Increasingly, as the concentric circles of perfidy swirl around the White House like filthy water down a drain, there is tyranny. The government we pay for has turned on us, the body politic, as if it were a savage autoimmune disease attacking our most vital tissues. That is, our Constitutional right to express our views as free citizens without the hounds of IRS hell on our heels.
This article provides an excellent summary of how tyranny has advanced, nibble by nibble, in recent years. Now, the nibbles are getting bigger as they are chewed and swallowed at an apparently increasing pace.
How did it happen? How could this administration think it would get away with persecuting and silencing those who disagree with its march to power? The time-honored template of the dictatorial impulse is no secret. Tyranny always progresses a bite at a time. Caesar cast his eye about the known world, coveted what he saw, and began nibbling away. Nobody stopped him. Hitler sank his teeth into a nation here, a nation there and looked around for reaction. Nobody cared enough to do much about it.
Here, the exploratory nibbles have become extremely ambitious through the past four-plus years until now they’ve escalated to bloody chunks. But there were warnings. Only four months after Obama’s inauguration, the Department of Homeland Security issued a “threat assessment” fingering “rightwing extremism” as a danger to the nation. Remember? This official warning to law enforcement officials says “rightwing extremism in the United States” includes groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, and “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as immigration or abortion.”
It's not only the IRS now.
The good news is that at least some people are beginning to understand at least some of what has been happening and many of them -- perhaps for first time in recent memory -- do not like it. According to a CNN poll reported today,
Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped eight percentage points over the past month, to 45%, the president's lowest rating in more than a year and a half, according to a new national poll.
. . . .
"The drop in Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
. . . .
The president also dropped 10 points among independent voters, from 47% last month to 37% now, with Obama's disapproval among independents jumping 12 points to 61%.
47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Strong approval vs. strong disapproval are shown in the chart below.
Now the question is, what will the Obama Administration try to do about this dangerous turn of events? Surely, the apple cart cannot be allowed to be overturned just because the apples are showing more signs of rot. Additional obfuscation piled upon more conflicting statements and distractions (see Red Line in Syria, for example) often work. I wonder, however, whether there is much that will be effective this time in restoring the level of trust in Government that President Obama, Inc. needs to peddle its wares. Only a few days ago on May 5th, President Obama said
"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices are also doing their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
If those voices are in fact being listened to more attentively, the trust so desperately needed by Obama Administration to further its increasingly disliked agenda may be unraveling a bit faster and more furiously. Possibly, this time more obfuscation piled upon additional conflicting statements and distractions will not work. Maybe the nibbles will turn out no longer to be easily digested and the resulting flatulence will become sufficiently overpowering to precipitate a change in diet, perhaps even a weight loss regimen.
Before getting too optimistic, let's remember that the water is shallow, there are lots of dangerous shoals around and that careful navigation -- perhaps even more careful -- is needed.
America sending light arms • Russia sending S-300 and MiGs • Iran sending 4,000 elite troops • Chechen Islamists fighting Assad have anti-aircraft missiles • Jordan, Egypt cut off diplomatic relations with Damascus • Israel, U.S. plan for WMD strike.
Amir Mizroch
Russia has decided to bulk up its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea…
As the Obama administration announced it would begin sending aid in the form of light arms and ammunition to the Syrian opposition via the CIA, Iran has taken the decision to send some 4,000 of its elite Republican Guard fighters to aid the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the British Independent reported on Sunday. The Iranian deployment, if and when it happens, comes after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist group sent thousands of its fighters to bolster Assad’s forces. Hezbollah has effectively gone “all in” in support of Assad’s regime.
. . . .
