribution. And never before has an Attorney General overseen such an aggressive division of our citizenry based on race as has Mr, Holder. To put it directly, Mr. Holder, don’t let the door smack you in your racist behind as you leave.

I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s. My parents taught me, in no uncertain terms, to consider individuals through a lens that evaluated their character, not their skin color. When I didn’t, my attitude was “adjusted” and I am thankful for their unyielding insistence on that issue.

I remember all too clearly the evening when my Father returned home from his office the day he found one of his best friends – a Black man – dead on the office floor. He was devastated. Eddie Cain was more than an employee to my Father. Each day as he arrived at his fledgling business – a new and struggling metal manufacturing company – he was greeted by Mr. Cain. Each morning they took the time to have a cup of coffee, or two, and discuss family, life, and current events. It was irrelevant that my Father was the boss and Mr. Cain was the custodian. Both men looked upon each other with respect, as family men both struggling to achieve so as to take care of their respective families. They were men of equal honor talking like the friends that they were.

Many times, my Father would confer with his friend on business realities that weighed heavily on my Father’s mind. Many times the common sense advice that Mr. Cain offered my Father – as a friend – was advice that helped to ease my Father’s mind. I like to think that it was out of the catalyst of their friendship that my Father was moved to institute a profit sharing plan that included all of his employees. Mind you, this was in a day and age when such things were considered revolutionary. The harder everyone worked – from the custodian to the CEO – the more everyone would financially benefit; capitalism at its purest; everyone has “skin in the game.”

On the day that my Father arrived home from the office after having found Mr. Cain dead on the floor from a heart attack – the water for their morning pot of coffee together spilled across the floor – I could see, even at my young age, the heartbreak a man feels for the loss of a great friend. He was devastated and at a loss. He made arrangements for Mr. Cain’s family to be provided for and lumbered through the grieving process; a process which not only took a long time to complete (if it ever did), but one that taught my Sister and I an important lesson. Skin color doesn’t matter. Character matters.

I carry that experience with me today as I travel the road that is my life. I have had the pleasure to have performed with some of the most talented and revered jazz musicians the art form has to offer, most of them Black. I have worked, played, entertained, debated and counseled with Blacks, Latinos, Europeans, Asians, Indians and American Indians, many of whom have been very dear to me, not because of a superficial tally of acquired racial diversity, but because of the elevated level of character I demand of myself in choosing who I call friend. In each instance the idea of skin color was non-existent. We appreciated each other for our talents, our character, our knowledge, our counsel and our developing friendships. Over the years I have been graced to have been able to call many of these old friends “family,” if only in the extended definition.

So, pardon me if I believe that Eric Holder and his race-baiting, activist agenda have harmed the United States; have done an incredible disservice to the multiple generations who have already risen above the stain of racism. I find it pathetic and unintelligent that Mr. Holder is so stained by the inequities of eras past; so stained in the blood of racism that no longer exists in mainstream America (but for the corners of our society where it will never be expunged), that he wears racism like a birthmark; never to be removed, always an identifier to who he is. Sadly, or perhaps ironically, it is the very racism of Mr. Holder and his ilk that feeds the racism that exists in the extreme corners of our country. One would think an educated person like Mr. Holder would understand this. Or, perhaps he does understand this and rising above racism was never his true agenda…perhaps.

So, as the Progressives amongst us celebrate the end of the tenure of our first Black Attorney General, I weep for our nation and the American culture. Mr. Holder and his racist, biased, activist pals have set race relations back almost 50 years, and for what, retribution? Payback? So another generation can “feel the pain”?

To all of those who have existed on this planet blind to racism and acutely dedicated to evaluating a person by their character over their skin color, I say stay the course; teach your children; be the example that would serve to influence all generations to come. Condemn thuggish behavior from all who exhibit it – regardless of the color of their skin, and hold dear to you people of good character, loyalty and friendship, like my Father held dear to Eddie Cain.

As for Eric Holder and his gaggle of race-baiting dividers, it is they who are the real cowards. Goodbye and good riddance. May our culture heal from your poisons.

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

The Questions Aren’t Ridiculous to Ask Anymore

Not too long ago if you supposed that President Obama was sympathetic to his Islamic experience as a child, inside the beltway Republicans would cringe and Progressives would howl. Non-engaged and no- and low-information voters would immediately call you a conspiracy theorist, an Obama-hating racist and other assorted kneejerk labels. But given the incredible inaction and indecisiveness on Mr. Obama’s part with regard to the Islamic State, this question not only needs to be braved, but has become one we all need a definitive answer to.

In a 2007 New York Times article, Nicholas Kristoff wrote:

“‘I was a little Jakarta street kid,’ [Mr. Obama] said in a wide-ranging interview in his office…Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’

“Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite.”

