If You Like Obama’s Executive Orders, You Are Going to Love 2014

Photo Credit: Townhall

Photo Credit: Townhall

The American system of government has as it’s chief executive, a president who is carefully checked by a watchful Congress and a consientious judiciary.

Except, when it isn’t.

Case in point: Our president plans to rule us – not govern us – by using the vast powers of his office and absolute control of the federal bureaucracy to ram his vision of hope and change down our throats. Done without the approval of Congress and with little challenge from the judiciary.

Can he get away with it? Watch him:

The new plan “is to bring all of the government alive in a way we have never been very good at,” said another official.

“We’ll be doing that as aggressively as possible…. and if we succeed, that is a big presidency,” a senior administration official told the Post.

Read more from this story HERE.

Warning: Gov’t Can Be Harmful to Your Health

Photo Credit: Reuters

Photo Credit: Reuters

Trust in our government was a mere 19 percent in 2013, according to the Pew Research Center. Not surprisingly, 56 percent of Americans think it is not the government’s responsibility to provide a health-care system. Waivers, favors, off-the-cuff rule changes and the bungled launch of the Affordable Care Act website validate that distrust. Bureaucratic incompetence and cronyism are not the only reasons we should be wary of government involvement in our medical care.

The federal government has a checkered history when it comes to medical judgments. We now cringe at the words of the revered Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1927 case, Buck v Bell, upholding Virginia’s sterilization law for the institutionalized “feeble-minded.” “[Carrie Bell’s] welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” In fact, Carrie’s mother was a prostitute, but not feeble-minded. After Carrie’s release, she maintained a job as a domestic worker and became an avid reader. Her “feeble-minded” daughter was on her school’s honor roll.

Let’s recall the appalling Tuskegee Syphilis Study lasting from 1932 to 1972. The U.S. Public Health Service used 400 mainly poor, illiterate, black sharecroppers with syphilis as lab animals. They were told they had “bad blood,” but not that they were actually suffering from a serious but treatable disease. All subjects succumbed to untreated syphilis so our government could track the natural progression of the disease.

The U.S. Navy sprayed the presumably harmless bacterium, serratia marcescens, over San Francisco in 1951 in a biological warfare test. Numerous residents contracted pneumonia-like illnesses resulting in at least one death. The experiments came to light in the 1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research. Two-hundred, thirty-nine populated areas, including Minneapolis, St. Louis, the Washington, D.C., National Airport and New York’s subway system, had been contaminated from 1949 to 1969 when President Nixon terminated the program.

In 1989, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored study tested an experimental measles vaccine on 1,500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles. The CDC admitted in 1996 that parents were never informed that the vaccine was experimental.

Read more from this story HERE.

Noonan: The Sleepiness of a Hollow Legend

Photo Credit: Martin Kozlowski

Photo Credit: Martin Kozlowski

So the president’s State of the Union address is Tuesday night, and it’s always such a promising moment, a chance to wake everyone up and say “This I believe” and “Here we stand.” The networks are focused and alert, waiting to be filled with a president’s excellence and depth. It’s a chance for the American president to say whatever the storm, however high the seas, the union stands “rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible.” That’s how Stephen Vincent Benet had Daniel Webster put it, in a play.

In a State of the Union a president tries to put his stamp on things. Here we are, here’s where we’re going, all roads lead forward. We can face whatever test, meet whatever challenge, united in the desire that we be the greatest nation in the history of man . . .

What great moments this tradition has given us. JFK’s father thought his son’s first State of the Union was better than his Inaugural Address. It had a warmth. “Mr. Speaker . . . it is a pleasure to return from whence I came. You are among my oldest friends in Washington—and this House is my oldest home.” Friends, home—another era. LBJ taking the reins in 1964: “Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined.” And you know, that’s what it became. Nixon enjoyed dilating on history, and was interesting when he did.

Reagan dazzled, though he told his diary he never got used to it: “I’ve made a mil. speeches in every kind of place to every kind of audience. Somehow there’s a thing about entering that chamber—goose bumps & a quiver.” There was his speech after he’d recovered from being shot—brio and gallantry. And of course Lenny Skutnik. Just before Reagan’s 1982 speech Mr. Skutnik, a government worker, saw Air Florida Flight 90 go into the Potomac. As others watched from the banks of the frozen river, Mr. Skutnik threw off his coat, dived in and swam like a golden retriever to save passengers. The night of the speech he was up there in the gallery next to the first lady, and when Reagan pointed him out the chamber exploded. This nice, quiet man who’d gone uncelebrated all his professional life, and then one day circumstances came together and he showed that beneath the bureaucrat’s clothing was the beating heart of a hero.

