The left and Hobby Lobby: fanning the flames

The New Neo Posted on by

I was curious about the reaction of liberal blogs to the Hobby Lobby ruling, and clicked on HuffPo and immediately saw this, right at the top, filling the width of the entire page:

THE OPERATIVES [in HUGE blue font, with the following in large font, plus the photo]
5 Justices Go After Women, Workers… ‘Baldly Incoherent’ Rulings… Big Blow To Unions… HOBBY LOBBY HAMMER DROPS… Birth Control Cut Off ”“ But Not Vasectomies Or Viagra… 49-Page Ruling Mentioned Women Just 13 Times.

huffpo

The flames are being fanned: these evil men are waging war on women!

More reaction from the left here. My favorite (and I mean that in a sarcastic sense) is from none other than Harry Reid, our illustrious Majority Leader: “It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women.”

I’ve got a idea! Let’s pack the Court, and have an equal number of men and women on it, and then have the men decide cases that affect men and the women decide cases that affect women. What could go wrong?

Of course, Reid’s entire attack is also based on a lie about the ruling, since he would like people to believe that employees of companies such as Hobby Lobby won’t get their contraception paid for. First of all, as already pointed out, most contraceptives are actually provided. Secondly, Hobby Lobby and the rest can “tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.” Nobody’s depriving anyone of anything, nor are they even stopping insurance coverage for contraception. The ruling merely protects the company itself from having to support certain types.

But it would require too much attention to detail to learn that—fortunately for the left. They prey on ignorance and actively foster it.

Obama announces he has to crown himself king because Congress won’t

The New Neo Posted on by

I wish I didn’t have more bad news to report, but I do*:

President Obama announced this afternoon that he will bypass Congress to enact “comprehensive immigration reform.” However, at no point did he discuss what his plan would entail.

Obama’s keyword is “comprehensive,” which means “the bill I want them to pass.”

According to William Jacobsen:

The most chilling portion of his announcement was when he suggested, “American cannot wait forever for them to act. That’s why today, I’m beginning a new effort to fix our immigration system”¦ on my own, without congress.“

That cold and chilly wind has been coming on us for a long, long time.

Jacobson adds that “We can only hope this is nothing more than his typical political posturing and that no actual action will come from his reckless disregard of our check and balance system.”

We can certainly hope, but let’s hope that we can do more than only hope—because I believe that Obama is testing the waters here and has every intention of acting. Doing this is not just important to him, right now it’s the most important thing in the world to him, and I mean that literally. It would establish his ability to do practically anything he wants, and if successful it would facilitate the permanent domination of the Democratic Party electorally. So, he will announce an executive action on this unless Congress shows some spine and stops him in some way. And then there would be a resultant constitutional crisis.

Interesting times we live in, aren’t they?

From Ace:

Obama is claiming that Congress’ choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power (rather than the exercise of it), and then that power flows precisely to the President.

Just how the Framers’ designed it, huh?

You have refused to grant me the power of Imperium. Therefore, you have irresponsibly abandoned your exercise of that power, and the power to declare myself emperor flows into my own hands.

Grant me power, or I will seize it. The choice is yours.**

Jonathan Turley is a pro-Democrat-but-somewhat-libertarian law professor who’s been calling Obama on his imperial presidency for quite some time. He has this to say about today’s announcement (note the condemnation of both Bush and Obama; but there is little doubt that he thinks the problem has escalated greatly under the Obama):

A growing crisis in our constitutional system threatens to fundamentally alter the balance of powers ”” and accountability ”” within our government. This crisis did not begin with Obama, but it has reached a constitutional tipping point during his presidency. Indeed, it is enough to bring the two of us ”” a liberal academic and a conservative U.S. senator ”” together in shared concern over the future of our 225-year-old constitutional system of self­governance.

