The articles posted on this page are written from a conservative, Christian worldview. Patriot Post publications are usually posted M, W, & F. Others are posted as discovered by yours truly. These posting are meant to instill a love for God, family and country as well as to educate, equip, enlighten, and challenge to good deeds for the betterment of mankind, those who visit these pages.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown
Scroll down for articles for past week.
Why Do Gays, Feminists, Actors, Comedians And Whiny Atheists Give Islam A Pass?
3/1/2015 12:01:00 AM - Doug Giles
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why sassy gays, frothy feminists, liberals in Hollywood, late night comedians and whiny atheists continue to rail against Christians while saying jack-squat against Islam.
Look, I get why Obama skips slamming Islam. He grew up a Muslim. He’s got quite the Muslim name. And … despite all of his Jesus talk and twenty-years of being under the tutelage of Reverend “Goddam America” Jeremiah Wright’s discipleship, everything he says and does screams he’s way chummier with Mohammed than Jesus.
So … I get Obama’s reticence to rebuke the Religion Of Perpetual Rage -- but what about you aforementioned cuties? Why so silent, my darlings? Could it be that thou has shriveled ‘nads and you’re terrified of taking on the real “religious” threat to your liberty and prefer to appear to be hardcore by beating on a non-threatening soft target? Is that it?
I mean, c’mon folks. Even the dullest among you have to concede that Christians represent zero material threat to your life/freedoms and thus your focus on them is about as ill-fitting as a small, A-cup bustier on Oprah.
Christianity doesn’t promote violent jihad. Christianity doesn’t auger for Neil Patrick Harris’ death. Christianity doesn’t cheerlead for the slaughter of Jews. Christians don’t regard the unbaptized in their midst as unenlightened mongrels that must bow to the Golden Rule or be killed. And Christians don’t cheer en masse when cartoonists are slaughtered for drawing cheeky cartoons about Jesus.
But Islam does. For your information, here’s the worst thing a Church Lady wishes on you: If Church Lady had it her way, you’d be a repentant nice boy, wearing a Christian t-shirt, sitting on the front pew every Sunday singing Oh, The Blood Of Jesus, and voting for Mike Huckabee in 2016; and if not, well, so be it, they’ll still love you anyway.
Islam … eh … not so much. No, if Achmed had it his way, because of your penchants, beliefs or lack thereof, you’d be subjugated or slaughtered. If you don’t believe me, watch international news every now and then and/or read the Koran. It’s quite different than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like in way different. Another reason, I suppose, that those on the Left haven’t gotten too pissy with Islam is that the full force of its fascism hasn’t hit our shores …yet. But it has Western Europe's and it might do you some good, from an ongoing freedom standpoint, to look across the pond and see what multi-cultural yumminess has yielded up for our dull euro-bros – and do the opposite. In Europe, you can actually go to jail for mocking Islam or burning a Koran, but you can talk crap about Christ and BBQ a Bible all day long over there.
In addition, it’s just a matter of time, with Europe’s diminishing birthrate and thinning of skin, before they’re Islam’s prison chick, mop head wig and all girlfriend. Therefore, if you truly love yourself and love your liberty, you need to fight Islam tooth, fang and claw because if Islam ever solidly takes root here in the USA, we all can kiss our freedoms goodbye.
Political Science: Heat's on Climate Change Dissidents
Debra J. Saunders
3/1/2015 12:01:00 AM - Debra J. Saunders
"I am under 'investigation,'" professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder posted on his blog Wednesday.
The top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, sent a letter to university President Bruce Benson that asked the school to provide its financial disclosure policies and information on how they apply to Pielke, as well as any drafts and communications involving Pielke's testimony before Congress between Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.
In 2013, Grijalva explained, Pielke told the Senate that it is "incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases." Grijalva is a fervent believer in climate change. Pielke is a believer, as well. He has defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and supports a carbon tax. But Pielke doesn't buy all the hype -- hence his testimony that challenged the catastrophic-weather argument. For that, Grijalva wants to give Pielke the full treatment -- a full financial and documentary probe.
Without the agreement of Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah -- who is the committee's chairman -- the ranking Democrat asked for documents from six other academics, including my old pal Steve Hayward at Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy, who have challenged global warming orthodoxy. Grijalva is fishing on one side of the pond only.
Climate change true believers always say they want to keep politics out of science, but they cannot help themselves.
Pielke calls it a "politically motivated 'witch hunt'" designed to intimidate a point of view. What prompted the probe? On Feb. 21, The New York Times reported that Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, a global warming skeptic, had received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry but failed to disclose his funding in journals that published his work. So Grijalva apparently decided to interrogate others presumed guilty by association of belief.
When partisans want to silence those with whom they disagree, they often concoct a host of phony reasons to convince themselves and others that they really aren't trying to bully anyone into submission. In that spirit, Grijalva cited the Soon story as he claimed, "I have a constitutional duty to protect public lands." And: "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."
It's almost funny when you consider that congressmen usually claim that campaign contributions have no influence whatsoever on their voting record. If the Arizona representative thinks money buys allegiance in academia, imagine what it could buy on Capitol Hill.
Boulder Provost Russell Moore backs Pielke up when he says he never has received a dime of fossil fuel money -- just government grants.
I object to the Democrat's apparent presumption that any global warming skeptic is likely to be driven by oil money, whereas climate change enthusiasts have nothing to gain financially. To the contrary, David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, who is skeptical of climate change predictions of catastrophe, told me that he realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees.
"There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey," Legates, another scientist on Grijalva's little list, once told me. Scientists who reinforce catastrophic predictions continue to get fat government grants. As for Legates, his apostasy forced him out of his post as Delaware state climatologist.
There has been some blowback -- read: tweets and lukewarm quotes -- from the "consensus" climate change community at Grijalva's heavy-handed ways. Those mild objections are tame compared with the message that has been sent to academia: Anyone who disagrees with climate change absolutists should be prepared to hear, "Your papers, please."
Pielke already has backed down. He wrote on his blog, "The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me -- I'll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can't imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: 'when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there's no reason to go on a witch hunt.'"
Me, I am no scientist. I'm just an observer who expects academic disagreements to be settled after passionate debate and civil discourse. What I see instead is an inquisition from the side that considers its biggest selling point to be the fact that it represents the scientific "consensus." Once again, this is how they build their "consensus" -- by the heavy-handed use of political muscle and brute intimidation.
Mr. President, Your Summit Had it Wrong
3/1/2015 12:02:00 AM - Michael Youssef
Your recent summit to “Counter Violent Extremism” was flawed from the start—beginning with its name. Extremism is indeed a threat (especially a threat to Christians), but that is not what we face when confronting ISIS. On that issue, I’m afraid you’re confused.