Mr. Obama intended, from the very beginning, to bring a new perspective to the American people about the Islamic culture. His 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, was titled “A New Beginning.” In that speech Mr. Obama said:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

But as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his article “Obama’s Hazy Sense of History”:

“President Obama doesn’t know much about history…In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment…”

I would sign on to what Mr. Hanson is selling, if in fact Mr. Obama isn’t either executing the Progressive tactic of purposefully re-writing history, exhibiting an open sympathy for the Islamist movement (this would be the only transparent thing that has ever come out of his administration), or both. And while many people allude to the notion that Mr. Obama might be apathetic to his responsibilities as President of the United States, others, looking at myriad events taking place around the world and on our own doorstep, simply label Mr. Obama as inept and wholly unqualified. Again, I would sign on to these theories if I could be assured that Mr. Obama and his advisors aren’t purposefully re-writing history and facilitating the advance of the Islamist movement.

The truth of it all is this. I cannot be sure, anymore, that Mr. Obama isn’t purposefully re-writing history and actively helping the Islamist movement. We have come to a moment in time, given the real-time events that are unfolding, when Mr. Obama must prove to the American people that he is not facilitating the Islamist cause. And make no mistake; the stakes are high, perhaps even higher than the bar set by the al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.

American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are openly acknowledging that they are very concerned with the Islamist-sympathetic demographic here in the United States. The New York Times reports:

“American intelligence and law enforcement agencies have identified nearly a dozen Americans who have traveled to Syria to fight for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria…As ISIS has seized large expanses of territory in recent months, it has drawn more foreign men to Syria, requiring more American and European law enforcement resources in the attempt to stop the flow of fighters, senior American officials said… ISIS has become more attractive to would-be militants because, unlike Al Qaeda, it has seized territory that it rules by strict Islamic law. ‘ISIS is able to hold itself up as the true jihad,’ said a senior American official.”

Brietbart.com reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued a memo warning that ISIS is taking advantage of the porous Texas-Mexico border in an effort to execute campaigns of terrorism against Americans on American soil. They also report that the US Border Patrol is taking the information seriously, with one Laredo Section Border Patrol agent saying they have credible information that ISIS is “attempting to find individuals and groups in Nuevo-Laredo Mexico to assist in gaining entry into the United States.”

Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, an individual intimate with the workings of radical Islam (lest we forget that Saudi riches fund almost all of Islam’s expansion into the West), is validating claims that ISIS has the United States, Europe and, in fact the whole of Western Civilization in its crossed-hairs. The Washington Times reports:

“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has a stark warning to America: The Islamic State’s terror will visit American shores in one month if it is not confronted in Syria and Iraq.

“‘If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,’ the king said Saturday, Agence France Presse reported…‘Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East…It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.’”

To reiterate, this is the King of Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Islam’s holiest place on Earth, Mecca, saying this.

Yet, Mr. Obama has taken to the presidential podium to admit that his administration has no strategy with which to counter the Islamic State threat. And while his handlers scramble to affect damage control at Mr. Obama’s statement, the reality of the matter is this: damage control is really all this administration is doing about the Islamic State threat. It appears that they are much more concerned about transforming the United States of America into a Socialist Democracy nanny-state than they are with executing the job of government, as well as the chief responsibility of that job, protecting the American people and guarding the homeland. It doesn’t matter what the issue is: securing our citizenry from illegal immigration, protecting our citizenry against foreign-born disease, guarding against violent drug cartels from disseminating death to our people, or violent jihadists courting drug cartels to mule them into the United States, the only angle Mr. Obama and his handlers cover – the only aspect with which this Progressive cabal is concerned – is the political angle.

But Mr. Obama has a response to accusations like mine. The Washington Times reports:

“President Obama told Democrat supporters Friday night that the news media is partly to blame for making Americans worry about emergencies overseas such as advances by Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

“‘If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,’ Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser in Westchester County, New York. ‘I can see why a lot of folks are troubled… ‘The world’s always been messy…we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,’ he said.”

The Saudi King warns the world about the viciousness of the jihadists of the Islamic State and Mr. Obama blames social media for ginning up discontent? Seriously? Countless numbers of videos, photographs and eyewitnesses recount Christians and non-Christians alike – even Muslims – being slaughtered at the hands of Islamic State barbarians, women being inducted into sexual servitude and children being cut in half and behead, their tiny skulls impaled on stakes as death markers to all who shall pass, and Mr. Obama says “the world’s always been messy”? Seriously?

A few years ago it might have been condemned and dismissed as Right-Wing demagoguery or conspiracy, but we have arrived at a moment in time when these questions are not only valid, but ones that beg to be asked.

Mr. Obama:

▪ Are you with the American people or against us?

▪ Are you sympathetic to the jihadi Islamist cause?

▪ Or are you just completely over your head in your station; unqualified for the job of President of the United States?

Sadly, regardless of the answers, the song remains the same. We have a vicious, power-hungry, and ideologically and financially emboldened enemy at the gates of Western Civilization and the United States and her people are saddled with a Commander-in-Chief who will do little to impede their progress. This leads to additional questions:

1) Will Mr. Obama’s time in office end before it is too late to do the job he refuses to do?

2) Will the American people be smart enough to elect a leader who is actually qualified for the job in 2016?

