Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?

Yes, my headline may seem an exercise in wishful thinking.  And perhaps it is. 

But when the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked something that was both overlooked and rare.  As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):

The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama’s action violate the “take care clause”?

Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.

It seems at least some on the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have rarely given a President before. 

I hope I am not engaging in wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.

A Petition Against Houston’s Unequal Justice

I confess I don’t have much value-added to say about the indictment of two video journalists from the Center for Medical Progress.  Here are the basics of the case.  In short, they exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in baby parts, but those two courageous investigators, not Planned Parenthood, are the ones indicted.  Outrageous, and yet more shame from the armpit of Texas, Houston.

But others are covering this better than I can.  What I can do is point you to a petition to urge the Harris County D.A. to drop these absurd charges and instead do a real investigation of Planned Parenthood.  I’ve signed the petition and urge all readers to do likewise.

I could also rant about unequal justice in this country.  But I will save that for another day.

Hillary Intel “Smoking Gun” May Mean Turmoil Ahead

I am no intelligence expert, but the following is becoming clear even to your very humble blogger.

Hillary Clinton seriously violated the law concerning handling of national secrets.  Yes, it may have only been negligence on her part - although willful negligence is likely here - but it is serious nonetheless, involving intelligence more secret than Top Secret.  I am not exaggerating.  Investigators have had to up their clearance to look into this.  Hillary's nonchalance with national secrets is inexcusable, dangerous, and, yes, criminal.

So we will soon find out if, in Hillary’s own words, “No one is too big for jail.”  There will either be an indictment of Hillary Clinton or there will be a revolt within the FBI. The evidence is that damning. And that revolt could be big enough to bring about no small scandal.

Or this could all blow over and become yet another outrage Obama and Clinton get away with.  We shall see.

A Salute to the March for Lifers

Today in Washington, in the midst of predicted awful weather, tens of thousands will march on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, unborn children.

This past Marcher salutes them!

The Revenge of the Unrepresented

This past weekend, a new online Texas newspaper began publication – The Paper Trail.  I was honored to be asked to be one of their writers.   Yes, they are brave.

My first missive for The Paper Trail was something of a primer on why American politics are so bizarre at the moment.  Enjoy “The Revenge of the Unrepresented.”

---

If you are reading this new and erudite newspaper, you make a point to be informed.  So you may have noticed that these are odd times in politics.  What, Trump the Republican frontrunner for President while Jeb! languishes in the single digits?

But I can make matters simpler to understand, if still odd.  We are experiencing the Revenge of the Unrepresented.  Our English friends some 240 years ago found out the hard way that taxing people without representing them may not evoke a happy response.  Today’s Washington establishment politicians are finding out the same thing, yes, the hard way.

Rewind to 2010.  Obama was determined to cram Obamacare down our throats in spite of half or more of Americans clearly not wanting it.  In January, Massachusetts elected a Republican for the U. S. Senate largely because of opposition to Obamacare.  Yes, Massachusetts.  That’s not an autotypo.

Yet Obama and Congressional Democrats ignored that warning shot and marched forward in passing Obamacare.  The result was a historic political bloodbath in the November 2010 elections, handing the U. S. House and any number of state houses to the Republicans with a clear and simple mandate – Stop Obama.

But that teary-eyed orange-skinned drunk Republican Speaker Boehner and other RINOs did little to stop Obama and instead enabled him.  And that included funding, of all things, Obamacare.  Thus the Republican establishment joined Democrats in virtually ignoring the 2010 elections.

Fast forward to 2014.  Again Americans gave Obama’s Democrats a good pasting at the polls, handing now the U. S. Senate over to the Republicans.  Again, Republicans had a clear mandate to Stop Obama, particularly on the presenting issue of defending our borders and restraining illegal immigration.

But, again, Republican leaders did little to stop Obama and again enabled him, including on immigration.  In fact, Congress, with the support of the establishment Republican leaders, just voted to fund Obama’s illegal immigration programs.  (And when I say illegal, I mean both the programs and the immigration are illegal.  I would say “illegal illegal”, but that would make me appear to be ranting, not to mention ungrammatical, God forbid.)

