November 28, 2014

Watcher's Council Results

"Now dis HTML is an offer you just can't refuse. I know you're gonna do the right thing, put it on yez websites and not disappoint me and my friends, right?"

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once. "
- William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act II, Scene 2

"There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

""America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, 
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."- President Abraham Lincoln

This week, we had a tie between two pieces that both dealt with President Barack Hussein Obama's plan for amnesty for illegal migrants by executive order.

Joshuapundit's -Strangling the Eagle - Barack Obama And Amnesty, Part I was my analysis of exactly what this president is proposing, and its ultimate effect on the country,much of what was hidden with President Obama's obtuse rhetoric and serial prevarication.

Bookworm's fine essay Brit Hume's loud silence reveals the ugly secret about Obama's immigration amnesty announcement goes a great deal deeper in revealing her first person account with one of the major obstacles in dealing with what the president is attempting to impose on the country -sheer cowardice in unexpected places..and as usual, she takes us right to the heart of the matter.

Since I break the ties, Bookworm's insightful piece takes the honors this week. Here's a slice:

There are some words that, as a writer, Ive always wanted to use. One of those words is cadaverous, which I think is just a lovely, almost Dickensian word. Having attended last nights delightful PRI Gala dinner, I finally have that chance. But let me start at the beginning.

I dont usually attend galas. Indeed, I dont ever attend galas, since I am almost pathologically cheap and, no matter how much I admire the speaker or expect the company to be delightful, I simply cannot make myself pay several hundred dollars for a dinner and speech. Add to that the fact that its disrespectful for me to spend huge sums of money on a political cause that my husband finds distasteful, and galas and I are not a common pairing. I only was able to attend the PRI event thanks to the incredible generosity of a local Marin conservative who sponsored a table and invited me to be one of his guests.

The event was held at the Fairmont, atop Nob Hill, which is one of the truly grand dame hotels in the world. The Fairmont was in the process of being built when the 06 quake struck, causing severe damage. Once the dust cleared, building on the hotel resumed with help from architect Julia Morgan (of Hearst Castle fame), who had all sorts of wonderful ideas about reinforced concrete for structural integrity. In 1945, the Fairmont hosted the meetings that culminated in the United Nations creation. The hotel is sufficiently charming and magnificent that I forgive it for being the venue that gave birth to that appalling antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-freedom, and anti-individualism organization. But as I so often do, I digress.

For me, there were only two problems with the evening: First, the table at which I sat was so large, and the volume of conversation so loud, that I was only able to speak to the men (very nice, interesting men) to my immediate left and right, which meant that there was a whole table full of manifestly intriguing people with whom I did not exchange a single word. Second, Steven Hayward, from Power Line, was supposed to speak there, but an attack of bronchitis kept him away. Im a big admirer and was disappointed that I couldnt meet him. The fact that those were was my only disappointments tells you that it was a damn fine evening indeed.

The food was exquisite (I love filet mignon), the speeches ranged from interesting to very interesting, and I was delighted to see former California Governor Pete Wilson receive the Sir Antony Fisher Freedom Award. I have a special reason for that delight. You see, just as in the 1980s I was a Democrat who utterly failed to appreciate what an extraordinary man, thinker, and politician Reagan was, I was still a Democrat in the 1990s, and therefore utterly failed to appreciate what an extraordinary man, thinker, and politician Wilson was. I grossly underestimated the measure of the man back then, and was therefore so pleased to stand up and applaud him now. (To appreciate what a great governor he was a fact that the MSM successfully obscured in the 1990s for unthinking young Democrats like me check out the Wikipedia articles incomplete list of his accomplishments.)

After Gov. Wilson received his award and gave a short talk, the mike was turned over to the evenings featured speaker, Brit Hume and this is where I get to use the word cadaverous. I need to start out by explaining that, since I watch TV only occasionally (to satisfy my low passion for Dancing With the Stars or to see Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey), I had no idea who Brit Hume was sufficient to justify his role as a keynote speaker at a PRI gala. You probably know that hes a former ABC correspondent and a current Fox News analyst. I did not know that.

My ignorance about Hume extended to his looks. I had no idea what he looked like. When I realized who he was, I went over to introduce myself and shake his hand, which took all of 10 seconds. (At NOUS events, protocol is to greet the speaker, and there are penalties for those who fail to do so. Having become familiar with this requirement, I like it and, if I can, extend it to all events that I attend.) Hume is very tall, and quite thin, and he has a slightly hound-doggish face, with a grayish cast to his complexion. He is a very nice looking man but he is also somewhat cadaverous looking. (And theres that word.) Hes not cadaverous in the sense of corpse-like but in the sense of haggard and thin. You TV watchers also already know what else I discovered about him, which is that he has a deep, lovely voice with a very slight Southern drawl.

Hume spoke about politics; Juan Williams; his start in an old-fashioned newspaper, complete with clattering typewriters and cigar-chomping copy editor; and Obamas planned amnesty. It was this last that riveted my attention. Hume, whom I would describe as a very centrist Republican, had put together a laundry-list of things that Republicans shouldnt do once Obama announces his amnesty. It was a comprehensive list. He started by noting that, because Republicans lack a Senate majority, Hume says its unlikely that theyll be able to put together a veto-proof anything to block the amnesty and, failing that ability, any bills the Republican Congress passes will be a waste of time and the media will use any such efforts to paint Republicans as racist and selfish.

Hume also argued strongly that the House most certainly shouldnt try to use the power of the purse to block Obama from putting the amnesty into effect because doing so will only precipitate another stand-off and shutdown. According to Hume, polls consistently reveal that voters hate shutdowns and, thanks to the media, that they always blame the Republicans, even though the president is arguably the true proximate cause. (I have a different feeling about shutdowns and the accompanying theater. Hume, incidentally, made clear that he has the lowest possible opinion of Cruz and the Tea Party.)

Impeachment, said Hume, is a no-go. The last time Republicans did that, it ended very badly for them. Just as with shutdowns, the public is hostile to this type of thing and, thanks to the media, its always the Republicans fault.

A lawsuit? Well, its true that Obama is acting outside of his Constitutional authority, but Hume believes that Congress will be found to lack standing to sue because it will not have sustained a direct injury as a result of the amnesty.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Dennis Prager We Have a Moral Divide, Not a Racial One submitted by Joshuapundit. It's one of the better observations I've seeninprint about what ails America.

