Witch’s Will For A Mourning In July
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
Quote of the day:
Hubris is one of the great renewable resources. ~ P. J. O’Rourke
A new report shows that the Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the US, but who it cannot prove left the country. Don’t worry; I’m sure the Democrats will find them before the next election.
My Top 3:
Are We Serious About Education?
by Thomas Sowell
Two recent events — one on the east coast and one on the west coast — raise painful questions about whether we are really serious when we say that we want better education for minority children.
One of these events was an announcement by Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C., that it plans on August 19th to begin “an entire week of activities to celebrate the grand opening of our new $160 million state-of-the-art school building.”
The painful irony in all this is that the original Dunbar High School building, which opened in 1916, housed a school with a record of high academic achievements for generations of black students, despite the inadequacies of the building and the inadequacies of the financial support that the school received.
By contrast, today’s Dunbar High School is just another ghetto school with abysmal standards, despite Washington’s record of having some of the country’s highest levels of money spent per pupil — and some of the lowest test score results.
Housing an educational disaster in an expensive new building is all too typical of what political incentives produce.
We pay a lot of lip service to educational excellence. But too many institutions and individuals that have produced good educational results for minority students have not only failed to get support, but have even been undermined.
A recent example on the west coast is a charter school operation in Oakland called the American Indian Model Schools. The high school part of this operation has been ranked among the best high schools in the nation. Its students’ test scores rank first in its district and fourth in the state of California.
But the California State Board of Education announced plans to shut down this charter school — immediately. Its students would have had to attend inferior public schools this September, except that a challenge in court stopped this sudden shutdown.
Why such a hurry to take drastic action? Because of a claim of financial improprieties against the charter schools’ founder and former head, Ben Chavis.
Ben Chavis has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law. Nor has he even been brought to trial, though that would seem to be the normal thing to do if the charges were serious.
These scandalous attacks on charter and alternative schools by the left and the Teacher’s Unions is a national disgrace. Liberals show that they will use anything, including the children of this nation to stay in power. Teacher’s Unions show that they are one of the greatest threats facing this country.
Teacher’s by their silence are equally guilty.The few good teachers that is. The others are simply slime collecting a paycheck.
The Mother of All Scandals
by Victor Davis Hanson
A system of voluntary tax compliance cannot survive a dishonest IRS. Lois Lerner and company have virtually ruined the agency. For the foreseeable future, each time an American receives a tax query, he will wonder to what degree his politics ensures enhanced or reduced scrutiny — or whether his name as a donor, activist, or partisan has put him on a watch list.
Worse still, when a high commissioner of the IRS takes the 5th Amendment, it sends a frightening message: those audited go to jail when they refuse to testify; those who audit them who do the same do not.
The Associated Press/James Rosen monitoring by the Obama administration was creepy not just because it went after a heretofore obsequious media, but because Obama’s lieutenants alleged that the reason was aiding and abetting the leaking of classified material.
Of course, disclosing top-secret information and thereby damaging the national interest is no small thing. But was leaking the real reason that Eric Holder lied under oath when he assured his congressional inquisitors that he was not monitoring the communications of Americans — after he had done just that in the case of James Rosen of Fox News?
No modern administration has leaked classified data like the Obama administration. Do we remember a frustrated Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warning White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon “to shut the f— up” for disclosing the secret details of the bin Laden hit?
Or was John Brennan’s effusive blow-by-blow description of the Navy SEAL team protocol worse? Or for that matter, why did David Sanger and David Ignatius seem to have access to classified details about the bin Laden document trove and the Iranian Stuxnet cyber-war campaign? The obvious answer is that after the midterm election of 2010, a panicking Obama administration worried about reelection, and especially polls that suggested the president was weak on national-security issues.
To rectify that image, politicos began leaking the nation’s most intimate secrets to remind the public that, behind the scenes, Obama was a veritable Harry Truman. The problem with the AP was not that it leaked, but that it did not leak in a fashion and at a time of the administration’s own choosing. In other words, the Associated Press was a competitor when Obama wished a monopoly on the leaking franchise.
No one knows much about the NSA mess. But already there are some disturbing developments. How can Director of National Intelligence James Clapper outright lie under oath without consequences after he assured the Congress that the agency did not monitor the communications of American citizens?
After the president’s press conference last week, an embarrassing paradox arose: the president promised all sorts of new NSA reforms. But why now, and for what reason the sudden worry? After all, Obama offered no new protocol to ensure that classified matters did not end up in the hands of a high-school dropout and highly ideological computer hacker like Eric Snowden.
Instead, the president de facto made Snowden’s case. It was only because of the illegal acts of Snowden that Obama promised future measures — not against the next Snowden, but against abuses promulgated by himself. Consider the logic: Snowden is supposed to be a criminal for leaking a top-secret intelligence gathering operation, but in response to that illegal conduct, Obama for the first time promises to address just the sort of abuses that Snowden outlined.
With enemies like Obama, the lawbreaking Snowden hardly needs friends.