So, yet again, about half the country finds themselves utterly unrepresented by either party.  This is not only bad policy; it is stupid politics particularly on the part of Republicans.  It is asking, nay, begging for trouble.

And then here comes trouble with funny hair.  And in his very announcement speech for President, he came down hard on illegal immigration to the point of being crude and unrealistic to put it nicely…

And millions loved it.  Immediately, Trump had high poll numbers, and they have gotten higher.  Finally, millions found that someone powerful seemed to represent them on illegal immigration and other issues.  (Note I wrote, “seemed.” I will leave aside the question of whether Trump should be trusted.)

Now are there more sensible ways to fight the establishment of both parties who are so intent on not representing Americans?  I certainly think so.  That’s why I support Ted Cruz, by the way.  But is there a more clear way than Trump to give the establishment of both parties an affectionate one finger wave? 

And, yes, Americans are that angry at the political establishment.   Not just Trump’s numbers reveal that.  Here is what I see looking at the Real Clear Politics poll averages as I write this in early January.  Anti-establishment candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Huckabee, and Santorum) have a combined 68% support among Republicans.  Jeb!? Just over 4%.  In desperation, the establishment wing of the GOP is turning to Rubio, but he polls only 11.5% compared to Trump at 35% and Cruz at 19.5%.

Can it be any clearer that a lot of people out there are angry at being unrepresented by the establishments of both parties?

So I’ve got a 2016 prediction you can add to the zillions you’ve heard already ‘cept mine is better.  2016 will be the Revenge of the Unrepresented.   One result will be the nomination of Donald Trump this summer or the defeat of Hillary Clinton this November. 

And do not be too shocked if it will be both.

Refugee of the Day

This commences a series that will focus on the contribution those wonderful Middle Eastern Muslim refugees make to society.  Thanks Obama and Merkel for your wisdom in letting them right on in!

Our first Refugee of the Day is Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24.  He already appreciates that quintessential American institution of the shopping mall so much that has been seeking to liven up the American mall experience by bombing the Houston Galleria.  What a creative prankster!

He also pledged his loyalty to that fun-loving gang, ISIS.

Unfortunately, his effort was stopped by law enforcement fuddy-duddies.

His background?

The Houston terror suspect is a Palestinian born in Iraq, but has lived among us since November 2, 2009, when he entered the United States as a refugee.

And now he’s become the Refugee of the Day.  Way to go Omar! . . . Faraj! . . . Saeed Al oh hell!  Just way to go!

Primates Meeting Update (Hint: Probably just about everyone is unhappy.) UPDATE: COMMUNIQUE RELEASED EARLY

With a news blackout and the isolation of Primates to the point of their being “treated like children,” there has been much speculation but little real information from the Primates Meeting until the past few hours.

But now has come news that the Archbishop of Uganda has walked out and written a letter to his church.  From the letter, it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not allow a vote on the presenting issue of expelling the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada from either the Primates Meeting nor the Anglican Communion.

And now have come reports that there may be partial sanctions against The Episcopal Church, which would expire after three years no matter what TEC does or does not do.  These are early reports only, but it appears just about everyone will go home unhappy.

UPDATE: Due to a leak, the communiqué has been released early.  The text follows:

14 Jan 2016

Today the Primates agreed how they would walk together in the grace and love of Christ. This agreement acknowledges the significant distance that remains but confirms their unanimous commitment to walk together.

The Primates regret that it appears that this document has been leaked in advance of their communiqué tomorrow. In order to avoid speculation the document is being released in full. This agreement demonstrates the commitment of all the Primates to continue the life of the Communion with neither victor nor vanquished.

Questions and further comments will be responded to at a press conference tomorrow at 1500. Full details are available here.

The full text is as follows:

1. We gathered as Anglican Primates to pray and consider how we may preserve our unity in Christ given the ongoing deep differences that exist among us concerning our understanding of marriage.

