The Pax Obama

When former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stepped down earlier this year, I remarked that I felt bad for the guy. The poor little fellow looked like he’d aged enough during his sentence of servitude to President Barack Obama that he’d finally put puberty in the rearview mirror. I have no idea what the long-term effects of working as a mouthpiece for the Washington equivalent of an old-school Chicago crime family might entail, but I suspect the psychic scars would run fairly deep. Of course, it’s possible that Carney is as cravenly soulless as the rest of Obama’s accomplices, and he just wanted a new audience at whom he could sneer through his hipster glasses; but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not sure I can offer the same largesse to Carney’s replacement, the ironically named Josh Earnest. After all, Earnest served as Carney’s top deputy prior to replacing Lil’ Jay, so the only way he could not have known what awaited him would involve a lot more “choom” than Obama pocketed during his recent stop-flop-and-photo-op in Colorado. And Earnest seems to take to lying for President Nobel Peace Prize with alarming panache. During a press session on Tuesday morning, Earnest landed this whopper:

I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the tranquility of the global community…

To think, we were mystified as to how Carney could refer to Benghazi, Obama’s illegal National Security Agency spying programs, Obama’s illegal use of the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon and even the ever-disgraceful Obamacare disaster as “phony scandals.” For Earnest to make a claim like that without so much as a wink or a nudge requires that he be either stoned out of his gourd or be a sociopath to rival even Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder.

Beyond the still-unaccounted for Benghazi disgrace, Obama’s tenure has been marked by such foreign policy triumphs as the action in the Levant. Whether he’s getting played by Syria and then responding by selling weapons to al-Qaida-linked islamofascists or getting played by Syria over the chemical weapons they supposedly didn’t have (they still have them, by the way), Obama has essentially thrown lighter fluid on the grill. Just east of the Syrian game, al-Qaida-linked islamofascists, likely the same ones murdering Christians in Syria, are well on the way to establishing the kind of caliphate that makes the Taliban jealous.

Meanwhile, Israel and Hamas are after each other like rabid dogs. I’m willing to admit America’s relationship with Israel has been rocky at times, but I’d take them any day over a terrorist group which fires missiles at children from behind other children. In the vacuum left by Obama’s detached laziness, anti-Israel sentiment has exploded across the planet. Hell, there are so many anti-Semites roaring their approval for the Hamas animals worldwide, you’d think Al Sharpton and former President Jimmy Carter were making house calls to every lunatic jihadi from Britain to Baghdad.

During Obama’s tenure, he has brought his considerable diplomatic acumen to bear on Russia, whose president Vladimir “Blofeld” Putin was so cowed that only he only invaded the Ukraine a little bit. Iran was so impressed by Obama’s CV that they’re totally not developing nuclear weapons. And speaking of nuclear weapons, North Korea totally doesn’t have any, either; and the North Koreans are totally not working on more and more advanced delivery vehicles for them.

Even our allies have begun treating us like we brought a Kennedy to the Church social. The Germans have even begun a program to defeat Obama’s blatant, and blatantly disgraceful, attempts to spy on them the way he spies on — well — us. Africa is the usual funhouse, and the Chinese are leading multi-party discussions on the global economy in the post-dollar world.

By no means should Obama be embarrassed that his most effective diplomatic envoy in dealing with any of the aforementioned crises has been Dennis Rodman, who never asks: “What difference does it make?” After all, Obama has “improved the tranquility of the global community.” Sure he has; just look at Chicago — er — Martha’s Vineyard.

–Ben Crystal

Eric Holder’s ‘Racial Animus’

It must be tough to be Accomplice — sorry — Attorney General Eric Holder. All day long, whatever he does and wherever he goes, racism waits. According to Holder, whose resume boasts a host of accomplishments ranging from the murder of Border Agent Brian Terry to criminal and civil convictions for contempt of Congress, public revulsion to his and his boss’ crimes and misdemeanors is spurred by something he calls “racial animus.”

During a sit down with ABC News in London, Holder claimed: “There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that is directed at me, directed at the President… There’s a certain racial component to this… I don’t think this is a main driver, but for some there is a racial animus.”