Read more from this story HERE.

Universal Coverage vs. Universal Liberty

Photo Credit: mrsdkrebs

Photo Credit: mrsdkrebs

We conservatives can support universal health coverage. All that is necessary to do so is that we intend good for everyone, ignore the Constitution, and compromise our principles.

In his article published at National Review, “The Conservative Case for Universal Coverage,” Avik Roy writes:

I argue that no Republican health-reform plan will get anywhere until Republicans come to agree that it’s a legitimate goal of public policy to ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care, just as we agree that all Americans should have access to a quality education:

To credibly advance this approach, conservatives must make one change to their stance: They have to agree that universal coverage is a morally worthy goal. No conservative politicians oppose universal public education; instead, we champion reforms that improve the quality of public education that poor Americans receive.

The author thus makes the case — asserts it twice, in fact — that because conservatives support quality public schooling (“universal public education”), it follows that they ought also to approve of a federal universal health insurance program (“universal coverage”). This is a pernicious line of reasoning that undermines the very concept of limited government conservatives claim to champion.

Read more from this story HERE.

Sowell: Ignoring Facts and Attacking Character

Photo Credit: National Review

Photo Credit: National Review

One of the things that attracted me to the political Left as a young man was a belief that leftists were for “the people.” Fortunately, I was also very interested in the history of ideas — and years of research in that field repeatedly brought out the inescapable fact that many leading thinkers on the left had only contempt for “the people.”

That has been true from the 18th century to the present moment. Even more surprising, I discovered over the years that leading thinkers on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum had more respect for ordinary people than people on the left who spoke in their name.

Leftists like Rousseau, Condorcet, or William Godwin in the 18th century, Karl Marx in the 19th century, or Fabian socialists like George Bernard Shaw in England and American Progressives in the 20th century saw the people in a role much like that of sheep and saw themselves as their shepherds.

Another disturbing pattern turned up that is also with us to the present moment. From the 18th century to today, many leading thinkers on the left have regarded those who disagree with them as being not merely factually wrong but morally repugnant. And again, this pattern is far less often found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum.

The visceral hostility toward Sarah Palin by present-day liberals, and the gutter level to which some descend in expressing it, is just one sign of a mindset on the left that goes back more than two centuries.

Read more from this story HERE.

If You Can’t Put A Name On Evil, You Should Expect It To Never Go Away

Photo Credit: RedState

Photo Credit: RedState

So just how bad is abortion? Fair question. Let’s engage. Does it pervert the practice of medicine? Is it Genocide? Does it devalue human existence? You don’t need an Or Statement here. Embrace instead the healing power of “And.” Abortion does all three of the things I suggested and is therefore an intolerable affront to decency and civilization.

Abortion is only tolerated by what Aldous Huxley once referred to as cynical realism. Like the proposed statue of Satan in Oklahoma; abortion is a clear and unambiguous argument that the American People may no longer have any meaningful commitment to basic decency. This drives the brave and morally courageous to gather in protest on the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Abortion has stained and perverted some aspects of the practice of medicine. On a practical level, it has lead to the continued operation of “Women’s Health Clinics” that display a level of care and sanitation that had previously been banished with the adoption of modern sterile techniques of medical practice. On a legal level, the desires of some to make abortions widely available has lead to widespread violations of laws protecting female minors.

Abortion has a sordid and underreported history as a eugenic tool. When you practice eugenics through subtraction, you basically have to resort to genocide. The Economic Whiz Kids who brought us Freakonomics took time out of their busy research day to inform us that aborting the right kind of children reduces crime in America. You could even clean up Mordor if you just got rid of the gosh-darn Orcs. A man named Kermit Gosnell put that ethic into ruthless practice in Philadelphia, PA and thereby became a coalmine canary for what was happening in at abortion mills all over America. I described the obvious racial skew in abortions performed below.

The New York State Department of Health reports that in 2008, almost 50,000 out of 118,000 abortions were performed on African-America unborn children. 54,000 out of the 118,000 pre-birth assassinations were directed at White unborn children. Assuming that New York State more or less “looks like America”, and that American demographics didn’t undergo watershed transformation in 2008, there is an obvious disparity between population proportion and numbers of abortions taking place in America today. 42.3% of New York State’s abortions involved a racial cohort representing 12.4% of the population. Less than ½ of the abortion procedures (46%) involved white children.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Takes Phony Route Once Again

Photo Credit: WND

Photo Credit: WND

In the New Yorker interview published over the weekend, President Obama misrepresented his actions when he stated he vetoed a plan for the U.S. to intervene militarily on behalf of the rebel forces in Syria fighting President Bashar al-Assad.

