Good News for Jimmy Carter

Illegality Tracker

So, my beginnings of a post are below. Fortunately for all of us,  Keith Koffler IS a full-time professional and he has collected two dozen Obama scandals.


It would take a full-time professional staff to keep track of the acts and omissions of the current regime that are contrary to the rule of law, that skirt or exceed the constitutional limits and statutory powers of the president and the executive branch.

Not only do we have 5 years of abuses to record, but new instances are coming to light daily.

I don't have a full-time professional staff. But I'll do my best to highlight the ones that come to my attention.

1. Treasury: Debt Has Been Exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 56 Days - As reported in CNSNews.com on 15 July 2013 the official federal debt has been exactly $25M below the debt limit for almost 2 months while the Treasury has issued more debt instruments than it has redeemed. Now, as anyone who has lied with numbers will tell you, a number with that many trailing zeroes is not an accurate number. There is no practical way that in real life, there could be no change from day to day in the number. That the Treasury has been issuing more debt than it has been redeeming makes the number even more blatantly fallacious. 

CNS asks the obvious question: "How could the value of extant U.S. Treasury Securities increase by $51.586 billion during a 56-day period when the federal government’s debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress has remained constant at $16,699,396,000,000.00—just $25 million below the legal limit?"

Jack Lew's response is a classic of bureaucratic opacity: "Treasury Secretary Lew sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. In the letter, Lew said the Treasury would begin implementing what he called “the standard set of extraordinary measures” that allows the Treasury to continue to borrow and spend money even after it has hit the legal debt limit."

Only a U.S. Federal Government Official could use the term "standard set of extraordinary measures" and proceed to borrow more than is authorized by law - with complete seriousness. Really, if it weren't true, I'd swear it was a Monty Python sketch. I didn't bother to investigate what the "standard set of extraordinary measures" are, but when Timmy Geithner did it, they included failing to fund federal worker pension accounts - an illegal act for any organization that isn't the Federal Government.

2. EXCLUSIVE: Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records
Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases According to the Washington Times, "The Treasury Department has admitted for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.

Its investigators also are probing two allegations that the Internal Revenue Service “targeted for audit candidates for public office,” the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, has privately told Sen. Chuck Grassley."

3. Circumventing or ignoring completely laws currently in force. There are any number. Refusing to enforce immigration laws in order to effectively enact the DREAM Act by Executive fiat is probably the most egregious. Failing to enforce DOMA, and failing to perform his constitutional duty to defend it in court combine for another. I just came across a relatively minor, but perhaps telling in that his abrogation of his Constitutional responsibilities and his flaunting of laws is becoming mundane. There has been a provision in an appropriations bill for quite some time that prohibits the CDC from using any of its funding “to advocate or promote gun control.” Which effectively thwarted their research because of course the CDC was doing research expressly to promote gun control. Obama issued an executive order  instructing the CDC to ignore Congress' intent and to proceed to produce 'research' 'proving' the need for more restrictions on guns.

UPDATE

The Attorney General "is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences." In other words, prosecutors are being told to ignore the actual offense and to enter a charge based on the amount of punishment they would like the alleged criminal to receive, thereby circumventing (once again) the will of the people expressed through laws passed by their elected representatives.

Did I mention that the administration is importing illegal immigrants through a loop hole in the asylum rules?

Immigrants are being taught to use "key words and phrases" to be allowed to enter and stay in the country. 

Just this past Monday, Border Patrol agents say about 200 people came through the Otay Crossing claiming a quote: "credible fear" of the drug cartels. 

 It's even providing free hotel rooms for them. 

UPDATE 2: Charles Krauthammer adds to the list:

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/12/krauthammer_holders_actions_on_drug_sentencing_unlawful_shocking.html

UPDATE 3:  I see this list is going to grow daily. In this case, reported by the Washington Times,  the Administration has been caught ignoring a federal law to open Yucca Mountain. Just ignoring it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been violating federal law by delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Two of the three judges from the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia think the government ought to obey the law. Crazy, I know...