I find Holder’s attempts to downplay legitimate revulsion over the Barack Obama Administration’s extralegal shenanigans by citing “racial animus” nearly as funny as I find Al Sharpton’s attempts to pronounce multisyllabic words. I also find them a bit disheartening. After all, despite a rap sheet that would earn you or me a 6-by-8 suite at the Lockdown Hotel, he’s the Attorney General of the United States.

There are literally millions of lawyers in the United States, most of whom are white and nearly all of whom have never been convicted of contempt of Congress. Not one of them currently runs the U.S. Department of Justice. For that matter, not one of the many white lawyers — not to mention black, Hispanic and Asian lawyers — is currently Holder’s boss. Instead, it’s a man who complains about racism as often as Sharpton mangles the English language.

Meanwhile, there are no shortages of black men and women who still deal with the kind of racist venom espoused by former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) and his Ku Klux Klan pals. Ben Carson, M.D., is black. He’s also one of the premier neurosurgeons in the history of the human species. He’s also — gasp — a conservative. While Holder whines about so-called “racial animus,” Carson, who has yet to earn even a single criminal conviction, lives with it every day. One of them sold guns to Mexican narcoterrorists and then lied about it under oath; the other developed virtually miraculous surgical advancements. One has proudly contributed to taking life; the other has dedicated his career to preserving it. One of them claims to be a victim; the other spent most of his professional life saving them.

Carson isn’t the only example of victims of the real racism espoused by the self-described “progressives.” Lt. Col. Allen West has seen it, although I doubt many liberals would be willing to hurl their invective from within the same ZIP code, much less arm’s reach. Actress Stacey Dash has heard it, but the venom the regressives spew at her could be more about their hatred of strong, independent women than their hatred of strong, independent African-Americans. And former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice knows its stench, but she’s too busy being one of the most accomplished women — people — in American history to worry about it. And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has seen it glowering over a Senate rostrum, but he’s ignored it in favor of being — well — a Supreme Court justice.

I’m sure there are some Presidential opponents whose objections are motivated by “a certain racial component.” However, they represent an infinitesimally small minority of those whose objections are motivated by a definite moral component. Pardon me for disputing the word of such a sterling example of honesty, but Holder isn’t contending with “racial animus.” Holder is contending with “just deserts.”

–Ben Crystal

The Wild West: Gun Control, Chicago-Style

In a country as profoundly diverse as these United States, it’s hardly surprising that one of — if not the — most heterogeneous society in human history celebrated Independence Day in a wide variety of ways. For example, I set some dead animal flesh on fire in my backyard and then settled in with a cold beer and watched a couple hours of History Channel before wandering outside to watch the fireworks over Savannah’s River Street. Meanwhile, some pro-illegal alien screamers set an American flag on fire. And in President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago, some of the local residents got together for a good old fashioned shootout.

Over the course of the weekend, the Windy City jumped back into the headlines with another round of manslaughter amid the merriment. Eighty-two people ended up on the business end of the proverbial bullet; 14 of them didn’t survive the encounter. Since the end of the weekend, 11 more Chicagoans have been shot, two of them fatally (so far).

It seems odd that such madness could occur — again — in Chicago, especially considering the fact that the city boasts precisely the sort of draconian anti-Bill of Rights laws that our left-leaning compatriots loudly assure us at every turn will end something to which they refer as “gun violence.” Nonetheless, the Fourth of July fireworks in Chicago came at rather a high cost.

As strange as that might seem, it seems even stranger that those same left-leaning compatriots completely missed the Chicago Massacre of 2014. Usually, when someone gets so much as mildly frightened by a firearm, the anti-Bill of Rights boobirds flock to the scene like the world’s weirdest vultures. In fact, inexplicably tax-exempt, billionaire-funded hate groups like the spectacularly monikered “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” made special efforts to assault restaurants like Chipotle and chain stores like Target for allowing firearms anywhere near their real estate, despite no episodes of so-called “gun violence.” Yet the chaos in supposedly gun-free Chicago elicited hardly a mention.

