Gay Patriot Header Image

We may as well note the Arpaio thing

To me, it’s a yawner, sorry. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a patriot. He tried to enforce existing border law. He stepped on some judge’s order and was then targeted for prosecution by the Obama administration. He was found guilty, under the letter of the law. The Constitution lets the President pardon people. Some lefties are calling it the end of the Constitution, that President Trump would have pardoned Arpaio; but it’s the usual misleading hyperbole. In reality, the whole thing from start to finish is an exercise of the Constitution.

Here’s video of former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (a clean government guy) making the point (among others) that President Obama pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1700 people, from drug dealers to forgers to the traitorous Chelsea Manning.

YouTube Preview Image

UPDATE: Who can forget Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich? By any objective standard, Arpaio deserves his pardon more than Rich or Manning.

Which is what makes it so boring. The Left gins up non-controversy #1,388,544,877 over a pardon as reasonable/constitutional as any.

UPDATE: Our intrepid commenters point out other matters where Arpaio might deserve prosecution. I could be fine with that. Operative word, “other”.

In this post, I’m discussing the one contempt-of-court charge. I assumed that Trump’s pardon was tailored to that. I looked for the actual text of the pardon and didn’t find it. But I think it would have to be (since conviction comes before pardon).

How agenda-driven is CNN? This agenda-driven

At a White House press briefing yesterday, CNN’s Jim Acosta debated and over-talked that day’s spokesperson, Stephen Miller, so long and hard that Acosta was essentially making speeches. That isn’t the journalist’s role.

YouTube Preview Image

It’s clear that Acosta is a Democrat spokesperson. Not a journalist (under any honest definition of the word).

Miller rightly nailed Acosta on the matter of favoring immigrants who speak English. It’s already part of U.S. policy that, to be naturalized, you must show proficiency in English. President Trump’s proposal strengthens that by favoring (somewhat) immigrants who already know English. I’m not saying if that’s good or bad here; but it’s certainly inclusive of billions of people in China, India, Latin America and Africa who study English. Whereas Acosta tried to make it into a quasi-racist thing.

At the border

Via Judicial Watch (as the media doesn’t cover this). Since taking office, the Trump administration has systematically made life harder for gangs/cartels who traffic in people, drugs, etc. Today’s example:

In a major shift from lax Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration is finally allowing customs officers to screen all cargo trucks entering the U.S. from Mexico and sources on both sides of the border tell Judicial Watch Mexican drug cartels are fuming. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is using X-ray technology and other non-intrusive tools to screen 100% of cargo trucks crossing the southern border after eight years of sporadic or random screening permitted under the Obama administration.

“We felt like we were the welcoming committee and not like we were guarding our borders,” said veteran U.S. Customs agent Patricia Cramer…“The order was to facilitate traffic, not to stop any illegal drugs from entering the country,” Cramer added…

…a veteran Homeland Security official told Judicial Watch that cattle trucks passed without inspection during the Obama administration because Mexican farmers complained that the security screenings frightened their cows. “Our guys were livid that we were not allowed to check cattle,” the federal official said…

Federal law enforcement sources tell Judicial Watch Mexican cartels operate like efficient businesses that resort to “other more treacherous routes” when necessary, but driving through a port of entry in a cargo truck is a preferred method of moving drugs…

It could also help to control human trafficking (like that recent incident). Think about it: It took Trump to do this. Obama could have; and he didn’t. Instead, Obama supplied arms to the cartels.

I have a constant suspicion that this kind of policy – plus some other specific, important things like wanting interventionism (Syria war), and wanting to keep hiding the Clinton scandals and the Awan scandal – would be why certain U.S. power players have been so desperate, all this time, to overturn the 2016 election and remove President Trump under any pretext.

If anyone didn’t know: Human trafficking is a thing

In the olden days, it was slavery. Today, it often takes the form of women or children being bought or sold for sexual purposes. In this particular instance, it’s the smuggling of illegal workers:

The death toll in what police called a horrific human trafficking case — eight men died inside a sweltering 18-wheeler parked outside a San Antonio Walmart — reached nine on Sunday…

A total of 39 people had been inside the tractor-trailer, including at least four teenagers, Fox 29 reported. Twenty people were taken to area hospitals in critical condition…

A store employee first alerted police after being approached by someone from the truck who was asking for water. The vehicle did not have a working air conditioning system…

The origin of the truck is still unknown. Investigators gathered evidence from the truck on Sunday, which had an Iowa license plate but no other markings.