"In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was “simply flouting the law” when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste repository.

“The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion"

Judge Kavanaugh ought to know better than that. The president certainly can, and has. ACA waivers, DOMA, Immigration, oh, I could go on. But there are only 24 hours in a day...

Besides, if Congress doesn't care, why should the the president?

"Reid, a Democrat, called the appeals court decision “fairly meaningless.” Congress has cut funding for Yucca and is unlikely to restore it, Reid said.

“This isn’t even a bump in the road. This, without being disrespectful to the court, means nothing,” Reid told reporters at a clean energy conference Tuesday in Las Vegas.

How do you call a federal court decision "fairly meaningless" which "means nothing" without thereby being disrespectful of the court and the actual rule of law?

On a slightly more positive note, it seems there IS a precedent for stopping the implementation of a law by withdrawing funding. Mike Lee, call Harry Reid to see how that's done...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/appeals-court-obama-violating-law-nuclear-site-nev/#ixzz2bwvBMaNt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

UPDATE 4: Sorry for two in as many minutes. But this article by Victor Davis Hanson is a must-read.

Two Degrees from the President

Big news is actually a blast from the past:

FBI puts NJ trooper’s killer in 1973 on most wanted terrorist list; reward upped to $2M

"The reward for the capture and return of a fugitive member of a black militant group convicted of murdering a New Jersey state trooper was doubled to $2 million on Thursday, the 40th anniversary of the bloody gunbattle.

The FBI also announced it has made Joanne Chesimard, now living in Cuba as Assata Shakur, the first woman on its list of most wanted terrorists."

"Chesimard, a member of the violent Black Liberation Army, was convicted of the 1973 murder of state trooper Werner Foerster during a traffic stop. The BLA was responsible for killing more than a dozen police officers in the 1970s and ‘80s, said agent Aaron Ford of the FBI’s Newark division.

According to NJSP Superintendent  Col. Fuentes, Foerster and his partner stopped a car carrying Chesimard and two cohorts on the New Jersey Turnpike for a broken tail light. When the troopers approached the car, a gunfight ensued and both troopers were injured. Chesimard then took Foerster’s gun and shot him twice in the head as he lay on the ground.

She was convicted in 1977 but escaped from prison in New Jersey in November 1979 with the help of accomplices. She spent the next few years living in safe houses, two of which were in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, before surfacing in Cuba in 1984, Fuentes said."

I have some recollection of this, having grown up in NJ during the '70s.

But perhaps the FBI and the NJSP have the story wrong. Democracy Now! recollects the incident differently:

"Assata Shakur, the former Joanne Chesimard, was a member of the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army. She was convicted in the May 2, 1973 killing of a New Jersey police officer during a shoot-out that left one of her fellow activists dead. She was shot twice by police during the incident. In 1979, she managed to escape from jail. Shakur fled to Cuba where she received political asylum. She once wrote, "I am a 20th century escaped slave. Because of government persecution, I was left with no other choice than to flee from the political repression, racism and violence that dominate the U.S. government’s policy towards people of color."

No mention of her executing a New Jersey State Police Officer. I suppose Amy Goodman doesn't see that as germane. Or perhaps she things Officer Foerster shot himself twice in the head.

Back in the day, the cool kids in the BLA, the Black Panther Party and the Weather Underground had fun shooting police, robbing banks and bombing buildings. Today, those still living in the US who have been released from prison have found good gigs at US Universities. Angela Davis at UC Santa Cruz, for instance, or Bill Ayers at University of Illinois at Chicago or Kathy Boudin who is now a professor at Columbia. And naming their children after their old friends.