God help all of us who brave the pursuit of these answers.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

ISIS in Chicago

Stunningly (okay, maybe I am not as stunned as I could be), the Obama Administration’s State Department has succeeded in achieving the same stunted intellect toward the threats made by violent Islamists as was held by our government in the days before September 11, 2001. The critical mass moment came in the announcement that State Department rejects the Islamic State’s claim that is it at war with US.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“The State Department downplayed comments from Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) leaders that they are at war with America, arguing that their violence is not directed at any particular country or race.

“At a briefing Thursday, a reporter brought up anti-American comments from ISIL leaders: ‘I mean, even they are announcing, ISIL people in their message, whatever, the recorded message, other messages, that now we are in a war with America.’

“‘This is not about ISIL versus the United States,’ State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf objected. ‘They are killing anyone who gets in their way: Sunnis, Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Iraqis, Syrians, anyone who gets in their way — and now an American.'”

At almost the very same moment, The Washington Times reports:

“Sunni radicals with the Islamic State terrorist group have posted a number of tweets aimed at the citizens of Chicago, including a picture of an unidentified man on Michigan Avenue holding a paper with a handwritten Arabic message: ‘We are in your streets’…

“The location of the tweet was 307 N. Michigan Avenue at the city’s Old Republic Building, Chicago’s WGN network reported Friday. The tweet, dated June 20, allegedly says, ‘Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon.'”

Stupid is as stupid does. But this is a very special kind of stupid. It is an almost exact replication of what happen in both 1996 and again in 1998, when the US State Department – and, indeed, the entirety of the US government – ignored Osama bin Laden’s two declarations of war against the United States. The result of this arrogant attitude came in the slaughter of 2,977 people and an additional 1,140 responders and people who worked, lived or studied in Lower Manhattan at the time who have since been diagnosed with cancer.

One has to wonder. Is the Obama Administration so inept; so ill-qualified to lead, that it simply doesn’t understand the immediate danger our country’s people face? Is it that they are just so incredibly immersed in their ideology that they would be willing to watch our people plummet, burning in the skies, from another skyscraper? Or is it that this administration is literally sympathetic to the Islamist cause?

That last thought would have warranted the “conspiracy theory” label just a year or two ago. Now, frighteningly, it has become a legitimate question.

Yes, Mr. Holder, Words Matter

Eric Holder

In February of 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a campaign rally crowd in Wisconsin and declared that “words matter.” In shaping the image that was the centerpiece of the “idea of Obama,” he ginned-up an air of intellectualism using the tactic of manipulating through emotion, a potent tool in the Progressive war chest. “Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said. “I have a dream. Just words. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words…just speeches.” Indeed, Mr. Obama is absolutely correct, a rare point where I agree with him. The problem is this. If we hold him to his own words, then the statements of his closest ally, Attorney General Eric Holder, must be taken literally. This is where I find myself very concerned.

The events in Ferguson, Missouri, are serious on many levels. We have the death of a young man. We have the brutal beating of a police officer at the hand of this dead young man. We have a community that exists on the head of a racial powder keg, begging for a spark to light the fuse. And we have perhaps the most politically motivated – and many would say, and rightfully so, divisive – United States Attorney’s General in the history of our nation in Eric Holder, injecting himself into this delicate situation; usurping the authority of local, county and state law enforcement and making some statements where words certainly do matter.

In an op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mr. Holder attempted to present a balanced approach, calling for calm and temperance on both sides of the issue. But hidden in his words – and let’s remember, this administration insists that “words matter” – was a declaration that literally reserved the final opinion on the matter to the Department of Justice and, in fact, the Attorney’s General himself:

“This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: Our investigation into this matter will be full, it will be fair, and it will be independent. And beyond the investigation itself, we will work with the police, civil rights leaders, and members of the public to ensure that this tragedy can give rise to new understanding — and robust action — aimed at bridging persistent gaps between law enforcement officials and the communities we serve. Long after the events of Aug. 9 have receded from the headlines, the Justice Department will continue to stand with this community.” (Emphasis mine)

If someone makes a pledge to someone, or to a group, it is – usually – a declaration of intention: “I pledge to be there,” “I pledge not to let you down,” “I pledge to adhere to the law,” “I pledge to do my best.” In Mr. Holder’s crafted statement he declares that the investigation into the events in Ferguson, Missouri “will be,” as if to say “it will be what we determine it to be.” Wouldn’t a more appropriately crafted statement be worded to say, “This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: I will do everything in my power to make sure that the investigation into this matter is done to the fullest extent and I will insist, at every turn, that it be done in a fair and just manner for everyone involved…”

Now, there are those who will roll their eyes and say that I am splitting hairs; being too critical of Mr. Holder and his attempt to quell the discord between the “warring factions” in Ferguson. Perhaps I am. But I have been delivered to this point because of Mr. Holder’s words and actions. Put bluntly, just as the race-baiters in Ferguson seek to remove the duly-elected county prosecutor because – suddenly – he isn’t qualified to prosecute capital murder cases (does that mean all the convictions before this need to be “investigated?”), I do not trust Eric Holder and his racial activist DoJ attorneys not to inject prejudice into their investigation; into their opinion of what “full” and “fair” actually constitute in the end.

