(Video) Andrew Klavan on “How to speak Leftist”

August 28, 2014

This could be an important series:

I hope he does “fairness” next; I’ve been trying to figure for years just what the heck the other side is talking about when they use that word.

Via.


LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats

August 27, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

I wonder when Senate Democrats will finally get it through their thick, obsequious heads that Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss if they get reelected? This climate accord is the latest example of how, in Obama’s mind, Congress is an option, not a requirement when writing laws issuing ukases.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Yesterday we mentioned Obama’s nuclear option event, and now the fallout begins. |

From Timothy Cama and Scott Wong, The Hill
keep-calm-and-run-for-your-life-66[1]President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for…

View original 439 more words


Disagreeing with Jim Geraghty: Senate Democrats do want their jobs

August 18, 2014
"Waiting for Caesar"

“Waiting for Caesar”

Just not the jobs we all think they’re supposed to be doing.

Last week Jim pointed to an article in Politico about the Democrats’ immigration conundrum and their wish for President Obama to do their work for them. He wrote:

If indeed, as Politico reports, Senate Democrats want President Obama to “make immigration changes through executive action” — changes that they themselves are not willing to vote for in legislative form… why do they want to be Senators?

But it’s not that they don’t want to be senators, per se. They like the nice offices and all the perks: fawning staff; people who need favors from them, chauffeured cars; face time on TV; junkets overseas paid for by taxpayers — it’s a pretty sweet racket. Who wouldn’t want that?

Trouble is, the job of a United States senator includes this little duty in their job description, found in Article 1, section 1 of a musty old document called the Constitution:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

“Legislative power,” of course, is the power to set national policy via enacting laws. The president doesn’t have that authority –pace Obama– only the House and Senate do. That means that, to achieve goals the Democratic senators want, such as amnesty and a path to citizenship for millions of people here illegally, they have to make a public decision. Vote. Go on record. Pass a law.

And, God forbid, as Jim and the Politico piece point out, that’s the last thing these clowns want to do; they can see the polls are going against them on the issue. Voting for comprehensive immigration reform now might well cost several of these senators those nice offices and perks, and no one would any longer treat them as if they’re important.

Can’t have that, so they want Obama to do their jobs for them, and constitutionality be damned.

And here’s where I disagree with Jim: it’s not that they don’t want to be senators, they just don’t to be United States senators. What they really want to be are senators of the Roman Empire, with a nice place to meet and servants to tend their needs and deals to be made to make them wealthy, but no real work. Just show up every so often to hear the words of the Emperor and then applaud on cue. Let him make all the decisions. That’s the job the Democrat senators really want.

Can’t wait until one slips and calls the president “Caesar Obama” on TV.


Remember kiddies, opposition to Obama is racist. Eric Holder says so.

July 13, 2014
"I am not a crook!"

Projecting

Man, this guy makes me ill:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday he and President Obama have been targets of “a racial animus” by some of the administration’s political opponents.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”
Holder said the nation is in “a fundamentally better place than we were 50 years ago.”

“We’ve made lots of progress,” he said. “I sit here as the first African-American attorney general, serving the first African-American president of the United States. And that has to show that we have made a great deal of progress.

“But there’s still more we have to travel along this road so we get to the place that is consistent with our founding ideals,” he said.

Eric Holder wouldn’t recognize our “founding ideals” even if they walked up to him and gave him a big wet kiss.

It’s gracious of him to admit we’ve made a lot of progress since the days of slavery and Jim Crow, both of which his party once fought to defend, but it would be nice if he would allow that administration opponents could themselves have good motives. And I’m not letting get away with that weaselly qualification “some,” as if he really believes that “just a few” are racist toward he and the president.

No, to a racialist ideologue like Eric Holder, that we may strongly disapprove of Obama’s policies and actions can’t be due to his and his administration’s leftist philosophy, redistributionist politics, rampant corruption, lack of respect for the American settlement, and overall incompetence. No, it has to be due to the fact that we don’t like a Black man in the White House.

I guess all those years in the late 90s when I backed Colin Powell for president was just a clever disguise on my part.