On the Sunni side, Islamists from across the region have joined the battle against Assad’s Alawite regime, backed as it is by the Shiite Hezbollah, who Sunni clerics have now called “The Party of the Devil,” a play on Hezbollah’s meaning “The Party of God.” The more Islamist-dominated rebel forces are being backed financially and materially by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Up to 3,000 American “advisers” are now believed to be in Jordan, the Independent reports. It’s not known how many advisors Russia has in Syria, but the Russians do have an active port in Tartous, and Russian experts will need to train Syrian officers in the use and maintenance of the S-300 systems. Chechen Islamists fighting against Assad in Syria are reportedly in possession of advanced anti-aircraft weapons; and there are reports of hundreds of European Muslims fighting for the rebels in Syria.
We have no allies or friends within the rebel ranks, but let's go help -- somebody. How about al Qaeda? They are always good for a laugh -- didn't some guy named Ben Ghazi laugh himself to death last year? Small arms, maybe a no-fly zone, troops and support aircraft already in Jordan. So? There's probably nothing to loose that's worth having, so let's go at it. RedLines and all that. President Obama can't continue to be disrespected as a weak indecisive pussy, and besides it all about playing leapfrog with Iran, Egypt, Russia and other friendlies. What could possibly go wrong? So let's have a lovely little war.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pg3rmc243g?feature=player_detailpage]
Don't pay attention to that bimbo Sarah Palin.
"Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out," Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.
That's easy for her to say. What does a mere pretty girl like her know? One so stupid that she thinks she can see Russia from her front porch? Let's just trust President Obama to do whatever he thinks best for himself the country. Which country? Who knows; maybe he does.
" Debate finally began on the U.S. Senate floor last week on the bipartisan immigration reform bill seen as the best opportunity in a while -- or for a while -- to overhaul the nation's immigration laws."
Keeping in mind all the recent revelations , can Congress and Washington really be trusted to do the right thing for America or are they most interested in further strengthening their own political careers ?
We must do much better by our illegal alien undocumented Democrat brothers. It's “the right thing to do.” They are poor, down trodden and many suffer from horrid contagious/communicable diseases. Many of their brethren were mercilessly shot during gang wars as they selflessly helped the Obama Administration to make Fast and Furious work. Or something. We need many more of their kind. We already have much for which to thank them and look forward to their continued help.
As they continue to help us, they will become healthier, wealthier, wiser and more patriotic citizens in our fair land of the free stuff. The IRS needs their help in sorting out ObamaCare Affordable Care and making it even more affordable. The Department of Agriculture needs them to help dispose of surplus food stamps.
A perpetual Democrat majority in our Congress, as well as reliable Democrat Presidents for ever, will make the nation stronger, safer and better able to empathize with the unfortunates in what was once undeservedly referred to by absurd jingoists as the "third world." There is much of which to be ashamed in our lamentable history of pride in American Exceptionalism and vile attacks on Islam those who peacefully disagree with our wicked ways. They will do much to improve our perspectives.
For these truly incredible reasons and more, we need as many of them as we can get. It's the only common sense, fair way to proceed.
Mounting scandals at the Internal Revenue Service are jeopardizing critical funding for the agency as it gears up to play a big role in President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Obama sought a significant budget increase for the IRS for next year, when the agency will start doling out subsidies to help people buy health insurance on state-based exchanges. Congressional Republicans, however, see management problems at the IRS as an opportunity to limit the agency’s funding just as it is trying to put in place the massive new law.
. . . .
Last month, the IRS was rocked by revelations that agents had targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when the groups applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, an inspector general’s report said that the agency had spent lavishly on employee conferences during the same time period.
From 2010 through 2012, the IRS spent nearly $50 million on employee conferences. In 2010, the agency used money that had been budgeted to hire enforcement agents to instead help pay for one conference that cost $4.1 million, according to the watchdog’s report.
. . . .
Democrats in Congress say they are growing tired of Republican attempts to repeal a law that has survived a review by the Supreme Court and whose main champion — Obama — won re-election last year.
“The American people will see over the next six months the lengths the Republicans will go to destroy the implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. “I’ve expected it from the first day this (IRS) issue came up.”