We believe that people of good faith can likewise transcend politics and forge a bipartisan coalition to examine these changes. In our view, the gridlock in Washington is not simply the result of toxic divisions. The dysfunctional politics we are experiencing may in part be the result of a deeper corrosion ”” a dangerous instability that is growing within our Madisonian system…

First, we need to discuss the erosion of legislative authority within the evolving model of the federal government. There has been a dramatic shift of authority toward presidential powers and the emergence of what is essentially a fourth branch of government ”” a vast network of federal agencies with expanded legislative and judicial power. While the federal bureaucracy is a hallmark of the modern administrative state, it presents a fundamental change to a system of three coequal branches designed to check and balance each other. The growing authority invested in federal agencies comes from a diminished Congress, which seems to have a dramatically reduced ability to actively monitor, let alone influence, agency actions.

Second, much of the tit-for-tat politics that has alienated so many Americans is due to the fact that courts routinely refuse to review constitutional disputes because of an overly constricted view of the standing of lawmakers to sue and other procedural barriers. While there can be legitimate disagreement over how and when legislative standing should apply, current legal barriers rob the system of a key avenue for resolution of such conflicts. A modest expansion of standing would provide greater clarity to the line of constitutional separation without causing a flood of cases…

The framers believed that members of each branch of government would transcend individual political ambitions to vigorously defend the power of their institutions. Presidents have persistently expanded their authority with considerable success. Congress has been largely passive or, worse, complicit in the draining of legislative authority. Judges have adopted doctrines of avoidance that have removed the courts from important conflicts between the branches. Now is the time for members of Congress and the judiciary to affirm their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” and to work to re-establish our delicate constitutional balance.

Good luck, Professor Turley. I hope you’re not crying in the wilderness here. Because the hour is late and getting later.

Oh, and this is what I predict Obama will actually announce, if he doesn’t get enough pushback from his own party (and maybe even if he does). He’ll announce an immigration approach that will appear to include what conservatives (and most Americans) would like to see: increased patrol of the borders. He’ll also say he will expedite deportations. So this will all lend credence to his plea that he’s only doing what Congress should have done and what the American people want.

But there’s a catch: the border element will mysteriously fall by the wayside, and the entire operation will end up only expediting the granting of asylum to most of the parents and children who have come here illegally, under the argument that they are fleeing in fear of their lives and also under our family reunification policy. He’ll try to keep the statistics on all of this hush-hush. But it will accomplish his goal, and he will extend programs like his executive action of June 2012 that started the whole Cloward-Piven illegal immigration ball rolling.

If he doesn’t do any of this, or if he actually puts teeth into border patrols and subsequently expedite deportations, I’ll be very surprised. Although even that wouldn’t make his unilateral action right in doing this, at least the short-term effects on immigration would be a plus. The proper way to do it, however—and the way I believe every other previous president, Democratic or Republican, would have gone about it—would be to finally work with Congress and to allow the border to actually be beefed up as a start, followed by other Congressional actions. As it is, though, there’s no way Obama can be trusted on this.

[*NOTE: On the subject of bad events coming on the heels of more bad events, see this post of mine from March of 2009, about two and a half months after Obama first took office:

…[F]or now my working hypothesis is that Obama is a man of the Left, that he is insufficiently devoted to the age-old American idea of liberty but is instead a committed statist, and that the mind-numbing pace of his change is deliberate and has been effective so far.

I used the word “numbing” in the above paragraph, and I mean it. I noticed in the same comments section of yesterday’s post that another reader pointed out that “I am seeing the effect already amongst friends who have just stopped listening to any news.”

Oddly enough, this is what I have noticed among my liberal friends, Obama-supporters all. I cannot tell you how many times I have asked them what they think about Obama so far and they answer that they haven’t really had time to follow it all, and it’s all so very confusing.

Now it’s true that most of my liberal friends are not exactly newshounds, nor do they read blogs, even blogs on the Left. But it seems as though they are turning away from politics even more than usual, especially considering that they should be joyfully lapping up the wonderful news, now that their man Obama is in. I believe that their turning away is both an attempt at protecting themselves from the anxiety of hearing about the financial crisis, and a reaction to a feeling of “something just isn’t right with Obama” in the pits of their stomachs.

I am convinced that Obama is counting on this reaction. He knows the Left is behind him (except for a few details such as his Afghanistan policy, or those who think he’s not far enough to the Left in terms of his financial interventions). He knows those on the Right will despise him and what he’s doing. He knows both of those groups will be paying attention to the details.