Here are this weeks full results. Only Bookworm was unable to vote this week,but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watchers Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

Its a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you wont want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And dont forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..cause were cool like that, y'know?

|| Greg, 06:07 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (139) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 26, 2014

Obama Admits Usurpation Of Congressional Powers!

If Democrats cared more about the country than about their party, we would see impeachment and removal before Christmas based upon this statement.

President Obama was slightly annoyed after illegal immigration advocates interrupted him during his speech on his executive actions on immigration reform.

Dont just start yelling, young ladies, Obama said as multiple women stood up to demand that Obama stop deporting people.

I let you holler, he said as they continued shouting. Youve got to listen to me too.

Obama said that the protesters were right about a lot of illegal immigrants getting deported but that he was acting to change it.

What youre not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law, Obama said.

Obama is president -- and therefore lacks the authority or the power to change the law. He has therefore publicly admitted to an act that he knows to be unconstitutional. Congressional Republicans need to take any and all efficacious actions to undo his unconstitutional usurpation of congressional power. As noted above, though, that does not include impeachment, because Democrats in the Senate will not do their duty and vote to remove Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors. But this statement is evidence that should be used as a part of any lawsuit to overturn Obama's unlawful executive order.

|| Greg, 08:45 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (64) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 25, 2014

Some Thoughts On Ferguson

Some may notice that I've said very little about matters in Ferguson, Missouri. Such reticence may surprise some people, since I voice my opinion on so many controversial issues. Others may assume it is due to cowardice, fearing that I would say the wrong thing.

But there are a number of reasons I've been quiet about the shooting of Mike Brown by Darren Wilson.

One of them is that my brother is a cop -- albeit in another part of the country far from Ferguson -- and I hope and pray there would be no rush to judgment if my brother ever had to fire a shot in the line of duty. I would hope and pray that there were not charges filed against him simply because a howling mob demanded them.

Another is that I teach in a school where my students are poor and minority (though more likely to be named Miguel Moreno than Mike Brown). I wasn't ready to rush to judge Mike Brown without evidence. Even as late as last night, when we began to officially receive details about what the evidence showed, I was prepared to accept that Mike Brown had not tried to grab Darren Wilson's gun and that he had not turned around and come back toward Wilson in an aggressive manner.

A third is that I used to live not far from Ferguson, and used to regularly shop and visit friends in that community. I know it has changed in the last 25 or so years, but that area still holds a special place in my heart. I wished to day nothing to dishonor that community.

Lastly, during my St. Louis days I knew a number of folks involved in this ongoing drama. A couple of old friends work in the DA's office in St. Louis County. I'm acquainted with Brown family advisers Erick Vickers and Anthony Gray -- indeed, I recall one particularly intense argument with Vickers over beers in which we expressed sharply differing views over race relations. Congressman Lacy Clay and I have shared a meal together, and I know him to be an honorable man even if I do find myself in disagreement with him here.

As you can see, I have had reasons for holding my tongue.

But after last night's announcement, I have a few words to say.

First, I think that Robert McCulloch got things right when he decided to give the grand jury the evidence without recommending charges. That is historically how grand juries have been used, and we would do well to go back to the days when grand juries made decisions rather than simply rubber-stamping the District Attorney's recommended charges. A group of citizens heard the evidence -- all of it -- and made the decision, not one politically motivated government official.

Second, I think the decision not to charge Darren Wilson was correct. We know know that he did know about Michael Brown's earlier robbery and that he did have his description at the time Brown and his accomplice were confronted. We know from the forensic evidence that shots were fired inside of Wilson's car and that this was due to Brown's effort to get Wilson's gun. We know that the eyewitness testimony most in line with the forensic evidence unambiguously states that Mike Brown did not have his hands up and that he was advancing on Officer Wilson. One can argue whether or not shooting was the best course of action, but one cannot deny that it was legitimate and lawful for Wilson to do so.

Third, I believe that there has been a systematic attempt to foment violence since August 9. From lying witnesses and fake witnesses in August to rabble-rousing "community organizers" and activists over the last three months to camera-hungry politicians today, there has been a false narrative constructed designed to make it appear that Ferguson in 2014 is the Jim Crow South that is six decades in the past. The sad thing is that despite their being morally responsible for the violence that has taken place, there is no way to hold them legally responsible for the directly foreseeable consequences of their words and actions.

And then there are the parents of Michael brown. On August 9 I felt great sympathy for them -- and I did for a very long time afterwards. It is a terrible thing to lose a child, all the more so when that child dies due to an act of violence that was preventable. However, they have spend the last 100 days pushing the false narrative that their son was an innocent and that he bore no responsibility for his death. the reality is that their son's last minutes were spent engaging in acts of theft and violence that led directly to his death. Rather than condemning Darren Wilson, they should be apologizing to him for their son's actions and for their own words vilifying him. Instead, they continue to engage in a course of conduct that shows that the apple did not fall far from the tree as they continue to make threats to "make Darren Wilson pay" for shooting their son. No wonder their son had no morals and no respect for authority -- it is apparent that he was raised by parents who lacked those character traits.

So in the end, we have a tragedy. A community lies in ruins for the second time in three months because of the misdeeds of a thug, the lies of his accomplice and a few fame-seekers, and the incitement of activists. My prayer is that Ferguson recovers -- but one has to question what sensible business owner would rebuild their business there, and how they could afford the insurance premiums necessary to protect their investment after the last few months of violence. In the end, it will be the innocent, non-violent people who suffer the consequences of these last weeks. And that is the real tragedy, not the death of a young thug at the hands of a police officer who he decided to attack.

|| Greg, 07:54 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 24, 2014

Houston Texans Screwed Again On QB Front

Well damn.

Last week it appeared that the Houston Texans had a new franchise quarterback in Ryan Mallett.

Yesterday it looked like Mallett was highly overrated.

Today comes the word that Mallett was playing hurt yesterday and now he is out for the season.

And what, we long-suffering Houston Texans fans are asking, do we do now?

Quarterback Ryan Mallett is out for the season with a torn right pectoral muscle that will require surgery, according to two familiar with the situation.

The Texans have refused to comment today. Coach Bill OBrien has his regularly scheduled Monday news conference at 2:30 today.

Ryan Fitzpatrick, who started the first nine games and compiled a 4-5 record, is expected to start against Tennessee on Sunday. Rookie Tom Savage is the other quarterback on the roster. Its unclear if the Texans will sign a third quarterback.