Of the four most prominent scandals — and by “four” I do not wish to deprecate “Fast and Furious,” or EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fake email persona, or the arbitrary non-enforcement of the law, from ignoring elements of Obamacare to granting pre-election amnesty by fiat to over one million illegal aliens — Benghazi is by far the most disturbing; the scandal is insidious.
Four Americans were slaughtered under conditions that we still cannot fathom. It was rumored but not confirmed that Ambassador Stevens in extremis was either raped or brutalized, though those details remain murky — given that the assassination of an American ambassador is rare, and the vicious brutalization of his person is unprecedented. Witnesses of the attack on the CIA annex have either disappeared or gone silent.
The families of the deceased have received conflicting accounts of how loved ones were murdered. All that we know for now is that the entire scene of the caskets arriving on U.S. soil — from the melodramatic assurances that the perpetrators would shortly feel American retaliation, to the demonization of Mr. Nakoula as the cause of the deaths — was a lie, and a cynical one at that.
The Left vs. the Redskins
by Dennis Prager
The online magazine Slate announced last week that it will never again refer to the Washington’s National Football League team, the Redskins, by its name.
The name, according to Slate, offends American Indians, and therefore should be dropped. And until such time, Slate will never mention it. It will become, in effect, the R-word.
The article, to its credit, acknowledged that the term “redskins” was not coined as a racist epithet:
“The word redskin has a relatively innocent history. As Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard has shown, European settlers in the 18th century seem to have adopted the term from Native Americans, who used ‘red skin’ to describe themselves, and it was generally a descriptor, not an insult.”
So, then, what’s so bad about the name Redskins?
Slate Argument One: “Here’s a quick thought experiment: Would any team, naming itself today, choose “Redskins” or adopt the team’s Indian-head logo? Of course it wouldn’t.”
Response: There are many teams with names that wouldn’t be adopted today. Who would name a team the “Red Sox,” “White Sox,” “Packers,” “Dodgers,” “Forty-Niners,” “Steelers,” or, for that matter, “Yankees?”
Slate Argument Two: “While the name Redskins is only a bit offensive, it’s extremely tacky and dated — like an old aunt who still talks about ‘colored people.’ … “
Response: Since Slate dismisses the term “colored people” as “tacky and dated,” why doesn’t it call on the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the NAACP), to change its name?
Slate Argument Three: “Changing how you talk changes how you think. … Replacing ‘same-sex marriage’ with ‘marriage equality’ helped make gay marriage a universal cause rather than a special pleading.”
Response: It’s nice to have at least one left-wing source acknowledge how the left changes language to promote its causes. When more and more people began to suspect that global warming was not about to bring an apocalypse, and that, at the very least, it is in a pause mode, the left changed the term to “climate change.”
The “marriage equality” substitution for “same-sex marriage” is just one more example of dishonest manipulation of English.
Orwellian manipulation of language by the left would be reason enough to oppose dropping “Redskins,” a nearly 80-year-old tradition venerated by millions.
Argument Four is the key argument, offered by the Atlantic, in its support of Slate:
Response: “Whether people ‘should’ be offended by it or not doesn’t matter; the fact that some people are offended by it does.”
This is classic modern liberalism. It is why I have dubbed our age “The Age of Feelings.”
Some people are offended by damn near anything. In fact “those” people offend me!
Poll: Only 11 percent believe Obama’s NSA promises
Despite President Obama’s pledge to increase transparency and curb certain aspects of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, a new Rasmussen poll shows the vast majority of Americans still need some convincing.
Only 11 percent of 1,000 likely voters polled believe the “president’s new policy” will make it less likely that the NSA will monitor the private phone calls of ordinary Americans.
Thirty percent actually believe the government is now more likely to spy on domestic phone calls, while a whopping 49 percent feel Friday’s announcement will do little to change the surveillance program.
More proof, if anyone still needed it, that no one, other than lefties and the obamamedia actually pays any attention to what POTUS says. Or believes what he says.
Don’t that just say it all?
Good For Him!
Sen. Paul Joins Admin. to Help Abolish Mandatory Jail Sentencing for Low-Level Drug Users
On Monday morning, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would seek to abolish mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent, low-level drug offenders; Holder sited high incarceration costs, disproportional conviction rates and unfair targeting of minorities as reasons to address the jail sentences dished out to low-level drug offenders. Within hours, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) released a statement, indicating that he had been in contact with the Administration and was gearing up to work in a bi-partisan effort to abolish mandatory minimum sentencing:
“I am encouraged that the President and Attorney General agree with me that mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders promote injustice and do not serve public safety. I look forward to working with them to advance my bipartisan legislation, the Justice Safety Valve Act, to permanently restore justice and preserve judicial discretion in federal cases. I introduced this legislation in March with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy [D-VT] as a legislative fix to the very problem Attorney General Holder discussed today.
“The Administration’s involvement in this bipartisan issue is a welcome development. Now the hard work begins to change the law to permanently address this injustice.”
Republicans should, indeed must, work with this criminal administration on some things if the country is to go forward at all. They must be smart enough to choose when and where they will do so. This seems a good place to do that.
The problem for Rand Paul is that some of us loathe and distrust this excreable administration and all the people in it that we find it difficult to think working with them on anything is safe. Paul was smart to make it clear that he was way ahead of Holder on this issue.
