Witch’s Will For A Morning In June
My Pick Of The Litter Today
A Question Of Character
As everything President Obama touches turns to crap, we begin to hear more and more leftist attacks on Mitt Romney the man. Andrea Mitchell on leftist network NBC dishonestly edits a tape to make Romney seem “out of touch.” Joe Williams from the leftist website Politico crazily suggests Romney is only comfortable around white people. Lawrence O’Donnell on the leftist cable net MSNBC moronically attacks Mrs. Romney for riding horses. And just about every leftist everywhere from the New York Times all the way up to some ostensibly legitimate news sources decries the fact that the Republican candidate for president is, horror upon horrors, a Mormon.
Really? I mean, while believing in the Angel Moroni may be kind of odd, believing in Barack Obama is just plain magical thinking. The jobs “created or saved,” the new tone in Washington, the health care “reform,” the new approach to the Middle East, the Russian reset — sure, all religions have their hard-to-swallow miracle tales but most of them don’t do this kind of real-world damage.
Stories/Articles You Might Find Interesting – or not
Rangel faces toughest contest of career
Voters in New York City on Tuesday will decide whether Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) can end his four-decade career in the House on his own terms.
Rangel, the 82-year-old dean of the New York congressional delegation, is facing the toughest reelection fight of his tenure.
Even if I didn’t believe that Charlie Rangel is the Poster Child for what’s wrong with congress why on earth would voters send someone who has been in congress since 1970 back again? Isn’t it time for new, and let’s face it, younger blood? Must all these old buzzards die in harness?
Democrats May Cancel Opening Event at Convention
Facing a $27 million fundraising deficit, organizers of the Democratic National Convention are considering dropping a kick-off event at Charlotte Motor Speedway, Bloomberg reports.
Convention and campaign officials will make a decision later this week on the NASCAR-themed event, after the matter is discussed with President Obama, Bloomberg reported.
Arizona Can’t Do It; Washington Won’t
President Barack Obama hailed the Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision Monday that struck down most of Arizona’s 2010 immigration law. In a statement released by the White House, however, the president said that he remains “concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally.”
All eight voting members of the Supreme Court upheld this provision, which requires that Arizona cops try to determine the immigration status of individuals who have been stopped for reasons not involving immigration.
Even though federal law requires legal immigrants to carry identification papers with them, open-border types have dubbed the Arizona provision “show me your papers.” Even though the Arizona law requires that race not be a factor in any police actions conducted under the law, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews calls that section of the law “the requirement that cops stop people because they look a certain way.” Quoth the president, “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.” No matter how much Arizonans improve the law, the left will maintain that it is about race and race alone.
The irony is that Obama has been a strong booster of the Secure Communities program, introduced by President George W. Bush, operated under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and expanded under this administration. The program forwards fingerprints taken by local law enforcement to ICE, where officials check to see whether arrestees are in the United States legally. Obama is happy to have local law enforcement check on the immigration status of people it arrests, as long as only his feds make the decision over what to do — or not do – about it.
“A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system,” Obama intoned in his statement. That’s Phony, Part 2.
“The White House hasn’t sued San Francisco,” a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, noted Jon Feere, legal policy analyst for the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies, “but it’s going after states that are trying to uphold the law.”
Are You Kidding Me?
Maddow When Cornered Pretends She’s a Private Person With No Opinions
You don’t know me, Rachel Maddow complained — twice — to Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie in her hissy fit Friday night on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.”
Yet again, Maddow gets it wrong. By the incisive questions he asked, and Maddow’s reluctance to answer them, Gillespie showed he knows her all too well.
A Political Glossary
Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words — and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.
One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is “fairness.” It has been used over a vast range of issues, from “fair trade” laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.
Some of us may want to see a definition of what is “fair.” But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.
If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income — or any other number — is the “fair share” of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more — and “more” is what “fair share” means in practice.
Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.
“Racism” is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.
Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more other talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on. The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a “racist.”
A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is “compassion.” But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers’ money in ways that will increase the spender’s chances of getting reelected.
If you are skeptical — or, worse yet, critical — of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: “mean-spirited.” A related political label is “greedy.”
No Joke: Obama Admin Spending $2.5 Million To Run Ads For Food Stamps…
Every food stamp is a Dem vote in Obama’s mind.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.
The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area.
“Research has shown that many people — particularly underserved seniors, working poor, and legal immigrants — do not understand the requirements of the program,” said Kevin Concannon, a USDA under secretary.
The radio ads, which run through June 30, come amid a bitter partisan fight over the safety net program. Republican lawmakers want to reduce funding for the benefit or turn it into a block grant program, which would also minimize the cost. Democrats, however, are not willing to make major cuts.
Redefining American government through Obamacare
We have two days until the Supreme Court rules on health care — two days until we find out whether Akhil Amar’s life has been a fraud.
