2016 Is Not a Replay of 1980

So we now have the notes the FBI took when they interrogated Hillary Clinton about her e-mail server. What have we discovered? She is adept at blaming her staff for everything and protesting that she doesn’t “recall” almost anything having to do with training on how to handle sensitive documents.

This is after having signed forms that testified she knew the specifics of how to handle such documents. What comes across is that she is playing the “I just don’t get all this technology” card in an attempt to escape prosecution (which the Justice Department at the behest of the FBI has allowed her to do).

Don't Understand

And we’re supposed to believe this baloney. It’s about as surreal as it can get. Has there ever been a presidential candidate who has been exposed as this corrupt before?

Self-Inflicted

Yet she may be our next president.

With Donald Trump putting illegal immigration back in the news with his foray into Mexico and his speech on the topic afterwards, one might want to ask Hillary (if anyone is allowed to ask her anything) what her stance is on the subject.

Ready to Assimilate

I’ve read parts of the transcript of Trump’s speech and seen excerpts. While there are points in the speech with which I agree, I still can’t stand his attitude. This is the moderate Trump?

Earlier in the day, he was all sweetness and light with the Mexican president. Later, in the speech, he threw out the red meat to his followers, sounding like the “old” Trump. One thing his followers might have missed, though, is that he didn’t say what he would now do with those currently living here illegally. Wasn’t the big deportation thing one of the main reasons he amassed such rabid support at the start? Now he’s backing down on it (which only makes sense) and very few of his supporters seem to have a problem with his flip-flop on an issue that they considered a cornerstone.

Consistency

He’s been all over the place, trying to come up with something that can be called a genuine policy. He’s done the same with abortion in the past. He’s totally unreliable.

Back in 1980, we were in the throes of the Carter administration. That led to a revival of common sense under Ronald Reagan. Some people are seeing a historical parallel in that we are in dire straits similar to what we experienced under Carter, and that another Reagan is waiting around the corner. Here, though, is where the parallel breaks down.

Doesn't Cheer My Up

Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan and 2016 is not a replay of 1980. Sadly.

Obama Fiddles While America Burns

All the electioneering has distracted from the ongoing attack on America by the current temporary occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. How is Barack Obama continuing his assault on America? Let me count the ways.

First, he is salivating over the prospect of nominating another Supreme Court clone, one who will tip the balance against the Constitution for the foreseeable future:

Another Appointment

Fortunately for the country, at the moment, Republicans in the Senate are standing against any nominee coming from this most unconstitutional of all presidents. Will they remain steadfast? That’s always the relevant question.

Then there’s the dramedy known as Obamacare, in which premiums rise inordinately, exchanges go bust, and jobs are sacrificed to this sacred cow. Again, the silver lining is that it is so inefficient that the whole thing may break down:

Obamacare Bust

And did you hear the news out of the misnamed Justice Department? Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her minions, under the auspices of our president, are looking into the possibility of prosecuting those of us they call “global warming deniers.” Thought police, indeed?

Inquisition

On the terror front, Obama’s desire to empty Gitmo of all radical jihadists proceeds apace. Never mind that those released will rejoin the ranks of those who seek to destroy America:

Get Out of Gitmo

Then there’s Iran. You know, that misunderstood nation that truly wishes to be our friend? Ignore the fact that Iran just violated the so-called agreement that Obama and Kerry hammered out by shooting off a missile. What makes that even more infuriating is that the missile had a message inscribed on it in Hebrew calling for Israel to be wiped out.

Just a Test

The administration is shocked—shocked—that Iran would do such a thing:

Pinky Promised

Obama fiddles while America burns. Meanwhile, American voters fiddle around with the possibility of replacing him with either Hillary or The Donald. Those options are not improvements.

A Clinton Indictment?

Another few thousand pages of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails have been released. The latest estimate is that nearly one in every twenty contains classified information—all transmitted on her own private server (which was undoubtedly hacked by those seeking to undermine American security—I’m talking about other countries, not Obama, by the way—he has his own methods for undermining American security).

Her presumed husband has rushed to her defense:

Refuse to Stand By

Together, they have concocted an old scheme that seemed to work so well last time:

Almost Forgotten

One can practically hear voices of the ghosts of the impeachment proceedings sixteen years ago:

Out to Get Her

Clinton’s defense of himself as the House Managers attempted to awaken the American people—“this is all just politics” and “these are evil people out to get me”—has been resurrected. But will it fly this time?

