On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney went “birther” on Major Garrett of CBS News.
Garrett was asking Carney to elaborate on Obama Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer’s comments over the weekend about Republicans going on “partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations.” After going back and forth for a couple of minutes, Garrett brought up HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius soliciting donations from health care companies to implement Obamacare. To which Carney replied, “We could go down the list of questions. We could say what about the president’s birth certificate, was that legitimate?”
Carney’s retort is absolutely specious. Garrett was merely asking a question about Sebelius’ conduct in her official capacity as a cabinet member in the Obama Administration and is well within in his right to do so.
Of course, Carney knows this but he cannot defend Sebelius. So when in doubt bring up something which is entirely irrelevant to the matter at the hand. Usually, race is brought into the discussion. This time it is birtherism. Perhaps next time Carney will ask, “Is the president a Muslim, was that legitimate?”
It’s enough to make me long for Robert Gibbs. Well, almost.
Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt-organizations division, will plead the Fifth in a hearing before the House Oversight Committee tomorrow.
Lerner, who has known of the targeting for two years, will not answer questions before the committee according to a letter from her lawyer to committee Chairman Darrell Issa, reported by the Los Angeles Times.
“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.
Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.
Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.
It’s hard to see how this helps Lerner’s case at this point. She’s already become the central figure in this scandal, and for good reason. She tried to claim the targeting came after a huge influx of cases following the 2010 Citizens United decision, but it’s been proven that the influx didn’t happen until long after the targeting process began. She claimed she looked into the targeting after hearing about it in the press, but its been proven that she knew about it at least six months, if not more, before the first press rumblings started.
Essentially, Lerner knows she’s in trouble so she decided to plead the Fifth and avoid answering any questions rather than having to lie or contradict herself under oath.
UPDATE: Lerner is still under subpoena, according to Oversight Committee communications director Ali Ahmad, the Washington Post is reporting:
Ahmad said Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division, would still be required to appear before the committee, which means she will have to plead the Fifth in person and on camera.
“Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing — the committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight,” Ahmad said. “Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.”
I recently asked a wise friend of mine who lives in Virginia what his take is on the upcoming election for governor between the state’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, and former DNC chairman, Clinton confidante and fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe.
My friend said “At this stage, it’s hard to figure. Cuccinelli is really weak…McAuliffe, on the other hand, has more baggage than a wagon train. I’d say it’s McAuliffe’s to win. He’s a colorful character, if a bit shady. Cuccinelli has a tough race ahead of him…Cuccinelli will have an awful time trying to get anyone beyond the base to vote, far less vote for him… As to Cuccinelli, I still think he and McAuliffe deserve each other and none of us deserves either of them.”
Not living in Virginia, and thus having only limited contact with that state’s politics since George Allen’s disastrous “macaca” moment, I’ve been favorably inclined toward Cuccinelli as one of the leading champions of the legal fights against Obamacare, despite the results due to the treachery of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Virginia is a very important state, a bellweather of purple states, and potentially critical in a presidential election. Whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican matters.
I had been hoping that my friend was too pessimistic, though he’s right far more often than wrong, but this weekend’s turn of events at that state’s nominating convention now has me thinking that Virginia will soon have the unbelievable spector of Governor Terry McAuliffe, a nouveau-riche carpet-bagger in perfect Clinton style.
Due, I’m told by a (different) friend who was a the convention, to a rousing speech, brimming with deeply felt conservative principle, the party nominated E. W. Jackson to be Cuccinelli’s running mate, i.e. to run for the office of lieutenant governor.
Unfortunately, Jackson, who is a pastor, along with having a remarkable personal history of serving in the Marine Corps and then earning a law degree at Harvard Law School (items which the media will certainly ignore), has a history of, shall we say, extremely un-PC remarks about homosexuality.
The National Journal suggests that Virginia Republicans are “panicking” over Jackson’s nomination.
In a country that is moving rapidly toward acceptance of gays, connecting homosexuality to pedophilia is political suicide.
There is a lot to recommend Mr. Jackson, from his service to his obvious intelligence to his passion for the things he believes in. And of course, Republicans are always looking to put forward black conservative candidates. But politics is, as much as anything else, about winning.
With the choice of Jackson, Virginia Republicans showed either ignorance of his history (much like the disaster that befell Colorado when Tea Party groups championed the unaccomplished-at-best Dan Maes simply because he wasn’t “establishment”) or of recent political history, where outrageous (both in substance and in political idiocy) statements by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock not only cost those men their elections but likely cost Republicans control of the Senate.
