The more unpopular a President becomes, and the less support he finds in Congress, the more unilateral executive law-making authority flows to him. It's in the Constitution.

What, you didn't know that the Constitution imposes checks and balances on popular Presidents but gifts unpopular ones with untrammeled executive power? It's in one of the Secret Clauses written in invisible ink. I think Nick Cage mentioned it in National Treasure 2.

President Barack Obama put lawmakers on notice during his first official cabinet meeting of the year, telling his top deputies that his 2014 agenda will move forward whether Congress votes for it or not.

...

“One of the things I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting,” he said, “is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.”

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

All "those jobs that our businesses are creating." It's a river of bullshit with an unconstitutional, anti-American threat to usurp the law-making power at the end of it.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (349)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

From @rdbrewer4 in the sidebar, and recommended as a main post by @comradearthur.

I like everything about this except the part where he encourages young people to vote.

Then he suggests they pick up a newspaper once in a while.

I'd reverse that sequence. Pick up a newspaper, and then, after reading it for a year or two, then start voting.

I'm not sure if anyone besides the gasbags of the Sunday show has explained Obamacare's generational cost-shifting to the country. Kimmel manages it a couple of sentences.

Is this important? Somewhat, I think. As many of us here have observed, it's a major shift to see Obama laughed at, and not just Obama, but his supposedly For the Greater Good schemes. The left advances by asserting that it is both intellectually and morally superior to its critics; to laugh at Obama's incompetence and to attack him for swindling the innocent is to deny both claims.

More and more I've come to believe that politics is ultimately not about what people read, or learn, or come to believe after giving it careful thought. Politics is all about what people "know" without quite knowing how they came to know it.

Which is just another way of saying: You can't reason someone out of a position he wasn't reasoned into in the first place. The real driver of opinion is not reason -- it never has been and never will be -- but pre-rational things like What Everyone Else is Saying.

A somewhat smaller number of people now "know" Obama is competent and virtuous and honest, and a somewhat higher number of people "know" (closer to really knowing, in my opinion) that he is incompetent and dishonest and manipulative.

Transcript at the link. Video below stolen from Newsbusters. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (345)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

It's like "open enrollment" in ObamaCare only it works.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:07 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

I talked to Ace about experimenting with this...a post with 2 or 3 stories in it. They are interesting but may not be worth a full post (or I just don't have time to do a full one).

1- The Next ObamaCare Problem: Over/Under estimating your subsidy level.

We've talked about this several times on the podcast. If you get a subsidy from the government for an ObamaCare policy, it's based on your income. But if your income changes or you're a freelancer who has no clue what your income is from quarter to quarter, let alone over the year, you could wind up with too much or too little of a subsidy.

If you underestimate your income, you might owe a bunch of money at the end of the year.

Fun surprises courtesy of the Democrats.

2. Liberals Continue To Be Dismayed People Won't Let Elites Run Their Lives.

Liberals want you to drive small, expensive, crappy cars in order to save Gaia. People who actually buy cars on the other hand want Big Ass American Horse Power(tm) that make Gaia and Al Gore cry.

Try as they might, people insist on making their own choices.

This is why at the end of the left's road is always state violence. People won't give up their freedom or their possessions willingly. They will have to be taken from them by force.

Note: I'm not saying American liberals are about to set up concentration camps. I'm saying that there's a reason happy talk from socialists and communists always wind up in a massive body count.

3. Why The GOP Establishment Might Lose: Money.

Team GOP loves to harp on the fundraising efforts of conservative insurgents as a means to deligitimize them...that funding stream is a threat to party leaders and big money donors with vested interests in a compliant rightwing of the GOP.

It's funny how so many Republicans sound like liberals railing about the danger of money in politics when the money isn't going to them. To hear them harp on about it you'd think Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint invented political fundraising or something.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:33 AM | Comments (585)
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

“We all hate ObamaCare, we just disagree on tactics about how to get rid of it”. That was the cry of the anti-shutdown caucus back in September and October. But like most things you hear from Republicans, it was a lie.

Not all Republicans hate ObamaCare, some even implemented parts of it. One of the Republican governors to do so is Chris Christie (who also happens to be head of the Republican Governors Association).

So why should Republicans, let alone conservatives, defend Christie in his current times of troubles? I mean, shouldnÂ’t we be happy to see a turncoat wounded in his quest to become the GOP nominee? Of course not says the establishment. You see when Ted Cruz was being attacked by the media many in the GOP not only refused to defend him, they rushed to join the attackers. But now that a member in good standing of the moderate wing is in trouble, well teamwork demands we all come to his aid.

To that I say what General Anthony McAuliffe said at the Battle of the Bulge…”Nuts”.