Thomas Homan, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director, said in a statement: “By any standard, the horrific crime uncovered last night ranks as a stark reminder of why human smuggling networks must be pursued, caught and punished.”

U.S. Attorney Richard Durbin, Jr. also called Sunday morning’s incident “an alien smuggling venture gone horribly wrong.”

“All were victims of ruthless human smugglers indifferent to the well-being of their fragile cargo,” Durbin said, adding that the Justice Department will be working with Homeland Security and local responders in the investigation…

Needless to say: Crime is crime. I know that we’re all 100% in favor of law enforcement cracking down on this and punishing whoever is responsible.

Hey Trump-haters: Did it ever occur to you that this is a reason (one of many) why we should want good border control?

Queer Refugees for Pride

This is a pro-gay Facebook channel, which a Breitbart article linked to in telling a story of Muslims abusing gays. From Breitbart’s article:

Residents of an asylum home in Germany beat a Serbian couple almost to death earlier this week, according to a gay rights activist…

Gay rights campaigner Javid Nabiyev…said that although many consider Serbia to be a safe country, the individuals who were beaten had to flee the Balkan nation because their own family members had threatened violence toward them.

He went on to say that they attempted to hide their sexuality from the other asylum seekers – a move which was recommended by social workers…

The couple had contacted Nabiyev many months before the attack to say they felt uncomfortable in the asylum home. Nabiyev attempted to have them transferred to a different home but was unable because authorities saw no health or safety danger…

The man who carried out the attack was not named, and Nabiyev said that, while he was arrested by police and questioned, he was released back to the same asylum home afterwards.

The attack is the latest in a number of attacks on homosexuals in asylum homes or by asylum seekers, many of whom are Muslim…

To recap:

  • A Serbian gay couple had to flee Serbia.
  • Germany housed them in an “asylum home”, meaning, with a whole bunch of Muslim refugees.
  • They felt under threat for their orientation. The enlightened, tolerant, progressive German social workers told them to not to flaunt it. They didn’t. They still felt under threat. The enlightened, tolerate, progressive German social workers apparently didn’t give a crap.
  • The threat turned out to be real: Muslims beat them to a bloody pulp.

I’ll say this much for the Germans: The above is only one side of the story. Still, it’s a plausible story and I thought it worth noticing.

RELATED (to Europe’s Muslim crisis): Italy wants to unleash 200,000 refugees on the rest of Europe. Because the rest of Europe just isn’t lifting a finger to help.

Senior Italian government figures are threatening to issue European Union visas to 200,000 migrants, granting them unrestricted access to the bloc’s borderless Schengen Zone…

“Letting migrants travel once they reach Italy would create a real problem for our EU neighbours. But I hope it would force France to confront the migrant problem head on,” the government minister said…

In 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis, the EU pledged to redistribute 160,000 African and Middle Eastern migrants based in Italy and Greece to other EU member-states signed up to the bloc’s common asylum policy – but as of June 9th, 2017, only 6,896 migrants have been relocated from Italy.

Let’s be honest about the real solution to these problems. Here it is.

  1. Vote Obama and Hillary out of office. They shattered Libya and Syria, stimulating the present crisis.
  2. Seize the ships of the NGOs who are still illegally transporting the refugees from North Africa into Italy.
  3. If a time machine can’t be built to go back and get Obama and Hillary to not viciously shatter entire nations for no good reason, then, do what we can to fix Libya and Syria now. Finally,
  4. Ship the refugees back to northern Africa and Syria.

When you lose Bill Gates…

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:33 pm - July 7, 2017.
Filed under: Immigration Reform,Politics abroad

It’s known that, as Europe imports masses of (mostly-male) Muslim immigrants, crime rates go up. A lot. European authorities try to hide it in the statistics, but they can’t hide it completely.

Swedish police are no longer allowed to describe the ethnic background of the criminals they catch…the German government and press were desperate to cover up hundreds sexual assaults that occurred in Cologne in 2015.

