Monday, March 31, 2014

Star Parker: It's not about race --- it's about how liberalism doesn't solve poverty

Star Parker: It's not about race --- it's about how liberalism doesn't solve poverty

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run By Idiots

A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots
>    by Jeff Foxworthy

>    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government - you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

>    What a country!

Saturday, March 29, 2014

If Putin Knows What Orly Taitz Knows About Obama

The Gun In Civilization

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun
Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine),
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much... Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the
letter.....written by a Marine!

                         THE GUN IN CIVILIZATION

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force .
 
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it .

In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through
persuasion Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing  that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force .

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society,  because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones  don't constitute
lethal force, watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of
it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force
easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger
attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well
as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded . I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those  who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

        You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California
"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number
and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
 
"Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
 
Ready? Now pay attention....
 
"Joe Legal": $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; "Joe Legal" now has $31,231.00.
 
"Jose Illegal:" $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. "Jose Illegal" pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
 
"Joe Legal" pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. "Joe Legal" now has $24,031.00.
 
"Jose Illegal" has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. "Jose Illegal" still has $31,200.00.
 
"Joe Legal" makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. "Joe Legal" pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
 
"Jose Illegal" has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. "Jose Illegal" still has $31,200.00.
 
"Joe Legal" pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. "Joe Legal" now has 9,631 .00.
 
"Jose Illegal" receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. "Jose Illegal" pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. "Jose Illegal" still has $ 31,200.00.
 
"Joe Legal" pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. "Joe Legal" now has $7,231.00.
 
"Jose Illegal" says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
 
"Joe Legal" has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
 
"Jose Illegal" has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
 
"Joe Legal" now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
 
"Jose Illegal" has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
 
"Joe Legal's" and "Jose Illegal's" children both attend the same elementary school. "Joe Legal" pays for his children's lunch, while "Jose Illegal's" children get a government sponsored lunch. "Jose Illegal's" children have an after school ESL program. "Joe Legal's" children go home.
 
Now, when they reach college age, "Joe Legal's" kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though "Joe" has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while "Jose Illegal's "kids "go to the head of the class" because they are a minority.
 
"Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal" both enjoy the same police and fire services, but "Joe" paid for them and "Jose" did not pay.
 
Do you get it now?
 
If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens, you are part of the problem!
 
We need to keep this going--we need to make changes ASAP!
 
"What are you waiting for? Pass it on."
 
The writer’s comment was “Enjoy Socialism, you are paying for it!”, I suggest a broken immigration policy is the cause.
 

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Marching As To War

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”
Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.
From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.
No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.
Secretary of State John Kerry says that in the Ukraine crisis, “All options are on the table.” John McCain wants to begin moving Ukraine into NATO, guaranteeing that any Russian move on the Russified east of Ukraine would mean war with the United States.
Forty members of Congress have written Kerry urging that Georgia, routed in a war it started with Russia over South Ossetia in 2008, be put on a path to membership in NATO.
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, other voices are calling for expanding NATO to bring in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and for moving U.S. troops and warplanes into Poland and the Baltic republics.
President Obama says, “All options are on the table” if Iran does not give us solid assurances she is not building a bomb. Members of Congress support U.S. military action against Iran, if Tehran does not surrender even the “capability” to build a bomb.
End all enrichment of uranium, or America attacks, they warn.
In the Far East we are committed to defend Japan if China seizes the Senkakus that Beijing claims as Chinese territory, a collection of rocks in the East China Sea. If Kim Jong-Un starts a war with South Korea, we are committed by treaty to fight a second Korean War.
We are committed by treaty to defend the Philippines. And if China acts on its claim to the southern islands of the South China Sea, and starts a shooting war with Manila’s navy, we are likely in it.
Is this not an awful lot on Uncle Sam’s plate?
Is America really prepared to fight all of these wars that we are obligated by treaty to fight?
The national recoil at attacking Syria, for crossing Obama’s “red line” last summer and using poison gas, suggests that there is a vast gulf between what America is obligated by treaty to do, and what the American people are willing to do in sending their soldier sons into a new war.
Indeed, the latest mantra of the war hawks, “no boots on the ground,” is meant to reassure the nation that in our next war, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be no more planeloads of dead coming into Dover, no new generation of Wounded Warriors arriving at Walter Reed.
Soon, the United States is going to have to come to terms with this reality — the unwillingness of the American people to fight the wars they are committed to fight by the American government.
Yet, the immediate problem is how to avoid a military confrontation or clash with Vladimir Putin’s Russia over Crimea, which almost no American wants.
Apparently, the West has decided to start down the sanctions road.
But where does that road lead?
While sanctions may cripple the Russian economy, will they break Putin? Did they break Castro? Did they break Kim Il Sung or Kim Jong Il? Did they break the Ayatollah? Does Putin look like someone who will respond to an economic squeeze by crying uncle?
Moreover, in this age of interdependence that America did so much to launch, sanctions are a two-edged sword.
If Ukraine cuts off oil, gas, water and electricity into a seceded Crimea, whose tourist trade is drying up, this could provoke Putin into invading Eastern Ukraine and seizing the lone land bridge onto the peninsula.
It could provoke Russia into cutting off imports from Ukraine, turning off the oil and gas, and calling in Ukraine’s debts. This would precipitate a default by Ukraine, without more Western aid than the $35 billion it is now estimated Kiev will need by 2016.
Are House Republicans willing to vote America’s share of that vast sum and make Ukraine a recipient of U.S. foreign aid roughly equal to what we provide annually to Israel and Egypt?
And if we severely sanction Russia, she could cut off oil and gas to Europe, cause a recession in the eurozone, and move closer to China.
Nixon’s great achievement was to split China off from Moscow. President Reagan’s great achievement was to preside over the conversion of the “evil empire” into a country where he was cheered in Red Square.
What our Greatest Generation presidents accomplished, our Baby Boomer presidents appear to have booted away.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Your Booty Is Safer In Prison Than The Black Church And The Hood