This, sadly, is what we can expect from the Left, who assume they have the course of History figured out and are therefore both smarter and morally superior to the rest of us. It’s an assumption of self-righteousness, a certainty that, since “we” know the right answers, strong opposition or serious difference of opinion is illegitimate. No principle, no reason, no empirical evidence could be behind it: it has to be racism.

Well, screw you, Mr. Attorney General. Take your racialist condescension and shove it.

PS: I really like being lectured by a guy whose underlings ran guns to violent drug cartels in Mexico, who ignores obvious voter intimidation when the victims are White, who refuses to enforce laws he dislikes and encourages state attorney generals to do the same, but does decide to investigate a satirical parade float, free speech be damned.

PPS: If you want to know more about the worst Attorney General since John Mitchell or even A. Mitchell Palmer, let me recommend two books: J. Christian Adams’ “Injustice,” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric holder’s Justice Department, by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky. If these don’t leave steam coming out your ears, there’s something wrong.

via Rick Moran

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Did Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) threaten a presidential coup d’etat?

June 27, 2014
Lackey

Lackey

The topic was immigration, both the current crisis at the border and the Democrats’ desperate desire to have the House pass the comprehensive amnesty bill already approved in the Senate. You can read the whole thing at PJM, but I think the senior senator at Illinois might want to walk this part back:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

“Borrow the power,” Dick? Pray, under what authority would the president, to whom the Constitution assigns no lawmaking power (that’s your job, Dickie-boy), “borrow” the power to “solve the problem,” that is, to make law? What you mean is that he would unilaterally seize the power and abuse his administrative authority and prosecutorial discretion (even more than he already has) to create a new immigration reality (and millions of new Democratic voters, you hope) by fiat. By ukase. By his will, alone.

You call it “borrowing power,” Dick.

A rational person, on the other hand, and not some fawning courtier of a liberal fascist, calls it what it is: dictatorship.

Resign, Dick. You’re a disgrace to your oath of office.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Efficient as ever, Hillary Clinton attacks 1st and 2nd amendments in one sentence

June 18, 2014

liberal tolerance

Hey, why only gut one amendment in the Bill of Rights when you can trash two at the same time? It’s a progressive win-win!

During a televised town hall, Hillary Clinton was asked about guns, and said that the viewpoint held by gun-rights advocates “terrorizes” the majority of Americans.

The town hall, broadcast live on CNN on Tuesday, closely resembled a commercial for Clinton’s new memoir, “Hard Choices.”

(…)

“We cannot let a minority of people – and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” said Clinton.

Get that? Not only are you allowed to own firearms only at the sufferance of the State, but you are not even allowed to hold a point of view that differs from the majority opinion, presumably as long as that majority happens to agree with the progressive statist position.

And “terrorizes?” Really, Hillary? I’m not allowed to hold the opinion that the natural right to self-defense allows me and all other Americans to arm ourselves and that the Bill of Rights recognizes that unalienable right against government power, because said opinion might make your neighbors in Chappaqua get the vapors? How weird. In all my reading about the American Founding and our constitutional settlement, I never ran across the part that talked about how we have free speech as long as it isn’t scary. I don’t recall Voltaire saying “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, as long as it does not offend the majority.”

Hey, Hillary? What about other minorities? Blacks in the 1950s and 1960s were of the opinion that they held the same natural and civil rights as other Americans and loudly demonstrated to demand those rights be honored. That surely scared the majority Whites at the time, so should Blacks have not been allowed to hold those opinions? I’m curious for your thoughts on the matter.

File this away for 2016, folks, should Lady Macbeth decide to run: it is the opinion of a leading candidate for President of the United States, who swears an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution –including the Bill of Rights– that you are only allowed to express your own opinions as long as most people are comfortable with them.

Comforting, isn’t it?

h/t Bryan Preston

PS: Hillary is no outlier for her party: just the other day, President Obama was praising Australia’s draconian gun confiscation law. The simple truth is that the Left approves of the Constitution only when it is convenient to them.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal

June 13, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

This reminds me of the savaging of Dr. Lennart Bengtsson in Europe, because he had committed the sin of working with reasonable climate-change skeptics. There’s a new Lysenkoism rising, and it’s threatening the integrity of science, itself.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Profile

From Climate Depot: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’

View original 191 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,128 other followers