Interviewer David Remnick failed to challenge Obama with evidence the United States is supplying the rebels in Syria with arms after pressing Congress to approve military intervention. The congressional lobbying effort failed after the United Nations was unable to corroborate Obama administration claims that the Assad regime was responsible for chemical attacks against Syrian civilians.

“I am not haunted by my decision not to engage in another Middle Eastern War,” Obama told Remnick.

“It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which our involvement in Syria would have led to a better outcome, short of us being willing to undertake an effort in size and scope similar to what we did in Iraq.”

Obama, however, went on to affirm that the U.S. was financing and arming the opposition to Assad.

Read more from this story HERE.

How the IRS Scandal Goes Beyond the Agency

Photo Credit: Win McNamee, Getty Images

Photo Credit: Win McNamee, Getty Images

At a tax symposium at Pepperdine Law School last week, former IRS chief counsel Donald Korb was asked, “On a scale of 1-10 … how damaging is the current IRS scandal?”

His answer: 9.5. Other tax experts on the panel called it “awful,” and said that it has done “tremendous damage.”

I think that’s right. And I think that the damage extends well beyond the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, I think that the government agency suffering the most damage isn’t the IRS, but the National Security Agency. Because the NSA, even more than the IRS, depends on public trust. And now that the IRS has been revealed to be a political weapon, it’s much harder for people to have faith in the NSA.

As I warned President Obama back in 2009 after he “joked” about having his enemies audited, the IRS depends on trust:

Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system. Our income-tax system is based on voluntary compliance and honest reporting by citizens. It couldn’t possibly function if most people decided to cheat. Sure, the system is backed up by the dreaded IRS audit. But the threat is, while not exactly hollow, limited: The IRS can’t audit more than a tiny fraction of taxpayers. If Americans started acting like Italians, who famously see tax evasion as a national pastime, the system would collapse.

Read more from this story HERE.

Does the Buck Ever Stop with Hillary Clinton?

Photo Credit: Linda Davidson/The Washington Post

Photo Credit: Linda Davidson/The Washington Post

Mainstream pundits have many excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi, Libya, performance. The most common being trotted out was that Benghazi was below her radar screen, and she can’t be expected to know everything going on in her shop. Let’s count the ways this is unconvincing, if not downright wrong.

First, of course, every politician (ahem, a Northeastern governor) is held responsible for what goes on by underlings. The head of an organization must be held accountable for the people she hires. And, yes, leaders need to take ownership of the “culture” around them.

The Clinton culture is simple: Deny, insulate, deny. This is how Hillary and Bill Clinton have kept scandal from enveloping them again and again. (The Rose law firm documents were in a closet?!) They have loyalists, Cheryl Miller is among the closest, who clear up messes, as she apparently was seeking to do when she cautioned State Department personnel against talking to members of Congress. Clinton can keep trotting out the excuse that every scandal is someone else’s doing, but at some point the lady who knows so little about what is going on around her ceases to be seen as a competent leader.

Journalists who’ve never worked in a big company, served in the military or held an executive post may not have a good grasp on how information gets to the person at the top. It begins with the person at the top and/or her chief of staff setting up procedures and understandings about what is urgent, what gets elevated and what should never be a surprise for the boss. If this doesn’t exist, it is because the boss wants plausible deniability (that Clinton culture again) or because the boss is so caught up in minutiae and/or is out of the office so much (Clinton, to a tee) that the organization is chaotic and slow to react.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama vs. Obama

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Consider “income inequality.” As far as this can be said to actually exist, it’s a function of certain sectors of the financial industry reaping massive windfalls over the past few years while the rest of the country has stagnated under the burden of the recession.

So who is responsible for this state of affairs? Consider the trillion and a half dollars handed over to the banks and other financial institutions shortly after Obama took office. This money was supposed to be extended as credit to businesses — including small businesses — in a bid to supercharge the economy according to the old Keynesian formula.

Instead it went directly into the markets, where it triggered the growth of the current market bubble, generating plenty in the way of paper profits, bonuses, and so forth along the way.

Also consider the $65 billion a month handed to the banks in the form of “quantitative easing.” This was supposedly the brainstorm of Ben Bernanke. But Bernanke is nobody’s idea of an independent agent. Any notion that he was acting outside of a framework created by Obama is ludicrous. This money did more of the same — slipping essentially unearned income into already well-upholstered pockets, and all at the bidding of none other than Barack Obama.

Read more from this story HERE.