Beyond the Constitution’s Tipping Point
We have reached a tipping point in this country The fraud in the White House threw all pretense of adherence to the Constitution to the wind and made several blatantly illegal “recess” appointments of extreme leftists to positions of power within the government. Clearly, this was a move to avoid letting the Senate exercise its advise-and-consent authority over appointments. The thing is, Congress was not in recess, so the move was illegal.
It would seem, however, that we conservatives are not the only ones who have noticed how spinelessly co-operative Congress has become in foisting totalitarian socialism on America in the past few years. The Marxist/neo-fascists who run the Democrat Party and write the speeches and policy for the Sock Puppet in the White House, appear to be keenly aware of the compliance of this worthless body. Confronted with the reality of a massive defeat at the polls in November – assuming, of course that an honest election could actually take place (entiende “fat chance,” amigos?) – they have pulled out all the stops and are imposing their agenda on the country, the Constitution and federal laws be damned. The Reichstag has been burned.
Strategically, from the point of view of the radical left, this makes total sense. If they can continue to get away with over-the-top lawlessness, as they have with their cover-up of the Fast and Furious debacle that resulted in the deaths of over 200 Mexican citizens, and two American federal agents; numerous obvious, but unprosecuted cases of Democrat voter fraud; the looting of the Treasury, disguised as “stimulus;” collusion with Big Unions and “green” corporations in return for huge bribes euphemistically called “campaign donations;” their refusal to close the border and their actual facilitation of the invasion of illegals by refusing to build the fence mandated by law, their refusal to enforce immigration laws, their refusal to deport apprehended illegals, and their withdrawal of National Guard personnel from the border, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam, then it is likely that they will get away with what amounts to a coup d’etat. And so far, they are succeeding.
I find this especially disheartening since it was only a couple of weeks ago that Obama- Soetoro’s hero and role model, Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez, publicly called him a clown and accused him of wrecking the country. Why is it that a ham-fisted communist dictator can speak the truth, but our self-proclaimed conservative “leaders” in Congress are as silent as the grave they appear to be digging for American freedom and liberty?
I can’t help but think that one of the events that encouraged the Marxist Democrats to go on the offensive – and folks, their actions have been offensive, in every sense of the word – is the fact that all but a small handful of members of both the House and the Senate voted for the Constitution-crushing National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including some whom I had previously considered genuine conservatives. [Read more...]
Opposing Obama is Not Racist
The Democrats are settling on one major election strategy: Portray opposition to President Obama as a form of racism. In a nutshell, the liberal argument is that conservative dissent from Mr. Obama’s social democratic agenda – Obamacare, the nearly $1 trillion stimulus and Dodd-Frank – is driven not by the color of the president’s politics, but the color of his skin.
This line of attack first began several years ago. It was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who compared critics of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul to the defenders of “slavery” and “Jim Crow.” In other words, dislike for socialized medicine is akin to nostalgia for white supremacy. According to liberal Democrats, it can’t possibly be for legitimate reasons. The fact that government-run health care causes rationing, inevitably leads to higher taxes and lower quality care, imposes a multitrillion-dollar entitlement the nation cannot afford, and dangerously expands the power of the state to make life-and-death decisions regarding the health of citizens and their families – all of this, for the left, is merely an intellectual cover for racial hostility against a black president. That the same arguments were rightly leveled against President Bill Clinton – who is white – during the 1993 debate over Hillarycare is irrelevant; nothing can stand in the way of the Democrats’ conservatives-are-racist narrative.
The latest assaults, however, go one step further: Any criticism of the president’s big-government policies is a sign of subtle bigotry. During Monday’s GOP presidential TV debate in South Carolina, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scolded by liberal moderator Juan Williams for referring to Mr. Obama as the “food stamp president.” To his credit, Mr. Gingrich did not back down. He rightly pointed out that record numbers of Americans are now on food stamps due to the president’s welfare liberalism. Moreover, Mr. Gingrich also argued that the culture of government dependency – and the endemic poverty it breeds – has disproportionately affected minorities. Instead of charging that such claims “belittle the African-American community,” as Mr. Williams said, Mr. Gingrich retorted that free-market capitalism – the stress on self-reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship – offers the only true path to prosperity for all Americans, especially impoverished blacks. The problem is not a racist America – it’s a statist America. The Republican crowd roared, giving Mr. Gingrich a standing ovation. For the left, it was an angry expression of the lingering desire to restore the old Confederacy and politically lynch a black man.