First let’s look at the definition of extremists: namely, people who advocate or resort to measures beyond norms to enforce their views.
To look at textbook examples of extremism, one doesn’t need to look abroad. Let’s enumerate some acts of extremism inflicted by the US government:
Removing the Bible by force from schools after it had been studied in classrooms for hundreds of years.
Likewise, driving prayer out of schools after it had been practiced for a similar time period.
Dragging parents and students to court for either praying or studying the Bible in school.
Destroying small businesses and persecuting their proprietors, whether a baker or photographer, for simply abiding by their religious beliefs. Losing government or corporate jobs for simply expressing one’s biblical belief.
Threatening or removing military chaplains if they dare to exercise their faithful duty and call on the name of their Lord in public (again something that was practiced for hundreds of years).
Demanding that people participate in training, corporate and otherwise, that they find ungodly, and punishing them if they refuse to do so.
That’s to say nothing about the humiliation inflicted on patriotic people of deep faith when a national leader describes them as bitterly clinging to their “guns or religion.”
Need I go further, Mr. President?
Those are classic cases of extremism. On the contrary, however, the activities perpetuated by ISIS are, in fact, not extremism (as being described by the US administration). ISIS is simply following the tenants of their religion.
Most reform-minded Muslims actually feel insulted when ISIS is not described as they truly are: Islamic fundamentalists. When ISIS uses the sword, they are following the fundamentals of their faith.
I wish everyone would read the Qur’an. Then they would know that reform-minded Muslims, like President el-Sisi of Egypt, speak the truth when they state that such commands to violence are in the Qur’an. They refuse to deny that their religion has a problem with the sword and bloodshed. Admitting the truth is the first step to recovery, and as el-Sisi has done, he challenges the imams to seek new interpretations of the Qur’an that are appropriate for modern times.
As a Christian, I love the Muslim people. I am commanded to love and not to hate, and I only hate the evil that is committed.
Let me repeat, as a Christian, I love the Muslim people, and I long for both Muslim fundamentalists and moderates to come to the one true God—the Messiah who died on the cross to save all sinners who turn to Him.
Thousands of Muslims are coming to know Christ as the Savior of the world and as their personal Savior. My ardent desire is that Muslims of all stripes would follow in the footsteps of those courageous new believers. To know God is the desperate need of every heart, even of those who do not recognize it or verbalize it.
But I also fully support those Muslims who want to change the interpretation of their religion, to bring it to the twenty first century.
Mr. President, for the sake of everything that is holy, and for the sake of Muslims who stand against the violence of their religion, let us not confuse fundamentalism for extremism.
Will Christians Soon Need to Leave Their Faith at Home?
2/28/2015 2:30:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
Bakers are being forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, students are being punished for speaking up for their faith in schools and our soldiers are even being denied the opportunity to read their bibles. Is the kind of freedom loving culture our Founding Fathers envisioned?
Cal Thomas, who moderated the Conservative Political Action Conference's Saturday morning panel entitled "Religious Freedom in America: Would the Pilgrims Still Be Welcome Here?," greeted the crowd as "fundamental bigots." Why? Because that's how the media often refers to anyone who believes in religious freedom, he explained. Included on the panel were radio host Dana Loesch, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and Representative Randy Neugebauer (TX-19).
Thomas asked the panelists to pinpoint the biggest threats to religious freedom.
"Apathy," said Loesch. "We need to lead better by example, Christians have always led. But, in the last 15 years there's been a lot of apathy."
Going to church on Sunday, she added, is not good enough.
Tony Perkins's answer also sounded like a warning.
"The loss of religous freedom," he said. "People are losing their businesses because they're refusing to leave their faith at home."
"Our future is only as bright as our religious freedom is," he remarked. "It requires personal effort and action."
Even though the Ten Commandments are being driven out by the courts, pray at home, he said.
"We should be able to take it into the workplace."
Loesch said defending religious freedom is not solely beneficial to those of the Christian faith.
"You don't have to be a Christian to be affected by the loss of religious liberty...More liberties may be taken."
In addition to speaking up for faith and freedom, Rep. Neugebauer said legislative efforts are also being made to protect rights of Americans, including those of our military.
"We're writing letters to the Secretary of Defense for soldiers to have the right to sit down with chaplains," he shared.
Unfortunately, bibles are still being banned from the hands of our nation's finest.
"It's political correctness," Neugebauer said. "We're denying soldiers the opportunities to read their bibles and protect their faith.
"It's time to make Christians a protected class," said Loesch.
All is not lost concerning traditonal values, however. Perkins shared a statistic from Rasmussen Reports, which revealed 61 percent of Americans do not think the Supreme Court should impose same sex marriage on the entire nation and should leave it to the states. Although gay marriage and other progressive issues are gaining traction, that doesn't mean those who want to defend conservative values should be cornered and silenced.
"We should not be forced to quarantine our faith," said Perkins.
Loesch emphasized Perkins' message and insisted that we can't rely on politicians to steer America into the right direction. "The government is morally bankrupt," she said. "We can't just switch out people - change has to come from us."
This is especially true when considering Christians cannot even look to their president for guidance.
Anyone who lives by their faith was likely offended by Obama's comments at this year's National Prayer Breakfast, when he likened Islamic terrorism to the Christian crusades.
The president professes to be a Christian, said Perkins, but not in practice.
So, what's next for our country if the religious standard continues to evaporate and there's no hope for revival?
"Religious figures will be targeted, dragged into court for what they're saying," Loesch said. "You will have to keep your faith at home."
Cal Thomas suggested such persecution is already reality for some of today's Christians. In Houston, for instance, the mayor tried to subpoena pastors for their supposedly bigoted sermons. The mayor dropped the bid earlier this week.
"If we lose our religious liberty, we lose the country," said Neugebauer.
Perkins offered one final call to action for Christians, suggesting that there is at least one category they should be happy to be placed in.
"It's so important we preserve that freedom, that we not grow silent," he said. "I think we shoud all join Ben Carson on the list of extremists."
Susan Rice: Choking on a Gnat
2/28/2015 12:01:00 AM - Ken Blackwell
Even in a Senate then controlled by Democrats, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan E. Rice, could not be confirmed as his second term Secretary of State. That’s because she notoriously went on five Sunday television news talk shows to claim that the September 11, 2012 attack on our diplomatic compound at Benghazi was provoked by an anti-Islamic video. It soon became clear that cover story was false. She was then our Ambassador to the UN.