It appears that even among the most politically active and theoretically well-informed, one can prove the maxim that people get the government they deserve.
Unless Mr. Jackson steps aside, it strikes me as likely that Virginia will face the depressing prospect of Governor Terry McAuliffe. For the good of his state and of the country, I hope Mr. Jackson will consider removing himself from the ticket while there’s still time to find a credible replacement.
Let me put on my big surprise face:
The House committee should not excuse her from showing up. They should make her take the fifth, and get it all over the Internet.
“There’s no shifting going on, that I see at all,” Apple CEO Tim Cook explained to a Senate investigations subcommittee chaired by Carl Levin (D-Mich.), referring to his company’s Irish subsidiary AOI, which has been painted as a tax shelter. It has 4,000 employees, but it also helped Apple avoid roughly $20 billion in U.S. corporate income taxes last year. “I would say that the 30.5% effective tax rate is the relevant comparison,” Cook explained, alluding to domestic income.
Cook was diplomatic but firm, steering the conversation toward tax reform. Ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked if he felt bullied or harassed by the committee or its members, taking a dig at Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) scathing rhetoric. The technology leader replied he was happy to participate in the process and contribute to tax reform, later telling Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), “unlike some of my colleagues I am not proposing zero.”
“I think it’s important to tell our story, and I want them to hear it from me,” he told McCain. “So you were not dragged here?” To mild laughter Cook replied, “I was not dragged here, sir.” He did take a stand on the question of income shifting, however, saying, “from what I see AOI does not reduce our taxes at all,” adding, “Sir, I have tremendous respect for you. I see this differently from you, I believe.”
Levin asked if Cook could understand the perception of an unfair advantage. “To be honest, I do not see this as unfair,” was his reply, “I am not an unfair person and I do not see that as unfair.” Apple Head of Tax Operations Phillip Bullock later asserted that “100% of the profits on any sale to a customer in the United States … all of that is fully taxed in the U.S. There are no outbound payments offshore.” Levin was not satisfied, however, telling Cook: “You shifted your crown jewels, the economic rights to your intellectual property to these three Irish companies, the most valuable things you own.” The Apple representatives disputed that representation, with Senior VP & CFO Peter Oppenheimer saying that AOI “fundamentally has not changed” since 1980 when an agreement was formed to handle these properties.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) expressed his outrage over the IRS process in a hearing on the IRS targeting scandal, but not about the right issue.
The perspective of any rational person would be that the IRS broke the public’s trust by targeting conservative groups and that’s the problem here.
The Democrats on the committee seemed to think otherwise. To them, the idea that conservative groups could have gotten tax exemption in the first place is outrageous, and they’re putting all their focus on reforming the rules on qualifying for 501(c)(4) tax exemption, which allows groups that primarily are used for social welfare purposes to pursue political acitivities and remain tax-exempt.
Baucus’s opening statement began on the issue of the targeting, but quickly moved to the focus on 501(c)(4) groups. “Today, there are countless political organizations at both ends of the spectrum masquerading as ‘social welfare’ groups in order to skirt the tax code,” he said. “These groups seek 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Why? Because it allows them to engage in political activity while keeping the identities of their donors secret.”
Several other Democratic senators, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), follow his lead.
“How can you all in the IRS allow these tax breaks essentially funded by taxpayers?” Nelson asked.
Wyden’s thoughts weren’t much different. He favored 527s, which are political groups that have to disclose their donors, over 501(c)(4)s, which do not. “Organizations that ought to be 527s are applying for (c)(4) status. There is an incentive for people to choose their tax status based on if they want to declare their donors,” he said.
“You all don’t seem to have done anything about it and I want to know why not,” he demanded to former IRS chief Douglas Shulman and acting IRS chief Steve Miller. Wyden’s outrage was apparent, but it was directed a the wrong issue.
I don’t want to go in to the details on the various types of designations for groups, because it really doesn’t matter. The issue of this hearing and of this matter in general is what the IRS did in targeting conservative groups and why it was absolutely wrong.
Once all of this is resolved, politicians can debate 501(c)(4) status all they want. Democrats hate the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, and this is just another way for them to reinforce that view. Debating that is fine, but let’s at least get to the bottom of this issue and hold the right people responsible first.
Obamacare has not made the health insurance market more transparent, despite its attempt to create “exchanges” in every state. The Affordable Care Act foresaw challenges in registration for millions of uninsured Americans; that’s why it required each state to enlist nonprofits, professional associations, and unions to educate new enrollees as so-called “navigators.”
The states were supposed to pay for these services, of course! Where else would the federal government extract the funds necessary for this behemoth of a law? Alas, 34 states are now relying on federal exchanges.
