An observation about the Clintons and Obama

Chamberlain and Obama appeasersAmerica has had corrupt presidents in the past. The ones that spring readily to a mind educated in the San Francisco Public School District are Andrew Johnson, Warren B. G. Harding, and Richard Nixon. Please feel free to chime in with equally corrupt Democrats.

But I ask you this: Before the Clintons, have we ever before had a former president (that would be Bill) and a wannabe future president (that would, God forbid, Hillary) who have sold our country out to foreign interests? (While Bill didn’t do that in office, it appears that he and Hillary worked together to fund their Clinton Foundation in exchange for giving favors to foreign entities that had interests antithetical to American interests.)

And have we ever before — ever! — had a president who turned his back entirely on stalwart American allies and not only made nice with unrepentant enemies, but actually worked hard to expand those enemies’ arsenals? At least when Chamberlain did what he did, he believed that he was, both militarily and economically, in a weaker position than Hitler. Obama, however, is the stronger party, both militarily and economically, in the negotiations and has still given everything in exchange for nothing.

I’d like to hear your opinions on the questions I ask. What I’m suggesting is that past, present, and wannabe future American presidents have engaged in actual treason as defined in 18 U.S. Code section 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

I’m also thinking that the conduct I’ve described is a first, and I’d be interested if you can think of historic precedents.

[VIDEO] Obama’s 747 hypocrisy on Earth Day *UPDATED*

Obama Asthma Cigarette Smoking Climate ChangeKudos to reporter Mark Knoller for asking presidential Spokesboy Josh Earnest whether the President undermines his message when he boards a 747 to fly to the Everglades on Earth Day.  The video captures something else interesting (and you may have to turn up the volume to catch it):  fellow White House reporters giggle, with one of them alluding to Hillary’s van.

As Caleb Howe, who caught this moment, notes with despair, it seems as if the reporters are horrified that their political betters might have to do something plebian, such as forego a fancy plane ride or pimped-up van journey, even if doing so spares the environment. However, listening to the laughs and catcalls, I’d like to think that at least some of those reporters had a seed of doubt planted in their brains about the hypocrisy at work amongst the gilded members of the Democrat club.

Still, religion is religion and, as I noted in an earlier post, the Left isn’t yet ready to concede that theirs is the God that failed.

UPDATE:  The great David Burge nails it:  “Cloud god angry! Sea god angry! Big power chief fly great iron bird to swamp village, make science dance for great Earth Mother!”

 

Obama’s not the only problem — after all, the American people elected him

A friend of mine sent me the following poster, which she called “the quote of the century.” She has a point. Whatever chicanery happened during the 2012 election, the fact is that in 2008 the American people enthusiastically threw themselves behind this Marxist con man, simply because of his skin color and the magic beans he promised them:

Vaclav Klaus

The Bookworm Beat 4-10-15 — the mother of all round-ups

Woman writingThis is it — the ultimate round-up, consisting of more than 20 links that I’ve collected over the past couple of days and wanted to share with you. Nothing works better at squeezing a nice long blog post than a series of legal pleadings I really don’t want to write. By the way, these squiblets aren’t in any particular order, so you never know what gems you might not find as you scroll down.

The weakening of the Leftist mind

In an earlier post, I wrote about the fact that our younger generation has turned into a passive, sheeple generation, meekly towing the Leftist party line. Astute readers pointed out that, aside from the 1960s children, who were spoon-fed their rebellion by communist spies, past Americans generations also weren’t given to a rebellion. That’s true — but at least past generations were taught analytical and reasoning skills. If they desired, they could analyze and challenge their era’s zeitgeist. Our current generation can’t.

And how do I know I’m correct in reaching that conclusion? Because my reasoning coincidences with Daniel Greenfield’s. In a post about the closing of the liberal mind, Greenfield explains how so-called “liberals” have reduced themselves to this state:

[Read more...]