This distrust is not without reason. From the very beginning Mr. Holder has injected race into every domestic issue his office has touched. From the non-prosecution of the New Black Panthers who intimidated White voters at a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008, to his statement about hundreds of millions of Americans being “cowards” on the issue of racism in America, to his explanation of why Congress held him in Contempt of Congress for perjuring himself before a congressional committee investigating Operation Fast & Furious and obstructing their investigation, there hasn’t been – not once – an instance where he, or his closest deputies, haven’t injected race into their calculations and efforts. Race, for the Holder Justice Department, is a deciding factor.

In fact, J. Christian Adams, a former attorney for the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice, writes at PJMedia.com:

“PJ Media has been covering the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division for years. This is the unit that will be investigating the shooting in Ferguson and deciding whether to charge the police officer with civil rights crimes.

“PJ Media had to sue Eric Holder to obtain the resumes of the lawyers he hired to populate this unit. No wonder. The ‘Every Single One’ series at PJ Media revealed that all of Holder’s attorney hires were leftists, some even with a history of anti-police activities…

“Why does it matter that the DoJ unit that will investigate the Ferguson police is stacked with leftists and ideologues? Because anti-police biases of lawyers in this unit have resulted in gross prosecutorial misconduct against police officers.”

It is for exactly this reason that Mr. Holder and his crew cannot be trusted to be “full” in their investigation or “fair” in their findings. And this is exactly why the declarations that, “Our investigation into this matter will be full, it will be fair…” cannot be seen as a statement of truth. Mr. Holder’s idea of “fair” is skewed because he is a racist, or at least hobbled by the idea of rampant racism in the United States.

Perhaps a little background on Mr. Holder’s mindset is in order. The Daily Caller reports:

“As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned ROTC headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as ‘armed,’ The Daily Caller has learned..

“Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the ‘Malcolm X Lounge.’ The change, the group insisted, was to be made ‘in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.’

“Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.”

It is obvious, given Mr. Holder’s radical past – and his debilitating obsession with racism, that he has not evolved along with almost two generations of Americans who have learned to see past the cultural malady of racism. It is obvious that he sees everything through the lenses of racism; an age when hooded thugs (yes, thugs can be white…and Democrat) hunted the Black man and White people who stood up for evolving into a culture that sees no race but, instead, judges people by the content of their character. This is one of the main criticism society has with the gangsta thug culture prevalent in the urban Black communities. Far from where Mr. Holder believes we exist as a society on the issue of racism, we exist as a culture that has grown past the sins of generations past; this is where we live, in a colorblind society, where character counts and excuses for acting violently and without intellectual measure are the song of victimhood.

What is not obvious is how Congress allows this man to remain seated as the United States Attorney’s General.

And what is assured, sadly, is this. Eric Holder’s DoJ will define what justice is in Ferguson. And justice for all will not be served.

The Realities of a Community Organizer’s Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of the United States under President Barack Obama, who came to the White House with the resume of an untested community organizer, no experience in political leadership, nor an iota of insight into international relations, has moved the whole of the world to the brink of total war. Those who pay attention to only what affects their lives – those who are taken in by the false promises marketed by the Progressive political class – are partially to blame. I say this not with a viciously partisan eye, but with sadness and concern in my heart for all humanity. But the onus of responsibility for our current situation – the world’s situation – must lay at the feet of Mr. Obama and his closest advisers.

In the beginning, in his speeches to prospective voters, Mr. Obama preached the Progressive gospel of the peace movement and the demilitarization of American foreign policy. He pledged to end the Iraqi conflict expeditiously and end the Afghan conflict in a timely manner. Sadly, and to their own shame, a majority of American voters bought into the pre-packaged marketing of the idea of Obama, the “first Black president,” without realizing him as wholly unqualified for the job, and he was elected. It took him short order to keep his promises to the faithful voters who counted themselves amongst the anti-war movement; the “Bush-Lied-People-Died” chanters of so many protests around the country. In December of 2011, Mr. Obama, going so far as to supply the enemy with timelines and withdrawal dates, announced the end of the Iraq War for America’s military men and women. Of course, he failed to secure reasonable status of forces agreements and insisted that the Iraqis had “turned the corner,” and were now capable of defending their own country. This, of course, was the biggest miscalculation, with regard to foreign policy, that he has made as President of the United States.