There are two basic reasons I donÂ’t want to see Christie be the GOP nomineeÂ…his support for immigration amnesty and his acceptance of ObamaCareÂ’s Medicaid expansion. For me, either of those is disqualifying. Both? ItÂ’s intervention time.

If the GOP is going to run in 2016 against ObamaCare it cannot have a nominee who is at all tainted by the program. To put Christie at the head of the charge against ObamaCare would be as stupid as, well, putting Mitt Romney there.

What I wrote back in April of 2010 about Romney applies to Christie today.

Even if Romney does say he opposes the individual mandate, he still has said he'd take credit for Obama's health care "accomplishment". Given his background with the issue and weird statements about the law since its passage, Romney is simply damaged goods when it comes to health care.

He might still be able to come up with a convincing narrative to explain the differences between MassCare and ObamaCare as well as his role in the former. But then the debate will be about Mitt and what he thought then vs. now and whether he can be reliable going forward. Meanwhile the focus will be off Obama and the damage done by this health care scheme.

Republicans need the issue to be a clean and clear choice...we have to nominate someone who was opposed to ObamaCare from the start. Only then will the focus stay on Obama and what he has wrought.

The same is true for Christie but itÂ’s actually much worse. RomneyCare was the forerunner of ObamaCare but at least Romney wasnÂ’t directly tied to a major piece of ObamaCare the way Christie is.

Maybe Christie can explain it away by saying things like “well, what was good for NJ wasn’t great for the country so they aren’t the same.”

How did that work for Mitt?

As the saying goes, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”. That’s true but it’s even more of a problem if what you’re explaining is why what you did in the past will be different from what you’ll do in the future, especially on such a key issue.

If youÂ’re a bitter ender clinging to the idea that RomneyCare didnÂ’t inhibit RomneyÂ’s ability to go after ObamaCare, donÂ’t take my word that it did. Take the word of one of RomneyÂ’s biggest cheerleaders, Jennifer Rubin.

Hillary Clinton may have a Mitt Romney problem. It is not merely a function of her wealth and isolation from the real world. (She and Bill Clinton are treated like royalty and operate behind a phalanx of security.) Rather, she is uniquely unable to criticize potential opponents on points on which they may be the most vulnerable.

Â…

In other words, Romney felt constrained in going after the president on Obamacare and was personally unable to capture the lower- and middle-class voters most hurt by ObamaÂ’s policies.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:17 AM | Comments (449)
Post contains 962 words, total size 6 kb.

• Insurers Are All In For Obamacare
  
• WH Delays Another Obamacare Deadline
  
• 12 Lies Of Obamacare
  
• We're Living In A Banana Republic Part II
  
• Christie Polling Better Than The Media
  
• Obamacare's Sex Problem
  
• Justified Will End After Next Season
  
• Jim Moran Retiring From The House
  
• The Left Can't Tolerate A Fox Employee's Interracial Marriage
  
• Union Bosses Fight To Control Workers' Paychecks
  
• GOP Reveals Strategy For Immigration Bill Push
  
• Must Protect The Precious
  
• Law Enforcement Officers Really Should Be Familiar With The Laws They're Enforcing
  
• Why He Seems Like He'd Make A Great Diplomat
  
• Neat Picture
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:26 AM | Comments (191)
Post contains 106 words, total size 3 kb.

Hmmm. Gabe must've had an accident down at the law factory.

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the Miracle on the Hudson.

Posted by: andy at 04:36 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Because no one expects the early ONT. That is is primary weapon. Well that and uncertainty. And of course arbitrary bannings - can't forget about that one.

Spengler's Universal Laws

The collected thoughts of 'Spengler' AKA David P. Goldman who writes for the Asia Times Online. His take on world events is usually clear-headed, dispassionate, and quite often on the pessimistic side. Which given human nature makes his views all too often accurate as well.

But not infallible - I think he tends to be the most wrong when it comes to predictions about the US. In fact before he revealed his identity I just assumed he was a British or Australian expat who had never lived in the US. But overall I'd say these 'laws' do hold true for all countries in the long run. Maybe some nation will be the eventual exception but I wouldn't bet that way.