[VIDEO] Ben Shapiro explained how Obama has developed the hitherto unknown “F**k You” clause in the Constitution

obama gives us the finger_thumb[41]One of Ben Shapiro’s strongest videos, explaining how Obama has effectively sidelined Congress and dramatically expanded his authority. Before you get too mad at Obama, though, remember that Congress, including the RINOS we elected, let him do this. There are myriad explanations for Congress’s passivity, not the least of which is that they’re utterly terrified to challenge the first mulatto president.

The Bookworm Beat 4-2-15 — the “choking on my own bile” edition and open thread

Woman writingThis morning, I woke up so angry about the Iran agreement that Obama has been pushing and about the faked RFRA outrage that I couldn’t even write.  Every time I sat down at the computer, I choked on my own bile and my brain froze. I felt like a computer suffering from an electric surge. I medicated myself with a junk novel and some chocolate, and am finally feeling stable enough to write without exploding.

I’ve already said what I have to say about Obama and Iran, and about RFRA, so I’ll be brief. Obama is not dumb and he’s not just a Leftist ideologue. He is a man with a ferocious feral intelligence and he is genuinely evil. Regarding RFRA, it is not Jim Crow. What made Jim Crow so bad was that it was government action. The whole point of RFRA is that it’s supposed to protect individuals from government action. No one gets that; no one’s explaining it; if someone explained it, no one would listen; and Leftists are fascists at heart.

And now on to other things, to which I’ll link with brevity. Now that I’ve assuaged my anger a little bit with dime store romance, I have to go pick up my tax returns from my accountant, which will undoubtedly inflame me all over again. Here’s a video of me (I’m the baby):

You know how you know you’re a smart person? Thomas Sowell, in his inimitable way, says what you’ve been saying all along, including the bit about the apocalyptic mullahs who are not like the cold-headed Soviets. The latter feared mutually assured destruction; the former embrace it.

A British man and a German man envision a moral world 100 years from now. It’s like Huxley’s Brave New World, only infinitely worse, with man a slave to robots and vegetables.

Daniel Greenfield (aka Sultan Knish) analyzes the Left’s culture war, which is not against “culture” per se, but is a direct attack on America from the inside. He also believes that individual Americans, by clinging ferociously to their individuality and their values, can reclaim what we have lost, although it will be neither a swift nor an easy battle.

Passover is coming up soon, and I’ll publishing my annual Passover post about God, Moses, Pharaoh, and the nature of tyranny. Meanwhile, Robert Avrech will help you understand why, in this year’s post, Pharaoh has Obama’s face.

Just when you think Michael Ramirez can’t get any more brilliant . . . he gets more brilliant.

Even in awful times, there are funny things. One high school senior decided to turn the table on Duke University for having rejected her. At many stages in my life, I would have loved to have sent a letter like this one, but I lacked both the wit and the courage:

Siobhan O'Dell rejection of rejection letter

And now that you’ve had a good laugh, I invite you to join me again in the land of tears and anger:

The Bookworm Beat 3-30-15 — a quick round-up of things worth reading

Woman writingThis is going to be a down-and-dirty round-up because I’ve just been tapped to help prep for another trial, although thankfully in a more limited way than for the last trial I’ve been working on. My challenge to myself is to limit each paragraph to three sentences:

Caroline Glick has the single best article about the effect on Israel of Obama’s war against that country. It explains what the current situation is and gives some good suggestions about the ways in which Israel can obtain some benefit from the way in which Obama has severed the relationship between the two countries.

I’ve alluded before to the Bowe Bergdahl case, but I expanded on my thoughts a bit at the Watcher’s Council Bowe Bergdahl forum. My contribution is the least interesting; the others are really good.

Having gotten everything it claimed it wanted from the US, Iran is now demanding more. The question is whether Obama will agree, or will use this demand as a face-saving way to back out. My money’s on him saying “yes,” while thinking to himself “Why didn’t I offer that to them in the first place?”

Ignore the nasty language about Bibi Netanyahu in this much-discussed Noah Rothkopf article about the chaos in the Middle East. Rothkopf, while acknowledging that many of the simmering hatreds in the Middle East existed long before Obama came along, strongly argues that Obama’s incoherence is what’s driven the Middle East to a state of total warfare.