In January of 2014, when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), a small but fiercely pious group of jihadists were making initial advances on many locations in the rural outposts in Iraq and Syria, USA Today’s James Robbins pointed out to President Obama that the flag of al Qaeda was now flying in Fallujah and many other locations in Iraq, and among an increasing number of rebel factions in Syria. He also highlighted the fact that al Qaeda aligned groups has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, as well. Amazingly, arrogantly, but almost absolutely ignorantly, Mr. Obama responded:

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant…”

Ignore Mr. Obama’s substandard 7th Grade grammar for a moment, because, after all, it is “cool” to speak like one is uneducated.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review writes that today, as Mr. Obama and his family vacation – yet again – in Martha’s Vineyard, ISIS (now simply calling themselves the Islamic State) “controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations, makes $3 million per day selling oil on the black market,” have taken “control of Iraq’s largest dam and the power supply for the city of Mosul, are spreading into Lebanon, are threatening to starve or slaughter ‘at least 40,000 members of the Yazidi sect,’ is organizing protests in the Netherlands and is stepping up its recruitment of Westerners.”

In addition to these truths, the Islamic State, which is winning on every battlefront on which they are engaged (remember, victors in war control land, not the skies), has declared the existence of an Islamic Caliphate. They have instituted strict Sharia Law in every area they control and have made the ultimatum to all non-Muslims in the “occupied territories” that they must convert to Islam, pay a jizya and live subserviently as Dhimmis, expatriate or die. In Mosul, at least for the Christians, this ultimatum is nothing more than a formality.

In an interview with CNN’s Jonathan Mann, Chaldean-American leader Mark Arabo reported that in Mosul “a Christian holocaust is in our midst…children are being beheaded, mothers are being raped and killed, and fathers are being hung.”

Mr. Arabo continued:

“They are systematically beheading children…and mothers and fathers. The world hasn’t seen an evil like this for generations.

“There’s actually a park in Mosul where they actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick…this is crimes against humanity. They are doing the most horrendous, the most heart-breaking crimes that you can think of.”

For the Islamic children in the ISIS “occupied territories” there only exists a future of jihad or martyrdom as ISIS jihadists execute an all-out recruiting effort throughout said “occupied territories,” recruiting children, young boys, as young as 7 years old.

This is ISIS, or the Islamic State. This is the barbarity that is being pursued in the name of the “religion of peace.” This is the savagery that has been facilitated by US foreign policy under the Obama Administration. This is the future under an Islamic Caliphate of any size, in any land, for everyone, all of the time.

Kirsten Powers, a columnist with The Daily Beast, a FOX News contributor, and usually an ardent defender of President Obama’s, lashed out at Mr. Obama over his response to ISIS’s attempt to “cleanse” the region of the “infidel”:

“He has not uttered the word ‘Christian,’ and now suddenly he throws it in with the Yazidis…We’re not doing any airdrops to the Christians, who are refugees in the Kurdish region. [Virginia Congressman Frank] Wolf has taken to the floor, I think, seven days in a row now, pleading with the administration: Please help these people. They need humanitarian aid; they need drinking water. They have nothing. They’ve lost their homes; they’ve lost everything.

“The White House has done nothing; they’ve said nothing. And then the president goes on and goes into quite a lot of detail about the Yazidis, and never really gets into the specifics about Christians. I mean, it’s really unbelievable, and he has no right to invoke humanitarianism, because he is not a humanitarian president. A humanitarian president does not sit quietly by, while hundreds of thousands of Christians in Iraq [are uprooted or killed] – forget about the rest of the Middle East – and doesn’t say a word.”

And how does Mr. Obama explain his administration’s underestimation of the savagery and barbarity of ISIS? How does he spin the issue to avoid responsibility for applying a “jayvee” foreign policy in a battle for control of first the Middle East and then the World? He blames it on “bad intelligence.” This excuse – and that’s what it is, an excuse – is inept, pathetic and infuriating. It is especially egregious in light of his unyielding criticism of the Bush Administration where skewed intelligence was concerned. And it projects to the cretinous barbarians of ISIS that they can rein down their savagery with little worry of any substantial response from the United States, sans a few drone and airstrikes.

There are many of us who fully understood the threat posed by barbarians the likes of ISIS years ago. We begged our fellow Americans and freedom loving people around the world to awaken from their self-important slumber, to question the blather of the Progressive mantra of Islam being the “religion of peace,” to realize that Muslims who follow the Quran and Hadith with fanatical devotion not only believe in their superiority to all other human beings, but believe it is their right to lord over them in the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate. We were called haters and Islamophobes by the anointed chattering classes on both sides of the aisle. And we were delivered to today’s realities.

Perhaps we should revisit, with un-manipulated eyes, Mr. Obama’s words, courtesy of Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times:

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…, Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

I wonder. Are we who were sounding the alarm bell then about jihad, Islam, caliphates and Islamic conquest seen in such a despicable light now? Are we seen as haters and Islamophobes; uneducated and enlightened in the gentle spirit of the “religion of peace”? It’s actually hard to call us fanatical when you are staring at the severed head of a child impaled on a pike at a playground in Iraq. Isn’t it?

HuffPuff Propagandizes a FOX Reality

Unemployed

I go through the headlines and news stories in over one-hundred publications daily. I do this so that I can view multiple sources on some of the same stories. Doing this allows me to formulate what is fact and what is disingenuous spin; propaganda meant to trick the public into thinking one way instead of another. Make no mistake, both ideological prospective do it. It’s the art of modern political war. But the Progressive Left has myriad vehicles to attack the ideological Right, where the Right has many fewer (thank you uber-stingy money people on the Right).