However, there are certain statistics that can’t be covered up. A government can try to conceal the connection between crimes and specific ethnic groups, but they can’t cover up the overall crime statistics of an entire city…

…the German government recently revealed that more than half of the population of Frankfurt has a foreign background…49% of people with foreign backgrounds in Frankfurt live below the poverty line, compared to 23% of native Germans, and they are significantly more likely to be unemployed…

…[and] Frankfurt am Main rates as the most dangerous city in Germany with 16,292 crimes per 100,000 people.

Perhaps that is why Bill Gates, the famous philanthropist, recently told a German magazine that Europe will be devastated by African refugees (meaning north Africans / Muslims) if they don’t do something:

“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.”

While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot “take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”

Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it “more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”

Which means, I think, having the Spanish, French, Italian and Greek navies interdict refugee ships on the Mediterranean. And/or shutting down the NGOs who finance them.

UPDATE – It begins: A center-left leader in Italy calls for an end to Italy accepting Muslim refugees.

“We need to free ourselves from a sense of guilt. We do not have the moral duty to welcome into Italy people who are worse off than ourselves,” Renzi wrote in new book…”There has to be a fixed number of arrivals,” he said, adding that Italy should help migrants in their home countries.

Yup.

The Guns of Europe

The last few years, amidst Europe’s ongoing terrorist attacks and Muslim-influx crisis, European gun sales have surged. Article from January 2016:

Gun sales have jumped 350 per cent in Austria amid ‘unease’ over increasing numbers of migrants following the Paris terror attacks…

The final months of 2015 showed increases in gun permit applications, while dealers reported huge demand for self defence weapons such as tasers, pepper spray and blank firing-guns.

It comes just months after shotguns were reported to have sold out across the country as residents became increasingly paranoid about refugee numbers.

Article from August 2016:

Applications for gun permits have gone up significantly in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. In places with stricter gun laws, such as Germany, non-lethal guns and pepper spray have become alternatives.

“There’s no official explanation for the rise, but in general we see a connection to Europe’s terrorist attacks,” Hanspeter Kruesi, a police spokesman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, told Reuters.

Czech Republic’s President saw the light:

President Milos Zeman used to advocate gun control, but called for easier access to guns in July [2016] following the terror attack in Nice.

“Earlier I spoke against possession of large amounts of weapons [in the hands of the people],” Zeman said in a July interview with newspaper Blesk. “After those attacks, I do not think so any more.”

And last week, the Czech Republic began to create their own version of our 2nd Amendment:

Czech lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution…

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths…

…the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

It’s rare to have that right in a country’s Constitution. Hopefully, it’s about to become less rare.

Unfortunately, Germany is busy turning its guns against its own People’s free speech:

German lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks…

Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory “fake news.”

“Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill…

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

This is fascism: the merger of Business and State, in which the State commandeers Business to achieve the State’s aims – such as, in this case, the enforcement of political purity and consensus. Looks like Mark Zuckerberg has no problem with it.

Are the Germans going to target ordinary citizens’ protests against Germany’s insane Muslim refugee policy? Sadly, yes:

By “right wing extremist” what German authorities really mean is anyone who questions the immigration policies of the Europe, or thinks differently than the general population.

The article cites the relevant sections of Germany’s criminal speech code – that sound good on paper, except they are so subjective that the authorities can, will and do use them to punish any speech they don’t like.

I’m not sure – my German is quite rusty – but I think that in this clip, Germany’s Vice Chancellor is saying that Muslim refugees are more German than the Germans who would object to their presence, and who should therefore be locked up.

Are Trump’s Joe/Mika tweets strategic?

Donald Trump is a genius at branding people. I still think that his tweets about Joe and Mika are un-presidential and unhelpful. But I have to admit: From now on, whenever I see Joe and Mika’s faces, I will remember that they’re vain people who have had work done (or at least she has), and that the POTUS shares my view that the two of them say and do some pretty ridiculous things.

There’s also a notion making the rounds that President Trump may have created the controversy for strategic reasons.

…the President couldn’t care less about Mika’s face or ‘Morning Joe’s’ ratings. The sole motive behind the attack was to distract the media from reporting on the travel ban and ‘Kate’s Law’ passing the House. The ‘Muslim Ban,’ as the MSM has coined it, is the most controversial law Trump will likely put into effect during his Presidency.