Is Obama drinking? The National Enquirer, which has been very careful ever since the Carol Burnett lawsuit, has long hinted that there’s an active alcoholic in the White House. I’ll therefore to be interested to see if it also has headlines about Obama’s libations.

I don’t know why people are upset that a group of British “ethicists” are arguing that, if abortion is okay, it also should be okay to kill babies who have already been born, and to subject these post-birth abortions to the same standards as ordinary abortions (i.e., anything goes). The latest version of the argument comes out of Oxford University, but Princeton’s own Peter Singer has been making this argument forever.

If you are, as I am, an anthropogenic climate change skeptic (as opposed to a mere climate change denier, which would be silly, because the climate is ever-changing), you’ll enjoy this Patrick Moore article explaining in simple terms why he too is an anthropogenic climate change skeptic.

All over America, traditional religious groups are being told that they have abandon what they are if they are to be allowed to exist. On campus, Christian groups are told that it’s discriminatory to insist that people in leadership positions should be Christian. In San Francisco, teachers at private Catholic schools are insisting that they shouldn’t be forced to conform their teaching to Catholic doctrine. It’s high time that conservatives and Christians start serving the Left with its own sauce, and take over LGBT organizations or Islamist groups — and then sit back and watch the fun as those groups start screaming about being taken over.

It’s the nature of centralized government to control everything. In China, disturbed by a line-dancing trend that is sweeping the nation, and that sees millions turn out in the streets to dance, the government has now mandated that the dancing must be taught be government agents and conform to government standards. What the ChiComs didn’t anticipate was a granny backlash against its diktats.

It’s no surprise that Obama wants to hand Israel’s collective head over to the UN on a platter. The UN has just announced that Israel is the world’s worst human rights violator — ahead of Syria and North Korea. The UN and Obama: Made for each other.

Michael Goodwin is on target with another article about the utter, destructive chaos of the Obama administration. Those who said Obama was a devotee of the Cloward-Piven strategy were right.

April is world Jewhad™ month

I was inspired by Sadie’s clever comment:

Slide1

And before anyone gets too bent out of shape, although I consider Obama the worst president ever, think his policies towards Israel have crossed the boundary into evil, and look with despair upon the world he is creating inside and outside of American borders, these wishes are mere mind games, not a genuine hope or desire that any harm should befall him or his family. As I said, I do not like him, but I understand clearly the difference between God’s powers and my Passover-themed fantasies — as I’m sure all of you do too.

The Bookworm Beat 3-27-15 — “The World Turned Upside Down” edition and open thread

Woman writingWord must have gotten out that I have a temporary hiatus in the endless mountain of legal work that’s overwhelmed me, because the phone hasn’t stopped ringing all morning. Every time my fingers get anywhere near my keyboard, the phone rings, I glance at the caller ID and, yes, it’s a call I need to take.

The most interesting call I received came in a short while ago from a delightful, interesting man who will be speaking to a local conservative group with which I’m involved. His topic: Israel. In past weeks, some in the group have been a little worried that this man, a Democrat and Obama supporter, might inadvertently antagonize our group. Speaking to him today, though, I think he and our group will be singing the same song.  He seems to feel, as I do, that  — Obama is doing something unconscionably dangerous in allying us with Iran while giving Iran the nuclear go ahead, and something profoundly evil by sacrificing Israel to achieve this unconscionable goal.

I am deeply, deeply disturbed when I think what Obama is doing in the Middle East. By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes. This is not ineptitude or misguided faith. Obama, dragging the United States along behind him, is deliberately embracing evil.

All I can think of lately, and you’ll see why as you read further, is the British military band in 1781, at the Surrender at Yorktown, playing “The World Turned Upside Down.”

Don’t just blame Lena Dunham; The New Yorker published her

[Read more...]

Ted Cruz for President in 2016

Ted CruzA temporary diminution in my overwhelming work load has finally given me a window to blow about Ted Cruz’s candidacy. Briefly, I’m for it. Obama has taught us that, in today’s world, it’s not experience that matters, it is indeed being a standard-bearer for an overarching ideology.