“I’m sad about it, it’s awful,” McDermott added. “But sometimes in a democracy people have to learn the hard way, and the American public is going to learn.”
Reduce IRS funding so that ObamaCare will be difficult to administer? That’s horrid! Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the funding to make it impossible?
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
“If this were only cleared away,”
They said, “it would be grand!”
“If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
“That they could get it clear?”
“I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
“O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
The Walrus did beseech.
“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.”
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head–
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat–
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn’t any feet.
Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more–
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
“But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried,
“Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!”
“No hurry!” said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
“A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
“Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed–
Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.”
“But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
“After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!”
“The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
“Do you admire the view?
“It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf–
I’ve had to ask you twice!”
“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
“To play them such a trick,
After we’ve brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“The butter’s spread too thick!”
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none–
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.
Will the Republicans in the House eat the oysters, or merely make noises to the effect that’s what they wanted to do but, alas, the oysters’ friends talked them out of it?
Jonathan Turley publishes some quite good stuff at his blog. There were two excellent pieces yesterday and one today, thus far.
It’s a grand old Constitution. Is it time for a wake?
Today’s article at Jonathan Turley’s blog was authored by Mike Spindell. Titled Catch 22 and the Secrecy Debate, it is based in part on this quote from Joseph Heller’s Catch 22.There, Mr. Heller wrote
The “Catch-22″ is that “anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy” Hence, pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one and thus can never be found insane, meaning he must also fly in combat. Therefore, Catch-22 ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane even if he is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29
Mr. Spindell argues, persuasively I think, that despite President Obama’s alleged desire to hold a “national discussion” about our current security issues, and the government snooping they involve, those discussions cannot realistically be held because all of the pertinent information is classified as secret or higher; disclose something about which to have the discussion and off you go to jail with a damaged reputation; maybe worse.
That’s part of our problem. However, we have another Catch 22 problem. Many consider the current snooping under the banner of the National Security Agency, and its child the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to be unconstitutional. I agree, for the reasons offered below. Unfortunately, there appears to be no effective way to get a determination by the Supreme Court or any other Article III Federal court.
The FISC is not an Article III court
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (FISC) were established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) as subsequently amended. They are intended to authorize surveillance of the types now under discussion, although it is at least questionable whether there is surveillance of only “foreign intelligence.”
FISC judges are chosen from the various Federal District Courts. Each was appointed by the President to serve as an Article III District Court judge and was confirmed by the Senate to do so during “good behavior” – generally until retirement or death. However, appointments of District Court judges to sit on the FISC are made, not by the President but by the Chief Justice, with no subsequent Senate confirmation process, for non-renewable terms of seven years. Hence, there is an anomaly: Article III judges, in their capacities as FISC judges, function at and subject to the constraints of a non-Article III court. The anomaly could be compared to a situation in which a properly appointed and confirmed District Court Judge had been “appointed” by the Chief Justice (rather than by the President) to sit on a Federal appellate court or on the Supreme Court, without Senate confirmation to do so. At least there, and quite unlike the FISC situation, an Article III judge would be sitting on an Article III court.
Even pretending arguendo that the FISC is an Article III court, it is one from which there is no effective means of appeal. Its proceedings are initiated by a governmental entity without notice to any proposed “snoopee.” Proceedings are held ex parte and in camera. When the FISC decides on the disposition of a case, its decision is provided to the initiating governmental entity and otherwise is almost uniformly kept secret. There is a right of appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) – but only for the governmental entity which sought the decision.
The Court of Review is not an adversarial court; rather, the only party to the court is the federal government, although other parties may submit briefs as amici curiae. Records of the proceedings are kept, but they are classified, although copies of the proceedings with sensitive information redacted may be made public. [Emphasis added.]
The judges of the Court of Review are district or appellate federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for seven year terms. The terms are staggered so that there are at least two years between consecutive appointments. A judge may be appointed only once to either this court or the FISC.