A torn pectoral muscle affects the entire chest and shoulder.

Mallett was originally injured preparing for his first start at Cleveland, where he played well in the 23-7 victory. Last week, he was participated in practice and was listed as probable on the injury report with a chest injury.

So, does this mean the return of Ryan Fitzpatrick?

Does it mean that we see Tom Savage start?

Or does it mean that the franchise will be signing a new quarterback to help us finish out the season?

Regardless, it seems like the team's flickering playoff hopes are being snuffed out.

Of course, this does lead some of us to wonder if there is this possibility.


|| Greg, 01:29 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Forum -- November 24

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What was your reaction to the President's New Executive Order On Immigration?

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD : Kinda shocked at the lawlessness. I mean, if a GOP pres decided to Executive Order a Berlin Wall type barrier along the South 40 - ppl would totally freak. Methinks the GOP will NOT fall into an over reaction trap - instead they'll use the Cruz Maneuver:

Step number one that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce that if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty, Cruz told Chris Wallace on Faux News Sunday. If the majority leader would announce that, it would impose real consequences on the president and the administration.

Cruz didnt say if he regards the attorney general as a vital national security position, leaving open the question of whether he wants the GOP to block confirmation of Loretta Lynch, 44s nominee to replace Attorney General Eric The Red Holder.

The second constitutional power weve got is the power of the purse, Cruz continued. And we should fund, one at a time, the critical priorities of the federal government, but also use the power of the purse to attach riders.

By riders, Cruz is likely referring to an appropriations bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security but stipulate that none of the funds appropriated may be used to implement 44s recent executive orders. And, following Cruzs thinking, if 44 vetoes that bill next year, it wouldnt result in a government-wide shutdown because Congress will have passed bills funding other parts of government.

Cruzs plan is very similar to the one he hoped to execute during the fight to defund the health care thing, with one crucial difference: Republicans now control the Senate, so Harry Reid, in theory, cant block the bills that would fund the rest of government.

Also, tired of the tired refrain that somehow deporting 11 million ppl is undoable. Au Contraire mon frer!

Mass Deportation is very doable - after all - if the Germans can tote off over half that many folks and kill them - we can certainly carry off that many folks to their nation of origin and ensure they have a sack lunch on the bus.

Think of the economic boom the nation would enjoy - thousands of busses, drivers, relief drivers, petrol, safety officers, translators, sack lunch fixer uppers, paper pushers etc etc.

Or how about fining sanctuary cities for helping craft and continue the entire sorry mess to begin with? And the sudden stoppage of the drain on municipalities resources for illiterate and semi literate unskilled workers and families as they shed the 'shadow dwellers' by the bus loads simply raises quality of life for citizens.

The Right Planet : So often times those of us who want a secure border and current immigration laws to be enforced are labeled as xenophobes, racists, and the like, by the rampagin open borders crowdthe implication being were anti-immigrant. Hey, I have no problem with legal immigration. I think its a good thing. But we have immigration laws, like most nations do, thank you very much. George Stephanopoulos asked the president, "If you can selectively enforce immigration law, what prevents another president from not enforcing tax laws?" Obama's response? Oh, that would be wrong. And how do legal immigrants feel about Obama's imperial decree to grant executive amnesty after they followed all the rules? You can read more about that here. Back out quiet.

JoshuaPundit: First we have to start by understanding this. This was not about compassion, or fairness or the good of the nation. It was about politics. The president's aim here is to create a brand new bloc of government-dependent Democrat voters. See if in one year or so there isn't a push by the Democrats and this president to provide these people with a streamlined 'path to citizenship' and voting. "After all, they're here, they're paying taxes..."

The other reason it was done in this way is because the president hopes to provoke the Republicans into a government shutdown come December 12th and recreate what happened previously, where he deliberately shut down things that would most impact and inconvenience the American people while blaming it on the GOP while his media sycophants sing the same song.. In his mind, he's still as popular as he was back then and the midterm elections meant nothing.

I think the Republican caucus did exactly the right thing by getting out of Dodge just now. They need to plan a cohesive strategy, some of which I explored here.And they need to feel out who's really on board and whom isn't. For instance, Senator McCain, the creature of his biggest financial backer UniVision cannot be trusted.

Lawsuits are not only useless but take far too long. First, everything connected with the president's new executive diktat can be defunded by congress, and anyone whom believes the nonsense that entities like the USCIS can't be defunded 'because they operate using fees rather than appropriations' needs to click on the above link to find out exactly how ridiculous that is.

They can halt any of his nominations and appointments, saying quite frankly that since this president has shown his contempt for the incoming congress and the separation of powers, they feel under no obligation to cooperate with him on anything.

They can pass common sense legislation that forces him to use his veto pen and shows whom the real obstructionists in congress are. They can block anything he plans to do including his planned global warming $3 billion slush fund and honestly say that until he reverses himself, that's simply how things are going to be. This can easily apply to ObamaCare also if the Supreme Court doesn't gut it first, since the president has said he will never sign any legislation repealing or changing it in any way.

I personally would extend the defunding to the president's discretionary funds. No more lavish fundraisers and vacations on the public's dime, severe cuts in his and the First Lady's personal more personal chefs, masseuses, hair stylists and 'assistants.' No more pricey state dinners and parties featuring Hollywood entertainers, no more greens fees for his golf games. Let the president pay for these himself, if he likes.

And most important of all, the very first thing the new House and Senate need to do is pool their resources and hire a special prosecutor and staff to collect evidence so the House can prepare articles of impeachment.

I think a lot of people get confused and think that impeachment is a legal remedy because it has a legal process. It is actually a political remedy, and only works when a president has gone so far off the rails as to be unpopular enough with the American people that it can succeed. I think the president (whose approval ratings I think are at least 5-10% exaggerated in his favor) is at that point now, and that will become even more obvious if the articles are prepared properly and the American people get a good summation of everything this lawless, would-be autocrat has done to disgrace his office.

At that point, even many Democrats are likely to urge him to resign to save themselves, dangling a pre-arranged pardon okayed by soon to be interim President Biden as an incentive.