Now, Amb. Rice is on TV making news again. She told PBS’s Charlie Rose that the address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress slated for next week “injected a degree of partisanship” into the U.S.-Israeli alliance that was “destructive to the fabric of the relationship.”
Let’s hope Amb. Rice goes on all five Sunday shows again to level that charge. That should certainly build the audience for the Prime Minister’s address. She needs a bigger audience than just those insomniac liberals who watch Charlie Rose.
Has there ever been a greater example of swallowing camels while choking on a gnat? The gnat, of course, is the invitation to Netanyahu to address Congress. President Obama’s supporters are furious, claiming it is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli leader to stick a spoke in the wheels of the U.S.-Iran negotiations over nuclear weapons. And, the speech to Congress has been dismissed by Mr. Obama’s backers as a partisan gesture by Netanyahu just days before Israel’s scheduled elections. Campaign operatives who helped Barack Obama win back-to-back victories here are known to be in Israel now, working for Netanyahu’s opponents.
If the Obama administration is so confident of the rightness of its position in the U.S.-Iran talks, why should it worry what Mr. Netanyahu thinks? If their position in the talks could clearly command the assent of the American people, President Obama could simply go on national TV and proclaim the final agreement as a victory for “peace in our time.”
This president, as Newsweek editor Evan Thomas famously said, “hovers over the nations like a sort of god.” Surely, President Obama would be more persuasive in selling a nuclear pact with Iran’s mullahs than Netanyahu might be in criticizing it. Mr. Obama—in his best professorial style—could simply take apart the Netanyahu speech, one paragraph at a time. He is so eloquent, the seas have ceased to rise at sound of his voice. Or so we were promised.
If Amb. Rice is choking on a gnat—the invitation to Netanyahu, its timing, its location, its appearance of partisanship—then what is the camel we are supposed to swallow? Let’s try this:
President Obama and Secretary Kerry are about to conclude an agreement with Iran’s mullahs to that will not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon now but will allow them to “phase out” strict limits on their nuclear program. This plan, if inked, and if ratified by the Senate, would permit Iran to move toward a nuclear weapon in the “out years” of the ten-year agreement.
Messers Obama and Kerry are working with an Iranian leadership that seized our embassy in Tehran in 1979. They held our 52 embassy staff hostage for 444 days. They subjected them to beatings and to psychological torture—like frequent mock executions before firing squads. The mullahs hold our embassy property—sovereign U.S. territory under international law—to this day. Messers Obama and Kerry want us to trust the mullahs who murdered 241 U.S. Marines and Navy corpsmen as they slept in their Beirut barracks in 1983. They want us to rely on the good words of mullahs who have equipped Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon with 50,000 missiles to fire at Israel. Our crack negotiators want us to wave away the regular “Death to America” rallies ginned up by the muillahs in Tehran. Their agent, Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah, welcomes the exodus of European Jews arriving in Israel because, as he says, “it will save us the trouble of hunting them down.”
President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Amb. Rice are not asking us to swallow a camel. They are asking us to swallow a herd of camels. While they fussily object to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress, they are lurching toward an agreement that leaves his country in mortal peril—and very possibly our own nation, too. That is what Netanyahu is likely to explain. Kerry has been wrong on every foreign policy issue of the last forty years. His presence at the negotiating table should give no one confidence.
On one point, however, I can agree with this administration. As a sign of their displeasure, the Obama administration is removing the Vice President from the evening’s proceedings during the Prime Minister’s speech. President Obama is right to pluck Joe Biden from his customary chair. Just the thought of Netanyahu’s presence in the well of the House, and Biden’s absence from the chamber, assures that the intelligence of Congress will be doubly enhanced.
Cruz: Leave the Internet to the People
2/28/2015 9:08:00 PM - Vivian Hughbanks
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) criticized the Federal Communications Commission's rules on net neutrality as an overreach of unchecked bureaucratic power on Thursday.
“Today, the FCC decided to take over the Internet,” Cruz said. “You should feel real excited because at Barack Obama's instructions, 5 unelected bureaucrats have now declared the Internet is a public utility.”
The FCC voted yesterday to adopt the “Open Internet Order,” designed to ensure equal treatment of legal content on the Internet. The rules were neither publicly released, nor openly debated before adopted by the Commission.
“Net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet,” Cruz said, sparking boos from the crowd. “The FCC's new rules for the Internet are 332 pages that you and I are not allowed to read – I think their strategy is that you have to pass it to find out what's in it.”
The new regulations are a violation of First Amendment rights, the 2016 hopeful explained at an event sponsored by Breitbart News at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“The Internet has been a haven for free speech,” he said. “Today with the Internet, you can start a blog right now that a million people read... Dan Rather was a master of the universe until some bloggers in pajamas said wait a second, what this guy's saying ain't true! Talk about power for the citizen.”
Cruz remarked that true freedom on the Internet isn't government intervention, but leaving citizens to use the web without regulations controlling content.
“What has made it work is we have kept politicians and government the heck away from it. Here's what we need to do with the Internet: don't tax it, don't regulate it, don't do nothin' – leave it to the people!”
Phil Robertson on Faith, the Founding Fathers, and STDs
2/27/2015 7:00:00 PM - Leah Barkoukis
Believe it or not, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson actually managed to discuss each of these items, at length I might add, during a speech on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Robertson was there to accept the Andrew Breitbart Defender of Free Speech Award.
"All of us ought to be able to speak freely so we don't have to be awarded," he began his speech before pulling out a large, weathered-looking family Bible bound together with duct tape.
"I'm a God-loving, Bible-believing, gun-toting capitalist," he declared, before delving into other topics, such as the Founding Fathers, STDs, marriage, ISIS, and the moral decline of America.
While Robertson's speech was unpredictable, long, and a bit strange at times, he did make many valuable points, particularly about religion's role in America today.
Addressing criticisms he hears that he's "too religious," Robertson pulled several quotes from our Founding Fathers that showed how important religion was in not only their personal lives, but in guiding the decisions they made as politicians.
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue," he read, quoting John Adams.
"You lose your religion and you lose your morality and we're almost there," he said before going into a tangent about how 110 million Americans now have an STD. Diseases he referred to as "revenge of the hippies."
The "safe" option, he argued, was "one man, one woman, married for life."
Robertson concluded (because the event's organizers finally had to begin blasting 'exit' music) by talking about the importance of having God-fearing politicians in office.
"If you don't have spiritual men making political decisions, you're going to lose this country," he said.