2. Recent developments in The Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.

3. All of us acknowledge that these developments have caused further deep pain throughout our Communion.

4. The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.

5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion.

6. Such actions further impair our communion and create a deeper mistrust between us. This results in significant distance between us and places huge strains on the functioning of the Instruments of Communion and the ways in which we express our historic and ongoing relationships.

7. It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.

8. We have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Task Group to maintain conversation among ourselves with the intention of restoration of relationship, the rebuilding of mutual trust, healing the legacy of hurt, recognising the extent of our commonality and exploring our deep differences, ensuring they are held between us in the love and grace of Christ.

Merkel and Co. Should Have Known They Were Importing Taharrush

The world is, with difficulty, digesting the fact that hundreds of Middle Eastern “refugees” engaged in coordinated gang sex assaults in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe on New Years Eve.  And the more the truth is investigated, instead of covered up as some authorities did at first, the worse the known truth gets.

Shocking, yes.  But it really should not have been a shock to Merkel and other European leaders who imported these faux refugees and inflicted them on their people.  As Richard Fernandez points out, it was well known that the Middle East has a rape problem.

Even before the NYT article was published, academic researchers were already writing about a malignant practice called taharrush, which has become the term for mass sexual harassment. . . .

Whatever the name of this dark rite there was little doubt, as foreshadowed by the attack on Lara Logan Tahrir Square, that something bad was afoot. Yet the warnings  sounded in Egypt were  ignored in the West even after a movie was made out of it.

During the 2006 Eid el-Fitr holiday, groups of young men who turned away from a sold out movie at a cinema in the downtown area went on a mass sexual harassment spree, attacking women and girls (Ilahi 2008). What made this event significant is the fact that it was caught on video by mobile phones and was widely broadcasted via YouTube by prominent Egyptian bloggers, such as Wael Abbas and Malek X ...

In December 2010, the popular movie 678 was released, which was the first feature film produced in Egypt that focused on taḥarrush as a problem for women in public spaces.

And yet Obama and Hillary among other Democrats are following the European foolishness and importing those wonderful refugees.  Heck, Obama even had one as his guest at the State of the Union last night.  Hopefully they vetted him enough to make sure he wouldn’t go on a sexual harassment spree during the speech.

I guess American heroes are less worthy of Obama’s invitation.

But, again, multiculturalism is dangerous foolishness.  There are cultures we should not import en masse.  And Middle Eastern Muslim cultures, prone to rape and terror, sure as heck are among them.  Your man and woman on the street – especially certain unfortunate women – know this.

Obama and Merkel should have known.

An Overlooked Detail about the Opening of the Primates Meeting

Yes, I haven’t posted about the much anticipated/dreaded Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion.  I’ve had mixed feelings about it and haven’t had much value-added to say, to be honest.

But my sharp eye has caught a tidbit from the sharp ear of David Ould.  The picture of apparent harmony portrayed by a released photo of the first Evensong is contradicted by something we were neither showed nor told.

What they (understandably) don’t report is that only a minority of the Primates dressed in convocation robes and an even smaller minority (described to me by an attendee as “the arch-liberals”, including the Primates of TEC and Canada) processed. The effect was clear, if unintended, in demonstrating how few their number were. Most of the Primates simply sat and waited.

For those unfamiliar with Anglican etiquette, that is what a cleric might do if attending a gathering he does not necessarily want to endorse.  An Anglican, lay or clergy, can attend a service without fully endorsing it.  And he can express his distance by not participating in some fashion.

In short, that only a minority of the attending Primates processed, that most “simply sat and waited” for Evensong to begin speaks volumes.

Steelers Win! (Or what happens when the Rule of Law is flushed down the toilet)

Yes, there are any number of other matters I can post on.  But that ugly Steelers – Bengals game Saturday night was such an object lesson, I cannot let it pass.

There was already a lot of longstanding, deep-seated hostility between the two teams before the game . . . not unlike conservatives and Leftists, and Obama and almost half the country.  And there is a long history of NFL favoritism towards the Steelers, not unlike the favoritism of Obama’s Feds towards favored client groups and against Red States.