Once he's gone, Congress can simply reverse what he's done. And a far better solution to illegal migration can be formulated, one that protects the borders and deports people here illegally whom do not benefit America in the 21st century while importing other immigrants who do.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: President Obama knows once the newly elected Republican led Senate and House members convene in 2015 they will not pass a comprehensive immigration bill he would sign, which is why he issued this executive order. This action defies the powers granted to the executive branch in our Constitution. Even President Obama acknowledged on many occasions he did not have the power to act unilaterally on this issue.

The President is correct in saying that rounding up and deporting millions of illegal immigrants in this country is not practical. He said that by issuing this executive order he was being fair and just. The Republicans should appeal to the immigrants who have waited for years to come here legally, and to every American citizen whose hard earned tax money will be used to pay for this illegal amnesty. Is the President being fair and just to them?

I would love to see the Republicans put forth a bill building on this executive order to enforce and enhance border security, assure criminals who are caught are deported immediately, and those given permission to stay under this executive order should never be permitted to become American citizens unless they leave the country and apply through the proper legal channels to do so.

The goal of the left in granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is to create a new voting block of millions of voters who will vote for Democrat candidates. The Republicans can stop this by not allowing them to become citizens. Let them work here legally, out of the shadows, and take advantage of the opportunities available to them. They should not be rewarded for their crimes by being given a special path to citizenship. I believe this is fair and just, not just to the illegal immigrants, but to those of us who are American citizens by birth or who went through the proper legal channels to become American citizens.

The President will not sign such a law, but the Republicans can show the American people that the purpose of this executive order is to gain millions of new Democrat voters and has nothing to do with compassion.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watchers Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

Its a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you wont want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And dont forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..cause were cool like that, y'know?

|| Greg, 12:48 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (17) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

This morning in Jerusalem Palestinians attacked Jews who were praying in a synagogue.To have this kind of act, which is a pure result of incitement, of calls for days of rage, of just irresponsibility, is unacceptable.

People who have come to worship God in a sanctuary of a synagogue were murdered in a holy place in an act of pure terror and senseless brutality and murder. - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry

There are two races of men in this world but only these two: the race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man. - Victor Frankl, Auschwitz survivor, in 'Man's Search For Meaning'

"It's not enough for us to say: There are those carrying out Ribat (religious war over land claimed to be Islamic). We must all carry out Ribat in the Al-Aqsa [Mosque]. It's not enough for us to say: The settlers have arrived [at the Mosque]. They have come, and  we have to prevent them, by any means necessary, from entering the Sanctuary. They have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. - Mahmoud Abbas, inciting violence on Official Palestinian Authority TV, Oct. 19, 2014

This week's winning essay was Joshuapundit's -The Blood Of Zion Cries Out My reaction on the day four rabbis and Druze traffic cop who tried to stop the killers were murdered with guns and meat cleavers in a Jerusalem synagogue. Here's a slice:

Early this morning, four Jews at morning prayers were murdered in a synagogue in Jerusalem after two Palestinian broke in and assaulted the worshipers with gunfire and meat cleavers.

Many others were wounded and four are in critical condition.

The terrorist attack took place in Har Hof a predominantly Orthodox neighborhood at the at the Kehilat Yaakov synagogue on Agasi Street.

The Murder victims were identified as Rabbi Moshe Twersky, the head of the Torat Moshe yeshiva, 59; 40-year-old  Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky; 50-year-old Rabbi Kalman Levine; and 68-year-old Rabbi Avraham Shmuel Goldberg(HY"D). Rabbi Kupinsky, Rabbi Levine and Rabbi Twersky were all American citizens, while Rabbi Goldberg was a British subject. A Druze policeman, 30-year-old Master Sergeant Zidan Sif subsequently died of his wounds as well, and all Israel will mourn and honor him.

The killers stormed the synagogue at 7 AM local time. There was no warning and no way for the victims to defend themselves.The rabbis were murdered during the sacred prayer of Shimoneh Esrei, with siddurim (prayer books) in their hands and their tefillum on.

Eye witness Ya'akov Amos said: 'The terrorist moved to within a metre of me then started shooting. One, two, three, bang, bang, bang. I immediately hit the ground and tried to protect myself with a prayer stand. He kept screaming 'Allah hu'Akbar'.


There was blood everywhere, so much that one of the medical workers slipped in it and broke his leg.

The international reaction was interesting. Even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed shocked, with his voice quavering. He even used the "T" word and called for an end to incitement against Jews.

Phillip Hammond, Britain's Foreign Secretary contented himself with a bloodless statement that 'both sides' should seek to 'reduce tension.' President Obama, of course, said much the same thing. Somehow, I doubt they would have merely talked about both sides reducing tension if four imams had been murdered by a Jew and Qu'rans profaned in this way.

Israel's economics minister Naftali Bennett was interviewed by the BBC today, and provides us with another indication of exactly how sick and depraved Britain has become when it comes to Israel and the Jews.

(just a hint - when Bennett mentions Abu Mazen, he is using Mahmoud Abbas's nom de guerre, the terrorist name he used as Arafat's second-in-command.)

Notice how the interviewer doesn't even address the issue of Abbas inciting terrorism, but pulls the case of an Arab bus driver who died yesterday, as though that made the savage murder of four Jews at prayer legitimate. That Arab driver, by the way, had a full investigation and an autopsy done on him and there is no doubt he committed suicide. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, Israel jails murderers no matter who they are.

I really felt like saying 'Kol Hakavod' when Bennett held up a picture of one of the victims, which the interviewer hastily told him to put down lest he upset the gentle sensibilities of her viewers. I think it is absolutely essential to do just that - to let the British public see what their government is funding and supporting. And I hope it upsets them to the point of utter shame.

At the end of the interview, Bennett says that Britain is going to have to make a choice of whether they support the Free World or not. As I'm sure Bennett knows, the British Government has already made that choice.Which is why, perhaps, they feel compelled to put up with soldiers being beheaded in broad daylight and no go areas for police and non-Muslims in London and other large British cities.

The murderers were both killed in a shootout with police at the scene. They were Ghassan and Oday Abu Jamal from the Jabal Mukaber neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Needless to say, they were acclaimed as heroes and martyrs by all the factions of the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians.

A Palestinian woman scatters sweets as she celebrates with others an attack on a Jerusalem synagogue

Palestinian supporters of The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (PFLP), a small militant group, dance while waving their flags, after they heard the news of the shooting

 "We responded with shouts of joy when we received the news about their deaths," Ala'a Abu Jamal said of his cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal to Yedioth Aharonoth. "People here distributed candies to guests who visited us, and there was joy for the martyrs."