But he also knows that those more in the middle will not be noticing much, until the deeds are done. And he is counting on them to look away and hope for the best. The question is whether his pace is fast enough, and whether they will catch on””and whether they will then understand what is happening, or care. Or will the predictions of the Grand Inquisitor come to pass in this country, as they have in so many others?]

[**NOTE: This business of blaming Republicans for forcing his hand is an old, old trick of Obama’s. I first noticed it, and was alarmed by it, early in his 2008 campaign when he broke his promise on campaign finance funds and blamed it on the Republicans.]

Three kidnapped Israeli teenagers found murdered. What will the reaction be?

The New Neo Posted on by

The finding of the bodies of the three kidnapped Israeli teenagers is very sad but not unexpected news:

The Times reports that senior government officials in Israel said military searchers found the three bodies buried “in a field near Hebron,” a large West Bank city:

“They know it’s the three, they will know for sure after they do the autopsy.” The official said the three appeared to have been shot to death, likely “very close to the kidnap” time, and that the prime suspects had still not been caught…

New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren tweeted that Israeli forces are blocking roads into and out of Hebron.

From the start I had assumed the three were going to be killed, perhaps torturously, or kept alive and used to extract enormous concessions from the Israeli government. The Israeli government has a history of releasing terrorists, sometimes in large numbers, in order to save the lives of kidnapped hostages, which only encourages further kidnappings. In this case the hostage situation did not occur, and the boys are rumored to have been killed early on.

The Israeli government also seems to have known a fair amount about the kidnapping, apparently from a phone call one of the kidnapped teens managed to make.

The political context is as follows:

The disappearances set off an uproar in Israel and deeply aggravated the already strained relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which had just taken steps to form a unity government backed by Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials, who have rejected that government, have identified two Palestinians from Hebron they say are affiliated with Hamas as prime suspects. Hamas did not take responsibility, but praised the abductions.

Let that sink in: Hamas praised the abductions. We give the Palestinian Authority aid, and a unity government causes Hamas to get that aid unless unless we cut the assistance off, which Congress had threatened to do even before the kidnapping if Hamas joined the government. There is a new resolution to that effect going through the legislative process in the House, which has a lot of support. However:

Lowey sources explained that the White House now controls the current year’s appropriation, which is transferred in tranches. There is little possibility that will be stopped, they say. It is the new 2014-2015 appropriation that is under review. Even if the funding cut is successful in the House, a similar measure must pass in the Senate.

Ah yes, what does President Obama think of it all? He sings a different tune, as you might expect. As I read the following I could only conclude that if the House passes the resolution Harry Reid will never bring it to a vote in the Senate. The chances are close to zero because his aim is to avoid embarrassing Democratic senators. They would either have to vote for it and defy Obama (unlikely most would do that) or block it and enrage most of the American public—that is, most of those who manage to hear about it [from June 3, 2014]:

The Obama administration sought Tuesday to bridge a rift with Israel over the willingness of the United States to recognize and fund a new Palestinian government affiliated with the militant group Hamas, arguing that the new government deserves a chance to succeed.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf [yes, Marie Harf] read a lengthy statement defending the U.S. position even before reporters could ask her about harsh criticism from Israeli officials.

She stressed that the announced lineup of ministers includes none who are members of the militant Palestinian group that has advocated Israel’s destruction. The new coalition reunites the moderate Fatah faction ”” which has held peace talks with Israel ”” with Hamas.

Why, they’re just pussycats, then.

Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and Netanyahu adviser, said:

…any international move that legitimizes Hamas is a dangerous mistake.

“I don’t think that people in Washington understand the depth of Israel’s disappointment over the decision to support this government,” Gold said.

“Hamas isn’t just a terror organization. Hamas is not just fundamentally against peace and against Israel’s right to exist. Hamas is an organization that has adopted an agenda to annihilate Jews.”

I don’t think Dore Gold understands that those “people in Washington” (i.e. Obama and his administration) understand that only too well.