Spengler's Universal Law #1: A man or a nation at the brink of death does not have a "rational self-interest."
Spengler's Universal Law #2: When the nations of the world see their demise not as a distant prospect over the horizon, but as a foreseeable outcome, they perish of despair.
Spengler's Universal Law #3: Contrary to what you may have heard from the sociologists, the human mortality rate is still 100 percent.
Spengler's Universal Law #4: The history of the world is the history of mankind's search for immortality.
Spengler's Universal Law #5: Humankind cannot bear mortality without the hope of immortality.
Spengler's Universal Law #6 (courtesy of Warren Buffett): You don't know who's naked until the tide goes out.
Spengler's Universal Law #7: Political models are like automobile models: you can't have them unless you can pay for them.
Spengler's Universal Law #8: Wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women.
Spengler's Universal Law #9: A country isn't beaten until it sells its women, but it's damned when its women sell themselves.
Spengler's Universal Law #10: There's a world of difference between a lunatic and a lunatic who has won the lottery.
Spengler's Universal Law #11: At all times and in all places, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.
Spengler's Universal Law #12: Nothing is more dangerous than a civilization that has only just discovered it is dying.
Spengler's Universal Law #13: Across epochs and culture, blood has flown in inverse proportion to the hope of victory.
Spengler's Universal Law #14: Stick around long enough, and you turn into a theme park.
Spengler's Universal Law #15: When we worship ourselves, eventually we become the god that failed.
Spengler's Universal Law #16: Small civilizations perish for any number of reasons, but great civilizations die only when they no longer want to live.
Spengler's Universal Law #17: If you stay in the same place and do the same thing long enough, some empire eventually will overrun you.
Spengler's Universal Law #18: Maybe we would be better off if we never had been born, but who has such luck? Not one in a thousand.
Spengler's Universal Law #19: Pagan faith, however powerful, turns into Stygian nihilism when disappointed.
Spengler's Universal Law #20: Democracy only gives people the kind of government they deserve.
Spengler's Universal Law #21: If you believe in yourself, you're probably whoring after strange gods.
Spengler's Universal Law #22: Optimism is cowardice, at least when the subject is Muslim democracy.
Spengler's Universal Law #23: The best thing you can do for zombie cultures is, don't be one of them.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 04:47 PM | Comments (792)
Post contains 1267 words, total size 15 kb.

This guy:

Is tapping this ass:

She's an actress named Julie Gayet.

François Hollande isn't married, so he's not committing adultery. But he does have a longtime girlfriend, Valèrie Trierweiler, who occupies the position of First Lady. There is a complication here, as Trierweiler has a private office at the state-owned Elysee Palace, and a personal staff paid for by the state.

So... like, what happens if the President of France breaks up with her? Apparently there is nothing in the law about this.

For her part, Trierweiler wants her position clarified.

Hollande gave a press conference today. He was asked if Trierweiler was still like France's First Girlfriend, or, like what dude?

He ducked the question:

"Everyone can go through turbulent times in their private life. It's our case; they are tough moments. But I have one principle: private affaires should be dealt with privately."

Trierweiler is in the hospital now, recovering from grief or something.

This isn't the first Weird French Socialist Girlfriend thing to Hollande's credit. He previously... dated the Socialist politician Segolene Royal, and had four children with her while he was... dating. But anyway, he dumped her like a sack of yesterday's mons junk for Valerie Trierweiler.

And there was a mini-scandal during the French elections when Valerie Trierweiler tweeted her support of Royal's political opponent, and that tweet seemed to spark the opponent's actual victory (and Royal's loss).

Miaou, Madame!

Both of them are also way out of this Penguin-looking dude's league too:

But I guess he wanted the newer model.

Here's the kicker: His polling is going up... among women. His polls had been in the crapper for years because France is, well, France is France, and the only thing rising faster than its unemployment is its deficit, but now he's arranging secret rendez-vous with much-younger actresses and French women are all like, Oh là là, que chaud!

That proves the premise of 1/3rd of all teenager movies of the 80s: If you can just get one cute chick to pretend to like you, the rest of the girls really will like you.

In his press conference today -- facing 500-600 reporters -- he never quite said "Yeah I'm tapping that" but at no point did he deny it.

So that's what's going on there.

Oh! I forgot. The tabloids are chattering about Obama Marital Problems.

So, Hollande is visting Obama in America on February 11th. Right around Valentine's Day, I guess.

And oh.. There are more rumors still.

More: Trierweiler says she'll forgive Hollande if he just keeps her as First Lady. Apparently she's looking forward to the trip to meet Obama in America, and will be "devastated" if he doesn't bring her.

Apparently a lot of people in France are savoring Trierweiler's downfall. They think she's getting her comeuppance, for stealing... this weird-looking guy away from Segolene Royale.

Posted by: Ace at 03:11 PM | Comments (450)
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.

It's almost as if this were all planned from the start. Get the foot in the door politically, and then rely upon Robed Radicals to Do the Job That American Democracy Doesn't Want To Do.

Same-sex marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma, as the ruling is stayed pending an appeal. Oklahoma is part of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is already hearing an appeal of UtahÂ’s same-sex marriage ban, which was struck down in December. The 10th CircuitÂ’s ruling in UtahÂ’s case will apply to Oklahoma as well, making the decision somewhat superfluous.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (249)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.