Archive for politics

Incrementalism when all else fails

The banners of “equality” and “fairness” are quite attractive. What is under the banners, though, can be quite ugly. But who looks under the covers? TELFORD: A stubborn devotion to Internet regulation describes one case.

“The “Open Internet Order,” an FCC order adopted in December 2010, intended to place strict federal regulations on ISPs, forcing them to treat all data equally. Veiled under the pretense of “fairness,” these net neutrality regulations could have prevent ISPs from providing efficient Internet service to consumers, as all data are not created equal, and different types of Web content (simple text and live streaming video, for example) require varying degrees of service. Under this order, ISPs would not have been allowed to differentiate between simple and complex data, prioritize high-demand content such as Netflix or take other steps to compete, innovate and attempt to make Internet service better for their customers.

“Fortunately for everyone who uses the Internet — from developers all the way down to casual Web browsers — a federal court struck down the order earlier this year, determining the FCC lacked legal authority to impose such a regulation. Rather than accept defeat, the administration moved on to Plan C, pushing the politically unpopular policy through yet again, this time softened to allow traffic to be differentiated, but only if bureaucrats at the FCC consider it “commercially reasonable” on a case-by-case basis. This version of net neutrality has Google, Facebook and other White House-friendly tech giants in an uproar.”

Persistence is an admirable trait but when that persistence is after controlling someone else, it becomes something else.

Leave a Comment

Net Neutrality

J.C. Dvorak takes on the The Net Neutrality Hysteria, one of those appealing labels applied to a questionable effort for government control at the expense of those ‘greedy, evil’ corporations.

“It stems from a belief that without some sort of law or government edict, the evil ISPs—mainly Comcast—will go out of their way to screw customers by practicing all sorts of devilment.”

“So … why hasn’t it done this already? Nobody can really answer that, except to say some unenforceable FCC principles, suggested years ago, are being used to stem any corrupt practices.”

“After years of fear that the government will take control of the Internet, now everyone is begging them to do it. The two liberal commissioners on the FCC pretty much said that problems are coming and rules need to be put in place. This pre-crime thinking will result in regulation that will encroach on everything.”

“The public can find a lot of ways to punish a corporation that abuses its privileges. This situation should not be escalated to the point that the FCC has anything to do with it.”

The Snowden episode is used as an example to illustrate why the government cannot be trusted. That illustrates a bias on its own that tends to detract from the case made. Fundamentally, it conflates the matter of knowing with that of doing. The net neutrality effort isn’t just a listening issue, it is a control and doing issue. It is about having the government regulate the internet service business to control content and how it is handled. It is being done with an unwarranted suspicion of the targets involved and an anticipation of something that might happen but hasn’t yet – notice how that same set of tactics is used by the climate alarmists?

Leave a Comment

Ethics, politics, and the current state of affairs

Victor Davis Hanson provides a list: President Obama’s ethical vacuum — “Untainted administrators and department heads are few and far between.”

In all of these cases, politics trumped ethics. Because Mr. Obama professed that he was on the side of the proverbial people, administrators assumed that they had a blank check to do or say what they wished without much media audit. The mystery is not whether some administration officials were incompetent or unethical or both, but whether there are any left who are not.

and, no, both sides are not the same. Asserting so is just a denial of reality.

Leave a Comment

The will of the people?

You have to wonder. When the citizens of a state overwhelmingly pass a constitutional amendment only to find that their officials don’t defend it and the courts dismiss it, what will happen next. This scenario has happened in California, Utah, and, now, Oregon. Ed Morrissey has the story about how a Federal judge overturns marriage definition in Oregon constitution.

“Remember when traditional marriage advocates put their trust in constitutional amendments to keep activist judges from unilaterally imposing a requirement to recognize same-sex marriage? In Oregon, that’s not ancient history; 60% of voters approved the constitutional amendment just ten years ago, when several states did the same thing in response to state courts changing the definition of marriage. The strategy didn’t last, as a federal judge overturned the clause in the state constitution — after the state refused to defend it”

In this case, the issue was settled by the voters. … the Attorney General is the people’s lawyer, their legal representative as well as their top law-enforcement officer. If the state’s elected lawyer doesn’t want to represent the people in court, then he or she should resign and let someone else take the job. The people deserved to be represented in court by their paid attorney, whether the AG liked the law or not.

If attorneys argue — correctly — that rapists and murderers deserve a defense, then why should that be denied to the people of Oregon and California?