Account Overdrawn

The stonewall continues, but one has to wonder how long they will be able to concoct these fanciful explanations before Hillary has to bow to the inevitable:

Erased

I was watching Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet) on Fox this morning predicting that by the end of the year, the Justice Department is going to recommend an indictment because even an Obama Justice Department can’t refuse to face the facts. But he went on to say that it would still be up to Obama himself whether any indictment would be allowed to go forward. Napolitano then predicted that if Obama rejects the indictment, many principled people in the FBI might resign in protest.

This will be a fascinating story to follow, so don’t start thinking it’s old news. We get new news about Hillary every week.

Nothing to Fear?

The scandals continue apace, and it doesn’t seem as if they’re going away soon. A new one was added on in the past couple of days. More on that later. But first, let’s update what we know. Well, keep in mind the only reason we know anything is because whistleblowers and some reporters who still cling to the old idea of ferreting out the facts have overcome the fear of White House retaliation and come forward to present their evidence. If it were up to the White House and the various executive departments it oversees, we would remain in the dark. They want you to believe they are clueless about any wrongdoing, yet should receive total credit for anything that goes right:

Not Me

At the almost-daily press briefings and on news shows, members representing the administration have one talking point only:

Scandalous

On Benghazi, we haven’t heard as much in the last few days, but it’s still bubbling under the surface. Rumors are that more whistleblowers are about to tell their tales. That can’t be good for those who may have tried to put a cone of silence over their testimony:

Air Strike

One commentator, Andy McCarthy, reminds us of an overlooked part of the Benghazi timeline: President Obama and Hillary Clinton had a 10:00 p.m. phone call the night of the attack, which was just after receiving news that our ambassador had been killed. The next day the false story about the anti-Islam video became the “explanation” for the attack. Coincidence?

We also know now that the administration has identified at least five individuals in Libya who were responsible for carrying out the attack, but have done nothing to get them. Apparently, they are waiting until there is enough “evidence” to try them in a civilian court. Again, this betrays the administration’s worldview. Obama and his people, especially Eric Holder at the Justice Department, believe foreign terrorists are entitled to all the legal protections of American citizens. Wrong.

The IRS scandal currently dominates most of the news cycle for the scandals. I think that has something to do with how every citizen feels about that particular agency. We all know it can come after each one of us individually. There’s not a whole lot love there. And even though we’re told it’s not a partisan agency, facts seem to indicate otherwise:

Only a Left Wing

We also now know that on March 31, 2010, President Obama met with the anti-Tea Party IRS union chief at the White House. The very next day the “jihad” against Tea Party and other conservative organizations began. Another coincidence?

Lois LernerTea Parties across the nation held rallies yesterday outside IRS offices, protesting the unfair and illegal treatment they have received at its hands. The main person responsible for that treatment, Lois Lerner, is supposed to appear today before one of the congressional committees investigating the scandal. The word is that she has decided to take the Fifth Amendment, which is a little peculiar for someone who claims she has done nothing wrong. Now, I realize the Fifth Amendment is there to protect against incriminating oneself, but one has to wonder what she has to hide—or who else she might be protecting. What promises have been made to her to secure her silence? In the law, a prosecutor must provide evidence for a conviction, so taking the Fifth is an established practice; we are told not to consider anyone guilty until proven so. However, this is not yet a legal court case where those standards exist. There’s another court, that of public opinion, and we are free to believe what we wish about this tactic being used at this point.

Another reason to be concerned about how the IRS handles its business is that it is slated to oversee the implementation of Obamacare, a law frightening enough in itself, even before the IRS is attached to it:

Member of Tea Party

Under New Management

This whole thing has taken on monstrous proportions. How long will American citizens put up with it?

Villagers with Torches

James RosenThe tapping of the phones of the Associated Press is now an old story compared to recent revelations. Obama has never liked Fox News. Now we know, for a fact, that this organization also has been the subject of scrutiny. It started with the exposure of the Justice Department secretly reading the e-mails of James Rosen, one of Fox’s reporters. Rosen was merely doing what all reporters do—trying to find out information on a story. In this case, it had to do with the North Korea nuclear program. Something about that ticked off the powers-that-be. The DOJ somewhere found a judge who signed off on the secret reading of Rosen’s e-mails because he was called a “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation.