Which means that the federal government has to hire the “navigators” with money it never allocated. The Departments of Health and Homeland Security scrounged up $54 million for 34 states with 28 million to insure.
Easy, right? Actually, it turns out that insurance companies already employ a large number of people for this very job: brokers! You know, the people educated to inform consumers on separate plans, the ones who handle your confidential medical and legal information.
The Wall Street Journal reported several issues with the administration’s approach. First, there’s the fact that these navigators will be handling Social Security numbers and important tax data. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants HHS to require the same tests for these bureaucratic brokers as those passed by IRS agents (as if we could trust those employees with our secrets).
Not only that, those same states that refused to develop their own exchanges want to mandate “navigators” to obtain separate state licenses to practice.
The House Oversight Committee was supposed to question the Department of Health and Human Services today, but I cannot find it online.
The states have $54 million to acquire these employees and pay for “extensive” training on privacy. That definitely won’t be enough money to compensate these navigators as they undergo state licensing; I suspect some of this money will go to insurance companies in a desperate attempt to sell Obamacare.
Again, we’re witnessing the huge flaws of a bill that relies upon the states’ willingness to dance to the blaring, noxious brass band of the Fed.
As the death toll in Oklahoma rises due to yesterday’s devastating tornado, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island wasted no time blaming Republicans for the disaster.
Whitehouse criticized Republicans for denying the existence of global warming, thereby facilitating the onslaught of such natural disasters by refusing to help decrease its effects.
“So, you may have a question for me. Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together,” Whitehouse said, according to the Daily Caller.
If Whitehouse had taken just a few minutes to check his facts, he would know that the Continental U.S. Temperature Lower Troposphere is actually below average. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the amount of tornadoes in the U.S. in 2012 was also below average. In addition, the U.S. Tornadoes Daily Count and Running Annual Total are below average.
According to the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory, highly destructive tornadoes form from mesocyclones, which are rotating thunderstorms with a defined radar circulation. While tornado formation sometimes relates to the temperature differences across the downdraft air on the mesocyclone, studies show that temperature variation often plays no part in the formation of a tornado. For example, the outbreak of over 70 tornadoes on May 3-4, 1999, which claimed over 40 lives, showed hardly any temperature variation at all.
The Senate observed a moment of silence at noon for the victims of the tornado. Whitehouse needs to take a few moments to sort out his priorities by helping efforts to aid the devastated areas instead of seizing the moment to bash Republicans for weather-changing powers they do not possess.
“You drag America with you to your fate,” Whitehouse said to Republicans. “I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”
Clearly, it’s Whitehouse who needs the wakeup call.
In a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, former IRS chief Douglas Shulman refused to apologize for the targeting of conservative groups under his leadership.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) directly asked for an apology to his constituents. Shulman refused to take any responsibility. “I don’t know the details of your constituents,” he said. “As a general principle, as IRS commissioner, I didn’t touch individual cases.”
Not surprisingly, Cornyn was visibly upset. He asked the question we’ve all been thinking since the beginning: “The buck doesn’t stop with you?”
Like everybody else talking about this matter, Shulman wouldn’t take any blame. “I certainly am not personally responsible,” he said. “With that said, this happened on my watch and I regret that this happened on my watch.”
Cornyn, clearly annoyed by Shulman’s response, said, “I don’t think that qualifies as an apology.”
On Friday, acting IRS chief Steve Miller also denied that he was responsible.
I’m with Cornyn on this one. If the buck doesn’t stop with Shulman or Miller, where does it stop?
Shulman refused again to take any responsibility for the matter. Republican ranking member on the committee Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) directly asked Shulman to acknowledge his responsibility, saying “It’s only three words: I am responsible.” And yet again, Shulman passed the buck, saying “I am deeply regretful” but never admitting any culpability.
Billionaire Frank VanderSloot made headlines last week when he said he faced two audits from the IRS and one from the Labor Department after donating to Mitt Romney’s campaign.
VanderSloot has been talking about this since it happened, and Kimberely Strassel told his story in the Wall Street Journal in July:
Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.
Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.
Little attention was paid to VanderSloot’s story when it first came out, but that’s all changed with the recent spate of scandals that have emerged from the IRS.
And more of these stories are coming out of the woodwork. Wayne Allen Root spoke on the Bill Cunningham Show about how he recently faced two audits after donating to Romney. Worse than that, he says he knows at least 15 people who were audited within 90 days of donating to Romney.
This scandal seems to be reaching further and further with every day. Individual conservatives have been talking about these issues for years, but people are starting to pay attention now and the evidence against the IRS is piling up.