As Joseph Curl, former Drudge Report editor and Daily Wire writer tweeted… “For those who don’t think Trump is the Master Tweeter, the travel ban is in place and everyone’s talking about — Mika and Joe. Well played.”

I get the point being made. But I don’t quite buy it.

I mean, so what if we talk about the President’s temporary travel ban on 6 countries where the citizens are unusually prone to terrorism – AND have unusually poor documentation (poor proof of identity)? Or if we talk about a new law that cracks down on criminals entering the U.S. illegally?

They’re both good things. Why not let the media talk about them? The more they’re talked about, or the more Antifa is out protesting them: the more Trump’s own stock goes up. He improves his brand among the Silent Majority.

The SCOTUS travel ban decision last week was especially cool. 9-0, baby! It wasn’t a perfect decision; but heck, they had to get Ruth Bader Ginsberg on board. And they did, thus slapping down some real nonsense from the lower courts.

So, my view is that Trump would have been better off letting the media focus on the travel decision, on Kate’s law, or even on Trumprussia – which is increasingly being recognized as Fake News (so that talking about it actually hurts Democrats now). No need for all this Twitter strategery.

As always, feel free to disagree or to express your thoughts, in the comments.

UPDATE: Overnight, Trump got his tweets on, including his re-tweeting a parody video of him punching down CNN. 🙂

UPDATE: CNN’s answer is… a high-brow form of whining to Mommy. In measured tones, they play the victim. Poor dears. There goes what was left of their glamour.

UPDATE: Scott Adams argues that it’s all a big trap for CNN. In particular, CNN must cover – that is, re-broadcast – the parody “CNN smackdown” video. It’s like forcing CNN to advertise their own position of weakness.

Flashback – guess who said it?

And on National TV, no less.

The jobs they [“illegal aliens”] hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. It is wrong, and ultimately self-defeating, for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

(more…)

Some stuff that some people probably think we should acknowledge

Consider this an open thread to talk about anything listed here, or not listed here.

  • Eric Clanton has been arrested by Berkeley police.

    Score one for the good guys. This is the Nutty Professor who was allegedly assaulting people with bike locks on behalf of Antifa, during those riots in Berkeley.

    “His work in political philosophy also centers on mass incarceration and the prison system,” Clanton’s former faculty page read. “He is currently exploring restorative justice from an anti-authoritarian perspective.”

    I hope Prof. Clanton will be finding out a lot about mass incarceration, the prison system, restorative justice, and authority.

  • The 4th Circuit has blocked Trump’s travel suspension.

    I find this a bit of a yawner. President Trump’s orders on the suspension (sometimes called a “Muslim Ban” by our biased media) have been pretty reasonable. The opinions blocking the suspension have been mostly ridiculous. There’s nothing I can do about it except hope it goes to the Supreme Court. And SCOTUS will do whatever they’re going to do, one way or the other.

  • The Gianforte matter. Again, yawns from me. If Gianforte committed assault, let the police/justice system take care of it and let him rot in jail. That’s what the police/justice system is for. Let it work. There, I just condemned Gianforte (provided he’s guilty).
  • NYT reporting that Russian officials discussed how they might influence Trump. Again: Yawn. Does anyone think that Russian officials hadn’t spent the previous 8 years discussing how they might influence Hillary and Obama?
  • This is more interesting. The Washington Post discusses how Russians may or may not have tipped off the FBI that Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch was planning to block any prosecution of Hillary Clinton in her e-mail scandal.

    So…Hillary Clinton(‘s campaign) colluded with the Obama administration, to block investigation and/or prosecution? And Russia had spies, in the Obama administration? Or somebody fooled them with phony tips? Sorry, my head is spinning from all the Inside Baseball.

The Manchester suicide bomber

Per The Telegraph, The suicide bomber who killed 22 people and injured dozens more at the Manchester Arena has been named as 22-year-old Salman Abedi.

Born in Manchester in 1994, the second youngest of four children his parents were Libyan refugees who came to the UK to escape the Gaddafi regime.

His parents were both born in Libya but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Fallowfield area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least ten years.

He had become radicalised recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fund-raising for jihadists.

(They’re still changing the article, so you might not find the exact text above.)