In a message published on its official new website Al-Resalah, Hamas said the attack was a quality development in fighting the occupation. We highly value the heroism of its operatives. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri praised the attack on Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera as heroic, calling for more attacks of the same kind.

 Hamas MP Mushir Al-Masri happily wrote on Twitter that Jerusalem has nothing but men who love martyrdom. The heroes of the knife are in Jerusalem. The heroes of the run-over [car attacks] are in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem men take revenge.

And he posted this on his Facebook page:

A cartoon posted on the Facebook page of Hamas MP Mushir Al-Masri has perpetrators of the Jerusalem attack dressed in religious Jewish garb asking 'where are they?' (photo credit: Facebook)

The Arab killer is asking 'Where are they hiding?" Needless to say, in spite of what this cartoon shows none of the worshipers were armed.

And Fatah? Mahmoud Abbas, AKA Abu Mazen issued a 'condemnation' that wasn't one. In a statement (in English, not Arabic)it said that The Palestinian presidency" condemns violence "from whatever source" and "demands an end to the invasions of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the provocations of the Settlers."

In other words, 'So sorry, but unless you surrender Jerusalem to us expect more of the same.'

This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who accused Jews of contaminating Al-Aqsa Mosque last week, who just a few days ago was telling his people, in Arabic, to 'defend Jerusalem' by any means necessary. This is the same Mahmoud Abbas who said nothing when Fatah published cartoons and Facebook posts encouraging terrorist attacks on Jews and days of rage to defend the 'threatened' Al-Aqsa.

Tawfik Tirawi, former chief of the Palestinian General Security in the West Bank and a member of Fatahs Central Committee made it even plainer, and in Arabic. Today he told a radio station in Hebron that the attack was nothing but a reaction to the recent crimes of the occupation and the settlers in occupied Jerusalem and across the nation. The threats of the occupation against our people and the Palestinian leadership, represented by the president, will only increase our efforts in safeguarding our rights.

His remarks were reprinted on Fatah's official Facebook page.

I should make something clear here. This is not the fault of Abbas, or Hamas, or any of the Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians.

It is the fault of the Israeli government.

A significant number of the Palestinians are simply acting as they have always acted since the 1920's, and these tendencies were unleashed even further once Arafat and the PLO were allowed in to take over after Oslo.

Israeli governments since Oslo have always allowed themselves to be pressured to ignore these instances of sheer release  convicted murderers, to make concessions to the terrorist entities on Israel's borders, and most of all to avoid  finishing them off entirely when their violence and bloodshed mandated a response. This has been especially true since Barack Obama, who styles himself as the Palestinian's very own community organizer entered the White House.

Is it any wonder that this sort of thing continues to happen? Is it really so puzzling that after allowing Hamas to continue in Gaza and maintaining any kind of relationship with Abbas and the PLO once they allied themselves openly with Hamas that they would resort back to Arafat's tactics?

Yasser Arafat himself outlined for his followers what this war was really about. On Jordanian TV, right after signing the Oslo Accords he was criticized for signing a peace agreement with the Jews. He responded by reminding his audience of the Peace of Hubidiyeh, a treaty Mohammed made with the Quraysh tribe that he violated as soon as he was strong enough to massacre them, a story every Muslim knows. And then he outlined exactly what this war was about, saying that "either the Jews will push us into the sea or we will push them into the sea."

Arafat, the leaders of Hamas and numerous members of Fatah have sung the same songs for years. Is it their fault that Israeli governments for years have refused to take them seriously?

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Victor Davis Hanson A Moral primer submitted by Joshuapundit. Hanson is an old classicist among his other virtues.In this essay, he looks at the state of America and the world, and especially the president who leads us and sees a lack of political and personal morality as a deadly problem, possibly a terminal one for our republic. Do read it.

Here are this weeks full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watchers Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

Its a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you wont want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And dont forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..cause were cool like that, y'know?

|| Greg, 12:48 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Weasel Of The Week

Hello and welcome to the Watcher's Council's 'Weasel Of The Week' nominations, where we award the famed golden plastic Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations and check back Thursday to see which Weasel gets the votes and walks off with the statuette of shame!

 Here are this weeks' nominees...

House Minority Leader Nancy 'What VISA IPO?' Pelosi!!

 The Independent Sentinel :    Nancy Pelosi was so very weasley this past week.

I do not believe what happened the other night is a wave, Pelosi said about the election, she described it as an ebb tide.

She can say any dumb thing she wants because the imbeciles who vote for her will continue to vote for her no matter what she says.

She went into a crazed rant about sexism and ageism last week because CBS news reporter Nancy Cordes asked her if she gave any thought to stepping down as the leader.

After she was asked the question, Nancy said, What was the day, she replied to Cordes, when any of you said to Mitch McConnell when they lost the Senate three times in a row . . . Arent you getting a little old, Mitch? Shouldnt you step aside?

Its interesting that, as a woman, to see how many times that question is asked of a woman and how many times that question is never asked of Mitch McConnell, Pelosi added.

The rant continued: I was never on the front of Time magazine even though I was the first woman wasnt that a curiosity? Then the Republicans win and [House Speaker John] Boehners on the front of Time magazine. Mitch McConnell wins, hes on the front of Time magazine. . . . As a woman, its like, is there a message here?

Best yet was her big lie about Jonathan Gruber.

She said she didn't know him but there is video of her referencing him in 2009.

President Barack Hussein Obama!

The Noisy Room : Barack Obama for his thuggish response when questioned if he has the lawful/Constitutional authority to sign an Executive Order giving Amnesty to at a minimum of 5 million illegal aliens and a more realistic estimate of 34 million:

Showing no signs of backing down, President Obama today strongly pushed back against critics questioning his authority to bypass Congress and act unilaterally to reform the nations immigration system.

There is a very simple solution to this perception that somehow I'm exercising too much executive authority: pass a bill I can sign on this issue, he said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia.

If Congress does act, Obama said, Metaphorically, I'll crumple up whatever executive actions that we take and we'll toss them in the wastebasket because we will now have a law that addresses these issues.

The president said he has received legal advice from his attorney general about the limits of his executive power to act on immigration, but would not comment further.