Dereliction of duty, political activism on the bench, and shoving it down the throats of the people. The question is what will happen when the people decide that enough is enough?

Leave a Comment

Both sides do it?

One of the excuses or rationalizations for inappropriate behavior is that ‘both sides do it.’ This comes up in the IRS scandal trying to pretend that wishing to sic the IRS on political opponents (e.g. Nixon, R) is the same as actually doing it. A pattern is beginning to show, however, that is making the ‘both sides do it’ rationalization rather thin. Communications have surfaced that implicate Democrat Party leaders in misconduct in regards to the IRS scandal. Another is described by John Hinderaker about how Democrats persist in illegal use of capital visitor center.

“In addition to being tasteless, the event is illegal for the reasons we stated here. Today, Candice Miller, Chair of the Committee on House Administration, wrote a polite letter to Nancy Pelosi pointing out the legal issues with the Democrats’ use of the Visitor Center for a partisan political event.”

“Tomorrow evening’s event promises to be a clown show, and an illegal one, at that. The fact that the Democrats have sunk this low is one more sign of how intellectually bankrupt the party has become.”

The Koch Brothers obsession is about trying to overturn the Citizens United where the SCOTUS decided that corporations could speak as citizens. The use of taxpayer facilities to air a deceitful propaganda film with Congressional leaders chipping in to denigrate their opposition is the example here. That isn’t something both sides do.

Leave a Comment

Marking a descent into the depths

“Reading Paul Pillar’s smear of Sheldon Adelson saddened me. Paul, when I knew him, was as honest, as intelligent, as idealistic as anyone of my acquaintance. Forty-odd years later, is this what liberalism has come to? A dead end where its best representatives have nothing substantive to offer, but can only smear Republican campaign donors? Where formerly brilliant minds labor to justify a claimed equivalence between the Democrats’ “white primaries” of the 1930s and a Republican donor trying to find a good presidential candidate to support?

“Yes, I think that is exactly the depth to which liberalism and the Democratic Party have fallen. There is nothing left of principle; of honesty; of idealism; of intelligence. There is only malice, snarling in the dark.”

John Hinderaker: Paul Pillar, CIA Terrorism Expert, Descends to Anti-Israel Smear Merchant. The description is just another case. The Senate Majority leader still has his Koch thing, The House minority leader is still trying to figure out how to cover up scandals by smearing political opponents. 

Leave a Comment

Official FUD mongering

“Let’s get one thing clear: The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.”

Spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is a dubious and dishonest tactic. Paul Knappenberger describes how the recently released National Climate Assessment report raises [a] false alarm and how “Politics [is] certainly behind the president’s report.”

It boggles the mind how a ‘science policy paper at such a level could qualify for “Nothing could be further from the truth.” As Knappenberger notes, the assertions don’t even pass the laugh test. Yet they are put out as Truth.

worried?

Leave a Comment

Censure Reid?

Ralph Benko says Harry Reid’s Neo-McCarthyist Vilification Of The Koch Brothers Begs For Censure.

“In conducting a campaign of vilification and of leveling an accusation of “un-American” Harry Reid is disgracing the United States Senate in ways comparable to the misconduct of Joe McCarthy. Only by censuring Harry Reid can the United States Senate regain dignity. Harry Reid deserves censure for Neo-McCarthyism.”

But, you hear, both sides do it! That is like the recent story about how North Korea released a long list of U.S. civil rights abuses to show that ‘both sides’ do that, too. The tearing in that rationale is related to other scandals. Thomas Lifson describes The Democrats’ Dilemma on Benghazi.

“Though they may publicly deny that there is any scandal in the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, there must be doubts emerging, if only because we now know with certainty that a critical email was withheld in violation of a subpoena from the Issa Committee. Though most Democrats loathe Darrel Issa (and the entire Republican Party, for that matter), the expression “cover-up” is now in play, and the senior Congressional leadership of the party is old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and the articles of impeachment that emerged from that process, authored in part by a young committee staffer named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article 1 cited as part of the justification for impeachment:

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

The Bundy affair is another one that comes up and implicates Senator Reid as well. The corruption possibilities have a lot of meat for the conspiracists but isn’t getting much play. What is getting play dates back to the 1976 legislation that started the overturning of Western land homestead grants and rights. That was where the idea of using ‘protected habitat’ started as a means to grab land for politically correct development. 