I’m sorry to say that lots of us saw this coming. As of last night, the media weren’t releasing his name; the delay always means that the perpetrator is a left-winger or (more likely) a Muslim.

Also, for anyone who follows the situation of Europe drowning under its Muslim immigrants, a recurring theme is that the immigrants very often don’t work (the supposed reason for bringing them in), don’t integrate, and give birth to a second generation that is MORE radical and LESS integrated than the first.

Two for one!

Ann Coulter and Jesse Lee Peterson, together at last. Enjoy!

YouTube Preview Image

Pot, Kettle, Black

House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, says that Trump “talking about this [border] wall is expressing a sign of weakness.”

Umm…isn’t Pelosi showing weakness, by not retiring?

(I’m thinking of the mental weakness or illogic that she displays, as she talks on these issues. Also the spiritual weakness that keeps her clinging to power, rather than letting go and trying something new at age 77.)

Protestor spews illogic; is then shocked by logic

Via HotAir. I can’t add much to their commentary except to say, yeah, Tucker Carlson is sweet. This is how to argue with the Left. Stay friendly, have your brain turned on, and ask them to use theirs.

YouTube Preview Image

Around 3:39, the poor, drowning open-borders advocate actually calls the U.S.A. a “sovereign nation-state”. That’s correct, but, talk about being pushed off-script! When last I checked, controlling your own borders & immigration was a key part of being a sovereign nation-state.

MSDNC/Republican Establishment Baffled by Americans’ Concern for Their Economic Well-Being

Republican Governor and GOP candidate Scott Walker recently said that our entire immigration system, legal and illegal, needs to be overhauled and that even legal immigration may need to be reduced because the influx of cheap foreign labor is hurting the American middle class.

“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying – the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages,” Walker said Monday in an interview with Glenn Beck. “It is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today – what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

MSDNC quickly jumped in to denounce this “hardline” position. John McCain and Orrin Hatch … very old and wealthy men who never need to worry about anyone in their families losing out on a job or an educational opportunity to an illegal immigrant… denounced the “hardline” radical position of favoring Americans over illegal immigrants. Voters who have actual skin in the game tend to see the issue differently.

There are over 42 million immigrants in the USA. Legal and immigration add nearly 2 million more people per year. That’s adding a city larger than Dallas to the American landscape each year; with the attendant demands on resources, infrastructure and services. This is on top of an economy that is stagnant at best. Like everything else the political class supports, this is an unsustainable situation unless turning the USA into a Third World country is the actual goal.

And the politicians remained baffled why no one trusts them with “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” One clue might be that in 2006, Congress passed and President Bush signed a law requiring them to build a fence and secure the border. The law was gutted the very next year and only 37 out of 900 miles of actual fence was actually built. And they profess to be baffled that the public does not trust them to follow the next border security law they pass.

Donald Trump’s reforms would end “birthright citizen,” the notion that a person in the country illegally can still claim welfare and other benefits by dint of giving birth on American soil. There is no reason being born in the USA should automatically entitle one to citizenship, unless such citizenship means nothing. Which is how Obama, Jeb, Hillary, McCain and anyone else who would hand out citizenship at the border like it was a library card treats it. These politicians find it hateful and “rayciss” that some citizens actually want to save what’s left of the American culture and the American standard of living.

California is already well on its way to third world status; with a disappearing middle class, a swath of extreme wealth along the coast, a growing impoverished underclass, and a permanently embedded one-party government. This is the endgame of unrestricted immigration.

Aftermath of Emperor Barack’s immigration move?

First off, we here at GayPatriot are in favor of legal immigrants and controlled, legal immigration from other countries. We simply oppose *illegal* immigration because of the importance of border security in the age of terrorism; and because it’s illegal. The people who have done it began their American journey by consciously breaking America’s laws.

As President Obama unilaterally suspended deportations of certain illegal aliens in 2012, and then last week expanded it to millions more, he has made clear what his priorities are not:

  • Enforcing the law, as passed by previous Congresses and signed by previous Presidents: Not a priority.
  • Defending U.S. borders: Not a priority. (Has Obama seriously tried to improve border security? Of course not.)
  • Following the Constitution: Not a priority.
  • Saving taxpayer money: Not a priority.
  • Being true to his own previous statements and promises: Not a priority. Per link above, “In a Telemundo interview in September 2013, for example, Obama said that if he were to broaden the exception he made in 2012…’then essentially, I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.'”
  • Racial and/or human sensitivity: Not a priority. Obama publicly reduced the people affected by his order to their supposed roles as people “who pick our fruit and make our beds.” (Guess he never makes his own bed, or cleans his own home? I do.)