A perfect example of the Left’s disingenuous attack on the Right’s information sources comes in an article in the Huffington Post by Jack Mirkinson titled, FOX News Really Doesn’t Want to Talk About the Good Jobs News, where he writes:

“Quick! Can you find Fox News’s coverage of the latest job figures?”

He includes some main page screen shots.

“Still can’t find them? OK, we’ll help you out. What if we zoom in?…OK, OK, we’ll show you! The link is that little one right in the corner there…For some reason, FOX News appears to want to downplay the very good job numbers. For good measure, the network also downplayed the figures on its airwaves as well.”

He then goes on to show how the far-Left mainstream media outlets dutifully took the Obama Administration’s spun numbers touting them as miraculous by supplying one – one – example: a screen shot of CNN’s breaking news on the numbers.

The good numbers that Mr. Mirkinson points to are the BLS statistic that 288,000 jobs were created last month. Is that good news? Yes. Is it the miraculous news Mr. Mirkinson suggests? No.

Throughout the Obama Administration the majority of the jobs “created” have been either service industry jobs or part-time jobs. College graduates remain woefully under-employed and those experienced in the workforce who have been downsized or otherwise screwed out of a job find it almost impossible to find work. And if you are over 50 and have been out of work for a period of time, you might as well come to grips with the fact that you have become unemployable under Mr. Obama’s economy.

Where the Obama Administration and its sycophants want everyone to believe that the creation of 288,000 jobs is the greatest news since sliced bread, the facts remain…and they are not good.

▪ The U3 unemployment rate hovers at 6.1%. The U3 rate measures the unemployment of people who are without jobs and who have actively been looking for work within the past four weeks.

▪ The U6 unemployment rate hovers at 12.1%. The U6 rate reflects “discouraged workers,” or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them; “marginally attached workers,” or “loosely attached workers,” or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently; and part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

▪ The Labor Force Participation Rate is stuck at 62.8%.

These statistics mean that in a country of 318 million legal citizens, 92.2 million eligible for employment are without work. Almost one-third of the population is unemployed.

Further, the rate of those not in the labor force has exploded since 2000. Over the past 14 years – and predominantly during the Obama years – we have removed 14,022,376 from the labor force who are eligible to work. That’s over 1 million eligible workers removed from the workforce each year, on average.

So, understanding the reality behind the unemployment data – disingenuously termed the “jobs numbers” by the talking heads, when more accurately they should be referred to as the “jobless numbers” – how can anyone celebrate the creation of 288,000 menial and part-time jobs when we add one million people a year on average to the under- and unemployed demographic?

The American free-market Capitalist system is the only economic system to have ever – ever – created a Middle Class in the history of man. In its purest form it made the United States of America not only the world’s preeminent superpower, it made the United States the “land of opportunity.” Today, that is hardly the case. The Middle Class is disappearing are a rapidly increasing rate and opportunity is disappearing from our economic lexicon. Why, you ask? The answer is simple: the government manipulation of the American free-market Capitalist system.

Special interests in government have saddled the small business sector with an overwhelming number of regulations, while newer and more intrusive mandates continue to smother the job creators, literally stealing food from the mouths of the hungry in the form of disappearing opportunity.

Obamacare, environmental zealotry, socialism in the form of labor union oppression, manipulation of free commerce, all of these economy-stunting and job-killing maladies are introduced into the American free-market Capitalist system by government and the big-money, well-organized special interest groups that see success and American exceptionalism as a cancer, not a cure. Sadly, today, these creatures of negativity and societal destruction are in power…and on both sides of the governmental political aisle. Unless we shift the political paradigm radically back towards true limited government, it is only a matter of time before our Republic is lost.

So, Mr. Mirkinson, the jobs news is good? Please. The jobs news sucks.

As we celebrate the 238 anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we should all be willing to look at the chains upon our wrists and ankles. We have allowed ourselves to become slaves to an oligarchic elite and their special interest benefactors. They feign concern about unemployment as they try to tell you they are just like us. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Case in point: Mrs. Clinton’s comment about being “flat-broke” when she and the former President left the White House. How does someone who is flat-broke acquire a multi-million dollar mansion in Chappaqua, New York and maintain two “summer cottages” in Ireland being flat-broke? It’s a lie, and one meant to deceive.

The good news it this. We can remove those chains and get back to good. We can free ourselves of the disingenuous and elitist oligarchs with which we are currently saddled. We have the power and it is a power that begins with the ballot box and navigates the seas of prosperity through limited government.

The time is now. Let us not be faint of heart.

Creating Democrats One Squirrel at a Time

A lack of affordable housing forced me to move 24 miles south of the Fort Hunt area in Fairfax County, VA. I couldn’t find an affordable house that had a view of the Potomac River.

We had been renting a home there for five years and each winter, after the leaves fell from the trees in the backyard, we could catch a postage stamp–sized glimpse of the river from the dining room.

