2016’s Worst-Case Scenario

Joe Biden says he is out of the 2016 race, then proceeds to give a 25-minute campaign speech. Why? Commentator Charles Krauthammer thinks he is positioning himself should lightning strike Hillary Clinton in the form of a federal indictment.

Any indictment that may come will be the result of an FBI investigation into her e-mail scandal, but there are other reasons to fervently oppose a Hillary nomination, with Benghazi being a key one.

Today the House special committee investigating Benghazi will have her testify. Four Americans died in that terrorist attack that she tried to blame on a hardly seen video. When she appears before the committee, perhaps they should also have empty chairs next to her as a remembrance for the four who died.

There’s actually a fifth victim here as well:

Empty Chairs

Another cartoonist picked up on that theme rather pointedly also:

Waste of Time

For me, it doesn’t matter which of the possible candidates Democrats will offer to the public; I could never vote for any of them. Why don’t they just get it over and change the name of the party officially to the Socialist Party? Or how about the Kill Innocent Children and Sell Their Body Parts Party? The Let’s Destroy Marriage Party? You get the drift. There’s no way I can ever support what Democrats now stand for. How any Christian can give support for them is beyond my comprehension.

Then there’s the Republican side where Donald Trump continues to lead in the polls. Some, like this cartoonist, view him this way:


His candidacy certainly has been long on bravado, a cult of personality, and the ability to hit hot-button issues that appeal to angry voters. But he’s far from lacking substance; what bothers me the most is the substance I see.

Trump, in my view, has only latched onto a type of conservatism because it’s what will get him the nomination. He, by his own admission, has always aligned himself more with Democrats than Republicans, and now mouths conservative platitudes that I don’t really think he believes.

Ronald Reagan underwent a serious rethinking of his New Deal liberalism over a number of years, coming out of the period of rethinking as a confirmed conservative in principle. Trump is, I fear, nothing more than an opportunist jumping on a bandwagon of reaction against the Obama years.

That’s not enough. It’s also dangerous to put one’s trust in an opportunist. It will come back to bite.

His latest foray into the Loony Left’s talking points is the insinuation that 9/11 was somehow George Bush’s fault. Whatever critique we, and I, may have of Bush’s actions, anyone who even hints at his complicity in letting 9/11 happen is wandering into the fever swamps.

There were so many daily threats Bush was given that there was no way to single out ahead of time what actually happened on 9/11.

Further, Trump then asserted that if he had been president, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened, indicating that his immigration approach would have prevented it. Does he not know that 15 of the 19 terrorists that day came into the country legally? And does he really want us to believe that he would have rounded them up and deported them in the short 8-month span he would have been in office prior to 9/11?

Hitching a ride on the Trump Train will spell disaster for the GOP.


Can you imagine a worse scenario than what we may be facing as an election choice in 2016?

Miss Those Days

As noted above, I’ll never vote for Hillary or any other Democrat. But please, Republicans, don’t force me to vote for a third party.

Hillary & Other People’s Rules

Yes, it’s time for another Hillary Clinton post. The State Department released more of her e-mails last night—late last night. One gets the impression the State Department is working on her behalf, hoping people won’t notice. When asked yesterday by Ed Henry of Fox News whether the department believes Clinton followed all the rules for using e-mails, the spokesperson declined to answer.

One hopes, though, the FBI will fulfill its role and conduct a thorough investigation.

Hard to Tell

By the way, last night’s dump identified more classified e-mails that never should have found their way to a private server. Is Clinton sorry she used that server? Well, in one way, perhaps:

I'm Sorry

The main problem is that both of the Clintons operate on the assumption that they live above the rules imposed on the rest of the population—that somehow they are privileged and don’t have to answer for their actions:

Hillary's Library

Anyone else would have been indicted by now. Even the most devoted Democrats don’t really want their nominee to be under federal indictment during a campaign. That’s why there is this undercurrent about Joe Biden possibly entering the race.

Biden doesn’t really stir any deep emotions, but there’s one part of the population that would love to see the gaffe-ridden vice president pursuing the nomination:

People React

I would like to see his entry into the race as well. He’s so tied to the Obama administration and all its policies—even more than Hillary—that there would be a greater chance of an epic campaign fail.

Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer were discussing this race on O’Reilly’s program last night. They both felt strongly that the 2016 election should be a slam dunk for Republicans. However, they also agreed that the intrusion of Donald Trump into the campaign has thrown that into doubt.