In other words, my way or no way. Amnesty will happen, according to the dictator, either by a bill he approves or by decree - his choice is no choice at all. It is a mafia-style threat. And you'll find out if I have the authority when I do the dirty deed. A bigger weasel never scurried the earth.

Obama campaign manager David 'Red Diaper' Axlerod!!

  The Right Planet:David Axelrod, who tweeted, "As one who worked hard to make ACA and its benefits clear, let me say: if you looked up 'stupid' in dictionary, you'd find Gruber's picture." Huh. Imagine that--throw Gruber under that bus. An interesting comment coming from Axelrod, considering he was present with Jonathan Gruber at a July 20, 2012, meeting at the Oval Office where they discussed how to get around the CBO scoring of Obamacare.

Via ABC News:

In addition to the president and Elmendorf, present in the meeting were White House officials such as Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag (a former CBO director himself), National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christy Romer, senior adviser David Axelrod, and press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Others were there as well, including Department of Health and Human Services adviser Meena Seshamani, Harvard University economist David Cutler and Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institute, who was founding director of CBO from 1975-1983.

Although the ABC piece did not mention Gruber by name, White House Logs show Jonathan Gruber entered the White House at the same time as David Cutler for the meeting in the West Wing.,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
Hollywood Used-To-Be and ber Progressive Norman Lear!!

 Virginia Right! : I nominate Norman Lear for his remarks on MSNBC. Lear was asked what Archie Bunker would think about the TEA Party:

When asked if Archie Bunker would be a member of the Tea Party today Lear said, "Archie would have denied the Tea Party. He would started the coffee party. He was not a hater and that was the secert of Archie Bunker, he was not a hater. He was much more afraid of progress then he was um of a bigotry. Black people moving into the neighborhood, wait a minute that never happened before."

Well, there it is! Are these worthy weasels or what? Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watchers Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

Its a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you wont want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And dont forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..cause were cool like that, y'know?

|| Greg, 12:44 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Forum -- November 17

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Direction Do You See The Democrats Going In 2016?

The Independent Sentinel : The entire party has been brought to the far-left. There are only far-left and those who obey the far-left.

If it has anything to do with deceit, non-transparency, divisiveness, promoting legislation that weakens our economy and diminishes our stature in the world, that's where it will go.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason:The Democrats are going to push the first woman president in 2016. Our choices will be new doting, giddy grandmother Hillary Rodham Clinton or Native American woman Elizabeth (Liawatha) Warren. Hillary Clinton will campaign as a woman familiar and sympathetic with the plight of the common people and all about family values. She and Bill were so broke after they left the White House they could barely afford to pay the mortgages on their two homes, if we remember.

Warren will campaign against the corporatists - the 1% (knowing firsthand their evil capitalist ways having lived among them for much of her adult life) and bring voice to the 99% remnants of the #Occupy movement.

These two will be positioned to address the response of the voters after the 2014 mid-term elections. If President Obama is perceived to be taking us too far left over the next two years, Hillary will be the moderate nominee. If the country is docilely swept along with the hard left then Elizabeth Warren will be the nominee.

The Republicans face the challenge of nominating a candidate who can clearly state the need for a restoration to the founding principles of the Constitution and the rule of law and who will appeal to a majority of Americans in order to defeat the Democrats. There must be a clear distinction between the two parties. Im going out on a limb here and saying the choice between a moderate Hillary Clinton and a moderate Republican will result in a Clinton win.

 GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: If Hillary does not run, Cuomo seems to be in a better position. Serving in a state that is much larger than Maryland, Cuomo has enjoyed a higher national profile and his fight for same-sex marriage received greater media attention. The firm, PPP, released a poll this week showing Hillary at 64% and Andrew Cuomo at 3% (fourth after Hillary, Vice President Biden, and recently elected and liberal hero U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren).

Maryland Gov Martin O'Malley polled at 1%. The same poll found that without Hillary, Cuomo would be at 10%- and at 22% with neither Hillary nor Biden in the primary. OMalley still remained at 1% without Hillary and was at 8% without either Hillary or Biden.

JoshuaPundit : A lot of ifs here. There are various points to consider in what amounts to a civil war.

While it's almost a certainty that Barack Obama's popularity will continue to decrease even if he isn't impeached or forced to resign ala' Nixon,  he is still going to remain a very powerful figure behind the scenes. He controls the Democrat database that's invaluable in turnout and fundraising and  has already told the DNC in response to their request that he's keeping it after he leaves office, but that parts of it are available for lease for the right price.Also, no matter whether he finishes his term or not, he is still going to be a key endorsement needed for black support.While his animosity towards the Clintons is well known, if  Hillary runs for president, his support will be vital to her  - or any other Democrat- winning in 2016. There's absolutely no way of telling which way he'll go.

And the racial complement is huge. While articles on how Republicans have lost the black and Latino vote (demonstrably untrue about Latinos, but I digress) are a dime a dozen, there are very few articles about how the Democrats have largely lost the white vote. So a massive black turnout in Democrat urban enclaves is a key component.

Another factor is a fairly thin Democrat bench. Two bad midterms in a row have wiped out a whole generation of younger Democrats capable of running and having a shot at winning a national election as well as competing in future state elections. Some of the few more moderate Democrats (relatively speaking) still left like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Mark Warner of Virginia are too conservative for the Democrat's leftist base, or lack sufficient name recognition.

So aside from Hillary, there's not much left besides Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo or Joe Biden, whom I don't see as a serious candidate.

I doubt Senator Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of NY has the fundraising clout to compete with the Clinton machine...if Hillary runs. I think that's still an open question. But if she does, she will run on three themes - being the first woman president, income inequality, and a revisionist portrait of 'the good old days' of the Clinton years. Her problem is that she will have to run to the Left in order to woo the party's base, which is not fond of her. So she would have to find someone like Elizabeth Warren, Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, Deval Patrick, NY mayor Ric DeBlasio, Martin O'Malley or maybe Al Franken as a running mate. A lot of the others are simply too old..Elizabeth Warren herself is 65 and Al Franken is 63.

If Hillary doesn't run, it will be a sheer nutroots campaign, with Cuomo and Warren as the two main competitors.

Harry Reid is already showing that he recognizes this by creating a Dem leadership position as yet unnamed for Elizabeth Warren, as a bridge to the progressive fascist wing of the party.