So does Hamas. They don’t seem too frightened about the possibility of an aid cuttoff, do they? Recall, also, that one of the murdered teenagers was a citizen of both Israel and the United States. Obama will probably mouth some “concern” about that and move on. Israel will almost certainly retaliate against Hamas in some way, although it’s hard to see what good that will do, especially now that under Obama the US has joined the nations of the world who wink at Palestinian terrorism.

More SCOTUS: public sector union dues

The New Neo Posted on by

In another ruling today, SCOTUS held 5-4 that public sector unions cannot compel dues from non-members who are not “full-fledged” public service workers.

More here:

Union leaders had feared that the justices might strike down those state laws [requiring public service workers who are not union members to pay dues anyway] as unconstitutional. The justices did not go that far. They issued a more narrow ruling that the home health care workers at issue in the case are not “full-fledged public employees” because they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes, though they are paid in part by the state, via Medicaid.

Because they’re not truly state employees, the justices decided these workers did not have to pay union dues…

…[I]n writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized a 1977 precedent, known as Abood, that granted states the right to compel union dues. Alito called that ruling “questionable” and “anomalous,” all but inviting a further challenge in the future. He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Alito cited a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

Seems pretty obvious to me. But it’s not the least bit obvious to the liberal justices. And if it were struck down it would toll the death knell for public service unions, and the unions know it.

Anyone who still doesn’t understand how important it is to elect a Republican president in 2016, please realize that rulings on cases of this sort would go very differently if one of the conservative justices on the Court (Scalia, who is 78, for example, or even swing vote Kennedy, who is 77) retires and a Democrat gets to choose his successor. In other words, a Democratic president in 2016 could easily turn the Supreme Court into a reliably and consistently liberal institution, marginalizing the remaining conservative justices entirely.

And saying it doesn’t matter who appoints justices because Roberts (appointed by Bush II) sometimes votes with the liberals, and Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) votes with liberals about half the time, is hardly the point, because (a) judges appointed by Democratic presidents will always vote with the liberals, as opposed to just sometimes; (b) three out of the five justices appointed by Republican presidents vote very consistently conservative; and (c) the oldest justice, Ginsburg (who is 81), is most likely the one to retire soon, and if she holds out till after Obama’s term his successor will be appointing her replacement, giving a Republican president the opportunity to make the Court quite consistently conservative.

In other words, the next president could determine the direction of the Court for the next decade or more. And that’s just the Supreme Court; the same is true for other federal courts, because a president gets to make such appointments during his/her term of office, too.

This is enormously important in helping shape the country’s direction in a wide variety of ways. Plus, although a more conservative Court cannot by itself stop a tyrant who is intent on grabbing more power from doing so, it can certainly do its bit to help or to hurt.

Remember back in Obama’s first term, when he acted on Honduras to support Zeleya’s power grab and block his removal? Most people were not paying much attention, but it was highly significant. Time to revisit what the controversy was actually about:

Mr. Zelaya, a frequent critic of the U.S., has been locked in a growing confrontation with his country’s Congress, courts, and military over his plans for the referendum ”” planned for Sunday ”” that would have asked voters whether they want to scrap the constitution, which the president says benefits the country’s elites.

The Supreme Court had ruled the vote was illegal because it flouted the constitution’s own ban on such referendums within six months of elections. The military had refused to take its usual role of distributing ballots. But Mr. Zelaya fired the chief of the army last week and pledged to press ahead.

So fairly early in his first term Obama attempted to defend Zeleya’s power grab against Honduras’ constitution, its military, and its Supreme Court’s attempt to limit him. It was a very ominous sign for the future, as I wrote:

It’s not a mere question of Obama looking on and doing nothing while a Chavez-inspired Zelaya grabs more power; I could understand non-intervention in the Honduran process. But Obama has gone out of his way””in a manner that contradicts his own stated preference for the autonomy of other nations””to actively intervene in Honduran affairs in order to protect Zeleya and his undermining of Honduran due process and its constitution.

There is no benign explanation for this policy of Obama’s. If the American people don’t understand what it tells us about him, it would mean that we have failed to understand history and learn from it.