Larry Elder: Hollywood Favors High Tax, 'Gender Pay Equity' --- Just Not in Hollywood

Larry Elder: Hollywood Favors High Tax, 'Gender Pay Equity' --- Just Not in Hollywood

Victor Davis Hanson: Science and reason vs. political correctness

Victor Davis Hanson: Science and reason vs. political correctness

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Ann Coulter: Crimea river

Ann Coulter: Crimea river

Four questions Lois Lerner must answer about IRS scandal

Update:  She took the 5th AGAIN!


Four questions Lois Lerner must answer about IRS scandal

Published March 05, 2014
| FoxNews.com
On Wednesday Lois Lerner will be recalled to testify before Congress regarding her involvement in the ongoing IRS Tea Party targeting scandal. It’s time for her to answer questions.
It’s past time.
Lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the IRS, is perhaps the key figure in the IRS scandal. Not only did she hold a crucial position, she was the official picked to apologize to the nation on May 10, 2013, for the IRS’s improper handling of Tea Part tax exemption applications.
Her first time before Congress – just days after her admission and apology -  Lois Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but not before loudly declaring her innocence – an act that would never be permitted in criminal court, effectively waived her Fifth Amendment rights, and was disrespectful to the American people she wronged.
It’s been 10 months of stonewalling. Lois Lerner has since retired from the IRS with a full taxpayer funded pension.
She owes the American people the truth, and answers to the following questions would be an excellent start:
1. What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?  
On October 19, 2010, you told a group of students at Duke Law School – regarding political spending by 501(c)(4) organizations -- that "[E]verybody is screaming at us right now 'Fix it now before the election. Can't you see how much these people are spending?'" 
You made this comment following strong public statements against 501(c)(4) spending made by the President of the United States on August 9, September 16, September 22, and October 14, 2010.
  • Were you or others at the IRS aware of the president’s statements?
  • Did you or others at the IRS take any action in response to these statements?
  • At any point did you or anyone else at the IRS communicate with White House officials regarding Tea Party 501(c)(4) applications?
2. Did You Know About the Politically-Driven Call to Investigate Conservatives?
On September 28, 2010, Democratic Senator Max Baucus sent a letter to the IRS demanding that it “survey major 501(c)(4) groups” for “possible violations of the tax laws.” Similarly, on October 11, 2010, Democratic Senator Dick Durban sent a letter to the IRS demanding that it “quickly examine the tax status” of a number of 501(c)(4) groups.
  • Were you or others at the IRS aware of these demands?
  • Did you or others at the IRS take any action in response to these demands?
  • At any point did you or anyone else at the IRS communicate with Democrat Senators or their staffs regarding 501(c)(4) applications?
3. Who Else is Involved?
In your May 10, 2013, apology to the American people, you blamed the Tea Party targeting on “line people in Cincinnati” and described steps that you took to end the misconduct. 
Yet Tea Party groups received letters from IRS offices from coast to coast, the IRS chief counsel’s office collaborated in crafting guidelines for Tea Party cases, and you sent letters to targeted Tea Party groups as recently as 2012, including letters containing intrusive and improper questions long after you claimed the improper targeting stopped. 
Moreover, it’s now clear that in 2011 you called the “The Tea Party matter” “very dangerous” and in 2012 you wondered whether the FEC (Federal Election Commission) would “save the day.”
  • From 2009 to your retirement, who did you work with in the IRS regarding any aspect of Tea Party tax exemption applications?
  • What did you mean when you called the “Tea Party matter” “dangerous” and when you asked whether the FEC would “save the day”?
  • Do you believe it is the role of the IRS to limit the free speech rights of American citizens as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States?
  • In your apology, you indicated that you knew the questions the IRS was asking Tea Party groups were inappropriate. Why did you continue to send letters well after you claim you knew the IRS’s actions were wrong?
4. Why Were Only Conservatives Targeted & Confidential Documents Leaked?
The Tea Party scandal includes far more misconduct than delays in applications and intrusive questions. 
The IRS flagged 501(c)(4) groups for surveillance after their applications were granted, of those flagged for surveillance 83% were conservative, and of those audited, 100% were conservative.
Your department of the IRS improperly sent confidential conservative tax documents to a left-leaning media outlet, and you communicated directly with the Federal Election Commissionregarding conservative nonprofits.
  • Why were only conservative non-profits flagged for audits?
  • When did you become aware of the leak of confidential documents to left-leaning media outlets, who leaked the documents, and what – if anything – did you do about it?
  • Please describe all of your contacts with any other federal agency regarding any nonprofit organization.
To be clear, these questions are but the tip of the iceberg. After all, Lerner was also involved in crafting the IRS’s proposed unconstitutional regulations of nonprofit speech and has a long history of abusing her public office for partisan purposes.
A true accounting of her actions – and the actions of those she worked with – would require not just one day of testimony but instead weeks of inquiries – inquiries that I intend to make during our ACLJ lawsuit on behalf of 41 targeted groups in 22 states.
That time will come, but for now, it's time to begin the process.
Lois Lerner, come clean. Tell the American people the truth. The whole truth.