Apple CEO Tim Cook faced scrutiny of his firm’s tax avoidance practices in a Senate hearing Tuesday, but found a champion in Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who had apologized to Cook for the inquiry earlier in the day.
“We are proud to be an American company and equally proud of our contributions to the U.S. economy,” Cook said. “We pay all the taxes we owe — every dollar.” The stage was set for a dramatic showdown by the release of a special report yesterday that found Apple avoiding billions in taxes by shifting income offshore.
Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) took a strong stance, seeking clarification of Apple’s strategy, echoing expert witness J. Richard Harvey’s concern that while Apple does not appear to have broken the law, it exploited a dysfunctional global corporate tax framework. Stephen Shay of Harvard Law School said Apple shifted 64% of its profits to an Irish shell company last year, some $22 billion dollars. Cook replied that “Apple has real operations in real places,” and is the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer, paying nearly $6 billion to the Treasury at an effective rate of 30.5%, and holds 70% of its cash offshore to support expansion in global markets.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) earlier questioned whether the American economy, entire sectors of which are directly tied to Apple, would have been better off if it paid more income as taxes. He proposed taxation “at the shareholder level,” ostensibly a levy on capital gains.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) echoed this laissez-faire viewpoint: “I think we need to be very clear that no one here is saying Apple broke any laws,” he noted. “I don’t know of anyone on this panel who maximizes their tax burden. … Bringing in an individual company and vilifying them for doing something that is in every company’s mandate is objectionable.” After saying that successful businesses should be rewarded, he concluded that the obvious answer is lowering the corporate tax rate.
Levin obliquely accused Paul of mischaracterizing witness testimony and vilifying the basic purpose of the permanent subcommittee on investigations.
Ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Paul’s conduct “offensive.” But the former 2008 presidential candidate shared his Tea Party colleagues’ support of dramatic rate reduction.
Drawing an analogy to the aesthetic of simplicity that guides Apple’s product strategy, Cook recommended “a dramatic simplification of the corporate tax code” that would be revenue-neutral, eliminating loopholes and compliance costs while lowering rates. “We make this recommendation … realizing this would likely increase Apple’s U.S. taxes,” Cook said, concluding that such reform is nevertheless crucial to ensuring American competitiveness in the global economy.
Hidden underneath the thick wool of scandal blanketing the Obama Administration, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the president’s recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional last Thursday.
To see the president’s agenda receive body blow after body blow from each branch of government renews my love for checks and balances. Praise to you, James Madison!
In the case of NLRB v. New Vista Nursing, the court ruled that a August 26 decision made by the Board was invalid as one of the members was unconstitutionally appointed by President Obama. The resident recess-appointed Craig Becker in March 2010, during a 17-day adjournment by the Senate. The Court ruled that this appointment was unconstitutional as the Senate was not in session during this “intrasession break.”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided similarly in the Noel Canning case, making this the second decision against the administration. As two different federal courts ruled similarly on a case involving the power of the executive, the Supreme Court may take this decision as the solicitor general prepares an appeal.
I am not an attorney, but these cases involve an important feature of our government: the balance between Congress and the president. The NLRB argued in an amicus brief that the 3rd Circuit shouldn’t define “recess” because it is a political question, and therefore may express a “lack of respect due coordinate branches of government…”
So essentially the Board wants to preserve the president’s “unilateral appointment authority” when the Senate is out of session; indeed, it means that the Constitution actually affirms the president’s power when Senate is out of session, rather than delimiting the authority of both branches.
We’ve come to expect such authoritative consolidation from this administration, a natural extension of the imperial presidency established under President George W. Bush.
At least this ruling renews my faith in some sort of constitutional rule of law.
The majority ruled that “’the Recess of the Senate’ means only intersession breaks,” essentially placing greater power in the Congress to delimit the President’s appointment power.
I say, “Bravo!” Our state was not built for efficacy or the vanguard of progress, but for deliberation and political wrangling. The partisan deadlock between the Senate and the White House is a rather unfortunate example of such governance, but an example nonetheless.
The Court shouldn’t settle partisan political obstruction, and it didn’t.
However, it did reinforce the constitutional walls so necessary to restrain the political sharks.
As more states continue to discuss legalizing medical marijuana, California veterinarian Dr. Douglas Kramer is taking the drug debate even further by claiming that marijuana can be used to medically treat pets.
Kramer, the author of Sweet Serenity: A Definitive Guide to Making Herbal Tinctures for Pets, argues that medical marijuana, with its active drug THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), will alleviate pain and boost appetites for pets, just as it does in humans.