Two articles below remind that the political trajectory in the Republican Party is predictable, assuming observers with an attention span beyond the average of the American citizenry. A third-party movement will emerge. The reason is elementary: The Republican Establishment is not an ‘opposition party’; it is a ‘cronyism party’. Its strategy is to continue the spiral of pork-barrel politics and just ride the rejection of Obama into ‘the seat of political power’, on the premise that they are the only valid alternative to the Democrats. When the actions proposed below fail to ‘transform’ the Republican Party, a third-party movement will become a force in American politics. These processes take quite a while . . . and will almost certainly be too late to reverse a ‘fundamental transformation of America’.
On the Value of Shooting Cowards
By Leon H. Wolf
February 28, 2015
A lot of people think the term “decimation” just means to utterly destroy or wreck something. It actually is a military term derived from a form of punishment in which one in every ten members of a given unit that was guilty of some crime (usually cowardice or treason) was killed. The very existence of such a word indicates the reality that, while cowardice is a terrible flaw of human character, it is normally thought to be worthy of menial punishment, except in certain situations – and in those situations, where cowardice can cause untold damage and havoc, it must be met with the harshest forms of punishment imaginable.
The last Western war to face a potentially critical mass of cowardice on the battlefield was World War I. In defense of the soldiers (particularly British and French) in question, warfare during World War I was an unimaginably hellish experience, perhaps unlike any before or since. The industrial revolution had allowed mankind to develop weapons that were capable of inflicting previously unimagined levels of human slaughter, yet military tactics had not yet successfully grappled with how to properly utilize infantry under these conditions. As a result, in the opening days of the war, men were sent senselessly across open fields into the teeth of open artillery and machine gun barrages, resulting in daily casualty figures that outstrip most modern multi-year wars. This led to the most well-known feature of World War I, wherein soldiers dug trenches in the earth because to stay above the surface for any prolonged period of time represented suicide.
Nevertheless it was not an acceptable state of affairs for the French and British to remain in their trenches and the Germans to remain in theirs. The nature of warfare demanded that one side or the other eventually had to win and neither would have accepted the status quo as the lines were drawn at the end of 1914. Accordingly, as one side or the other believed they had a tactical advantage that could be pressed in order to gain mere acres of territory, men were ordered to go “over the top” of the trenches and face the very real possibility (and in some cases probability) that they would die. In many cases men would go over the top to attempt to secure the same objective over and over, with nothing to show for it but more corpses of their friends festering in the trenches beside them. And from the end of 1914 through the war’s conclusion in 1918, the Western front in particular saw shockingly little actual movement or forward progress on either side, to the point that the average soldier might well have seen no point to the death and destruction he saw around him.
Perhaps not surprisingly in these conditions, refusal to go over the top became an endemic problem. The French army, which had previously acquitted itself with astonishing heroism and skill, began to face a total breakdown of discipline in 1917, as French soldiers who were sent to the front began to bleat like sheep during their marches, leading to a mutiny that very nearly gave the war to the Germans. The British army, as well, faced massive episodes of cowardice, especially while Lord Kitchener’s army was being ground to obliteration in the abattoir of the Somme in 1916. The responses of British and French high command which finally righted the ship and saved Europe from German hegemony incorporated some measure of improved wartime conditions for the troops, but also a not insignificant measure of summary execution of deserters and cowards, combined with a healthy dose of the infamous Field Punishment No. 1.
The reason for this harsh punishment is obvious: some men will refuse to go over the top unless the chances of being shot by their own side for refusing to do so outweigh the chances of being shot by the enemy for agreeing to do so. And unless you are prepared to lose a war, you have to be prepared to demonstrate to the troops on your own side that this is the calculus they face.
Let me say something right now before I go on that will hopefully forestall any screeching. Obviously, I don’t advocate for the literal shooting of anyone, much less any elected official. What follows merely refers to figuratively doing so, in the sense of causing them to lose their elections.
So anyway, with that long prelude out of the way, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) yesterday assumed the fetal position and flat refused to go over the top to fight Obama’s executive amnesty. He was aided in this by not insignificant numbers of spineless Republican senators who are frankly too afraid to face the consequences of a potential shelling for shutting down DHS. I think that we sometimes underestimate the justifiable fear people like Sen. Mitch McConnell and other Republicans feel about the prospect of losing a Senate seat. After all, to paraphrase Rod Blagojevich, a senate seat is a valuable flipping thing. Many of the people who currently have them have essentially crawled across broken glass to get them, spent vast amounts of their own money on them, and shaken thousands of hands at thousands of boring fundraisers to keep them.
Look, the reality is these people are going to do whatever they can to keep them. The absolute only way they will ever go over the top on any issue that doesn’t poll with clear majority support is if they are more afraid of us shooting them than the other side doing so. Right now, they fear that very little. They were afraid, for a time, after 2010 and to a lesser degree 2012. 2014 emboldened them. They once again believe themselves bulletproof from our side. They do not believe that refusal to go over the top will cost them their jobs. They only believe that going over the top might. And so we can expect more of the same from them over the course of the next two years.
We have to make some examples. The equation has changed. No longer is it sufficient to try to primary them. Now we have to be actively willing to help these people lose to Democrats, if need be, to discourage cowardice in this very real war for the survival of our country. Especially in the case of Republicans who represent red states/districts. Taking out a red state democrat in the general might in many cases be easier than taking out an entrenched Republican in a primary. And this is an especially difficult pill to swallow in the case of a Senate seat – but if we are not prepared to do it, then there is no point to having a Republican majority any more. The feckless cowards we have there now funded DHS in exactly the same way Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) would have. And if there’s no point to having a Republican majority anymore, then the country is lost.
Cowardice must be punished with defeat. By Democrats, if necessary. Because cowardice is cancerous and worse than frank opposition. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) is not pro-choice, she just lost her courage at the worst possible moment, and as a result a critical bloc of the caucus caved when they caught her cowardice in the trench. She and others like her must be replaced at any and all costs. The only alternative is to prepare to accept the terms of the enemy. And hopefully we are not there yet.
Can We Impeach Now?
By Erick Erickson
February 28, 2015
First Barack Obama decided to overreach and extend amnesty by executive order. One judge in Texas has told him no and Republicans are hanging their hat on that judge’s order.
Then the FCC decided to declare internet a public utility. They overreached, rushed it through, and committed to as little transparency as possible to make it happen. Congress did nothing on this front and the FCC decided to replace the Congress on the matter.
Now there are reports that Barack Obama, by executive order and agency regulation, will curtail the manufacture of certain ammunition.
Again and again and again the President of the United States has met the boundaries of his powers and stepped across them. The Senate is now on the verge of confirming his Attorney General appointee who sees no limits to the power of Octavius Obama.
Given Barack Obama’s continuous overreaching of power, I must now ask if it is time to consider impeachment proceedings. Is it even possible?