Anti-Bill of Rights bullies’ explanations for the Chicago shootings, what few there have been, tended to shrug off the violence as “gang-related.” Every time self-proclaimed “progressives” shrug off shootings in supposedly “gun-free” utopias like Chicago, I can’t help but notice “gangs” sounds an awful lot like “blacks” and “Hispanics.” But the Democratic Party isn’t racist. We know this, because Democrats tell us so. And who are we to suspect the motives of people who think they outrank the Bill of Rights?

Consider it: Someone walks into a Target with a 1911 on his belt, and the anti-Bill of Rights regressives shriek: “Boycott! Blacklist! Picket!” Hell, they’ve demanded horror movie-style deaths for people like Holly Fisher and Dana Loesch simply for — I’ll admit I’m using some guesswork here — not frantically fanning themselves at the mere sight of a firearm like an Upper East Side empress who just heard they’re out of caviar at the Obama fundraiser. Meanwhile, Democratic Party-owned cities like Chicago saddle the populace with precisely the laws liberals swear will save the world from so-called “gun violence.” The place is the bloody Wild West, yet the same anti-Bill of Rights regressives are nowhere to be found.

–Ben Crystal

American Everyman: The Ballad Of John Q. Public

Most people go through most of their days without even denting the law, much less breaking it. Not counting the beneficiaries of President Barack Obama’s open enrollment plan for illegal aliens, there are more than 300 million Americans, most of whom won’t build a rap sheet beyond the occasional speeding ticket. Despite our professed desire to “stick it to the man,” we are, by and large, a fairly placid lot. Yet our government has developed an ugly tendency to treat us like we’re criminals, except for those of us who actually are criminals. The latter group, of course, comprises people who are merely misunderstood, those are victims of the evil white patriarchy and the Attorney General (currently, that’s Eric Holder, who’s all three).

But John Q. Public isn’t much of a threat to anyone or anything beyond that double-baco-cheese-monster burger with large fries he ordered for lunch. Sure, he might tip the speedometer a few nicks past 65 on the interstate from time to time. And he did jaywalk on his way to McCoronary’s to stuff the aforementioned myocardial infarction into his already-prodigious gullet. But he’s managed to get this far in life without any major run-ins with Johnny Law.

Nonetheless, Public is the one who gets the second look from Uncle Sam. Since sometime around January 2009, it’s the everyman whom the government began treating like public enemy No. 1. His Internet usage is monitored by the National Security Agency. Every time he emails pics to Mom from the trip to Fort Walton Beach, Fla., the government keeps a copy for itself. When he calls Mom to check on how her new hip is treating her, odds are a third party in the bowels of Fort Meade is getting the update as well. Of course, the NSA probably already knew how the new hip was working out; it probably downloaded her medical records months ago. And God forbid he donates a couple bucks to the local Tea Party chapter. If so, he’s probably getting ready for an Internal Revenue Service audit/proctological exam.

Cameras watch Public for nearly every mile of his commute. His kids walk through metal detectors at school, where they are subjected to Common Core — the inbred bastard child of the teachers’ unions and the Department of Education — in place of knowledge. His 8-year-old spent a week at home after he got suspended for using his thumb and forefinger to make a gun on the playground. He would have earned only a seat in detention, but he was playing “cowboys and Indians,” which violates the school’s cultural sensitivity guidelines.

At work Public almost never voices an opinion about anything more philosophically hefty than the coffee, for fear of being slapped with some kind of harassment lawsuit — or even Federal charges. He’s been climbing the corporate ladder for decades, and he just got passed over for a promotion by a 28-year-old transgendered African-Asian-Native-American because human resources was concerned about “diversity” in the executive washroom.

As if Public’s life under Big Daddy Government’s thumb wasn’t creepy enough already, the old community center in his town has been converted to house illegal aliens; and he couldn’t help but notice that some of the guys skulking around the neighborhood are sporting the kind of tattoos he saw on that cable special about the narcoterrorists to whom Holder sold guns. And he’s pretty sure he heard the word “scabies” at church last weekend; but his doctor buddy told him he wasn’t allowed to talk about any outbreaks of exotic diseases, lest government goons break his knuckles.