Rubio working with Schumer is a good example. Of course working with McCain and Graham is nearly as bad.
Could the GOP lose a Senate seat in Georgia?
Georgia Republicans are becoming increasingly worried that a divisive primary coupled with a strong Democratic candidate might lead to a loss of the Senate seat of retiring Saxbe Chambliss.
Recent polling shows the two candidates Republicans are most anxious about – Reps. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) – leading the pack. Whoever emerges from the clown-car primary, with seven candidates and counting, will face a candidate Democrats are high on in a state where shifting demographics benefit their party.
Losing Georgia’s open Senate seat would do severe damage to Republicans’ hopes of winning the net of six seats necessary to take control of the Senate.
“Gingrey has a history of making some gaffes, and Broun it seems like it’s a gaffe every other day. Those are the two that worry Republicans the most as potential problems going into the general election,” said Georgia Republican strategist Joel McElhannon, who’s neutral in the race.
Georgia Republicans say they have the upper hand in the race to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in a state where President Obama won 45 percent of the vote in 2012. But they voice concern over a number of potential scenarios in a primary that’s anyone’s for the taking.
Worth a Read:
Crime Bankrupts Detroit; Public Unions Mug Two California Cities
5 Myths About Libertarians
What you think you know is wrong.
by Nick Gillespie
Judge in Paula Deen suit throws out racial discrimination claims
Obama Picks The Man Who Lied To Congress About Existence of NSA’s Domestic Spying To Choose His Intelligence Review Panel…
Clapper should be under arrest for perjury. Instead he gets a promotion and Obama continues to spit in the face of decency,honesty and integrity. And where the hell are the Republicans? Well we know that Christie is playing patty-cake with Obama, Rubio is playing patty-cake with Schumer and McCain and Graham are pretty much just playing patty-cake.
MSNBC’s Finney Denounces GOP ‘Scare Tactics’ on ObamaCare, Uses Scare Tactics to Promote ObamaCare
MSNBC host Karen Finney denounced Republican “scare tactics” over ObamaCare on Saturday’s Disrupt – and then employed liberal scare tactics to stress the benefits of ObamaCare. Finney further warned that the GOP wants to “[take] something away from people” in their repeal efforts, rattling off a long list of benefits that Americans would lose if ObamaCare was repealed.
Finney began the segment by fawning over President Obama’s Friday press conference, declaring that the president “heads to his vacation with a new verve.” Finney apparently chose to ignore Obama’s near record-low approval ratings.
Typical liberal hypocrite. Nothing new here. Then why did I post it? Just one more example of how they lie, obfuscate, spin and distort. Example are always nice when stating something. And the left-wing media gives us so many examples of their hypocrisy it’s impossible to post them all.
America needs a transformation
We may need more than a few amendments to make the U.S. into a country that works for everyone.
by Glenn Harlan Reynolds
So how are things going for America? The economy is stagnant, the government seems to be spying on everyone, the connected are getting “waivers” while the unconnected face the full force of the law, and all sorts of people are unhappy and calling for change. Some are even calling for constitutional change.
In Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, the attorney and talk-radio host proposes a range of constitutional fixes, ranging from term limits to repeal of the 17th Amendment to a provision — I really like this one — moving Tax Day from April 15th to “the day before the date set for elections to federal office,” among others.
Nor is Levin the only one calling for sweeping constitutional change. A couple of years ago, Harvard Law School held a conference on holding a new Constitutional Convention — you can see my keynote on video here — in which people from the Tea Party right and the MSNBC left got together, and got along surprisingly well. (Like I said, a lot of people are unhappy.) So is it really time to rethink the United States Constitution?
Well, maybe. Proposing amendments is always fun, of course — my favorite proposal is for a House Of Repeal, a third house of Congress whose only power would be to repeal laws passed by the other two.
Right now, there’s nobody in the federal government who has an institutional interest in getting rid of programs. A house made up of people who could run for re-election only on what they’ve undone would change the dynamic pretty dramatically. And with bloated government and so many criminal laws that even the federal government can’t count them all — literally — the virtue of something like this seems pretty obvious.
On the other hand, a lot of the problem we have now comes from not following the constitution we’ve got. We have so many administrative regulations because a core constitutional principle — that only Congress can legislate — has been interpreted in ways that allow unelected bureaucrats to adopt regulations carrying the force of law with Congress almost entirely out of the loop.
Overcriminalization at the federal level is a problem because courts have interpreted Congress’s powers so broadly that almost anything can now constitute a federal crime. And the debt is skyrocketing because deficit spending separates the pain of taxation from the pleasure of paying off constituencies.
Each of these problems could be addressed by specific constitutional amendments — many of those in Levin’s book, or discussed at the Harvard conference — but the underlying problem is tougher. One way or another, the country tends to get the kind of government it deserves.
Considering how little politicians and average Americans can agree about anything I find it doubtful, if not laughable, that enough could get together and add more amendments to the Constitution. And given that government pretty much ignores the Constitution when it wants to, what would be the point?