This jarring news sent a chill through the entire press. Never in the history of this country, except perhaps after the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798, has a member of the press been accused formally of criminal activity simply for pursuing information. Then it came out that the DOJ had targeted other Fox employees as well; a further revelation is that the department also tapped into Fox phone lines. This is unprecedented.

Doing My Job

But don’t worry. We’re told the president is a great supporter of the First Amendment. All we have to fear is fear itself.

Nothing to Fear

This is a tyranny in the making. It needs to be stopped. Let the investigations proceed.

Punishing Arizona

The media naturally focused on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona illegal immigration law, but apparently it’s missing the other story: the abandonment of Arizona by the federal government. From what I’ve read, none of the network morning programs—not Today or Good Morning America, or whatever CBS has currently—even mentioned the astounding change announced by the Department of Homeland Security. I haven’t yet heard a report on how the evening news shows handled it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they downplayed it as well. It’s what they do.

Consider: the federal government no longer will work with state and local law enforcement in Arizona on the illegal immigrant problem. If state or local law enforcement wants to check on the immigration status of someone being held for any other crime, the federal government will not respond to their request for information. As I said yesterday, it’s as if Arizona is the criminal in the eyes of the Obama administration. Of course, that should not startle anyone familiar with this administration’s approach to enforcing laws it doesn’t like:

It’s kind of like this:

They say immigration enforcement is a federal job, not that of the states, yet they don’t help the states being overwhelmed by a flood of illegal immigration. How can they have it both ways? Oh, that’s right, lawyers are in charge:

Given the attitude displayed by Obama’s DOJ and DHS, they might as well act as tour guides:

At least then they might be doing something useful.

Obama, Illegal Immigration, & the Court

The Obama administration has had quite an innovative approach to the problem of illegal immigration. Whenever a state decides to enforce the federal laws that already exist, such as in Arizona where the law they passed was merely a reaffirmation of what the federal government should be doing, they get a rather strange reaction from Washington:

The Obama Justice Department is so outraged by states trying to help that it has taken this all the way to the Supreme Court. Arguments were held last week, and if you haven’t heard much about it, it might be because it didn’t go too well for the administration. The same lawyer who tried to defend Obamacare was back, once again attempting to defend the indefensible. His case was so weak, reports indicate even some of the liberal justices may have to jump the ideological ship on this one:

So now we have insight into the administration’s strategy—make sure the economy stays so bad that no one in their right minds would ever want to cross the border illegally:

The president himself is so perturbed with the Court that he’s been trying to pressure it to see things his way, but he’s meeting with some resistance:

Take a moment today and thank God for the checks and balances set up in the Constitution. Sometimes they actually can work.

Eric Holder, Voter ID Laws, & Politics

Attorney General Eric Holder is at it again. While already under fire for passing misinformation [a.k.a., lying] to Congress over the Fast and Furious operation, he now has jumped into the fray to challenge voter ID laws in several states. Let’s review what they are.

Understanding the need for a voter ID law does not require a doctorate. Simply stated, the laws in question merely require would-be voters to provide a state-issued photo ID of some kind to prove that the person wanting to vote is, well, actually that person. My, how unreasonable.

Yet Holder, and the Democrat Party in general, is up in arms over these laws. They claim they will suppress minority voting, that somehow these laws will intimidate such voters. Wait a minute, don’t we have to show photo IDs for various things already? Quite often, when buying with a credit card, I’m required to show a photo ID. Not a bad idea; I don’t want anyone stealing my identity.

Why would this not also be a good idea for voting? Yet somehow this is held to be discriminatory. In fact, it’s only an attempt to stop voter fraud. Surely the Democrat Party can’t be in favor of fraudulent voting, can it? Well, yes, I know about the history of Tammany Hall in New York, Mayor Richard Daley and his descendants—both in the family and out—in Chicago, where the more voters, the merrier, even if you have to allow dead people to cast their ballots from the grave, and various other locales too numerous to mention. But surely they have reformed, right? Right?

Ironically, when Georgia passed a new voter ID law, minority voting increased, both in 2008 and 2010. What’s that about discrimination again?

No one should be opposed to safeguards on the ballot box. Only genuine, legal voters should be allowed to have a say in elections. That used to be called common sense, but in the Holder Justice Department, and in the Obama administration as a whole, common sense takes a back seat to the perception of political advantage.