Public worries about the effect the influx of illegals will have on his once-peaceful town. But the Democratic Congresswoman from a neighboring district held a press conference yesterday in which she smeared him as a racist for holding that attitude, echoing a sentiment delivered to him by his teenage daughter, courtesy of her high school history teacher. He thought about heading to the town meeting about the issue. But City Hall has been surrounded by pro-illegal alien protesters who arrived on buses chartered by labor unions, and some of the “activists” threatened his wife over the National Rifle Association sticker in the window of their minivan. So Public goes home, hoping he doesn’t get pulled over along the way and subjected to his State’s new “stop-and-stab” policy of forcibly drawing motorists’ blood.

–Ben Crystal

Hobby Lobby: Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Thereof

If the response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case is anything to go by, the self-titled “progressives” who freak out over the 2nd Amendment are really going to have to step up the shrieking; because I can’t hear them over the din of the self-titled “progressives” who object to the 1st Amendment. Whereas the gun-grabbers tend to trip over their own ignorance when it comes to the causal relationship, or lack thereof, between firearms and crime (especially when they’re calling everything from pre-Revolutionary Era blunderbusses to Dillon miniguns “AR-15s”), the anti-lifers seem to stumble over simple tasks like reading.

Hence, the outrage with which the anti-lifers have attacked the court’s Hobby Lobby decision is matched only by their ignorance — willful or otherwise — thereof. In writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito noted the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions are “sincerely held” and, therefore, draws a “legal conclusion … that [their] religious exercise is substantially burdened.” He also pointed specifically to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires the Federal Government “must take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on non-beneficiaries,” and that Obamacare’s “contraceptive coverage requirement fails to satisfy RFRA’s least restrictive means test.” It’s definitely worth noting that the RFRA was sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-The Nearest Open Microphone) and signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton (D-The Nearest Open Strip Club).

The irony, of course, is that the so-called “progressives” ought to love this decision — and not just because Bubba Clinton signed the RFRA. In acknowledging the right of the owners of private property to practice their religious beliefs therein, it follows that the Court is also acknowledging the right of employees of those same owners of private property to plan and execute their reproductive rights without employer involvement. If Andy the Atheist owns a widget-making factory, he can bar his employees from celebrating Christmas on company time and/or property. If Jerry the Jew owns the same company, then kiss bacon cheeseburgers in the cafeteria goodbye. And if Mohammed the Muslim says the new company uniform includes dishdashas for the boys and abayas for the girls, then everyone can either suit up or ship out. Likewise, if you want to have as much sex as a Nevada call girl and then take a “Plan B” pill every morning with your soy latte, you’re free to do so without fear or concern about your employers’ opinion, provided you don’t allow said activities to interfere with your job performance. Of course, that’s already black letter law known as “freedom of association.”

The Hobby Lobby decision does not establish governmental oversight of private religious mores. No one is being denied access to anything. Hobby Lobby will continue to pay for 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods imposed by Obamacare, and a wannabe tyrant like President Barack Obama has already made noises about covering the four abortifacients to which Hobby Lobby’s owners objected. The decision also serves to elevate no religious mores over any other as a matter of policy. In fact, all it does is reaffirm that the Green family is entitled to the same religious protections as you, Obama and the cashier at Hobby Lobby store No. 62. People who own “closely held” companies are no less entitled to religious freedom than private citizens who work for them.

The Hobby Lobby ruling centers on the religious freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The decision, therefore, also serves as a rebuke to the statist aims of the Democratic Party. But it also shines the spotlight on one ignored but inescapable fact: Obamacare is a shuffling bureaucratic monstrosity, and all of this could have been avoided if Obama and his accomplices hadn’t been in such a flaming rush to jam it down our throats.

Put simply: Stock up on enough abortifacients to depopulate North America — on your nickel.