How Come Only 7 Senate Democrats Voted No on Cop Killer Defender Adegbile?

How come only 7 Senate Democrats voted no on cop killer defender Adegbile?

Officer_FaulknerBy Robert Romano
7 Senate Democrats had the good sense to dodge a political attack ad nightmare when Debo Adegbile was defeated to be the next Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
Obama’s nominee for the Justice Department post is best known for acting as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s litigation director as it defended one of the most notorious cop-killers in our nation’s history, former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, to keep him off of death row for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
The NAACP’s appeals succeeded, and the death sentence was overturned, and Abu-Jamal still sits in prison to this day.
What is remarkable is that only 7 Democrats voted no. Too bad for Harry Reid he can’t count to 50.
If Reid had known that the vote was going to fail, he might have advised Mark Begich of Alaska, Al Franken of Minnesota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jon Tester of Montana, and Mark Udall of Colorado that they were being asked to catch a live buzz saw.
We know Reid thought the nomination was going to succeed because they brought Joe Biden to the Hill as a failsafe, and Reid initially voted yes before switching to no in order to be able to bring it up again by asking for reconsideration.
Therefore, the aforementioned senators needlessly voted for a nominee doomed to failure. And to what benefit? What was the upside?
If ever evidence was needed that Harry Reid is nothing more than Obama’s errand boy, the Adegbile vote provides it. It was in Senate Democrats’ interests that this vote never happen.
As Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens noted, “A vote for Abegdile was a near certain political death sentence as evidenced by the endangered Democrats who joined Senate Republicans in opposing his nomination.”
They were Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Chris Coons of Delaware, John Walsh of Montana, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Of course, after a cascade of votes embedding Obama’s radical agenda, a few Democrat senators finally listening to their constituents is hardly praiseworthy, unless it is followed up by a wholesale change of behavior.
But it may already be too late as voter attitudes set in for 2014 election cycle.
Still, perhaps one should not underestimate Harry Reid’s capacity to make things worse for his caucus in what promises to be his toughest political battle since reclaiming the majority in 2006.
The only thing worse for Begich, Franken, and Hagan would be voting not for this controversial nomination once, but twice.
Special praise for defeating this nomination goes to Senate Republicans led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who managed to keep the entire GOP conference united against Adegbile. Not one Republican voted yes.
Of course, without the grassroots outrage against Adegbile, the opposition both on the Republican and Democrats sides of the aisle would have most assuredly failed.
Robert Romano is the senior editor Americans for Limited Government. 

You'd Abort the Mixed Race Baby!

You'd Abort the Mixed Race Baby!