A disjointed collection? Indeed. The common theme goes back to the Senate Majority Leader and his approach towards his political enemies and his accumulation of wealth while serving as an elected representative of the people. He isn’t alone in what he considers proper behavior.

Leave a Comment

Burning Man does an about face

“Money is not Bundy’s point. Pleasing Harry Reid or the federal bureaucracy is not either. Making a living from the scrub of a desert by providing people good food probably is.

“Grant him that. He’s our past, Harry Reid and the bunch in Washington our future. To paraphrase the ancients, sometimes we’d rather be wrong with Cliven Bundy than right with Harry Reid — and the SWAT teams that will revisit Mr. Bundy and his clan very, very soon to enforce a dispute over grazing fees and insensitivity to a tortoise.”

Victor Davis Hanson on Civilian Bundy and The Rural Way

But it seems that Bundy has got a Burning Man organizer miffed (Washington Times). It seems they pay The Man so why shouldn’t Bundy? It does seem rather strange. Burning Man is about individual freedom and sticking it to the powers that try to control, a.k.a. The Man, you know, the one they burn. In this case, though, they side with The Man and go after the individual.

Burning Man charges its participants to pay whatever fees the government decides to charge along with other costs and whatever is needed to make an appropriate profit. The fee is to allow them use of a BLM playa for a week or so. As they’ve done before, they can change venue if the fees become too onerous or the government sets unreasonable conditions or whatnot. Burning Man organizers are more interested in keeping participants coming – and paying the fare – than they are in the land. The land and the nearby communities and the various governmental agencies fall into the category of ideological niceties or necessary nuisances.

Bundy is in a bit different situation. His ranch is a homestead which the government deeded to him with certain rights on nearby resources in exchange for developing the land as a productive ranch. His livelihood depends upon effective and proper stewardship of that land. He can’t just up and go somewhere else – he’s lost 52 neighbors who have been forced out and had to find other careers. When the government goes rogue, or some folks like the Burning Man organizer target him, he is backed into a corner.

It is a typical disingenuous tactic of the left, though: Ignore the issues and ramifications and instead find a nitpick to pound incessantly. The nitpick here is that Bundy is a lawbreaker. The issues and ramifications have to deal with armed forces trying to enforce a civil matter, governmental overreach, regulatory harassment, potential governmental corruption and collusion, proper land use, historical precedence, state’s rights over lands within their boundaries,  and governmental enforcement priorities.

I wonder what the Burning Man organizers would think if Federal, State, and county enforcement showed up en-masse in full SWAT gear to take a sweep of their event to arrest any and all lawbreakers. How many vehicles are not equipped properly or properly licensed and registered? Drugs? Public displays of nudity? Child porn? Polluting the playa or otherwise not following the letter of the use permit? Attendees with outstanding criminal warrants? Foreigners with improper paperwork? Vagrancy? Fires and hazardous materials? Electrical and construction code violations?– It’d be quite a project to cull all the laws and regulations to find all the offenses that could be cited. Handcuffs, guns, tazers, police bullying, and other tactics as seen at the Bundy ranch would probably not make for happy campers.

Leave a Comment

Terrifying: Just how far does this go?

Bryan Preston describes The Terrifying Implications of the IRS Abuse-DOJ Connection. It appears Judicial Watch finally got some traction on an FOIA request and the results are indeed terrifying.

“Lois Lerner intended to use her position atop the IRS’ tax exempt approval office to coordinate the prosecution of political speech. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder had at least tentatively bought into that. The Federal Elections Commission was being roped in as well. Lerner’s emails prove that beyond doubt.”

Complaining about others who express their views is one thing. Attempting to suppress such expression via laws such as campaign finance restrictions is another. A rogue government employee using the color of office to harass free speech raises the stakes. But now it becoming rather clear that is has been raised from a rogue individual to an agency to multiple agencies to political party leaders. That escalation of involvement and collusion in the effort is indeed terrifying.

Preston describes a well established tactic: select a target to set an example and then use that example to get the rest in line. 

Now, take that effort to go after nonprofit organizations and think about the southern Nevada Rancher episode. The feds spent millions to go after an individual delinquent in government payment of thousands and used paramilitary operations to do it. In the process, they trashed personal property and showed contempt and incompetence for the lifestyle and craft of the rancher in honoring the land.

worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Whooee! what a rant. Maybe some are beginning to notice?