Any of the first three points above – and certainly, all of the first three together – are violations of the President’s oath of office and grounds for impeachment. But let’s face it: as V has suggested, impeachment will never happen.

I blame the media because this is what you get, when a biased media covers for an egotistical President relentlessly: Hubris. Lawlessness. Government that is willfully, impeachably unconstitutional. With no accountability.

But speaking of the media, I must give some credit where it’s due. In the past, I’ve often noted that Jay Carney was Obama’s paid liar, and he probably still is, on some level. But even he admits that Obama is “literally” doing what he promised not to do. Also, credit the Washington Post for noticing how Obama’s pretense of innocence happens to be a lie.

So, what do you think Congressional Republicans will do with the illegal-immigration issue, from here? Up to now, GOP leaders have been soft on the issue of border security.

They’ve also been eager to be perceived (in the media, etc.) as pro-Latino. But I’m thinking that Obama just took all of that ground away from them: there is no possible way, now, that GOP leaders can ever be perceived as more pro-illegal immigrant or pro-Latino than Obama.

In that sense, Obama just took away any incentive that GOP leaders would have for compromising with him. I think that will blow up in Obama’s face. And I think he has just proven to the voters that Democrats truly don’t give a hoot about border security.(*)

NB: The first version of this post misquoted Obama slightly; the quote has been corrected.
(*) Again, because of its glaring absence from the Democrats’ real set of concerns.

Saturday Morning Content Dump

Mainly because I couldn’t bear the thought of Chris Hayes talking about teh buttsecks being the top item on the blog all weekend, here’s a few news stories to discuss.

Oh, BTW, have you heard the hypocrites at A&E are running Duck Dynasty marathons all Christmas week? You know, Phil Robertson gave the interview two months ago, and there was an A&E “minder” present during the interview. So, now this all comes out? Lends credence to the theory that the suits at A&E hated Duck Dynasty and were looking for a way to kill the franchise.

(more…)

The Obamacare implosion

A number of conservative commentators and writers have been speculating for some time how long it will be from the time it is implemented until Obamacare collapses under the weight of its own poorly-conceived structure.  I think few have anticipated the situation we’ve been witnessing in the past two weeks, where first the administration announces that businesses won’t have to comply with the “employer mandate” until January 2015, and more recently, that the administration won’t be investigating eligibility for Obamacare subsidies, thereby opening the door to massive fraud and abuse.

Although the reasons that the Obama administration is making these changes are cynically transparent to anyone who realizes that the Democrats don’t want to lose big in the 2014 election cycle when voters will have a chance to express their displeasure with Obamacare at the ballot box once again, the more interesting question at the moment concerns the meaning and implications of the administration’s latest maneuvers for its ability to enact policies and govern going forward.

I think some people believe the public is paying closer attention to all this than is most likely the case, but that doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying the triumphalism and mockery of the administration’s opponents.  After the last election, it’s refreshing to see the administration increasingly on the defensive over the actions it has taken with regard to its signature piece of legislation.  Even better is getting to watch the likes of Dick Durbin (D-IL) admit that the disastrous bill “needs changes and improvements.”

But beyond getting to see and hear the bill’s defenders feel the heat, it is gratifying to see pieces like this one speculating that the Republicans in Congress may wise up enough about the administration’s actions to finally kill “immigration reform”:

“They have shown no respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers,” Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., told National Review‘s John Fund about the impact of the Obamacare delays on the immigration debate, “and that makes it difficult to pass laws where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they don’t like.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who is on the House Judiciary Committee and had been a member of a bipartisan group working on immigration reform, echoed Roe’s concerns on Meet the Press. “In fact, if you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the House are concerned about. If you give to this administration the authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … what’s going to happen is that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people and Janet Napolitano is going to come to Congress and tell us that the border is already secure and nothing else needs to happen.”