–Ben Crystal

Note from the Editor: Under the Obama Administration, the NSA, the IRS, and the State and Justice departments are blatantly stepping on Americans’ privacy—and these are just the breaches we’re aware of. I’ve arranged for readers to get a free copy of The Ultimate Privacy Guide so you can be protected from any form of surveillance by anyone—government, corporate or criminal. Click here for your free copy.

Obama’s Supreme Lesson

By now, it should be patently obvious that President Barack Obama’s word is almost as ironclad as Wendy Davis’ resume. Heck, in taking his oath of office, the man swore on the Holy Bible — twice — to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That might placate the dwindling mob of self-titled “progressives” who still grovel slavishly at the altar of Obama, but I’m less confident about how well that’s going to be received by the man upstairs.

At some point, justifying Obama’s Presidency — not to mention the series of crimes and misdemeanors that have defined it — became an exercise in futility. His acolytes simply do not care, beyond blaming each successive scandal on either former President George W. Bush, racism or some combination of the two. Yet last week, a brief glimmer of the “hope” Obama promised (without any intention of delivering) appeared in a particularly unlikely corner of the Nation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama is going to have to start paying closer attention to the little things — like the Constitution he generally treats with the respect most people reserve for toilet paper, Davis’ “campaign” and The New York Times.

In a landmark ruling, the Court determined that Obama’s appointment of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board violates the Constitution. And when I say “the Court determined,” I don’t mean “the qualified Justices eked out a 5-4 win over the Democratic appointees.” I mean “the Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Obama violated pretty much every part of the Constitution that deals with the separation of powers.” The court, including Obama’s own appointees, ruled that the President lacks the authority to declare the Senate “in recess.” It’s pretty basic separation of powers stuff. Writing for the unified and unanimous Court, President Bill Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer noted: “The Senate is in session when it says it is.” (Emphasis added.)

Given that the complaints from the regressives center on logic like “But, Bush,” it’s clear that the Democratic Party’s objection is merely another example of their conflation of partisanship and principle. (See also: Obama’s illegal alterations to Obamacare post-passage, deployment of Internal Revenue Service against political opponents, etc.)

But the part that really ought to worry us is the fact that a purported Ivy League graduate, Harvard Law Review editor and former University of Chicago Law professor who claimed in 2007, “I was a Constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current President I actually respect the Constitution,” needed the Supreme Court to remind him of something a first-year law student would have to know in order to become a second-year law student, much less the President of the United States.

–Ben Crystal

Impeaching Obama: Imagine That

Imagine, if you will, the President of the United States — having already established an arrogant disregard for not only the laws of the land, but his own oath of office — engaged in political subterfuge so craven that it literally boggled the mind of the people he purports to represent. In our fun little hypothetical, let’s say he not only attempted to deploy the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against his own constituents, but either directly participated in or willingly ignored illegal conduct by his own accomplices as they attempted to hide their malfeasance from the American people. Let’s further imagine that this hypothetical Commander in Chief had been repeatedly caught blatantly lying to the people about other nefarious activities that he and his Administration had undertaken and that, when pressed for answers by duly sworn representatives of the people, this President both refused to cooperate with investigators and attempted — or allowed his subordinates to attempt — to destroy vital evidence of the crimes in question. I wonder what end result might be produced by such scandalously duplicitous behavior?

Wait; what’s that you say? Such a disgraceful episode has already occurred? So how did our duly sworn representatives respond to such executive depravity? (Author’s aside: Generally, quoting enormous blocks of text is frowned upon, mostly because some people — and I won’t mention any names here [*cough* Vice President Joe Biden *cough*] — lack compunction. However, sometimes it’s unavoidable. The following certainly qualifies.)

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

• making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

• withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

• approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings….

• making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States…

(I)n violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies…

“This conduct has included one or more of the following:

• He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

• He misused… executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

Does any of that sound familiar? If you’ve escaped the indoctrination of government-run “schools” and teachers’ union thugs, you might recognize the heavy parts of the articles of impeachment prepared by Congress — with full support of the Democratic members — against President Richard Nixon in 1974. Other than some really unfortunate style choices, what was the major difference between then and now? Nixon was a Republican. Imagine that.

–Ben Crystal