My thinking was if a glimpse was good, how much better would a year–around view be?

I wasn’t the only one with this opinion. Evidently politicians, Democrat lobbyists and environmentalists had cornered the market. The demand for river views boosted housing prices far outside my budget.

This brush with the market may have served to accelerate my departure from the Democrat party. More ‘affordable housing’ had been the battle cry and tax–dollar black hole for Northern VA Democrats since we moved here from Texas.

Yet when I needed an affordable house no concerned Democrat was to be found.

So the family moved into a house on the waterfront of Lake Montclair that we could afford. Down among the Republicans and gas–guzzler owners, many but one generation removed from the trailer park. But I’m afraid — like many California refugees that have fled to Arizona — when I left Fairfax I didn’t leave behind all my bad, leftist ideas.

Case in point: Our back deck has an excellent view of the lake. During the spring and summer (and soon maybe year around if the warmist Chicken Little’s are correct!) I sit on the deck and read the newspaper before going to work.

Three years ago I decided to spread the wealth and each morning began leaving two peanuts on the deck rail in front of my chair. Montclair is home to foxes, raccoons, beavers, hawks, many varieties of songbirds and innumerable squirrels. The peanuts were for the squirrels.

A routine was quickly established. Each morning I would replace the two nuts that had disappeared overnight and then begin with my coffee and paper. This went on for a few weeks until one morning there was a new development: A squirrel came to get the nut while I was still outside.

He/she/it watched me from the far edge of the deck and then cautiously came halfway down the rail. After a period of watchfulness, the squirrel would dart in front of me, halt long enough to snatch the peanut and then scamper away.

This was entertaining. So much so that I began exceeding my two–nut limit, replacing each snatched nut with a new one until I went back in the house.

Then the escalation really began. I started to think like a crack dealer. The squirrel is hooked on rail nuts, how about bending him to my will and forcing the squirrel to ask for the nut? So I would put the initial two nuts on the rail and wait.

After those were taken, I didn’t add replacements. Instead I waited until the squirrel returned and then I took a peanut off my table and slooowly leaned out toward the squirrel. I looked like a geriatric at the Early Bird Special reaching for the salt.

At first the squirrel wanted no part of this slow–motion enticement — much like a conservative applying for his first food stamp — but gradually I wore down his resistance. And before cooler temperatures arrived he was taking nuts out of my hand and occasionally resting one paw on my finger to steady himself as he grabs the nut, as you can see here:

http://youtu.be/e2yYF3Z2ld8

I was so proud of myself that frankly I overlooked multiple warning signs. Rocky (what other name could there be for a squirrel?) had been missing for most of a week and when he finally returned there was a bare spot on the back of his neck where the fur had been ripped away and a big gouge in the underlying skin.

I rationalized his wound and chalked it up to a domestic disturbance that got out of hand.

Then the next summer the process was repeated. A formerly sleek squirrel (Rocky II) appeared one day looking like Rodney Dangerfield. And his neck had the same ripped fur and ugly scab.

Since the average life span of a squirrel is one year, I wasn’t dealing with a rodent that had forgotten to wear his toupee. This was a different squirrel with the same wound. It’s obvious that breakfasting at the Shannon Country Buffet wasn’t exactly burning up the calories.

Rocky I & II’s weight gain had caused him to lose a step and the hawk that perches in the mimosa tree had had taken advantage of his gluttony. The only good news was his peanut–centric diet made him so fat the hawk evidently dropped him.

The new Rocky also resumed eating out of my hand. I don’t know if the previous Rocky had passed down knowledge of the peanut program by word–of–mouth, scratched a treasure map on a tree or if it is encoded in their DNA, but the word was out. Other squirrels would line up on the rail like crony capitalists waiting for a tax break. Soon the deck looked like earmark time in Harry Reid’s Senate. In fact, the goobers were so plentiful squirrels didn’t bother to eat many of the nuts and instead buried them in the flower boxes.

This spring marks the third year of my private sector peanut handout program and Rocky III is here with his neck — so far — intact. Unfortunately with his arrival I have to face the realization that I have created a culture of dependency in my own backyard.

Now when Rocky III arrives on the rail he ignores the two traditional nuts laid out for him and instead comes to a dead stop in front of me and stares until I personally give him a handout.

And I do, in spite of the fact these unearned giveaways make me the Barack Obama of Skyline Drive.

I started out with the best of intentions, feeding neighborhood animals, and wound up running a peanut kitchen for able–bodied squirrels that are entirely capable of fending for themselves.

The worst part is that I enjoy the feeling of benevolence and superiority I get from having squirrels dependent upon me. So much so that like Obama and his ever–expanding welfare benefits, I have no intention of ending the program, even though it would be better in the long run for the squirrels.

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

benghazi_coverup

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

The Danger of Granting Lerner Immunity

The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has voted to advance a Contempt of Congress charge against Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. The vote was 21 to 12, brought about by Ms. Lerner’s refusal to provide information about the IRS’s targeting of Conservative advocacy groups vying for 501c3 tax-exempt status, especially during the period before the 2012 General Election.