Even the Wall Street Journal is writing about the administration’s actions in language reminiscent of that we saw with the rise of the Tea Party four years ago:

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

Needless to say we can certainly hope that this lively piece by Tony Katz on Townhall.com is more than just a humorous reflection on the administration’s latest foibles:

For years the Right has said that the Obama Administration was thuggish, was hell bent on revenge, and was vindictive.

The IRS scandal was perhaps the tipping point. At first, The Left tried claimed that not just conservative and tea party groups, but progressives as well had been targeted. But, as the Inspector General’s report showed, that was not the case. Obama’s minions attacked Americans who disagreed with him. The Left knows they voted for hate.

Obama is not the man (messiah) they thought he was. The Left was blinded by his skin color and duped by mainstream media.

But now they know he lies. And now they know he surrounds himself with sycophants, ready and willing to lie for him, in poetry and prose.

Lets not let them ever forget it.

Obama’s Constant Strawman Shell Game

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:08 am - June 24, 2013.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Immigration Reform

Quick guess!  Did Barack Obama make the following remarks about  (A) his beloved Obamacare legislation, or (B) the Gang of Eight immigration legislation?

“[It] would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades. And it will boost our economy by more than 5 percent. . . .”

If you said (B) — you win!

But if you said (A), you’d be right too.  You see,  Barack Obama has consistently governed by OVER-promising and UNDER-delivering in magnitudes of distances that the solar system would be proud of.

And now the Illegal Immigrants Get A Pass Bill of 2013 has become the new panacea for all of America’s economic woes.

I call bullshit.

RELATED QUESTION WHICH I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED: “Why Are Illegal Immigrants More Important Than American Citizens?

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Scandal central? Or a whole lot of talk that will amount to nothing?

As the scandals engulfing the Obama Administration have proliferated and “gotten legs” this week, many of the conservatives I know or whom I hear on the radio have started drawing comparisons with what happened under Nixon, bringing up the word “impeachment,” and hoping that as  it becomes evident that these activities were not accidents but part of a coordinated strategy, Obama will eventually resign, or at least some of those who hold key posts of power in this administration–such as Eric Holder–will resign and that the Administration will be hopelessly tainted as the truth becomes known.

I hear that talk, and I think, it would be nice, but I can’t see it happening.  Maybe Holder will resign.  Maybe.

I can imagine the press starting to subject the Obama Administration to a little more scrutiny in the future, but “a little more” than none is still only a little bit of scrutiny, hardly enough to make a significant difference in public opinion.  While the outrage surrounding all of this may be enough for the Republicans to hold the House and to gain control in the Senate in 2014, there will still be formidable problems, and we’ll still have a very divided country.  The low-information voters in the electorate will still be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because most of them are either unwilling to see him for the cynical, partisan character he is, or they are unable to do so.

It is possible that after a year or two of scandals and after the outrage that is sure to follow the full implementation of Obamacare, Obama will end his second term with even lower approval ratings than George W. Bush ended his, but at this point, I think that’s about the most we can hope for, that, and maybe Holder’s resignation.  I’m not even sure any of this will derail the immigration bill, which is looking more and more like the next legislative disaster coming down the pike.

I’m not trying to be pessimistic, merely practical.  In the lead-up to the election in November, I knew that what happened  with the administration’s lies about Benghazi was an outrage, but after the election, it seemed evident to me that Obama, Hillary, and the entire administration were going to get away without any consequences.  The American voters had failed to demand answers and accountability and had just re-elected Obama.

Now that the scandals are starting to illustrate the kinds of things conservatives have been saying about Obama for years and years now, some liberals are upset with Obama, but others are busy trying to find more ways to blame conservatives for making an issue of the problems.   In one of the most ironic defenses of Obama I have encountered so far, David Axelrod offered the “incompetence” excuse, namely, that the government is just too big for Obama to really know what’s going on, an excuse we are sure to hear echoed in the days ahead.  Forgive me if I can’t forget that in November the American electorate rejected a man who was renowned for his management skills and his ability to lead large organizations successfully, all so they could re-elect the “community organizer.”

So what do our readers think?  Am I just being pessimistic about all this?  Is the investigation of these scandals likely to have real and significant consequences for our government, or are they a lot of talk that will amount to nothing, or at least nothing much?