Of course some of you think I mean against Barack Obama. No, can we impeach, remove from office, or otherwise put metaphorical cement shoes on Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)?
The only reason Barack Obama can and is doing what he is doing is because Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell have enabled, emboldened, and incentivized him.
Boehner and McConnell have their press fluffers claim they are tough guys scrapping for a fight. McConnell is cast as Darth Vader. Boehner is cast as the guy in the bar. But in reality they are scared school girls. They will fund the government, extend temporary funding, and otherwise bend over in front of Obama declaring, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
It speaks volumes that at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, neither Boehner nor McConnell are speaking. Even the American Conservative Union, which is often criticized here and elsewhere as too close to the GOP to be indistinguishable from it, is not having them speak. In fact, ACU deserves credit for the move. The mood here among the several thousand people is deep, deep hostility toward the Republican leadership in Washington.
Much of what Barack Obama is doing, Boehner and McConnell privately support. They have no desire to fight him on Obamacare. They were happy to fund it. They have no desire to fight him on amnesty. They’re happy he did it. And on the issues that they care about, they crap their pants at the thought of a government shutdown.
Folks, we do not need to impeach Barack Obama. He is only getting away with the excesses of his office because Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell are petrified to use the power of the purse to stop him. They are so scared of political damage to themselves that they are willing to allow policy damage to the country and an undermining of the very constitution they swore an oath to defend.
At some point men have to stand up and damn the consequences to do what is right.
But we are not led by leaders of men. We are led by cowards — cowards for whom no oath is meaningful or sacred.
The Patriot Post
Friday’s Daily Digest
Feb. 27, 2015
“Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 55, 1788
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
There are only hours left until the clock strikes midnight and the Department of Homeland Security runs out of funding. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seemingly kissed up to the filibustering Democrat minority, passing a clean DHS funding bill that gives the department money to fund Barack Obama’s immigration executive actions, House Speaker John Boehner is not so compromising. When a reporter asked Thursday if Boehner would propose a clean DHS funding bill, he blew defiant kisses2 in reply. At the same press conference, Boehner said, “We passed a bill to fund the department six weeks ago. Six weeks ago! It’s time for the Senate to act. How many times do I have to say it?” So as a counteroffer, Boehner introduced a continuing resolution that would simply fund DHS for three weeks3. While it buys the GOP more time, a defiant president waits at the end of the legislative process. Obama recently said4 if congressional Republicans “want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote.” Lawmakers, he says, don’t have the power to make laws.
As expected, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved so-called net neutrality rules. Fox News reports, “[T]he rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the ‘public interest’ when providing [an Internet] connection to your home or phone. Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a ‘monumental shift’ to ‘government control of the Internet.’” Pai also criticized FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler for his secrecy and the length of the “332-page Internet regulation plan.” According to FCC counsel Gigi Sohn, however, only eight of those pages contain actual regulation – the rest is supporting documentation. Clearly this is not a black-and-white subject, and the jury is still out on whether the FCC’s ruling will do more good than harm, but that’s mostly because it doesn’t go to the crux of the problem, which is lack of competition. The FCC’s action won’t create more of it. Indeed, it’s not at all clear it will usher in a neutral net. What is clear, however, is that the greatest invention since Gutenberg’s printing press will now be regulated by a bureaucracy that still struggles to build a functioning website.
It’s CPAC time, baby! Yesterday, the Republican Party’s presidential hopefuls addressed the 10,000 grassroots conservatives gathered at the Conservative Political Action Conference, hoping to drum up support in what The Wall Street Journal8 calls one of the most populated primary contests in recent history. After eight years of Barack Obama, the GOP needs to decide how the party will grow. Some highlights: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker9 told the audience, “In America we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on it.” Sen. Ted Cruz10 warned establishment Republicans are “cutting a deal” with the Left on Immigration. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal blasted the constitution-breaking president, saying, “It is time for our Republican leaders in Congress to grow a spine” to confront him. It’s all tough talk aimed at tickling the ears of the defenders of Liberty who live far-removed from the Beltway. But in the end, when the temporary tattoos wash away, the NRA rifle is raffled off and everybody goes home, what matters is how these politicians did or did not defend Liberty in the positions they now occupy.
In an op-ed13 for USA Today, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker responded indirectly to the grilling he received over Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments about Barack Obama’s patriotism14. “Americans believe our nation is facing some substantial challenges,” Walker wrote. “Government spending is out of control. Terrorists seek to destroy our way of life. Our economic recovery has been slow. Our borders aren’t secure. The federal government has usurped powers that rightly belong to our states.” In other words, these issues are the serious ones. He concluded, “There has been much discussion about a media double standard where Republicans are covered differently than Democrats, asked to weigh in on issues the Democrats don’t face. As a result, when we refuse to take the media’s bait, we suffer. I felt it this week when I was asked to weigh in on what other people said and did and what others' beliefs are. If you are looking for answers to those questions, ask those people. I will always choose to focus on what matters to the American people, not what matters to the media.” That approach is just one reason why Ronald Reagan was so successful.
Journalist Emily Miller’s journey to navigate the snarls of the District of Columbia’s gun laws began in 201116, when she inadvertently came face-to-face with a criminal while armed with only her cell phone. Her quest for a handgun in the nation’s most anti-gun city is nearing its conclusion as she was recently approved for a permit to carry in the city. But even after the Heller decision17, the process is insurmountably high for citizens to exercise their right to bear arms because citizens have to demonstrate they have a reason (the Constitution evidently isn’t sufficient) to convince the police to okay their firearm permit. “I got the police reports from two different threats against me, as well as an FBI warning that a terror group is targeting journalists,” Miller wrote18. “I turned in my application at the end of November. … I didn’t hear anything until early February. … Keep in mind, any American can apply for a D.C. gun permit. But so far, only 76 have done so. Thirty-one were denied. Five cancelled their own applications. And 16 were approved.” This is what the Second Amendment looks like under a mayor who declared19 she hates guns. While she swore to “protect the Constitution and what the courts say,” she promises to do the opposite: “I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.”
The New York Times has the scoop of the month21: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said this month that it planned to restrict the armor-piercing 5.56-millimeter ‘M855 green tip’ rifle bullet because of new handguns that use the ammunition and pose a greater threat to the police.”
Oh, wait. We covered that critical Second Amendment issue22 almost two weeks ago. The New York Times: All the news that’s fit to get around to eventually.
There are varying opinions about the threat the Islamic State24 poses in the Middle East and Europe, and apparently there is no consensus about the coinciding Islamic threat against U.S. domestic targets.
That confusion was on full display from the White House to Capitol Hill this week.