The focus has shifted from all of Obama’s massive failures and policies that have weakened the country, and instead we are concentrating on a Trump campaign that never holds Democrats responsible, but reacts only to a vague “Washington is corrupt” theme.

No matter how spineless Republican leaders have been, the greater problem is the radical nature of Obama’s attempt to transform America. That’s where the focus needs to be.

Parental Rights & Obama

According to the Supreme Court, the battle is over for the Romeike family. The Court denied the request for a review of their case. The Romeikes, for those who may not know or have forgotten, are a homeschooling family from Germany who came to the United States for the freedom to teach their children in the way they believe God intended. They were fleeing their native country because Germany has a law that requires all children to attend government-sponsored schools. The parents felt those schools would be detrimental to their Christian faith and sought to homeschool instead. For that basic human right, they were threatened with having their children taken from them.

When they first came to the U.S., they were granted asylum. Then, out of the proverbial blue, the Obama administration, via its Department of Justice—known more often lately as the source of a string of abhorrent injustices—singled out this family for deportation back to Germany where they almost certainly will lose custody of their children.

Farris & German Homeschooling Family

My friend Michael Farris has served as their attorney throughout this long legal battle. Yesterday was a discouraging day for him as all his effort seems to have been for nothing. Well, it’s never an effort for nothing when you stand for the principle of parental rights, but this is a disturbing result nonetheless.

The argument that won the day for the DOJ is that the German law isn’t targeting this family in particular; rather, it applies to every German citizen. Therefore, the argument goes, it is not a basis for asylum. Never mind that the law is unjust to begin with; never mind that it tramples on the basic right of parents to raise and educate their children as they see fit; ignore the fact that this law puts the state in charge of all children over the natural rights of parents. As George Will commented last night on Fox News, the Court may be technically correct, but why did the Obama administration go to such lengths to single out this family?

Charles Krauthammer, normally a commentator of profound insight, couldn’t grasp how this could be perceived as persecution since, he said, the majority of Germans are Christians and don’t find any problem with this law. All that reveals is that Krauthammer, who is an agnostic, has no understanding of what constitutes a genuine Christian. For him, it’s primarily cultural. Yet even Krauthammer sympathized and argued there has to be some way to allow them to stay in America.

So why did Obama and his lackeys target this family? I think it has a lot to do with their own biases against a dedicated Christian family asserting parental rights. In the process of this deportation, the DOJ argued that parents don’t really have the right to homeschool their children; the government has the final say.

Well, some contend, that was only in the context of the German family and doesn’t apply to American citizens. No, it was a broad statement, and even though it is not currently being applied to Americans, it gives a giant hint as to what the Obama people believe and how they would like to proceed, given the opportunity.

Others will attempt to gloss over this attitude by saying they wouldn’t dare cross that line. We would never see a law in the U.S. that bans homeschooling. Why, that would be almost as absurd as believing that someday the government would put its stamp of approval on same-sex marriage.

Oh . . . wait a minute.


I read a Charles Krauthammer column the other day that was so clear, concise, and devastatingly accurate that I want to share some of his thoughts. It has to do with the number one national concern right now—no, not Casey Anthony—the huge debt and what to do about it. He trains his incisive analysis on the hubris that comes from the top of our government—the president himself. Obama has been quite vocal lately, telling the Congress to take responsibility. As Krauthammer notes, in his own words, this is from the man who:

  • Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.
  • Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.
  • Delivered a State of the Union address that didn’t even mention the word “debt” until 35 minutes in.
  • Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing—it actually increased the deficit—that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97 to 0.
  • Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

So, in effect, President Obama has done absolutely nothing about the debt for which he and his party are largely responsible, then goes to the airwaves in interviews and news conferences to point the finger at Republicans. Wait a minute. Aren’t they the ones who passed a budget in the House? So who is actually working and who is merely pontificating?

Krauthammer identifies the Democrat strategy in this way:

Do nothing; invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do—voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform—demogogue them to death. And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So: First you get the GOP to seize the left’s third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right’s third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

What about Obama’s fascinating proposal to take away tax breaks from corporate jet owners? Well, it plays nicely to people’s envy of those who have more than they do, but do they ever stop to think how many jobs might be lost with that policy? Krauthammer did the math on that class-warfare tactic: if the amount of money the government would get back from that policy were received annually, it would take roughly 5,000 years to equal the new debt Obama created in the last year alone.

In other words, this is not a serious proposal. It’s meant to ramp up feelings against the ever-present, and always evil, rich people. How do we know they’re evil? President Obama tells us so. This is the height of political cynicism and opportunism. It deserves to be exposed for what it is.