The Supreme Court is one of the bulwarks against such power grabs, although it can’t stop them by itself. And although the recent 9-0 ruling against Obama’s pretend-recess appointments may be a sign that, if the executive’s offense were especially egregious, even the liberals on the Court might decide to vote against Obama, there’s no question that putting more liberals on its bench is flirting with danger and asking for trouble.

SCOTUS rules against Obamacare and for religious freedom in Hobby Lobby

The New Neo Posted on by

But it’s a relatively narrow ruling.

It was also another 5-4 decision, indicating how small the margin usually is on the Court. The swing vote this time—the vote that distinguished it from the all-important “is it a tax or a penalty?” question—was that today Justice Roberts voted against Obamacare and his earlier vote kept it viable.

The lede in the AP story goes like this:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

The casual reader who stops right there wouldn’t know that the companies in Hobby Lobby were not refusing to cover contraception in general, merely specific types of contraception where the mechanism might possibly be to block the implantation of a fertilized egg. Nor would they know that “some” corporations were narrowly defined as those that “are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.”

The ruling has other limitations:

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control

The ruling actually affects very few companies and relatively few employees. Nor does it seem to threaten Obamacare in any real way. It does have the effect of carving out a small exception that supports religious freedom, which is a good thing. But as a blow to Obamacare it leaves a lot to be desired.

[ADDENDUM: Justice Ginsburg says that with this ruling SCOTUS has “ventured into a minefield.” Is she really unaware that they’ve been walking in a minefield for several years now?]

Illegal immigrants: crisis, opportunity

The New Neo Posted on by

Opportunity for what?

I usually take Sunday off, and I plan to take Sunday off, so this post will be much briefer than the situation warrants.

I offer for your perusal this:

Saturday at a press conference from the Rio Grande Valley, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) discussed her tour of a border holding facility and addressed the humanitarian crisis of thousands unaccompanied minors flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border, which she called a “humanitarian opportunity.”

Pelosi explained, “We are all Americans — north and south in this hemisphere,” and urged America to see this as not a crisis but an opportunity “to be helpful.” She also said she wished she could simply “take home” the thousands of children temporarily housed in the overburden facilities.

Actually, she could take home hundreds, but what the hey.

And what’s the plan with this proposal from Obama?:

The Obama administration, in a dramatic escalation of its border-control strategy, will seek more than $2 billion in emergency funds to help stem an influx of Central American women and children entering the country illegally, as well as new measures to more quickly deport those already here, the White House confirmed Saturday.

President Obama intends to notify Congress of his request on Monday, and the administration will ask lawmakers to modify existing statutes to make it easier to return unaccompanied children to their home countries, an administration official said. The administration’s plans were first reported Saturday by the New York Times.

My first question is: is this true? After all, it hasn’t happened yet, and it was reported by the Times. Maybe we should wait for a more reliable source, such as the National Enquirer.

Second question: what’s the angle? We know nothing Obama does is straightforward, unless it’s obviously bad for Republicans and for America. Note that he doesn’t seem to be requesting more funds for border control. And unless the current rules are modified a great deal, and in the direction of making it much easier to deport, this will merely expedite the dispersal of this great influx of illegal immigrants into the vast pool that’s already here. Plus, he faces a lot of possible opposition from his own left, and if the Republicans try to tie it in with greater border security and somehow it does pass, he may veto the bill and blame the failure on them.

Now, go and have a nice Sunday!

What’s up with this “clean” food I keep hearing about?

The New Neo Posted on by

I hear it everywhere: people bragging about eating clean.

If you don’t believe me, just Google it, and voila:

“10 Ways to Eat Clean”
“23 Ways To Eat Clean” [are 23 always better than 10?]
“Eating Clean For Dummies Cheat Sheet
“Clean Eating 101” [I assume that’s a more advanced course than clean eating for dummies]
“10 Clean Eating Recipes for Weeknights” [a bit less fancy than clean eating recipes for those very special weekends?

And so forth.

Cynthia Sass at CNN has helpfully provided a cheat sheet for us dummies who don’t even know what clean eating is, although so far most of us have somehow managed to refrain from using dirt instead of flour to dredge our food. From Sass:

Today,…clean eating, or eating clean, is a major movement, spurred by people from all walks of life who want to feel good about what they’re putting in their bodies.