"Obama mentor Bill "Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn [have] raised three children. One is named Malik (the Muslim name of Malcolm X). Another is named Zayd (after Zayd Shakur, a Black Liberation Army revolutionary who was killed while driving the cop-killer JoAnne Chesimard — a.k.a. Assata Shakur — to a hideout)…"

So, Ayers, leader of the Weather Underground, named a child after Zayd Shakur, a leader of the BLA, who was killed helping JoAnne Chesimard, a cop killer escape. Ayers gang and Chesimard's collaborated in a hold up of a Brinks armored car in which two people were killed. An accomplice of Ayers helped Chesimard escape from prison.

More recently, Ayers has been teaching young people who aspire to be teachers. He has, however never disavowed his actions or beliefs.

He also helped to launch the political career of the President of the United States.

Hardly two degrees of separation.

But wait, there's more:

Common is a rapper, or poet or whatever. I can't say. But he must be pretty good for Michelle Obama to invite him to the White House to perform. Common joined a distinguised list of musical artists invited to perform in the White House, including such luminaries as, The United States Marine Band, John Philip Sousa, Scott Joplin, Al Jolson, The Metropolitan Opera,  Duke Ellington Van CliburnVladimir Horowitz, Leontyne Price, Mikhail Baryshnikov with Patricia McBride, Mstislav Rostropovich and Andres SegoviaMstislav Rostropovic, violinists Itzhak Perlman and Isaac Stern, and the Harlem Boys Choir.Aretha FranklinStevie WonderJustin Timberlake 

The Well and the Shallows II

On my last birthda, my lovely bride gave me the collection of G.K. Chesterton essays published under the title, "The Well and the Shallows." It was published in 1935.

I pulled it from the shelf this morning to provide something to occupy my mind while my mouth and stomach were occupied with a delicious sausage and cheese omlette.

Hiis critique of the Socialists of his era in England rings just as true today, confironted as we still are with all manner of Socialists, Communists, Prohibitionists, and other sentimental tyrants:

"the respectable sort of Socialist who will not call himself a Communist. The study of 'parasitic' Parliamentary Labour is masterly, and my own sympathies would be all with a man like Mr. Maxton as compared with a man like Mr. Thomas. But the sequel is still puzzling; for in the last short note there is no practical programme except a Minimum Wage for all, which is said to obviate the need of expropriation of land and property. I suppose this means that employers would be taxed till they were too poor to employ; and then the State would employ. But what State--and, my God, what statesmen! Why, presumably (if nothing is needed but a new wage raised by a new tax) just the jolly statesmen the world produces at present, the parasitic Parliamentarians turned into omnipotent bureaucrats. I should refuse it, of course; first, because it preserves the wage-system; second because the worst wage-system is one with only one employer, who may be an omnipresent enemy; and third because, in the purely practical statement, there is no provision for any change in the type of tyrant."

Indeed: "Tax employers till they are too poor to employ." Lst the state be the sole employer/provider. Sound familiar?

But, "what State -- and my God, what statesmen!"

What statesmen indeed?

Our country is about evenly divided.. Nearly exactly 1/2 of the country believes the previous president was a war criminal who favored plutocrats and brought the country to economic ruin and that everyone with conservative political beliefs is evil, callous, stupid, crazy etc. (truth be told, there is a measurable percentage of those evik, callous, stupid, crazy conservatives who also think the previous president wrecklessly got the country involved in a foolish war, favored certain plutocrats and participated in the economic ruin of the country).

The other half of the country is convinced on the evidence that the current president is unintelligent, uncurious and meant it when he said he wanted to 'fundamentally transform' our nation. They are certain that he does not hold traditional American values. They concieve that he does not respect or feel bound by the Constitution and that he intends to continue to transform the country into a Socialist one in which everyone is subservient and beholden to the central government. He believes that experts in Washington know better than free people in their communities and that planners can make everyones' life better through their benevolent wisdom, if they are given enough power.

Meanwhile, no more than 20% of the country approves of the work being done by Congress.

So, if everyone has despised at least one of the last 2 presidents, no one trusts Congress and federal bureaucrats rate lower than used car salesmen on the scale of positive regard, WHY DO WE LET THEM SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY AND DICTATE EVERY MINUTIA OF OUR LIVES?