Americans have now had six, going on for seven, years of Obama’s ideology and they’ve seen the results:

  1. a sluggish economy,
  2. endless crony capitalism,
  3. meaningless national borders,
  4. a disastrous change for the worse in race relations,
  5. the Middle East going down in flames,
  6. Israel (America’s long-time ally) abandoned and betrayed,
  7. a White House that makes love to the nation that’s slaughtered thousands of American troops,
  8. the abandonment of Eastern Europe to Putin’s depredations,
  9. a spectacular rise in Islamic violence at home and abroad,
  10. the steady transformation of our healthcare system into a European style system that provides access but minimal meaningful care,
  11. a de-fanged and emasculated military,
  12. the end of government transparency,
  13. the rise of an unaccountable administrative branch that practices legislation, and
  14. worst of all, a deliberate turn away from our most cherished constitutional principles, including the all-important separate of powers, our primary bulwark against tyranny.

In this, Obama has consistently been aided and abetted by the Democrat Party.  Worse, whenever it’s been faltering, its received helpful boosts from the GOP.

Against this backdrop, running a neutered GOP candidate who, at home, stands, for everything Obama stands for, only with weaker sauce, and, abroad, lacks the backbone to fight against Islamic (and, inevitably, Chinese) aggression abroad, is a sure way to lose.

Finally, though we have an alternative, in the person of a man who liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz describes as one of the most brilliant Harvard law students he’s ever had.  Briefly, Ted Cruz

  1. has the ability to articulate conservative principles in clear and accessible language,
  2. has a happy warrior manner as he toys with a media that’s unaccustomed to a conservative who won’t bow down,
  3. enjoys a good fight,
  4. energizes (one hopes) Hispanic conservatives who have been languishing, literally and figuratively, in Democrat ghettos, and
  5. most importantly of all, holds pro-American views on every issue: he supports a free market, strong borders, standing against Islamic extremism and aggression, protecting our allies around the world, bringing the free market to America’s healthcare system, shrinking government and (especially) the administrative branch of government, de-fanging the IRS’s unlimited (and partisan) power, and in all other respects running a government consistent with the Constitution.

To those who say “Cruz can’t win,” I say “That’s only true if you start with a defeatist attitude by buying into MSM and GOP slander.”

Now is the time for the pendulum to swing far, far away from Obama. If the Republican pendulum apathetically droops in front of a Jeb Bush or Lindsay Graham, we will lose. This is the last chance, truly the last chance, for the American Constitution to take center stage in an election and in our lives. If Hillary or Jeb wins, America as a Constitutional nation is dead and gone.

Incidentally, Wolf Howling has pulled together a very useful collection of Ted Cruz articles.

[VIDEO] Obama is worse than Chamberlain ever was

Obama as Neville ChamberlainA lot of people have been likening Obama to Neville Chamberlain, insofar as it was Neville Chamberlain who thought he could strike a grand bargain with Hitler to create “peace in our time.” There were a few things in Chamberlain’s favor: First, Hitler pretended to be a friend to England. Second, Hitler hadn’t killed any Englishmen in the lead-up to those negotiations. Chamberlain was a trusting fool, but not an evil man. Indeed, Churchill welcomed Chamberlain into his newly formed government and wept when he died.

Second, as Ben Shapiro’s video makes clear, Obama is willingly entering into a deal with the Devil, and selling America’s soul to do it. Iran is making no pretense of being a friend to America. Instead, it’s increasing its rhetoric. In addition, as Ben points out, Iran has the blood of thousands of American troops on its hand. In other words, this isn’t a treaty negotiation, it’s a surrender.

And here’s one more thing showing that Obama is infinitely worse than Chamberlain ever imagined: Obama is deliberately lying about a long-standing ally in order to seal his deal with the Devil and, as a pleasing byproduct, to watch that one-time ally get destroyed. But why should we be surprised?  If you’ve already sold your soul, a little thing such as aiming a howitzer at a friend really isn’t going to bother you.

Obama’s remarkable consistency when it comes to “respect”

obama gives us the finger_thumb[41]I’m sure someone’s said it before, but Obama is remarkably consistent in his approach to everything.  For example, he believes that people who have been subject to systemic disrespect become violent or criminal.  If you show them the respect they need, they will stop behaving in that way.  He therefore believes that his job as America’s leader is to correct systemic disrespect which will, in turn, cause them to give up their bad behaviors and embrace good ones.