When I asked via Twitter, “What does clean eating mean to you?” I received a variety of replies, from simply “eating fresh fruits and veggies,” to “not eating anything artificial.”

Aha! So it’s a way to say that you’re self-righteous about what you eat, and you can define the good in any way you want. Works for me.

I guess you might say I eat pretty clean, except when I eat very very dirty. When I fall off the wagon and into the gutter, I fall hard.

But not dirty like this. I obey the 3-second rule:

Meanwhile, the border invasion continues…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and now it’s spreading disease.

Well, of course. After all, the people who are entering come from countries where disease is far more rampant. So why not? In earlier non-PC days we actually paid attention to that sort of thing. Of course, that was also back when illegal entry was considered—well, illegal.

I noticed today that Drudge is covering the border influx heavily, with a large central headline about HIV spreading, and twelve others on the topic that are placed above it and to the left. Drudge has a daily—yes, daily—circulation of twenty-five million, so the news is getting out, at least to the choir. (Are liberals more likely to read Drudge any more than they watch Fox? Don’t think so.)

If ever a region needed to be declared a federal disaster area, it’s the border and the region near it. That’s a particularly ironic though, since this would be a disaster that not only requires federal assistance, but it’s also one created by the federal government, most likely on purpose.

And lest you think this situation wouldn’t fall under the criteria for the official federal designation “disaster area,” take a look at the definition:

A disaster area is a region or a locale, heavily damaged by either natural, technological or social hazards. Disaster areas affect the population living in the community by dramatic increase in expense, loss of energy, food and services; and finally increase the risk of disease for citizens.

Who’s bearing the brunt of this? The local communities, and to a certain extent the states involved. That’s win/win for Obama, since (surprise!) these are red states, mainly Texas but also Arizona.

We’ve already heard about disease, but there’s this, too:

Small towns and counties in states bordering Mexico are drowning in debt due to the swarm of illegals stealing and destroying property, requiring expensive medical care and needing proper burials, all of which the federal government has largely refused to pay for.

For example, in Brooks Co., Texas, which is 75 miles north of the Mexican border, county judge Raul M. Ramirez told Infowars that autopsies of dead illegal aliens are rapidly draining his county’s resources which were already meager after the oil & gas industry left town.

As for crime:

Sex offenders, murder suspects and gang members are making their way through the vast rangelands of Brooks County.

The Vickers ranch is one of the many land spreads affected by the surge in illegal immigration. What is more concerning to the ranch owners is the type of people trekking through their land.

Linda Vickers never wanders away from her house without her trusty canine companions – Blitz, Elsa, Schotten and Tinkerbell.

The dogs provide a sense of security in a land of insecurity.

“The safety factor out here has changed,” Vickers said…

It’s not just gang members that worry Vickers. Border Patrol agents arrested a wanted murderer near Falfurrias and sex offenders in the Rio Grande Valley last weekend.

“They’re everywhere,” Vickers said.

Border Patrol Spokesman Oscar Saldana said criminals won’t turn themselves in like families and unaccompanied children.

The children act (consciously or unconsciously) as a screen, like the person who distracts the mark while the pickpocket goes to work.

Ace has some questions for Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

They’re excellent questions, and in a way somewhat obvious. So why doesn’t the media ask them?

Krauthammer notes that Obama’s actions [in exceeding his constitutional authority] serve as precedents for future presidents, which raises a question I wish our corrupt media would ask him:

Do you, President Obama, endorse and support a Republican President’s assertion of the same powers you assert? Do you suggest that other presidents follow[ing] you follow your model of presidential power?

Would you support a Tea Party president writing the immigration law himself as well?

Now, you might say that the reason why the MSM doesn’t ask Obama all of this is obvious: the media is on the left. But not everyone in media is on the left. There are a few people either on the right or somewhat in the middle (or who at least seem relatively fair, whatever their politics) who attend presidential press conferences and have asked a couple of hard-hitting queries in the past. Jake Tapper comes to mind, although looking at the one-on-one interview he did with President Obama in January of 2014, he seems to me to be softballing it lately.

