Imagine sleeping next to that…for even one night?!?
“…Liberals are right when they say Clinton did nothing that will cause her to be subjected to investigations aimed at punishing her for violating or pushing the boundaries of government accountability regulations. (Only because Republicans lack the nerve to prosecute the matter.)But they are wrong when they assert this is meaningless. As the woman who intends to serve what will, in effect, be Barack Obama’s third term in the White House, the spectacle of such deceitful behavior that skirts the boundaries of legality is exactly the sort of thing that may be fatal to Democratic efforts to reassemble the hope-and-change coalition that won in 2008 and 2012. Combined with her shaky performances in even the most controlled circumstances such as yesterday’s show in Iowa, this is a bad beginning to a presidential campaign that ought to already be running smoothly…”
Here’s the juice: if lying about being in a helicopter downed by an RPG disqualifies Brian Williams from reading a teleprompter, how much more should Hillary’s repeated prevarications…
…preclude her from assuming the presidency?!? Oh…and Tapscott forgot to mention Benghazi!
In a related item, Commentary Magazine‘s Seth Mandel tells a tale of two candidates, two competing political philosophies and, indeed, two incompatible world-views; first, Dimocratic despotism, totally terrified of answering any question and utterly incapable of addressing any issue absent a pre-screened audience and pre-scripted response:
Next, a real Person of the People…
…minus his support for continued sugar subsidies and straying off the reservation on immigration reform. After all, how does one reform a system the laws of which NO ONE ENFORCES in the first place?!?
Since we’re on the subject of a politically-motivated refusal to enforce the law, the WSJ details…
And the U.S. Attorney aids and abets it in its effort!
“The Obama Administration’s latest gift to the former IRS tax-exempt chief came recently when U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ron Machen informed the House of Representatives that he would not file charges on its formal contempt citation against Ms. Lerner. This absolution, which shields Ms. Lerner from a grand jury probe, came on Mr. Machen’s final day on the job.
…House lawyers determined that, in making that statement, Ms. Lerner had forfeited her right to remain silent. The House on May 7, 2014 held her in contempt of Congress and sent the citation to Mr. Machen.
The law clearly explains that the U.S. Attorney’s only “duty” “shall be” to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Mr. Machen instead sat on the contempt citation for 11 months, and on March 31 sent Speaker John Boehner a letter explaining he’d unilaterally decided not to investigate Ms. Lerner.
…Since Ms. Lerner had already disclosed to the “government” (prosecutors), she lost her privilege to clam up before Congress. And we’d note that after her House stonewall, she again chose to speak in an interview with the Politico website. Ms. Lerner wants the right not to answer questions except when it suits her public-relations purposes.
In any event, the job of making these legal calls belonged to a grand jury—not Mr. Machen. Then again, this is the prosecutor who in an exit interview with the National Law Journal about his tenure touted his allegiance to Attorney General Eric Holder, describing him as a “tremendous mentor and a tremendous friend.”…”
All true; but could not Darrell Issa have given the lying Ms. Lerner an indeterminate stay in the House jail?
“…“The Unified States Senate just capitulated to Obama,” radio host and Constitutional scholar Mark Levin said Tuesday night. “The Unified States Senate just rewrote the Treaty Provision of the Constitution.”
And he’s right. Because a treaty requires a two thirds vote by the Senate to be accepted as law. Corker’s bill turns that on its head, allowing Congress to vote down the treaty with Iran but giving Obama veto power, which must be overridden by a two thirds vote. MEANING THAT INSTEAD NEEDING TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATE FOR HIS TREATY, OBAMA ONLY NEEDS ONE THIRD.
And that’s a victory for Congress?
What Corker has done is legitimize Obama’s power grab. Congress could have instead voted this treaty down on its own and then passed legislation withholding funding for its implementation. Obama could also veto the measure withholding funds, which would require the same two-thirds override. But at least the point would have been made that he was acting unconstitutionally, and he would be on record as defying the Congress. As a practical matter, this would have made it far easier for a future president to discard the Iran deal…”
So here’s to you, Bob:
Speaking of the evisceration of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers, it was the subject of a recent online post by the University of Chicago’s Charles Lipson, courtesy of RealClearPolitics and the WSJ:
“Washington crushed the states long ago.Today, most laws passed in Albany, Austin, or Augusta are implemented only if the White House or some federal bureaucrats don’t object too strongly. The Feds can tie them up in litigation for years or simply yank the funding that now underwrites so many state and local programs. Even areas like K-12 schooling, which were local matters until recently, have become nationalized.
I heard the death knell sound during the 1970s oil crisis, when Washington mandated that no car could travel faster than 55 miles per hour and every state must pass laws allowing cars to turn “right on red” (to save gas). . . . If states cannot decide on their own traffic laws, then that part of the Founders’ Constitution is like Monty Python’s Dead Parrot. It is deceased, expired, gone to meet its maker. It “wouldn’t ‘voom’ if you put 4 million volts through it!”
The Corker Bill on Iran raises the same Dead Parrot Question: Is the legislative branch bleedin’ demised? If an Iran deal is finally reached, it will be the most important nuclear agreement in several decades. It will be the most important international agreement the U.S. has reached since the end of the Cold War. Whether you call it a treaty or not, Congress is absolutely right to insist on reviewing the final deal and having final authority to lift sanctions. Otherwise, Congress has voluntarily forfeited its role as a counterweight to executive power, the very essence of America’s constitutional framework.“
On the Lighter Side…
We’ll be up to our hindquarters in rapacious reptiles most of next week, so we may be radio silent until Friday. Until then…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.