Before the game’s defining moment, authorities, namely Steelers’ coaches, had already committed at least one enormity, namely pulling an opposing player’s hair.

What was the defining moment you ask?  Steeler Ryan Shazier’s brutal head-to-head spearing of Bengals running back Giovani Bernard.  It was an obvious illegal hit (which broadcaster CBS anchors said was legal.  Sycophant news media anyone?), but it was not flagged.  The Bengals and their fans were justifiably angry about that.

But then matters got even worse.  Steelers coach Mike Tomlin challenged the ruling that the Bengal player was down on contact before he fumbled the ball.  (When you are knocked unconscious by a dirty hit, fumbles can happen.)  He won that challenge.  So not only were the Steelers not penalized for the illegal dirty hit, they were rewarded by being given the football.

Does that not sound too familiar? IRS scandal before the 2012 election anyone? Obama rewarding those violating our borders? Etc. Etc.

Back to the game, at that point, the anger in the stadium exploded.  Really the NFL should be thankful there was not a riot then and there.

The Rule of NFL Law, if you will, was not being enforced in that key incident except when it benefited the Steelers.  That may not have been the referees’ intent.  But it was most certainly what they did.

Those who watched the rest of the game know the result - it got ugly, very ugly. Unequal justice and undermining the Rule of Law invites that. And the Bengals got too ugly for their own good.  Yes, that next to the last flag against the Bengals for Burfict's cheap and dirty shot to the head had to be thrown.

But what about that last flag when turned a possible Steelers win into an easy FG win?  Steelers Assistant Coach Joey Porter was on the field mouthing off at Bengals players.

Now Joey Porter and the Bengals have a long history of hate between them.  And Porter has long been a bad actor back to his days as one of the NFL’s dirtiest players (which speaks volumes about the Steelers that they made him a coach).  And he should not have been on the field mouthing off at the Bengals in the first place.  That should have been flagged.

Bengal Pacman Jones, himself not the cleanest or coolest player in NFL history, lost control and shouted back, bumping (probably inadvertently) an official in the process.  He, not Porter, gets flagged, putting the Steelers in easy FG range.  End of game.

Yes, there is a lesson here for those of us who are provoked by the disregard of the Rule of Law in this county.  We have to be smarter and better than them.  The Bengals were not smart.  They lost.

So this travesty of a game was practically an exercise in unequal justice and making a mockery of the rule of law and in demonstrating the ugliness that can and likely will happen as a result.

And, yes, things could get uglier in this country.  That it hasn’t yet speaks volumes about the peaceful nature of real Americans.  As a whole, we are not hotheads like certain Bengals. 

But Americans do have their limits as our English friends found out.  Let us pray the Rule of Law is peacefully restored.

Is free speech at Twitter in danger?

No, I do not want to jump to conclusions regarding the above question.  Yes, there are abusive twitter users who could use a good banning as at almost any popular social media platform.

Nonetheless, Twitter should be watched closely in 2016.  For they are implementing a stricter policy against abusive users.  And the question is whether definitions of “abuse” and “direct attacks” and the like will be used and twisted to ban legitimate speech, particularly by conservatives.  Such terms are easily manipulated.

For example, when I rightly call out #BlackLivesMatter or certain members of the same as #BlackRacists, will that be categorized by Twitter as “abuse” or a “direct attack”?

I doubt it.  But I would be naïve to ignore that a Social Justice Warrior mentality opposed to genuine free speech has infected society, including Twitter.  So, again, Twitter should be watched, particularly in this election year.

I am not alone in having this concern.

Happy #$&% New Year!

Saudi Arabia and Iran just cut off diplomatic relations.  Obama is eyeing your guns, again.  And, yes, we do have to put up with him for another year.  The China stock market closed early limit down.  The U. S. stock market is opening down 300 points.  Our borders are wide open to Lord knows what kind of invaders.  And there is a militia-Feds stand-off brewing in Oregon.

And, to top it off, the @#$% Steelers made the playoffs.

Happy New Year!