Daniel Greenfield calls it The Paranoid Madness of the Democratic Party. His conclusions:

“Political paranoids are totalitarians… and totalitarians are political paranoids. The Democratic Party has become both. Its paranoid totalitarianism runs on conspiracy theories that justify its abuses of power. It has accepted the left’s classic formula of the conservative political opposition as a reactionary force that is the source of all evils in society.”

“progressive suburbanite is not interested in a close look at his political movement. Instead of giving him something to believe in, his party’s media outlets give him someone to hate. His political identity is shaped not by what he stands for, unsustainable debt and an incoherent foreign policy of platitudes, but by his resistance to the Tea Party hordes who want to put black people back in chains, put women back in the kitchen and put homophobes back in the CEO’s office at the Mozilla Foundation.

“The politics of paranoid hatred is the crutch of mental cripples who protect the source of their dysfunction by projecting it onto phantom enemies.”

“The Democratic Party has been contaminated by the madness of the left through its alliance with the left and the entire country is paying the price.”

As is usually the case with this sort of rant from ‘other than the left’, the column is based on observations of behavior and specific incidences or cases that support his view. Greenfield calls out the common tactic of pulling selected items out of context to distort meaning and then illustrates how selection can be done with intellectual integrity. Confusing this use of example and illustration is important in propaganda where the audience doesn’t want to make the effort to see what is constructive and what is not. All too often, the interpretation is more about what confirms and comforts rather than creates dissonance.

Leave a Comment

Contempt and collusion

One of the more frightful things these days is the contempt and collusion amongst the powerful for transparency and accountability. Tammy Bruce describes one example in Eric Holder’s contempt for the American people – Wherever Team Obama is taking the nation, ‘you don’t want to go there’

Many of us are not big fans of Congress, but when the attorney general, while speaking at an official congressional hearing, decides to speak in a manner worthy of a gang leader, we see how serious the problem of an unchecked executive can be.

This was after one of the people who report to Holder was found in contempt of Congress and the minority leader in the committee was shown to be in collusion with IRS misbehavior. It was also after much foot dragging on information requests and other cover-up type antics in regards to the Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals among others.

What is happening here is that all the foot dragging, obfuscation, perjury, and similar tactics drag the hearings and investigations out. That tenure of the investigation is then being used as proof that there is nothing there and that the committee chair is an incompetent boob (as per Bob Beckel).

In previous scandals of this weight, members of both parties – and the MSM – were after the evidence. Not this time. Again, the fact that the investigation is partisan is being used as an upside down excuse. The party doing the obstruction, the party with members involved in collusion, is using partisanship to condemn the investigation and to cover over transparency and accountability.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Facism, thoughtcrimes, and the rule of the mob

John Hayward with More on donor lists and the Mozilla oppression:

“The intimidation factor will be huge with corporations, who don’t want to suffer through boycotts or corporate character assassinations; the path of least resistance will involve quietly checking the politics of high-profile hires, to make sure they haven’t voted or spoken in a way that might touch off the mob.  Those who seek such high-profile positions will understand that their political credentials must be kept in good order; the exercise of free speech, or providing financial support to certain issues, will be judged far more trouble than it’s worth.

“That’s how fascism works, and while you might be chilled to the bone by reading the previous paragraph, rest assured that Eich’s tormentors are delighted – it describes precisely the environment they wished to create. ”

“you can see why the improper disclosure of donor information is so unnerving to groups that oppose the dominant political culture, and why the IRS’ demands for such information from targeted Tea Party and pro-life groups were so oppressive.  There is every reason to believe Obama levels of corruption will lead such information to pass from the government to activists groups, sooner or later – and even if it’s four years later, as was the case with Brendan Eich’s little Prop 8 donation, damage can still be done.

“Such a level of paranoia is entirely unbecoming a free republic. ”

“Ultimately, the power rests with We The People. …  It is the destiny of free people to vigorously oppose totalitarianism, even when – no, especially when - the totalitarians hold a position on some issue that we personally agree with.  The method is the enemy, not its professed objectives.”

Also see Sally Zelikovsky on Brendan Eich and the new American totalitarian state.

“in the end, his personal liberties, reasonableness,  and competence couldn’t survive the pitch forks and threats.” … “This isn’t new:  we have seen it take place on a national level with Chick-fil-A.” … “This is NOT about Prop 8, gay marriage and religion.  That is just the context in which this latest abuse has come to be.  It is about the freedom — in your personal life — to believe as you do, support the candidates and issues you want, and to be left in peace to do so without fear of recrimination at the place where you make your livelihood.”