“Well, we know what is going on. And the people that don’t hear it don’t want to hear it,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “You cannot argue a person into it. You cannot tell a person that is code, because the people that don’t want to hear that it’s code will say it’s not and the people that clearly hear that it’s code will. It’s not something that you can argue with a person.”
And what was this supposed code? Mr. Matthews said that the Republican primary represents a “receding white culture of the past trying to reclaim something.” Former President Jimmy Carter agreed. He condemned Mr. Gingrich for using phrases like “food stamp president” and his calls for a stronger work ethic among the poor, saying such statements are deliberately “appealing to the wrong element in South Carolina.”
Hurling the racism charge has been used by liberals for years as an ideological stick to bludgeon conservative critics. In our time, it is the equivalent of previously being called a witch or heretic: a libelous smear that, if it sticks, results in social ostracism. Yet, the fact that liberals are now repeatedly – and blindly – resorting to it is a sign of….
Read more from Jeffrey T. Kuhner, The Washington Times.
Justice Dept. Backs Down Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio
In its developing battle with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over alleged violations of the civil rights of Hispanics, the Justice Department appears to have blinked, backing away from an earlier threat to take the Arizona lawman to federal court immediately.
Now, the DOJ suddenly wants to talk.
Still, the Civil Rights Division under the direction of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez has made it clear that the DOJ has no intent of proving its charges, as Arpaio has demanded.
In an email sent to WND on Jan. 5, the DOJ stated, “If MCSO wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”
Yet, in a six-page letter delivered to Arpaio’s office Wednesday, Perez appeared to have softened his position by offering to talk, rather than going to court immediately.
“We stand ready to meet, answer questions and discuss a resolution with you and your client immediately.” Perez wrote to the sheriff’s office’s outside counsel, Joseph J. Popolizio.
In the proposed meetings, nevertheless, Perez made it clear the DOJ has no intent of showing or debating any of its alleged evidence.
“The nature and extent of the document request suggests that your real goal is not ‘transparency’ and ‘cooperation,’ but rather further delay,” Perez wrote.
Arpaio was not amused.
“I’ll be happy to meet with DOJ anytime,” Arpaio told WND. “But I believe we have a right to see the evidence DOJ says they have against us and to defend ourselves against the charges.”
Arpaio bristled that Perez presumed the charges were valid, simply because the DOJ investigated his office.
“What about our right to see the evidence and confront our accusers?” Arpaio asked.
As WND reported, some Arpaio supporters point to evidence that the Obama DOJ has launched a political campaign against the sheriff in retaliation for his decision to constitute a Cold Case Posse to investigate Obama eligibility for the Arizona ballot this fall.
Before assuming his current position with the DOJ, Perez was a board director for Casa de Maryland, a Hispanic advocacy group affiliated with the radical national organization La Raza.
In 2007, as Maryland’s labor secretary, Perez joined students to urge the Maryland legislature to approve a bill granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, according to the Washington Post.
La Raza even today holds the extreme view that the United States should, as a minimum, concede back to Hispanic rule major portions of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
WND has also reported that the DOJ appears to be coordinating its actions with Randy Parraz, a California-born activist/attorney who has relocated in Arizona with the announced goal of masterminding a Saul Alinsky series of 1960-styled political protests designed to force the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to ask for Arpaio’s resignation.
“I have no intention of resigning,” Arpaio affirmed to WND.
Arpaio has announced his attention to seek a sixth term as Maricopa County sheriff in the upcoming November elections…..
Read more from Dr. Jerome Corsi, WND.com.