8 Year Old Gives Army Soldier a Gift He’ll Never Forget! (Video)

8 Year Old Gives Army Soldier a Gift He’ll Never Forget! (Video)

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

If You Want to See What Liberal Paradise Looks Like – Go to Prison

If You Want to See What Liberal Paradise Looks Like – Go to Prison

Senate blocks Obama nominee who defended cop-killer - Conservative Byte

Senate blocks Obama nominee who defended cop-killer - Conservative Byte

Michelle Malkin The Inevitability of Obamacare for Illegal Aliens

Michelle Malkin The Inevitability of Obamacare for Illegal Aliens

Walter Williams: Black People Duped

Walter Williams: Black People Duped

Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

The Impeachment Issue

The Impeachment Issue

nixon-oThe question of the day, at least in my mind, was the question of the day four years ago. When will the Democrats turn on Barack Obama?
Even the most cynical among us regarding political ethics and integrity know there is some point when the supporters turn.Bruce Bialosky discussed this issue in an excellent piece:
We are all guilty of providing a wide leeway to a politician that we favor. If the politician is someone we support, we restrain ourselves when something becomes public that would have us in a tizzy if done by someone with whom we dislike politically. That is referred to as “cutting someone some slack.” But there is a limit for everyone like there was for Anthony Weiner or Larry Craig. When will the grownups in the Democratic Party say enough is enough with Barack Obama?

How Bad Is It?

There is no economic recovery; nor can there be one given Obama’s policies. ObamaCare is a known disaster, acknowledged as much by many of its supporters and those most vulnerable to voter wrath. Creatures will continue to crawl out from under rocks as this monstrosity unfolds.
Obama is now readying to present a budget that claims that his first five years represented “austerity” and it is now time for government to begin spending again. Delusional is the only word that comes to mind regarding this belief.
The word “tyranny” is increasingly used to describe Obama’s style of governance. He clearly believes that his branch of the government is more equal than the other two branches. He did not believe that until he became president.
Scandal fatigue is another factor. No other Administration has been so embroiled in the number, magnitude and Constitutionally pertinent scandals. No other Administration has “stonewalled” investigations like this one. Richard Nixon was threatened with impeachment and asked to resign over what looks like jaywalking compared to the egregious improprieties of this Administration. Forty-year old ethics (which weren’t much when Nixon held office) would have forced impeachment hearings and probable resignation in Obama’s first term.
Internationally the world doubts whether the US can be trusted. Long-term allies distance themselves; long-term enemies are emboldened. Obama’s kumbaya version of diplomacy has been an utter failure. Realpolitic has overpowered his fairyland vision.
American has never been held in less esteem by the international community. Obama now ranks behind the hapless Jimmy Carter in terms of international respect. The world is substantially more dangerous as a result of his leadership (probably not a word that should be used in the same paragraph with “Obama”).

Is It Bad Enough?

As the Democrats approach a potential Waterloo election for them, political self-interest and survival could cause them to force a Weiner, Craig or Nixon moment upon Barack Obama. For several years I believed that would occur and that it would have occurred before now. I no longer believe it will happen. Three reasons have changed my opinion:
  1. The Democrat Party has no easy solution to their problems. Having this President impeached is the right thing to do, given the Constitutional and (potentially) criminal violations that have occurred. That action would create an enormous blot on the Party that would linger for years. “Kicking this can down the road” is a way of not incurring that damage now. From a political (not ethical or legal) standpoint that is probably a prudent decision. After all, this albatross is gone in about three years.
  2. I suspect, without any evidence, that the White House has information on every power player in Washington as a result of NSA monitoring. Most, if not all, of these powerful men and women have scandals, illegalities or other improprieties in their closets. The NSA can and probably already has obtained information on them. Congressmen that fit this category are easily dissuaded (blackmailed) from creating problems for the President. One wonders whether this tactic was used against General Petraeus, Chief Justice Roberts and others. Surely, the large numbers of high-ranking military removed from office would not all sit idly by and watch the country deteriorate.
  3. Even if the prior point were false, Obama believes that he is “above the law.” He also appears to be clinically delusional. It is doubtful that a Congressional delegation providing him with a “go to Nixon” meeting would do any good.
Mr. Bialosky ends his piece with the following:
It is time for Democrats to stand and say no more. If you don’t do it now there could be permanent harm to our democracy. Certainly some of you will no longer be in office come this November because the American people will certainly say enough is enough.
Sadly, it was time long before this to say “no more.” It wasn’t done then and it will not be done now unless there is some piece of evidence that is so egregious that the Dems will judge it more costly to not act than to act. Even so, 25% of the country will continue to support Obama regardless of the evidence.
That is the state of our democracy. Ignorance has already permanently harmed it. An informed electorate would never have elected this man in the first place, and certainly not twice!