To say that this very legitimate issue has been politicized would be an under-statement. Both Republicans and Democrats – not to mention Progressives – see political capital to be gained from this issue. Democrats and Progressives will continue to advance the canard that any action against a member of the Obama Administration is based on racism and hate, while Republicans, Conservatives and TEA Partiers will continue to point out that crimes have been committed against the American people; crimes directly affecting rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

While committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), stated, “This is not an action I take lightly… [lawmakers] need Ms. Lerner’s testimony to complete our oversight work and bring truth to the American people,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (P-NY), rebutted, “Guilty or innocent, Ms. Lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue,” and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said smugly that the case would be “laughed out of court.”

To the latter points, yes, Ms. Lerner has the right not to incriminate herself under the Fifth Amendment rights afforded her in the US Constitution, but I seriously doubt that the political targeting of American citizens’ First Amendment rights to redress government would be “laughed out of court.” As to the hypocrisy of Ms. Lerner seeking protection from the US Constitution, even as she disregarded the protections the US Constitution affords her fellow Americans, that she should be rewarded with a pension and/or benefits stemming from her 32 years of federal employment – including service with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, two positions that prove she knew better than to do what she is accused of doing – is a scandal in and of itself.

There are those who are willing to allow Ms. Lerner to “get away” with her politically-based ideological attacks on her fellow Americans by granting her immunity to testify, perhaps in an effort to spotlight others who may have been involved in the crimes committed. Many suggest that she is shielding US Attorney’s General Eric Holder, who himself has been held in Contempt of Congress for his unyielding obstruction of several investigations led by the House of Representatives: “the people’s house”; the direct voice of the people in federal government. Others suggest that Ms. Lerner’s direction originated in the White House, possibly by super-secret special adviser, confidant and political handler Valerie Jarrett. Of these two accusations we cannot be sure, purely for the fact that Ms. Lerner and her complicit underlings refuse to answer questions about their actions, their direction and their motives.

Those in favor of granting Ms. Lerner immunity, with the caveat that she gets to keep her pension and benefits if she provides information, say just such a move will facilitate the information necessary to determine where the order to violate the citizenry’s constitutional rights, in deference to political advantage, originated. But there is a huge flaw in that thinking…and perhaps two.

Should Ms. Lerner be granted immunity to provide information related to this crime against the American people, there would be no guarantee she would tell the truth. She has already proven that she cannot be trusted to do right by the American people on two levels. First, the very fact that she would oversee the usurpation of the citizenry’s First Amendment rights proves, in enough measure, that she is willing to deceive to achieve; she is willing to break the law to achieve a political outcome. And second, she has proven, through her refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation, but, in defiance, cooperate with a rigged investigation by the US Department of Justice (and please, the Holder DoJ has proven time and time again that they are politically and ideologically motivated), that she will seek the safe haven of the corrupt over admitting to wrong-doing and serving the best interests of the people of the United States.

Additionally, should congressional negotiators be naïve enough to offer immunity to Ms. Lerner, should she perjure herself in the immunized testimony, she will most likely claim immunity to prosecution if found out. This very point almost entices the corrupt and the politically and ideologically motivated to “re-write” the history of the events in question, if not to save their sorry hides, to affect the very political and ideological “change” that was the goal in the first place. And, if you even have a cursory understanding of the Progressive Movement, you know they are prone to re-writing the facts and history to facilitate their narratives.

(As an aside, a good example of Progressives re-writing history to suit their immediate needs comes in President Obama’s lionization of LBJ as a great and insightful leader; the one who burned political to achieve Civil Rights legislation. The truth of the matter is that President Eisenhower, a Republican, first floated Civil Rights legislation only to have it derailed by three Democrat Senators; Sens. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, John F. Kennedy, D-MA, and Lyndon B. Johnson, D-TX. Further, the only reason LBJ was able to steal credit for Civil Rights legislation was due to overwhelming Republican support. Democrats stood in opposition to the bill. Yet today, Mr. Obama re-writes history to extol the greatness of LBJ, the man who ensconced us in Vietnam.)

The intentional and systematic usurpation of our citizenry’s constitutional rights is, to put it mildly, unacceptable. Ms. Lerner – and all involved – should be made to pay an incredibly high price for their misdeeds. But depending on the Eric Holder-led US Justice Department to affect justice in this case is just as much a fantasy as Obamacare being a beneficial legislation for the total of the American people.

Perhaps – just perhaps – Mr. Issa and his crew can do some outside the box thinking on this matter; crafting an effective course of action to affect truth and justice in this case. Perhaps they can figure out a way to empower this investigation to extend beyond the 2016 General Elections, when an Attorney’s General might be seated who would actually care enough about the law to pursue a legitimate investigation into, and subsequent legitimate prosecutions of, the violation of the citizenry’s constitutional rights.

Of course, that would mean that Republicans – and many establishment Republicans at that, would have to dispense with ego to better serve the people…and we don’t see a lot of that these days, from either party.

« Older Entries