After three Islamists were arrested in New York25 for plotting to either join 20,000 other foreigners now among ISIL’s ranks, or turn their sites on domestic targets, FBI Director James Comey warned26, “We have investigations of people in various stages of radicalization in all 50 states. … This isn’t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon, this is all 50 states. … [Radicalization prospects] exist in every state. I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state.”
That notwithstanding, after a very bloody year, John Kerry had this to say in congressional testimony: “Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world. … We are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and people in the world – less deaths, less violent deaths today – than through the last century.”
Kerry took a break from more important business like announcing the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender Persons, to spin Obama’s blinding Islamophilia29 on the Islamic threat.
A day after Kerry’s testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper demolished the Obama/Kerry’s assessment, and set the record straight: “When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. … In my 50-plus years in the intelligence business, I don’t know of a time that has been more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a lot about the safety and security of this country. … The homegrown a violent extremists continue to post the most likely threat to our homeland.”
Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was already on record chastising Obama’s Islamic blind spot30, also buried Kerry’s assessment: “Secretary Kerry is out of touch with reality. He clearly is not listening to the entire U.S. intelligence community. He is not reading any of the intelligence or other things that have been written over the last few weeks – months – years.”
It is abundantly clear that Obama’s assessment of ISIL as the “JV team,” and his assertion that concern about terrorism is the result of “media hype” and not actual threats, has no basis in reality.
National Journal’s left-of-center Ron Fournier admits, “What worries me is, I think we’re going to get hit. [Islamists are] going to hit us… The problem is these semantic gymnastics, this lack of clarity, the dithering … is going to make it hard for [Obama] to unite more than his base. … [Obama] is either spinning and looking week … or he’s not spinning and he is weak. That’s a devil’s choice.”
But Charles Krauthammer concludes31, “I don’t actually think the president’s spinning it. I think he truly believes that this is a tranquil era. … I think he’s internally placid about all of this. … I think we really have a president who believes that stuff and it’s not spin and that, I think, is worse.”
Meanwhile, ISIL’s rampage continues apace. The terrorist group this week abducted at least 220, but some estimates say as many as 400, Christians. Fifteen have reportedly been killed. Following last week’s massacre of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, ISIL’s attacks on Christians and all nonbelievers are clearly accelerating. Obama just thinks they’re just angry about the Crusades32.
As for the domestic terrorist threat, while the media refers to these deadly assaults as “lone wolf attacks33” and a “homegrown Western threat34,” these are dangerous mischaracterizations. All these actors, whether domestic or foreign, are part of an ideological Islamist web35 that is metastasizing globally.
Obama’s appeasement of Islamists36 has resulted in the bloodiest year of terrorism on record. And as Mark Alexander notes, “[R]egarding Obama’s attempt to pivot from the threat of a global Jihad caliphate35 to ‘climate change37,’ I assure you that the real "global warming” threat we face today is an apocalyptic trigger on an evermore accessible fission weapon that can be detonated in an American urban center.“
Earlier this week the Census Bureau released more bad news for the current regime: The rate of homeownership has fallen to a 20-year low, continuing a slide that began at the apex of the housing market in 2004. Ten years ago, 69% of Americans owned homes, but that has fallen to 64.5% in 2014. As Joe Biden keeps telling us39, Barack Obama’s economy is terrible: "The middle class is being killed.”
Unfortunately, the economic conditions that led to the dramatic increase in the decade from 1994 to 2004 can’t be duplicated today. What was once an era of steady, mainly full-time employment and ample economic growth has now stagnated to a point where those most likely to enter the housing market and become owners are saddled with part-time gigs and staggering student loan debt. Meanwhile, older generations have been struggling with issues of their own, as the equity they once possessed in their homes has long since been wiped out, leaving some unable to keep the dwellings they once owned.
After the housing bubble a decade ago led to the economic devastation of 2008, it would make sense to tighten the housing market and have banks ensure that borrowers are more qualified. But recent steps40 by Barack Obama’s Federal Housing Administration indicate the desire to return to the reckless practices that wrecked our economy in the first place.
Granted, a simple change in lending fees may not be all that significant, but further guidance in the direction of easing credit is likely. Greater demand for housing will bring prices back up, which in turn will reduce the number of homeowners who are “under water” with their mortgages. But since the federal government guarantees much of the mortgage industry, those who are just starting out will again be lured by easy mortgage money. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now have a lot of recent experience flipping homes from borrowers who defaulted.
In short, the seemingly laudable goal of encouraging homeownership could lead us down a path we already saw isn’t desirable. As the wise old financial guru Yogi Berra used to say, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
OPINION IN BRIEF
General Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969): “[The Founders] proclaimed to all the world the revolutionary doctrine of the divine rights of the common man. That doctrine has ever since been the heart of the American faith.”
Columnist Charles Krauthammer: “The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the ‘right to enrich.’ … Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the ‘sunset clause.’ President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. … Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations. Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example. … Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program. Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.”
Columnist David Harsanyi: “The Obama administration values a future relationship with Iran more than it values the historic relationship it has with Israel. … First, Americans were supposed to be outraged because Netanyahu engaged in a breach of protocol. Then we were supposed to be outraged because the speech would be given too close to the upcoming Israeli elections. … But if the Israeli elections … are so problematic, then the controversy should be centered on the behavior of the prime minister, not the substance of his argument. That’s not the case, is it? … [T]he problem isn’t protocol, Israeli elections, patriotism or partisanship. It’s the fact that Netanyahu is going to make a powerful argument against enabling Iran to become a nuclear power. Many Americans will hear it – or of it. Many Americans will agree. … Critics of Netanyahu act as if opposing Obama’s Iranian deal is tantamount to declaring war on Iran. In the long run, allowing Iran to become nuclear might well mean war. … Surely, hearing out the case of an ally that is persistently threatened by Holocaust-denying Iranian officials doesn’t need to come with this much angst from Democrats. But if it does, it’s worth asking why.”
Comedian Seth Meyers: “John Boehner said … Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline was a ‘national embarrassment.’ And then, out of habit, Joe Biden said, ‘Here!’”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Questions the Press Doesn't Ask Democrats
2/27/2015 12:01:00 AM - Mona Charen
Gov. Scott Walker has leapt to the top of polls in Iowa. As day follows night, he has moved to the center of the liberal press's crosshairs. This is the world we inhabit: When a Democrat is perceived as popular, the press discovers layers of humor and elan we never suspected. When a Republican is gaining strength, the press sharpens its bayonets.