What happened? Why doesn’t he ask these fairly obvious questions? Is he afraid he’ll lose access, is that the threat? Or is he intimidated by things like the James Rosen incident? In other words, is it that 95% of the press remains firmly placed in Obama’s pocket, and the other 5% is frightened, and 100% of them are worried about being shunned on the cocktail party circuit?

At any rate, my guess as to what Obama’s answers would be if by some miracle he were to be asked Ace’s questions is some version of the following:

“What overreach? I’m a constitutional law professor, you know, and there is no problem whatsoever with what I’m doing.”

Alternatively, “I’m not doing anything any other president hasn’t done.”

Or maybe, “No other president ever has or ever will face such personal animosity from a Congress determined to block what’s good for America as it faces these terrible crises. It’s okay for me to do this because of these special and completely unique circumstances. I owe it to the American people.”

Or how about this one?: “Don’t worry, there won’t be any future presidents.”

And then the reporter who asked the questions would get a letter from the IRS…

Thanks from FredHJr’s family

The New Neo Posted on by

To those of you who saw the FredHJr thread and commented there, I want to convey the thanks of his widow, who read the thread and got in touch with me. She wrote:

It means so much that you have done this remembrance every year and it is amazing to me that people who met him were touched by him.

Well, he was an amazing man.

More on those racially-charged Cochran ads

The New Neo Posted on by

Bruce Carroll at Legal Insurrection quotes the Daily Mail (another example of British papers doing the work American ones won’t) as having uncovered this:

The article also ties a progressive activist to the payment of the radio ads. Carol Stern, a left-leaning former marketing executive, paid the Mississippi radio station to run the racially charged ads based on evidence provided to the Daily Mail.

Quelle surprise.

The Obama infomercial

The New Neo Posted on by

There really hasn’t been a previous president capable of this sort of thing:

Obama describes Republicans and their actions by saying, “It’s not on the level.” “It makes people cynical.” But that’s a good way to describe Obama himself. Note, also, the affectation of his constantly dropped “g’s,” part of his effort to seem like he’s just one of the little guys. He even says, “I was you guys” [at minute 1:25].

And then there’s the sentence at minute 2:16 that begins, “I’ll be honest with you.” When Obama starts that way, watch out because it means there’s an especially pernicious whopper coming. This time it was this [emphasis in the original]:

We’ve got a party on the other side whose only rationale, motivation seems to be opposing me.

Note he doesn’t even say “opposing my agenda.” It’s all about him you see; it’s personal, and of course there’s always the implied racism of his opponents, because why else would they concentrate so much on him? Otherwise, it would be on his party or his policies.

And hating on him is not just his opponents’ agenda, it’s their only agenda. According to Obama, they adhere to no policies that are opposed to him, they have no philosophy of government that he’s running roughshod over. All they have is this agenda of opposing him out of sheer spitefulness, bile, orneriness, hate.

Have we ever seen a president like this? All opposition to his proposals are by definition ad hominem attacks, according to him. And yet most of his attacks actually are ad hominem attacks. It’s a beautiful Orwellian circle he’s got going there.

Obama also seems awkward and tense here, almost hesitant. But he keeps doing it, and I suppose somebody’s still buying it. After all, his approval ratings are still well above the 5% they should be at this point.

Every previous president I can remember in my lifetime, Democrat or Republican, showed a basic respect for his opposition. For the most part, they also thought they had to answer to scandals and take them seriously. Obama does neither, and therefore doesn’t just disrespect the office and the opposition, he disrespects the American people—although I have to say that by electing him twice, they’ve earned it.

[NOTE: Here’s a companion piece; do the nine SCOTUS justices oppose Obama for the sheer bile of it, too? And please watch the whole thing, because it’s the second half that’s most important, and it’s not all that long:

I agree with it for the most part, although I don’t think that even Obama thinks he’s doing good any more. I think more of his motivation is hatred at this point. And yes, Obama the constitutional law teacher knows exactly what he’s doing in terms of unconstitutional overreach.]