Even if the statute provided (and it does not) a way for a snoopee to appeal to the FISCR, there would be no effective way to exercise that right without notice and the text of the decision. Although appeals from FISCR can go directly to the Supreme Court, there is for practical purposes no way to go there with, at best, a heavily redacted version of a classified decision.
Article III courts are unavailable for relief.
Article III courts entertain cases and controversies; they do not render advisory opinions. Under the long ago established doctrine of “standing,”
Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. [Emphasis added.]
The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear “cases” arising under federal law and “controversies” involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions. [Emphasis added.]
Unless a snoopee can show that he is being (or has been) spied upon unlawfully, he likely has no more standing than does anyone not being spied upon who simply considers the practice unlawful as a matter of principle. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently tried, by filing a complaint with the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. That’s a good sign, and I wish them the best of luck. However, I won’t hold my breath.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [Emphasis added.]
The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to laws and actions by the individual States; that clearly suggests, as we already knew, that the Bill of Rights also applies to the laws and actions of the Federal Government.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Emphasis added.]
In this situation, how can the “due process of law” be used to ensure the security of ”persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?” Can the Fourth Amendment be read, legitimately, without relation to the First – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?”
True, the First Amendment makes no mention of electronic communication. However, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision appears to have been based in part on the thesis that to the extent that electronic speech is not protected, neither is any other type. Hence, if the electronic communications rights involved in Citizens United could be abridged legitimately, so could non-electronic means of communication such as books. As noted here,
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority wrote, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”[30]
Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA’s restriction of corporate spending on “electioneering communications”. The Court’s ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on “electioneering communications” and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties). [Emphasis added.]
Freedom of speech and freedom of press exercised electronically are no less protected by the First Amendment than are those exercised through eighteenth century typesetting machines and acoustic devices such as megaphones. Yet no judicial review appears to be available for such abridgments as countenanced by the FISC.
President Barack Obama said that he wanted to “reset” relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the countries closer together. He appears to have succeeded. Yesterday, Putin defended Obama in creating a warrantless surveillance system that is much like Russia’s. In the meantime, a leading Chinese dissent in the United States has said that the program reminds him not of Russia but the police state in China. It appears that Obama can finally claim to have broken down the differences between the United States and both Russia and China in his new America. All we had to do is change our whole notion of privacy (as well as other legal concepts like perjury).
Putin was delighted that the United States was reinvented itself in his image and complimented the massive surveillance system as “the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism.” He added that he loved how the New York government crushed the Occupy Wall Street movement: “That’s the way it’s done in the U.S., and that’s the way it’s done in Russia.”
Putin loves the two publicly confirmed surveillance programs since “[t]hat’s more or less the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism with modern-day technology. As long as it is exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities, it’s alright.” [Emphasis added.]
It is apparent that the current spying efforts are not within the boundaries of United States statutory law, because they fall outside the boundaries of the Constitution, as suggested above.
Since things are like that in China too, there may be enough commonality to set the world straight and make the world safe for “democracy” — where all pigs are equal, some more equal than others, cf. Animal Farm.
If that wasn’t enough for Obama and his congressional allies, leading Chinese dissent and artist Ai Weiwei says that he also recognizes the system being maintained by Obama: the police state in China. He added “I lived in the United States for 12 years. This abuse of state power goes totally against my understanding of what it means to be a civilised society, and it will be shocking for me if American citizens allow this to continue.”
Upping the Ante article
In the article about the plots mysteriously uncovered by spying on Americans, Mr. Turley observes that there is no accountability.
The wonderful thing about secret massive databanks is that its use is . . . well . . . secret. After the surveillance programs involving all calls from citizens and hundreds of millions of emails were disclosed, congressional allies came forward to claim that one “possible plot” was foiled by the program. Of course, they could not tell anyone about the plot even after other members of the Senate said that they doubted that claim. National Security Agency director Army Gen. Keith Alexander, however, has decided that just one potential plot is not enough. So he testified this week that “dozens” of potential plots have been foiled in an effort to get citizens to redefine privacy in a more surveillance friendly image.