The veterinarian advocates the use of medical marijuana to reduce the suffering of chronically sick pets. He tested his theory on his dog Nikita who was diagnosed with untreatable cancer.
“When it became clear that she was nearing the end, that’s when she had nothing to lose, as long as it didn’t hurt her. At the first dosage, she was up and around,” Kramer told Vice magazine in a recent interview.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) supports Kramer’s efforts, as long as pet owners do not abuse the idea by blowing smoke in their pets’ faces to make them high.
PETA president Ingrid Newkirk told ABC News, “Our position is that anything that can help animals- if it’s truly, properly administered in the right amount [and] can relieve a dog’s pain- then they should be given the same consideration that humans in pain are given.”
Perhaps PETA actually views medical marijuana as an alternative to euthanizing the majority of animals left to its care, as 2012 statistics from the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services show.
The thought of pet owners being able to administer marijuana to their own animals for medical reasons is dicey at best given the higher risks of an animal to lose its balance, become lethargic, and choke on its own vomit.
Most veterinarians do not even discuss the use of medical marijuana for pets, but with PETA’s support of such measures, more people may jump on board.
Kramer is a firm believer in the ability of THC to give animals with chronic illnesses more comfort.
“A glycerin tincture is, to me, by far the optimal way to do it because it offers the greatest accuracy in dosing,” he told Vice. “Anything that you can cook or make with butter or oil would work, like homemade dog biscuits.”
“What is called poetic insight is the gift of discerning, in this sphere of strangely mingled elements, the beauty and the majesty which are compelled to assume a garb so sordid.” Hawthorne
Feature of the Day: The audacious plan to end hunger with 3-D printed food
**Obama To Deliver Statement on Oklahoma Disaster At 10 A.M. ET
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Top Conservative Stories of the Day:
The Daily Caller
Washington Free Beacon
The Weekly Standard
Top Liberal Stories of the Day:
The Daily Beast
Talking Points Memo
While driving to work this morning, I heard an ad (on Fox News’ Sirius Satellite channel — not sure if the same ad was running on Fox News television) from the Conservative Majority Fund urging people to sign a petition supporting the impeachment of Barack Obama.
A quick look at their web site shows that they’re still angry about Obama’s “forged birth certificate.”
Personally, I think it’s most likely that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, though it wouldn’t completely shock me if that were not true or, more probably, that he applied to schools and perhaps got financial aid, as a foreign student. Politically, all of this stuff is a huge loser for Republicans and should be studiously avoided by any group which really aims to create a “conservative majority” in Congress.
The same must be said of talk of impeachment.
First of all, unless Barack Obama actually ordered the IRS targeting of Americans, which is extremely unlikely, he is guilty of many things including incompetence, a lack of understanding or appreciation of the nation he leads, a lack of leadership, etc. But none of this is a “high crime” or otherwise impeachable offense.
Indeed, even if he personally ordered that no help be sent to Benghazi, again unlikely, that would not strike me as impeachable.
Few sane Americans would see discussion of impeachment as anything but hyperventilating hyper-partisanship.
Furthermore, many Americans remenber the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He may or may not have deserved it, though I’d argue that he was a much better president than Barack Obama. But it was a political disaster for Republicans.
So sane Americans would wonder about the sanity of Republicans who want to go down that same path, against a president whose personal popularity remains stubbornly high.
Americans basically hate Congress. That will not begin to improve until they see its members as working on behalf of the people rather than the political parties or their own power.
The current raft of “scandals” surrounding the Obama administration shines a perfect spotlight not just on the incompetence of the current administration but on the inherent risks in gigantic government. Behind the light on government failure is the pall cast on those politicians, namely Democrats, who support ever-larger government with the specific example of Obamacare and its pending enforcement by the IRS.
In order to create a conservative majority, Republicans and conservatives, and others (like me) who are neither Republican nor conservative but would much prefer a conservative majority to what we have now, must continually remind Americans that current events are a natural symptom of big government, and that they’re just the beginning of the abuses we will see if Democrats’ government-uber-alles vision for America takes even greater hold than it has so far.
Impeachment talk is an unnecessary, and frankly idiotic, distraction from what must really be done to try to regain Republican control of the US Senate. It makes Obama’s opponents look unserious and allows the media to use the silliness of groups like the Conservative Majority fund to paint all of us with a broad, unflattering brush.
Even for the most anti-Obama partisan, I urge you to avoid, and publicly oppose, discussion of impeachment. Once you support it, those moderate/independent Americans whom we most need to influence will no longer listen to anything you have to say.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?