I'd really like to know. We see the ill done by parasitic parliamentarians turned to omnipotent bureaucrats who are fast becoming an omnipresent enemy.

Chesterton's critique of Socialist schemes rings truer today than it did 77 years ago.

Free expression fil ana, la fil thou

Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge

Yes, no argument that he violated his probation, as far as the publicly available facts indicate. But is there any question that he would not be in jail without parole today if his YouTube video had been about kittens chasing ceiling fans?

Oh, and his pastor is described as a "radical Coptic cleric".   So, do "America's Values" and First Amendment Freedoms demand that 'radical' Coptic Christians are imprisioned in America for making a YouTube video while radical Muslims are released from Guantanamo for killing Americans?   During his speech at the UN, the president said, "I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that."   Shall we parse this for a moment?  "this particular understanding" is codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the 1st Amendment isn't a reflection of a 'particular understanding' which others may or may not share. It is a recognition of an inalienable right that exists outside of, precedes and supercedes 'particular understandings.' It is part and parcel of those inalienable rights which are endowed upon all Men by their Creator whether radical Islamists; Communist, Socialist or Fascist dictators; or witlings posing as intellectual elites 'share this particular understanding' or not. So, what we recognize, which appears to be somewhat different from what the president prefers to recognize is that those countries that do not have a proper understanding of the Natual Law and who do not recognize their citizen's right to freedom of speech or religion are wrong and very likely illegitimate. They certainly hold no moral equivalency with a nation that does recognize the natural rights of its citizens. Their MIS-understanding of the particular right to free speech is not simply another particular understanding but a grave error of understanding.   Obama does not recognize that. He has always seemed to have trouble with objective reality, objective truth, transcendant Natural Law and other things that really and truly are "above his pay grade."

What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

Hard to say, we’ve had so few.

Democrats point to Clinton and Roosevelt. Republicans tout Reagan. Historians, political scientists and journalists continually compile rankings and polls. Washington, Lincoln and FDR are most commonly put at the top of lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Given the great number of dummies with the right to vote in US elections, it comes as no surprise that there is a Guide for Dummies for evaluating US presidents:

Evaluating U.S. Presidents

By Marcus Stadelmann

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evaluating-us-presidents.html

“U.S. presidents are evaluated in many ways. The major characteristics that academic and public polls use to evaluate the 44 U.S. presidents vary from survey to survey, but the main standards remain consistent.”

Policy leadership

Crisis management

Presidential appointments

Foreign standing

Character and integrity

Public persuasion

Presidential vision

They seem like pretty reasonable criteria for evaluating whether a president is relatively successful or not. But the characteristics we use to evaluate a presidency aren’t always apparent when we are evaluating candidates for the office.

To take the current president for an example, we can see that he has done a poor job of policy leadership. His policies have been abysmal and he has too often “led from the rear.”

Crisis management: He has had plenty of crises to manage, many of his own making. He has mismanaged almost all of them. In each case, the president’s response seems to have diminished the standing of the US in the world and made the US less safe and less secure. From the Bailout that bailed out Democrat constituencies rather than the nation, to Fast and Furious, ad nauseum, this administration has exacerbated or prolonged crises. One begins to wonder: what was Rahm Emanuel thinking when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste?” Of course he knew that crises are useful for autocrats. A crisis focuses public attention on something other than the government. Progressives back to Henry James saw the value in creating a ‘moral equivalent for war.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Jimmy_Carter%27s_Moral_Equivalent_of_War_Speech

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Presidential appointments: Van Jones, Timmy Geitner, Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder. ‘nuff said.

Foreign Standing: From dissing England and Israel in his first weeks in office through “Reset” or something with Russia to spending 3 years to the Arab Spring which has sprung anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel Islamist autarkies across North Africa and the Levant to Iran, North Korea and China who are all becoming more hostile to the US. The current president has been a failure at home and abroad.