The Republicans are going to have to field someone who can articulately voice conservative principles, point to the misery of the Obama years and make a credible case for real change. Another 'moderate' like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney redux or Jeb Bush would not be good choices at all.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watchers Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

Its a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you wont want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And dont forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..cause were cool like that, y'know?

|| Greg, 12:43 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

"He Wasn't Up To The Job"

I find this assessment of Chuck Hagel to be ironic, given the administration he is a part of.

The New York Times broke the news early Monday morning, reporting that Hagel was resigning under pressure and was quickly confirmed by administration sources.

According to NBC News, senior defense officials said that Hagel was forced to resign.

He wasnt up to the job, one senior official said.

Hagel took office in Feb 27, 2013 with heavy praise from Obama when he was first nominated.

Let's be honest -- many Obama appointees were not "up to the job."

You know, like the ones who couldn't file their taxes correctly.

Or the one's who couldn't comply with subpoenas.

Or the ones who couldn't administer the law impartially and instead targeted political opponents.

Heck -- let's not forget the one who declared that it really didn't make any difference who screwed up and was responsible for the deaths of American diplomatic personnel.

And then there was the first selection made by Obama -- Joe Biden -- who isn't up to the vice presidency, a job that is the moral equivalent of Mr. Irrelevant in the NFL draft.

To be honest, we've seen for six years that Obama himself is not up to the job.

So why pick on Hagel?

|| Greg, 11:51 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 22, 2014

Mexico Demands Entrance Fee From Foreigners!

The hypocrisy! It burns!

If you are a United States citizen and cross the border frequently you may have to pay a fee to go into Mexico.

The National Immigration Institute in Mexico (INAMI) has started a pilot program in which foreigners that enter Mexican territory for more than seven days or they will be involved in paid work, they will have to pay 306 pesos, or about 28 US dollars.

We are doing what should be done, said Rudolfo Figueroa, representative of INAMI in Baja California. Foreigners who enter Mexico have the obligation to register; if they will be in national territory for more than seven days, they have to pay the right of non-residents.

But we Americans aren't even allowed to keep Mexicans from illegally entering our country or sending them back when they do without being called hateful and racist.

|| Greg, 02:48 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

If Bill Cosby Allegations Are Career Ending, How Can Bill Clinton Campaign For Candidates Or Become First Husband

Seriously -- how can any elected official who campaigned with Bill Clinton be allowed to take office after using a known sex-criminal as a part of their campaign? How can Hillary Clinton be elected President and bring Bill back to the White House with her? Why are Democrats engaged in such a despicable War on Women?

BILL COSBYS career as a beloved comedian is in shambles in the wake of decades-old accusations of rape and sexual assault. In the past week alone as more and more women come forward with allegations NBC has called off a proposed new Cosby comedy, Netflix has canceled a 77th Cosby birthday celebration, and the cable network TV Land has pulled reruns of The Cosby Show.

Yet, amid this media uproar, Bill Clintons career as revered statesman soars.

* * *

Juanita Broaddrick, a Clinton campaign volunteer from the early Arkansas days, accused Clinton in 1998 of raping her when he was attorney general. Clinton eventually settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in 1994 by Paula Jones, relating to incidents she said happened when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee. Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer who worked on Clintons 1992 campaign, accused him of groping her in the White House in 1993.

Maybe we expect more from a sitcom fantasy figure than we do from real-life politicians.

Then, of course, there was Clintons affair with Monica Lewinsky. While consensual, the details showcased the huge power differential between a president and a White House intern, and the deniability Clinton believed it gave him. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, he famously declared.

Come on, liberals -- why don't you "believe the victims". The "preponderance of evidence" shows Bill Clinton to be a serial sexual abuser. And the evidence against Bill Clinton is at least as compelling -- and at least as serious -- as that against Bill Cosby. So why isn't the media -- both serious journalists for big-name networks and newspapers and hyperventilating screamers like Nancy Grace -- probing the Clinton allegations again, seeking out more victims, and demanding that the careers of both Bill Clinton and his rape-apologist spouse be be cast on the ash heap of history?

|| Greg, 12:04 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Look At Which Convicted Criminals Get To Stay Under The Despot-In-Chief's Imperial Decree Granting Obamnesty To Illegals

Foreigners who are just committing the crimes that Americans won't commit.

According to rules being prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, lower deportation priority will go to

aliens convicted of a "significant misdemeanor," which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence).

Now the proposed rules do say such folks "should be" deported -- but deportation is optional and may be waived if a bureaucrat decides that the criminal alien can stay. The standard for making that determination is quite low, and under this administration will likely mean that deportation is not going to happen. So here's what that means.

Indeed, you can have done time for any number of other serious offenses and the Obamnesty decree will protect you. And you only get bumped up to the mandatory deportation list if you commit three such offenses -- but only if they arise out of three separate and distinct incidents.

So much for Obama's speech telling America that his actions only protected those who can "pass a criminal background check". Obama lied -- but then again, Obama has lied to Americans time and again and this is just the latest example.

|| Greg, 10:53 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (276) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 21, 2014

Bar Obama From Addressing Congress For State Of The Union!

That is my counter-proposal in response to the interesting suggestion found in this article.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton tells Breitbart News that Congress should boycott President Barack Obamas next State of the Union speech as part of its response to Obamas executive amnesty for five million or more illegal aliens.

That seems to be one appropriate response, Fitton said in an email. Imagine if half of the chamber is empty.

I disagree members of Congress should not shun the House chamber when Barack Obama comes to call. Instead, they should bar his entry to the chamber altogether and refuse to proffer an invitation for him to come and speak at all.


Now wait, I can hear some of you saying. Isnt delivering the State of the Union Address a constitutionally mandated function of the President?

And the correct answer to that question is that it is not.

Article II, Section 3 contains only this requirement:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient

Notice, there is nothing there about a presidential address to Congress. While George Washington and John Adams did make such addresses, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice and instead communicated with Congress in the form of a letter or written report to the Legislative Branch, on the grounds that the speech appeared to be too similar to British practice of the monarchs Address from the Throne. That remained the practice until Woodrow Wilson decided he wished to speak to Congress in person, and subsequent presidents have continued that practice.

But the situation today is different.

Last night, Barack Obama announced a course of action unprecedented in American history. In direct defiance of Congress, which has been unwilling to pass legislation to change our immigration laws, Obama chose to engage in an action of dictatorial hubris unprecedented in this age of the imperial presidency. He has declared that he will not see to it that the nations immigration laws are faithfully executed and that he will instead create a new legal status for many of those who have broken our nations immigration laws and shown contempt for American sovereignty.