I believe in respect too.  My feeling is that you respect people by demanding of them the same good behavior you demand of yourselves.  That’s not the Obama way, though.  Just a few examples should suffice:

I believe that African-Americans are not doing well because Democrat policies infantilize them and encourage them to be helpless victims rather than people in control of their own destinies.  I believe that the best thing we can do for African-Americans is to offer them a free market, equal opportunities under the law, and the right, finally, to be free from government meddling, whether that meddling is badly or well intentioned.

Obama, however, believes that all problems in the African-American community — from poverty, to single motherhood, to crime — come about because America’s predominantly white society has failed to respect blacks.  He further believes that the way to confer respect on them and encourage future good behavior is perpetual welfare and insulation from the consequences of their own actions.  That hasn’t worked out well.  Black unemployment and crime rates (especially racially-associated crime rates) are up.

I believe that Hispanic illegal immigrants are law-breakers, cheat people who are playing by the rules, destroy the legal American working and middle class, and allow tyrannies to continue in their native lands by siphoning off the working population and sending back cash.  I believe that America, a nation of immigrants, should continue to encourage people to come here from foreign lands — but we should do so on our terms, not theirs, in order to protect our borders, our sovereignty, our public health, our crime rates, and our economy, and so as to disempower those Latin American nations that profit by sending us their labor and taking back our cash (cash that could have been in legal American hands).

Obama believes that illegal immigrants are being denied the respect.  It is this disrespect that makes them “live in the shadows.”  Obama further believes that the way to confer respect on illegal Hispanic immigrants, thereby bringing them out of the shadows, is blanket amnesty (which automatically erases that shadowy “law-breaker” status), followed by welfare. With this level of respect conferred on the illegal immigrants already here, he hints to Americans that the flow of illegal immigrants crossing our borders to demand our respect will stop.  It’s worth pointing out that the more “respect” Obama shows illegal immigrants who are already here, the more of them keep flowing across our borders.

And of course, I believe that the Iranian Republic is a fanatic, tyrannical Islamic theocracy that has, since its inception, dedicated itself to the complete destruction of Israel, the Islamic takeover of America, and control over the Muslim Middle East.   To this end, it has spent the past 36 years fomenting Islamic terror and revolution the world over.

Obama, however, sees a nation disrespected and misunderstood.  He believes that the root cause of its violent, genocidal, world domination attitude is that it has been subject to this emotionally hurtful lack of respect and understanding.  The same craving for respect has powered its nuclear ambitions.  Obama’s answer to Iran’s bad behavior is to treat the root cause:  Give Iran respect.  And of course, in Obama-land the way to give respect to a fanatic, genocidal, terrorist nation is to give it unfettered access to nuclear weapons.  Obama is remarkably clear in his believe that, once it achieves its nuclear ambitions, the sense of respect this will confer on Iran will cause it instantly to lay down the same nuclear weapons it just perfected.

Obama is quite obviously an ideological fool, who is blinded to the realities of human nature, most specifically how humans react to power, incentives, and punishments.  Don’t confuse that for stupidity, though, his handling of Israel has been masterful since the very first day of his presidency.  He has moved Israel into increasingly smaller boxes to the point at which Israel is now locked tightly into a box with a very large target painted on it.  I’m with the Commentary editors in that I see no good outcome here.

Oh, and one more thing:  Obama clearly grew up feeling that he, a mixed-race American child in Indonesia’s anti-American streets and Hawaii’s ultra exclusive enclaves, didn’t get the respect he deserved.  The way he responds to this root cause problem remarkably parallels his take on Iran’s response to a lack of respect:  He punishes his enemies and has no problem with the possibility of their annihilation.  Indeed, as I mentioned vis-a-vis Israel, he seems to share with Iran those same genocidal urges that seem to be the last resort of those feeling disrespected.

In other words, when it comes to  his own enemiestrying to change their bad behavior by showing them respect is a concept that goes right out the window.