Amar is the Yale constitutional law professor (my former teacher), who recently told The Post’s Ezra Klein that a 5 to 4 ruling striking down Obamacare would destroy his faith in the court.
“If they decide this by 5-4,” Amar said, “then yes, it’s disheartening to me, because my life was a fraud. Here I was, in my silly little office, thinking law mattered, and it really didn’t. What mattered was politics, money, party and party loyalty.”
Amar’s cri de coeur was a dramatic but otherwise typical expression of sentiment in legal academia, where it is widely assumed that no serious person could doubt the law’s constitutionality.
Professors have stuck to that view even after a couple of lower federal courts struck down the 2010 law wholly or in part, and after oral arguments in April showed that the five most conservative Supreme Court justices might be leaning against the law, too. Hence Amar’s angst.
Knowing Amar’s eclectic brand of liberalism, I wouldn’t charge him with reading his ideology into the Constitution, though I can’t say the same for all law professors, who tend to be much more liberal than the general public.
Remarkably few of them have shown the perspicacity of Amar’s Yale colleague Stephen Carter, who has written: “Both sides have a point. The mandate to purchase health insurance does indeed run counter to the libertarian strain of the American tradition, and the arguments in support of federal power don’t have a logical stopping place. On the other hand, one must also recall the egalitarian aspects of the American tradition.”
But assume the professors are arguing in good faith, and correctly interpreting precedent: that until now Congress could enact almost any law in the name of regulating interstate commerce, up to and including a limit on subsistence wheat farming.
What, then, led the academics to misread this case?
In a sense, they resemble the conservative leaders of the bar at the dawn of the New Deal. President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.
Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.
I don’t think this history proves that “politics, money, party and party loyalty” crassly determined the decisions of the 1930s. If that were true, why accord them precedential weight today?
Rather, what it shows is that the United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a “living Constitution.”
In the 1930s, expanding federal power was innovative, promising. By blessing it, the court aligned itself with the wave of the future, in this country and globally. Ditto for the 1960s. Much of the legislation that resulted — from Social Security to the Voting Rights Act — was indeed progressive.
Today, however, there is nothing new about federal intervention — and much evidence from the past 70 years that big programs produce inefficiencies and unintended consequences.
Media Behaving Badly:
CNN’s “Newsroom” Problem
The new Aaron Sorkin series “Newsroom” is getting a pasting from most critics and deservedly so, but it was a media column rather than a television review in today’s New York Times that went right to the heart of the problem about much of today’s media. David Carr’s piece in the paper’s business section today discussed how Sorkin’s “valentine” to the TV news business seems to be an appeal for the embattled real-life CNN to rise above the battle for ratings and stick to the exalted task of presenting real news rather than low-brow fare and amped-up partisan opinions. But the problem with that premise is much the same as the problem with Sorkin’s show.
As Carr points out, Sorkin cheats on his premise, because his idea of a righteous diet of straight news rather than the partisanship of right-wing Fox News or left-wing MSNBC is a catechism of left-wing advocacy. But CNN’s slide in the ratings that Carr aptly compares to a toboggan ride on a snowy hill is not due to the public’s lack of an appetite for quality news programming. It stems from the same hypocrisy that allows Sorkin and HBO to pretend their liberal show is an expression of centrism. Just as viewers will quickly realize the pretense that the desire of Sorkin’s fictional news anchor Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) to return network news to the halcyon days of Walter Cronkite is a crock, so too do most Americans understand that most of the hosts on CNN tilt to the left and are disgusted by their pretense of objectivity.
Much of the mainstream media flatters itself that their shrinking audiences are due to the low-brow tastes and stupidity of the hoi polloi whose attention they must fight for. But the reason why audiences prefer Fox and MSNBC to CNN is that they have shed the false façade of objectivity that is at the core of liberal journalism. They are sick of liberal coverage being passed off as objective journalism and prefer the open bias they find elsewhere.
32 Grieving Parents with Absolute Moral Authority over Obama
Arizona’s Partial Victory is Trap for Obama
Stockton, Calif., faces midnight deadline to avert bankruptcy
Generic Congressional Ballot
What’s Going On In The World?
Greek finance minister resigns, crisis deepens
Reuters) – Greece’s new financeminister resigned because of ill health on Monday, throwing the government’s drive to soften the terms of an international bailout into confusion days before a European summit.
Vassilis Rapanos, 64, chairman of the National Bank of Greece, was rushed to hospital on Friday, before he could be sworn in, complaining of abdominal pain, nausea and dizziness. Greek media said he had a history of ill-health.
The office of Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, who himself only took office last Wednesday following a June 17 election, said Rapanos had sent a letter of resignation because of his health problems and it had been accepted.
Quote For Today:
“My therapist told me the way to achieve true inner peace is to finish what I start. So far today, I have finished 2 bags of M&M’s and a chocolate cake. I feel better already.” ~ Dave Barry