Based on his response to trap-door questions in the past few days, we've been instructed that Walker a) is a crypto young Earther (or, just as bad, a panderer to same); b) that he ought to have answered the question regarding President Obama's faith with a resounding affirmation of Obama's fitness for sainthood; and c) that he is some sort of coward for not grabbing Rudy Giuliani by the scruff of the neck and escorting him off stage when the former mayor questioned the president's love of country.
Let's stipulate that Walker gave B-minus answers to D-minus questions. I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru that, while questions about evolution have zero relevance to governing, Republicans ought to be prepared to answer them without "punting." (A raised eyebrow to show you understand the game afoot wouldn't be misplaced.) For a politician, the only seemly way to answer a question about something as intimate as someone else's faith is, "I can't see into other people's souls. Can you?" (As a non-politician and reader of "Dreams from My Father," I have my doubts about Obama's piety, just as I never believed he opposed gay marriage -- but that's neither here nor there.)
Presumably, Walker, a talented pugilist and no novice to hardball politics, will get his national sea legs soon. But the fuss over the Giuliani comments is a reminder of the ferocious, unrelenting bias of the press. When Obama called President Bush "unpatriotic" in 2008, it was a non-story, just as then Sen. Joe Biden's description of Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" went undenounced.
Any Republican who imagined that the sickening double standard the press applies to Democrats and Republicans would have been sated by six years of genuflection to Obama should now be fully awake.
One practical lesson Republicans should draw from this is to minimize, wherever possible, the participation of left-leaning journalists in Republican debates. This isn't to say that Republicans should run scared -- just that they offer prized roles in nationally significant events to journalists who will be fair. I have a list if they need one.
Still, most members of the press are partisans, and one cannot avoid them completely. Republicans should accordingly come prepared to any press encounter with a list of questions they would ask Democrats. If the journalist doesn't ask, the candidate can offer suggestions. For example:
1) You say you're in favor of "comprehensive immigration reform." How many legal immigrants should we welcome every year? As many as can get here? Do you think that presents any problems for unskilled Americans who are having trouble finding work?
2) Democrats say they want to ensure that women get equal pay for doing the same work as a man. Do you know the date when that became federal law? (1963)
3) Obamacare was passed to solve the problem of the uninsured. Yet the GAO projects that 31 million will remain uninsured by 2021. What would you propose to solve that problem? Do you favor forcing doctors to see Medicaid patients as some Democrats propose?
4) President Obama's team praised the Veterans Administration as the model of efficient government health care. In light of the scandals that have come to light in the VA, do you agree? If not, can you point to a government-run health system you admire?
5) Dodd/Frank was passed to solve the "too big to fail" problem. Yet since passage, the biggest banks have gotten bigger, while community banks have withered. The five largest banks by assets now hold 44.0 percent of U.S. banking assets and 40.1 percent of domestic deposits -- up from 23.5 percent and 19.5 percent, respectively, in early 2000. With the biggest banks having gotten even larger, was Dodd/Frank a mistake?
6) A recent survey by Education Next found that a strong plurality of African Americans, 47 percent, support charter schools, while just 29 percent oppose them. Do you support vouchers and charters even if the teachers' unions oppose them?
Finally, for some candidates:
7) You opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. How does what you support differ from what sent Dr. Kermit Gosnell to prison for first-degree murder?
Obama's Highhanded Immigration Hypocrisy
2/27/2015 12:01:00 AM - David Limbaugh
Honestly, are any of my Democratic friends even slightly bothered by President Obama's habitual and brazen lawlessness and what that could mean for our liberties?
Does it bother them that he implemented two new administration programs to halt deportations and allow work permits for up to 5 million immigrants living illegally in the United States after clearly admitting he didn't have the constitutional authority to do so?
Does it bother them that after having done so, despite his insincere promise, he has been openly defiant about the decision U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen made in favor of the states trying to block Obama's unlawful act? Obama said: "This is just one federal judge. We have appealed it very aggressively. ... I'm using all of the legal power vested in me in order to solve this problem." Me, me, me.
Does it bother them that his administration has begun to refer to these immigrants as "Americans-in-waiting" -- as if his iron will controls, irrespective of the Constitution, the law and the prerogative of the coequal legislative branch?
Does it bother them that, like a Third World despot tyrannizing his subjects, he said in a town hall forum in Miami that there will be consequences for any federal agents who ignore his new policies? Obama said, "If somebody's working for (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) ... and they don't follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it."
Are such threatened consequences, by the way, really the business of a chief executive, even if he is acting lawfully? Isn't his indignation a bit tough to take, given his own propensity not to follow the law? Does anyone ever make him face consequences for not just ignoring but violating laws?
As others have pointed out, Obama's position on this issue, despite being legally wrong, is inconsistent. His entire rationale is that these actions are within his executive power because it is a matter of prioritizing immigration enforcement efforts with limited congressional funding. Yet he will have zero tolerance for immigration officials who attempt to exercise their discretion in not enforcing his "orders."
Also, Obama's characterization of his executive action as a matter of prosecutorial discretion is disingenuous. Judge Hanen clearly held that Obama's program of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents is "actually affirmative action rather than inaction" because the program grants "legal presence to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel."
It is absurd for Obama to claim that his action is within his prosecutorial discretion when it not only involves a decision not to enforce a law or ruling but also grants new rights, as Hanen noted, and is in contravention of existing laws. As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has argued, "the president, on his own, has issued a separate action in opposition to current law." This action, says Paxton, will cost his state hundreds of millions of dollars for education, health care and public safety.
Do you understand the argument? Obama isn't just turning his back on deportment. He is granting substantive rights to immigrants that are not his to grant, foisting the cost of those new rights onto the states without their consent -- and doing so in violation of existing laws.
The administration's duplicity is readily apparent when you listen to the weasel words of Sarah Saldana, director of ICE, in the emergency motion filed by the Obama administration to stay Hanen's ruling. Saldana said, "Preventing the deferred action policies from going into effect interferes with the Federal Government's comprehensive strategy for enforcing our immigration laws."
Do those words, on their face, make sense? How does preventing Obama's newly granted affirmative privileges to these immigrants from taking effect interfere with the government's strategy for enforcing its immigration laws? Isn't it more accurate and honest to say that it interferes with Obama's attempt not to enforce those laws and to grant affirmative rights to immigrants that Obama decidedly has no authority to grant as president?
An action does not become something it is not just because government officials describe or denominate it as such. Otherwise, the Affordable Care Act would not be raising health care costs for millions of American families, and Obama's scheme to commandeer the Internet wouldn't be called "net neutrality." Obama's illegal immigration actions are not within his executive authority merely because he depicts them as within his prosecutorial discretion.