And then, see how all this fits with Professor Hanson’s One California for me, another for thee.

“Professing that you are progressive can be wise California politics. It means you sound too caring ever to do bad things, while the costly consequences of your ideology usually fall on someone else. And that someone is usually less hip, less wealthy and less powerful.”

There was a book written about how the state controlled thoughtcrimes not all that long ago. It was considered science fiction and fantasy just a generation or two ago. Perhaps it is another example of fiction and fantasy becoming fact — worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

How sick it is

Matthew Garret illustrates just how bad it gets in a discussion about Mozilla and Leadership:

“A CEO who’s donated money to strip rights[4] from a set of humans will not be trusted by many who believe that all humans should have those rights. It’s not just limited to individuals directly affected by his actions – if someone’s shown that they’re willing to strip rights from another minority for political or religious reasons, what’s to stop them attempting to do the same to you? Even if you personally feel safe, do you trust someone who’s willing to do that to your friends? In a community that’s made up of many who are either LGBT or identify themselves as allies, that loss of trust is inevitably going to cause community discomfort.”

There is the a priori assumption that a belief in traditional marriage strips the rights of a “set of humans.” That assumption leads to the idea that it is one’s opinions that creates trust in a community, not one’s behavior. Then there is the elevation of ‘community comfort’ as superior to an individual’s views. Behind all of this is that it is not behavior that is at issue but rather feelings and emotions.

Basically, what Garrett is saying is that you can only trust someone who believes the same as you and that anyone who disagrees with you is untrustworthy and can be accused of causing social discord as a means to ostracize them (or worse). This is much the same idea as in the SCOTUS minority position by Breyer in regards to campaign finance (re Volokh Conspiracy). It is that freedom and liberty in speech only exist so as to serve the community, not to protect the individual. How that ‘serve the community’ is defined is the question and Garrett is providing an answer for how he thinks it should be defined.

worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Silence! (or else)

“This sort of totalitarianism is not unique to the gay marriage issue. Global warming hysterics are now arguing that those who disagree with them should be imprisoned. Seriously; even though it is the realists, not the alarmists, who win all the arguments. When you can’t win the argument, what do you do? Throw your opponent in jail, or get him fired. Liberals have no intention of living in a pluralistic society. They want to wipe you out, or at a minimum force you underground. And if you don’t fight back, they will succeed, just as they did with Brendan Eich.”

John Hinderaker says it is Today’s most ominous news story. One CEO hounded out of employment due to politcal views. 

If you think this is ominous, then look at the logic of the minority in the recent SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance limitations and free speech.

worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

If your hero is a criminal: payback?

“There is a growing toxic movement in some corners of the country that are perfectly willing to accept criminal acts in the election and furtherance of a broader progressive agenda,” former Justice Department Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams said during a March 25 interview on “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

One of the arguments often offered against voter ID laws is that there isn’t any voter fraud so there’s no need for laws to prevent it. Then there are cases like that of Melowese Richardson. KNIGHT: Vote fraud as ‘payback time’ Ballot abuse strikes at the heart of self-government takes up the reality.

“A criminal investigation in Iowa turned up 80 cases of potential voter fraud. Many recent legislative races in Iowa were decided by fewer than 100 votes, including 10 decided by fewer than 50 votes.

“A similar report by a Philadelphia city commissioner in 2012 chronicled multiple instances of voter fraud through impersonation, double voting and voting by noncitizens.

“To all of this, the left’s election think tank, the George Soros-funded Brennan Center at New York University, has a uniform answer: There are so few prosecuted cases of vote fraud out of millions of ballots cast that it makes no difference.”

“When someone like poll worker Melowese Richardson is feted after being convicted of fraud, it strikes at the heart of election integrity — and self-government.

“She’ll probably turn up next in Chicago, where she could go beyond poll work and get herself elected to something or other.”.

The list of heroes for the left is long and sordid. The spilling of blood and a lack of integrity seem to be honored rather than despised.  What would happen if society went this way?

Leave a Comment

Feeding the Zombies and doomsday movements

Russell Cook on Smearing Climate Skeptics

“As even die-hard enthusiasts for the global warming scare campaign begin to admit that they are losing the battle to keep the public alarmed, it is time to examine how this doomsday movement has been sustained for two decades.”