For many civil libertarians, the Administration and Congress will have to forgive the feeling that this is like asking “who are you going to believe the courts or the people who were secretly spying on you?” What makes this particularly fascinating is the small problem of the past false testimony on surveillance given by intelligence officials in congressional hearings — testimony known to be false by the Senators in attendance. Yet, now we are told to simply accept on faith that dozens of “potential” plots were stopped. Putting aside the past exaggeration of intelligence claims, this testimony (and the hearing itself) seemed designed to (as with the prior torture program under Bush) to get the public to forget about privacy and constitutional protections by keeping fear alive.
Put more briefly, “lie to us too often and we might not believe you the next time,” see The Boy who Cried Wolf. The IRS did not “target” the tea party organizations. Then, when it became necessary to acknowledge having done so, it was all the fault of low level staffers. Whoops. We tried to fire the high level gal, Lois Lerner, who may have orchestrated it but she declined the honor and is now on gardening leave paid administrative leave. Holly Paz, one of Lois Lerner’s immediate subordinates, has been fired but maybe not.
Others have either retired or been placed on administrative leave, including Washington lawyer Carter Hull, who has been accused of micromanaging the processing of tea-party cases, and who, according to IRS sources, requested his retirement package on March 12; Joseph Grant, the commissioner of the agency’s Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division and Lois Lerner’s boss, who retired on June 3 just days after receiving a promotion; former IRS commissioner Steven Miller, who resigned days after news of the scandal broke . . . .
The “vile” video that caused the Benghazi bumps in the road? Well, upon mature reflection that may not have been the sole cause. Whoops, the video probably had nothing to do with those bumps even though the masquerade continued for at least a couple of weeks — all for a good cause — but that’s too confusing for mere mortals to understand. Bureaucracies are difficult to control when they get really big, so let’s make them bigger. Then the Administration, where big thinking is the only acceptable kind, should be better able to control them. However, David Axelrod seems to think the Government is already too big. Or something like that. Be that as it may, “don’t ask — don’t tell” is seen as the best policy, except in the military. Besides, what difference does it — any of it — make now? Can’t we all just kiss and make up? Please?
Damn it, just trust us anyway; it’s for your own good and ours because if you don’t you will just become even more confused. Wouldn’t you like to learn lots more instead about the latest Leyla Ghobadi cheating scandal and the drug travails of Lindsay Lohan? Boy! Do we have scoops for you! Look: here are their e-mails. Have fun. And then try to figure out whether Sarah Palin is secretly married to Kim Jong-un — she has never actually denied it, you know.
Yet, it is important to note that Senators have come forward to admit that they knew of the massive surveillance program. So, when Clapper was given untrue testimony, these Senators sat quietly and allowed the public to be lied to. They are now holding hearings that assure the public that it can trust them that these programs have foiled “dozens” of plots. It is asking rather a lot from any citizen, but it may be the last measure of devotion demanded by this President.
That is what we have come to expect — and to get — from too many of the CongressCritters whom we continue to reelect, our President who was just reelected and the vast right wing Government conspiracy. Is there a way to stop the merry-go-round? Drastic, but if necessary maybe we can just jump off and hope for the best. Perhaps we should decide whether emasculating the Constitution is the best way to preserve it. I don’t think it is.
Final observation
It’s been a long time since I practiced law, having retired after thirty years in 1996 to go sailing with my wife in the Caribbean; we now live in the highlands of rural Panamá. Much that is now happening was not happening between 1966, when I was graduated from law school, and 1996 when I retired. It is not merely possible, it is probable, that I am inadequately up to date on the law pertinent to current goings on. To the extent that my analysis is flawed, I hope that those who find my errors will let me know.
Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.
The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.
Dear me! What a terrible problem for "our" hard working members of the Congress and the dedicated members of their staffs! Surely, there is no reason why they should suffer the adverse consequences of congressional actions; those were only meant for the little people.
This is my favorite quote from the article – because it ranks right up there in the presumably unintended irony category.
Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved.
“If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.” [Emphasis added.]
Republicans, never a fan of Democratic health care reform, are more vocal about the potential adverse effects of the provision.
Not all pigs can be equal! So what if the most equal pigs don't bother to read legislation before it passes; that's not their job. Former Speaker Pelosi was right – “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
The ship is sinking! CongressCritters to the lifeboats. They will leave behind messages assuring those remaining on the ship of their sincere, heartfelt hopes for a continued pleasant voyage.
Still seen as the most independent of the independent, there will be more food stamps for independent farm families to enjoy soon.
As this article at The Heritage Organization’s The Foundry points out (again),
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said yesterday that he will support the bloated farm bill. But as Heritage has been highlighting, this bill does not do what most people think it does.
Eighty percent of the funding it provides will be for food stamps.
The House farm bill is projected to cost $940 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The last farm bill, in 2008, was projected to cost $604 billion. By any measure, passing a bill that is projected to be 56 percent more expensive than the last farm bill is not fiscally responsible.
Oh piffle! Fiscal responsibility is terribly old fashioned — like independent family farmers.
It all makes sense, I guess, because “food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration, and participation is at historic highs.” It’s good to make history! It’s proof of American exceptionalism but — of course — only in understated, humble, compassionate and non-jingoistic ways. That’s why Obama’s historic presidency is so very precious. We can’t wait and must act, now, lest too many European nations outshine us and make our own pitiful welfare programs seem anemic in comparison. What would our neighbors think?
It now appears that among the many inducements to journey to the United States for those yearning for free stuff to be free is the increasing availability — and promotion — of “food stamps” (EBT cards) for illegal aliens our honored guests, eventually to become citizens.
Flyers provided to the Mexican embassy by the USDA include a statement – almost comically emphasized with both boldface and underlining – informing prospective SNAP beneficiaries, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.“
Democrats We certainly want all we they can get, but thank goodness it’s for the little children! Might it have been a mistake not to include the “farm bill” in the “consensus” Immigration Reform Bill now pending? In any event, let’s help the spending to double again; then, next verse, same as the first. That must be the “fair,” “common sense” way to make our laws.
At least one Senator was pretty blunt about the purpose of the food stamps: just to “get the farm bill passed.” Such a massive program deserves to be considered—and debated—on its own, not lumped in with unrelated programs and slapped with the title of “farm.”
It seems that “our” honorable members of “our” Congress are mastering their Gilbert & Sullivan comprehension. Although the “farm” bill is a good example of “things are seldom what they seem,” there are many others. What was that thing named “Affordable Care Act?” Oh. That. never mind. Just set everything to music that everyone can sing and hum — each in his own language, each in his own way — and all will be well.
I was graduated from Yale University in 1963 with a B.A. in economics and from the University of Virginia School of law, where I was the notes editor of the Virginia Law Review, in 1966. Following four years of active duty with the Army JAG Corps, with two tours in Korea, I entered private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in communications law. I retired in 1996 to sail with my wife, Jeanie, on our sailboat Namaste to and in the Caribbean. In 2002, we settled in the Republic of Panama and live in a very rural area up in the mountains.
Now the question is, what will the Obama Administration try to do about this dangerous turn of events? Surely, the apple cart cannot be allowed to be overturned just because the apples are showing more signs of rot. Additional obfuscation piled upon more conflicting statements and distractions (see Red Line in Syria, for example) often work. I wonder, however, whether there is much that will be effective this time in restoring the level of trust in Government that President Obama, Inc. needs to peddle its wares. Only a few days ago on May 5th, President Obama said