Obama's arrogance may cost him this time, as he has gone way too far, even for him, by flagrantly violating the separation of powers and exceeding his executive authority in granting new rights to immigrants who are here illegally, providing no notice to the states of his action to allow for public feedback and saddling the states with enormous financial burdens.
Comforting the Enemy
2/27/2015 12:01:00 AM - Linda Chavez
Democrats are playing a dangerous game with Israel by snubbing the prime minister of America's staunchest Middle East ally. Four Democratic senators, as well as almost two-dozen House members, have already announced that they will not attend Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress on March 3. By doing so, they may curry favor with the White House, but they risk sending a dangerous message to Israel's enemies -- especially Iran.
As recently as November, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that the only "cure" for Israel is to "be annihilated." Is it any wonder that Netanyahu considers a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat to Israel's very existence?
Israel is the only nation in the world that, from its inception, has been constantly threatened with extinction. Its Arab neighbors have fought repeated wars to destroy the Jewish state. Terrorist organizations have periodically slaughtered Israelis -- aiming their attacks at innocent civilians, even school children. Last year alone, Hamas fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza. Only Israel's superior Iron Dome defense system prevented the rockets from killing hundreds if not thousands of Israelis who were Hamas' intended victims.
So why on earth have Democrats chosen to pick this fight? And make no mistake: It is a handful of Democrats who have turned Netanyahu's speech into a partisan issue.
The White House has from the beginning treated the Netanyahu speech as if it were a sneak attack by an adversary. But Netanyahu seems to have a better understanding of the American concept of the constitutional separation of powers than the president does.
The Speaker of the House can invite whom he chooses to address Congress. And if the president was miffed at the selection of Netanyahu, he could have chosen to voice his objection privately. Instead, he picked a public fight and asked members of his party to choose partisan sides.
Netanyahu recognizes that Congress has a role to play in approving a nuclear agreement with Iran, as the president does not. He will tell Congress why he believes an agreement with Iran that does not eliminate the rogue nation's ability to build nuclear weapons is bad for Israel -- and for the world. And, no doubt, he will encourage Congress to try to stop a bad deal from being implemented.
If some Democrats in Congress want to rubber stamp whatever deal the administration strikes with Iran, they are free to do so. But shouldn't they at least listen to contrary arguments from one of America's most steadfast allies? And shouldn't they be as eager as Republicans to demand a vote on the issue?
The White House has upped the ante in its feud with Netanyahu by sending national security adviser Susan Rice out to warn that the prime minister's speech is "destructive of the fabric of the relationship" between the U.S. and Israel. And Secretary of State John Kerry looked ridiculous this week noting that Netanyahu's support of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 showed that "his judgment (about Iran's nuclear program) might not be correct," because Kerry himself voted to authorize the invasion while in the Senate.
The administration is charting a perilous course here. If Israel is pushed into a corner, it will -- and has every right to -- take action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Reports that Saudi Arabia has secretly agreed to allow Israel to use Saudi airspace if Israel decides to try to take out Iran's nuclear sites make a military option more likely.
Israel is not the enemy. Iran -- especially a nuclear-armed Iran -- is. Yet President Obama seems willing to abandon an ally in hopes of appeasing an enemy. And unfortunately, by boycotting the Netanyahu speech, some Democrats will give aid and comfort to that same enemy. In the end, it will be the United States, as well as Israel, that suffers.
FCC Approves Socialism for Broadband
2/27/2015 12:01:00 AM
How predictable… The Federal Communications Commission voted on strict party lines to adopt Obama’s 332 page “Net Neutrality” proposal. Given that everything the government touches ends up as a rousing success-story, I’m sure you’ll be able to keep your internet if you like your internet. According to Fox News:
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote. On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
Of course… Because if there is one thing the government is known for it is protecting truly free markets, right? At issue is a concern that service providers might unfairly target certain companies for preferential (or discriminatory) treatment. However, I can’t help but notice that this is largely a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Apparently the big government fanatics over at Obama’s FCC believe it is prudent governance to restrict freedom because someone might (someday) abuse it.
How terribly Orwellian. I think George Washington is credited with a quote about such overzealous governance:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
Democrats fear that a lack of competition within the industry is leading to monopolistic injustice; and evidently believe that slapping a 21st century technology with rules designed for rotary telephones, will somehow level the playing field. (I call it socialism for broadband… Let’s make sure everyone has equally atrocious internet service.)
On almost every level, the proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. While the Liberals at the FCC opine about too few service providers, it’s probably worth pointing out that affordable access to the internet has been growing exponentially for years. Over the course of the last 20 years, the internet has become more accessible, substantially faster, and profoundly more user friendly. In today’s America, quality access to the web is almost considered a given. Heck, even remote corners of rural America tend to have Wi-Fi hotspots at local coffee shops, public libraries, and public schools. And almost anyone in America can get their hands on a web-enabled smartphone.
Moreover, it should be worth noting that “competition” isn’t exactly suffering among service providers. While certain companies might have relative control over small geographical areas, innovation has been shifting the balance of power for the last few decades to more dynamic competitive methods of delivering the internet. (Remember when cable providers weren’t the ones who you called to get hooked up to the interwebs?)
America’s transition from dial-up, to DSL, to cable, and now to fiber, seems to demonstrate that competition and innovation are alive and well within the industry. As a result, the consumer is routinely introduced to new and improved methods for watching Netflix and checking their status updates. Accessibility to quality service has never been greater, and as a result the richness of the internet has fundamentally impacted the way Americans interact with the world.
Due to such stunning advancements in accessibility, the internet has become the largest democratizing machine for information since moveable type. The internet is an entertainment hub, a news source, the world’s largest library, a communication device, a soapbox, and a conduit for information. This great explosion in tech, industry, and democratized accessibility did not happen because of government “oversight”… It emerged due to government’s general inability to regulate, tax, and control the 20th century’s most influential contribution to human discourse.
And now Obama’s FCC will get their bureaucratic hands on it in an effort to fix an injustice that doesn’t even seem to exist. In an effort to ensure an “open” internet, the FCC will impose upon an already-unfettered marketplace regulations originally written for telephone companies in the 1930s. If you like your internet as it is, you’re probably in luck… Nothing will be changing anytime soon with the FCC breathing down the necks of would-be innovators. After all, there’s probably a reason that our home phone service has remained largely unchanged while the unregulated interwebs have become an exponentially growing marketplace of ideas and innovation.
Far from being “progressive”, Obama & Co seem dedicated to clinging to an early 20th Century model of centralized power, and restricted free-market advancement… All in the name of preventing an abuse that hasn’t even materialized in the real world.
In fact, the term “progressive” is almost as misleading as the term “Net Neutrality”.