Then Don Boudreaux quotes Cassidy on Piketty on Income Inequality

“First, by repeatedly describing the incomes of the rich as being “taken” and “took,” Mr. Cassidy misleadingly suggests that income is a fixed-size pie. Why not, instead, describe incomes more accurately, as being “produced” and “earned”?”

Common tactics in both arguments. Demonize and smear the opposition. Misrepresent reality. Feed uncertainty and feer and envy and hate. Distort the language as need be. Assume a mantle of hubris. Insist on moral authority and be persistent in attacking any opposition anywhere, anytime, anyhow and anyway.

Leave a Comment

Picking your villains

The Senate Majority Leader got going on his favorite villains on the floor of the Senate despite propriety or reason. That was just another episode of attacks the left has been using to personalize the debate. Murdock thinks the Liberal critics of Koch brothers ignore their philanthropy.

The Kochs’ critics are free to disagree with the Kansas industrialists and their libertarian ideas. However, most who despise the Kochs would be shocked by what these “greedy capitalists” do with their profits, beyond campaign donations.

Medicine, arts, environment, education … The real story is one of the typical successful American Capitalist. It stands in contrast to the story of the wealthy individuals in most of the rest of the world, how they acquire their wealth, and what they do with it. Take Russia, for instance …

Leave a Comment

The ol’ AGW extreme weather thing.

“Is the president giving orders to his science adviser to make the case that carbon-dioxide emissions are the cause of weather disasters in the United States despite the best science that argues otherwise? Or is his science adviser misinforming the president as to what the collection of science actually says, leading him to pursue carbon-dioxide regulation where it is not needed?

In either case, the situation is badly in need of repair.”

The common view, accepted as axiomatic by many, is that it is Republicans that are “anti-science.” KNAPPENBERGER: Mainstreaming fringe science with John Holdren – “The White House science adviser confuses global-warming fact and fancy” is yet another explanation that belief isn’t necessarily reality, especially on the left.

The Anthropogenic created and caused Global Warming side of ‘humans are a cancer on the planet’ religion has taken a hit recently as there hasn’t been any global warming for a decade or more and there hasn’t been a rise in the incidence of severe weather. That tends to make the proponents anxious and defensive which shows in dissonance behaviors. That gets ugly. Jeffrey T. Brown describes the resulting behavior in Zero Tolerance, Evil Objects, and the Psychosis of the Left

“Indeed, in the example of guns, they expressly believe that some firearms possess quantifiably greater evil than others, depending entirely on their appearance, despite being lifeless objects. An equivalent belief would be that a paring knife is certainly evil, but a carving knife is purely demonic. To a rational person, such an unhinged thought process more than merely hints at lunacy. Inanimate objects do not possess inherent evil. It can’t be built in, absorbed or grown inside a gun. In fact, the only things on Earth that have that ability are people. And yet, despite living in a world defined by reality, evidence, facts, logic and physics, progressives deny all truths that conflict with their beliefs. They practice pure, unadulterated anti-intellectualism. They have substituted magic and mythology for truth.”

The issue is one of control over others and that is why the ‘anti-science’ behavior is primarily a behavior of the left. Sometimes, whether it is climate or guns or medicine or nutrition, the need to force others to behave in accord with fantasy completely overwhelms reality.

Leave a Comment

The Nixon legacy

“There are a few differences, however, between the transgressions of Nixon and Mr. Obama, and America’s reaction to them.

The old watchdogs of civil liberties that took on Nixon — the America media of the Watergate era — are now silent. For them, Mr. Obama is not right-wing, easily caricatured, unappealing or an old anti-communist agitator, but an iconic liberal, charismatic, and in the past, an experienced community organizer.

A Democratic Senate majority now has little interest in auditing Mr. Obama, though it once zealously pounced on Nixon’s misdeeds.

If you once suggested that Nixon’s team was violating constitutional principles, you were hailed as speaking truth to power. Try that with the progressive Mr. Obama and you are likely to be caricatured as some sort of embittered Tea Party zealot at best, a retrograde racist at worst.

Nixon ended impeached and disgraced; Mr. Obama may well enjoy a lucrative and in-demand post-presidency.”

HANSON: Obama walks the trail blazed by Nixon. “The president’s abuse of power matches his predecessor’s.

Fonda, Kerry, Snowdon, Clinton, Reid, Obama – who your heroes? They define you. Is that really what you value and admire?

Leave a Comment