Character and Integrity: Tony Rezko on line 1, Rod Blagojevich on line 2, Mr. President.

Public Persuasion: He still has 26% of the nation persuaded: “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Presidential Vision: Sorry, anyone who envisages “fundamentally transforming America” has the wrong vision.

The problem is that at least half of those attributes cannot be known until it is too late. We are dealing with that reality today.

What are the traits, attributes, beliefs etc. that we may discern from the public record of candidates for the office of president? What can be discerned from what they’ve said and done in prior positions and on the campaign trail that may give us some understanding of how they would each do in the office when their legacy and the future of the country is played out.

IMHO, the characteristics a person needs to even have a chance to succeed in the presidency are:

Vision – No. I don’t mean “a vision” as in “having a vision for the country.” That’s the sort of thing that got us into this mess. I mean the ability to see and think abstractly and creatively; to grasp the important things in the welter of data, incomplete information, and conflicting opinions. The ability to see the pattern amid the clutter and grasp the interrelatedness of apparently disparate things. To see the essential thread that must be addressed to untangle the knot. Reagan saw that modernizing our nuclear forces and deploying tactical nukes to Europe was the best path to nuclear arms reductions and the end of the Cold War.

Sound principles – In our Constitutional Republic based on Natural Law and Christianity; that means adherence to the principles laid down by the Founders upon the bedrock of Natural Law. Principles are different from ideology; which is brittle, shallow, narrow and inflexible.

Judgment – This may be a result of Vision and Principles. It may be its own trait. I would place management ability under the broader category of Judgment. Prudential Judgment should naturally lead to good choices of staff and to effective leadership – maybe not inspiring leadership, but effective leadership.

Personal Integrity – Do I really have to explain this one?

I cannot score the current president highly in any of these four areas.

How do the major candidates remaining measure up? None of them score significantly high in all four characteristics. Each of them scores well in at least one. All of them score better than Obama across the board.

Romney scores well in Vision as understood as the ability to understand complex problems – strategic leadership. I believe he has personal integrity. I thought he had good judgement. But I am unconvinced of his commitment to sound principles.

Santorum’s Personal Integrity and Sound Principles are nearly unquestionable. His reputation as a supporter of big government is worrisome, but I think he has a clearer understanding that the government you nurture as your pet inevitably becomes a monster at someone else’ hand. Best to starve the beast and keep it caged even when it means you can’t use it for what you think are good purposes. I do worry about his executive management ability.

Gingrich is a very mixed bag. He may be a visionary, but I’m not sure he has strategic vision. He didn’t cover himself in glory while Speaker. Although he did accomplish some historic things, it didn’t take long for the Republican caucus to fall apart. That speaks poorly of his judgement. His personal integrity remains iffy, too. 3 wives? I’ll gladly accept that he has repented and has a firm resolution to avoid the near occasion of sin. But he does seem to have a politicians love of dancing the side-step when he gets called on things. His lame explanation of his work for Fannie Mae is an example.

I thought Ron Paul had impeccable integrity, until I heard about his evasions over his old newsletters and his possibile colusion with Romney on behalf of Rand Paul. While I concede that he is probably closest to the principles of government held by the Founders, I do question his judgement. He shows no evidence of possessing strategic vision or exectutive management ability.

What Sort of Idiot Hires Idiots?

UPDATE:

Half of the country recognizes that the government wastes half the money it takes from us.

"Most Americans think the federal government wastes more than half of the tax dollars it collects, according to a recent Gallup Poll.
On average, the guesstimate of waste is 51 cents of every dollar, the highest level going back at least 32 years that Gallup has been asking the question."

What kind of idiots are we?


Half of the country thinks the previous president was an idiot.

Half of the country thinks the current president is an idiot.


Over 3/4s of the country thinks the Congress is full of idiot.

Why do we give so much power and money to a bunch of idiots?