It’s Friday, June 27th, 2014…but before we begin, a quick question: in what way, other than the federal government’s refusal to enforce current laws, indeed, the President’s willful flouting of almost every existing statute, is our current immigration system “broken”?!? 
Like our current gun laws, nothing’s wrong with America’s immigration system…just the folks sworn to enforce it. Now, here’s The Gouge! First up, writing at the WSJ, Dan Henninger notes how yet another Gipper-wannabe misrepresents what the great man was about:
“…As to the Gipper’s principles, Sen. Paul overstates reality when he suggests that the Weinberger Doctrine was Reagan’s doctrine. The Weinberger Doctrine described in Mr. Paul’s piece was Caspar Weinberger’s personal opinion. His speech occurred amid an internal Reagan administration debate about how to deal with a new and murderous global threat: terrorism flowing out of the Middle East.
Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, describes the disagreements with Weinberger over the use of force in his 1993 memoir, “Turmoil and Triumph.” “Cap’s doctrine,” Sec. Shultz wrote, “bore relevance to a major, conventional war between adversarial armed forces. In the face of terrorism, or any of the wide variety of complex, unclear, gray-area dangers facing us in the contemporary world, however, his was a counsel of inaction bordering on paralysis.”…”
As is Senator Paul’s; and it’s frankly what worries us about him. For those of you who don’t recognize the individual in the photo above, it’s Charles Lindbergh, who actively campaigned against U.S. involvement in the World War II. America can no more disregard the threat of Islamic jihadists today than she could the Nazis when they were marching across Europe. Rand Paul may want to ignore them, but, the good Senator’s isolationist sentiments notwithstanding, they’re unlikely to respond in kind; 9/11 proved that. Turning to the scandal which over 3/4 of America doesn’t want swept under the rug of the Offal Office, the Morning Examiner‘s Mark Tapscott wonders…
“For reasons known only to Richard Nixon, the disgraced former president refused to burn the Watergate tapes despite being urged to do so by then-Secretary of the Treasury John Connally. Connally wasn’t alone in that opinion, as renowned defense lawyer Edward Bennett Williams held the same view, according to former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee.
Nobody will ever know for certain if Watergate would have ended differently had Nixon burned the tapes, but odds are good he would not have had to resign as president.
Now that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted that her agency, like the IRS, can’t produce important emails requested by Congress due to a computer crash, the question must be asked: Has Obama “burned the tapes?”…“
Here’s the juice: there is no question; they’re shredding the evidence. Seriously folks: the IRS’s Lois Lerner took the 5th, and the EPA’s Phil North…
…is on the lam in New Zealand. Can you name one other Administration in the history where a government bureaucrat at the heart of an investigation hid behind their 5th Amendment rights or left the country to avoid a subpoena, let alone had both?!? Like its leader, this entire Administration stinks like a whorehouse at low tide. Since we’re on the subject of obscenities, courtesy of the U.K.’s Daily Mail…
“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will collect a $225,000 speaking fee from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in October, it emerged on Tuesday. The massive expense was confirmed just weeks after the university formalized a 4 per cent tuition increase for each of the next four years. Rate hikes have nearly tripled tuition costs there since 2004…“
Tripled…in ten years?!?
Obviously the result of an insufficient level of federal funding! Next up, courtesy of the AEI, Michael Barone explores Progressives continuing attack on the First Amendment:
“I’m old enough to remember when American liberals cherished the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. They celebrated especially the freedom accorded those with unpopular beliefs and protested attempts to squelch the expression of differing opinions. Today things are different. American liberals are not challenging the Supreme Court rulings extending First Amendment protection to nude dancers, flag burners and students wearing antiwar armbands. They are content to leave these as forms of protected free speech.
But political speech is a whole nother thing. Currently 43 Democratic senators are co-sponsoring the constitutional amendment introduced by New Mexico’s Sen. Tom Udall to amend the First Amendment so that it no longer protects political speech. “To protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes,” the text reads, “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections,” including limits on contributions to and spending by or against candidates. The same power is given to state governments.
Delphically, the amendment adds, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So the New York Times can keep commenting on elections. Maybe bloggers can too (are they the press?). But if you want to run an ad on television or send out a mailing opposing a candidate’s stand on an issue, these 43 Democratic senators want to shut you down.
Too much conversation could muddy the waters, apparently. And note that spending against a candidate can be barred (incumbents hate well-financed challengers) and that “in-kind equivalents” — gas money to circulate petitions? shoe leather? — can be limited…“
Fortunately for America, the SCOTUS still adheres the Framer’s definition of free speech…
…at least for now. And in the Environmental Moment, what do you do when you’re a President pushing a wholly-discredited anthropogenic global warming agenda, and you’re utterly out of airspeed, altitude and any credible facts? As James Taranto reports, you offer one of the…
Worst Appeals to Authority
“President Barack Obama lit into GOP climate change skeptics in a speech Wednesday night, delighting a crowd of 800 to 900 environmentalists in Washington’s Ronald Reagan Building,” Politico reports. Ho hum, more global-warmist hot air. But we got a kick out of this bit:
He said young people largely support acting on climate change–citing his own daughters as an example.
“You talk to Malia, you talk to Sasha, you talk to your kids or your grandkids–this is something they get,” he said. “They don’t need a lot of persuading.”
That’s right, global warmists are now reduced to appealing to the authority of teenagers.
Which, if you think about it, is quite apropos; after all, to quote the Dutchman, like teenagers, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” Which brings us to the Lighter Side… 
And finally, we’ll wrap up the week with a few bits of Boombox‘s biting satire forwarded by Mark Foster: 
We’ll be heading home to Upstate New York on Sunday for our Dad’s memorial golf tournament, but back in the saddle Wednesday. So until then, consider this new diet forwarded by Skip Zobel, RIO extraordinaire: 
If it would let us lose the next two years, we’d be willing to give up vodka martinis! Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.