In light of his attack upon the very framework of our Constitutional Republic, why should Barack Obama be permitted to address the elected representatives of the American people? Why should he be permitted to appropriate the House chamber for his dog and pony show after having infringed upon the legislative prerogatives of the House of Representatives? Why should he be permitted to summon the Senators to hear him speak after having dismissed them as irrelevant? Last night he attacked and denigrated one of the three branches of government established by the Constitution, and there is no reason to think he will not further insult the dignity of the Legislative Branch if given this platform. After all, this is the man who has in the past insulted used the occasion of the State of the Union address to insult the justices of the Supreme Court -- the pinnacle of the third of the three co-equal branches of our government -- for having dared to interpret the Constitution in a manner which protected political speech.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell need to make it known immediately that there will be no invitation for Obama to address the Congress until and unless he is prepared to rescind his executive order, apologize to the assembled Legislative Branch for his unconstitutional action, and accept a formal censure for his misdeeds. If Obama is unwilling to accept those conditions, then he can put his report in writing and send it down Pennsylvania Avenue via courier. If that practice was good enough for great presidents like Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, and Teddy Roosevelt, then it is certainly good enough for a would-be despot like Barack Hussein Obama who is unfit to be mentioned in the same breath with those great Americans.

Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, granted certain powers under our Constitution. The Capitol and the two legislative chambers therein are their turf. Rather than give up that ground, they should stand it in the face of the would-be king, as an assertion of their proper and constitutionally-defined place in our system of government.

|| Greg, 04:07 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (503) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 20, 2014

Some Nights We Need A Happy Ending

And tonight is one of them.

Reminds me of an eternal truth shared with us by one of our nation's foremost experts on the nature of the American Republic.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas jefferson

|| Greg, 09:16 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (285) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Somebody Tell Obama He Needs To Know His Role

And this isnt it.

President Obama decided to move ahead with executive action on immigration partially because Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wouldnt commit to holding a vote on reform legislation in the new Congress, a spokesman said Thursday.

Just two weeks ago, when Speaker Boehner was doing his post-election news conference, he was asked by reporters in that news conference if he would commit to bringing up immigration reform legislation in the next Congress, and he wouldnt do it, Josh Earnest said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Earnest said GOP leadership was scared to allow a vote because they know, as we do, that if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote, it would actually pass in bipartisan fashion.
The president simply isnt going to tolerate that, Earnest said.

Wow. Just wow.

Barack Effin Obama isnt going to tolerate the legislative branch deciding how and when to exercise its constitutional prerogative to legislate or not legislate on a given matter. You know, something found in the first substantive words of the US Constitution.

Article I Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Besides, Obama hasnt had a problem in the past with the leadership of one house refusing to allow bills to come up for support because doing so would lead to the passage of legislation with bipartisan support. After all, in the current Senate we have seen Harry Reid refuse to allow over 300 pieces of House-passed legislation come to the floor for a vote despite many of them having bipartisan support. Why has Barack Obama been tolerating THAT situation? Oh, thats right because the bills in questions are ones that he doesnt support and/or that would have required senators of his party to cast tough votes that required them to choose between following the will of the American people or the leadership of the Democrat Party. In such cases, the President tolerates such obstructionism because it serves his purposes. But when Congress refuses to give him what he wants, the Toddler-in-Chief pouts, stomps his feet, shouts Gimme gimme gimme! and then yanks the object of his desire out of the hands of the co-equal branch to which the power to act belongs.


Will we still have a Constitution and a Republic in four hours?

|| Greg, 03:34 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 19, 2014

Obama Prepares To Rip Up Constitution!

The Constitution? Rule of Law? Clearly they don't matter when you are Obama.

President Obama said in a video that he will lay out his proposal to overhaul the nations immigration system Thursday and will travel to Las Vegas following that announcement to rally support for his initiative on Friday.

Tomorrow night Im going to be announcing here from the White House some steps I can take to start fixing our broken immigration system, Obama said in a video posted on Facebook Wednesday afternoon.

Everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken. Unfortunately Washington has allowed the problem to fester for too long, Obama said. So what Im going to be laying out is the things I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better even as I continue to work with Congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem.

Translation: "Give me what I want or I'll take it -- Constitution be damned!"


Sadly, the Dictator-in-Chief isn't listening to anyone who recognizes that his proposals are a violation of the US Constitution and antithetical to entire American political tradition. He won't even listen to this former law school faculty member who once edited the law review at an Ivy League institution.


Given those claims, I'd like to know when Obama believes he got the authority to issue this executive order and how he got it. After all, as recently as last year he was saying he did not have the authority to do what he is doing.

Michael Austin of National Review notes that this action is part and parcel of a "slow, irreversible slide towards ever-more destruction of laws and customs" -- something that is truly dangerous for America, as it was for the Roman Republic some 2100 years ago. He further notes:

That, then, leads to the obligatory Rome reference. No, we are not Rome and Barack Obama is not Julius Caesar. But he is, perhaps analogous to Sulla, whose crossing of hitherto sacrosanct lines and blatant disregard for timeless norms set the Republic on a dangerous path into chaos. What Sulla represented was the idea that anything was now conceivable, even though he justified his actions as responses to those taken by his political opponent Marius. Yet what he did could well be called the tipping point, and only inertia in the Republics system kept it going for another nearly half-century. As Julius Caesar crept towards the Rubicon, all of Rome could see it coming; all knew that two irresistible forces (Caesar and Pompey) were about to collide, yet the norms of restraint had been so eaten away, and creative politics so attenuated, that there was no chance of avoiding the explosion.

In other words, for all the talk of Obama as king or emperor, Obama's actions here make him neither. Instead, he is merely the harbinger of the day, a generation or two from now, when some future leader will dispense with the trappings of our constitutional system completely and become a despot. But rest assured that if Obama's actions are allowed to stand unchecked, some future historian will lament the impotence of Congress and the fecklessness of the people in a work likely to be titled titled "The Decline and Fall of the United States". The judgement that will be cast upon our generation will be a harsh one -- for though a majority of Americans oppose Obama's actions, we will have stood by and let them take effect without active resistance by that majority. So We the People must make our voices heard and force our elected officials to stand up against this power grab.

|| Greg, 10:35 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (252) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||