Perhaps it’s not surprising coming from our first Community Organizer president that the trait the administration claims is most needed in an “Ebola czar” — not that it’s been shown that such a position needs to be created in the first place — is, as Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health put it, “somebody who’s a good organizer.”
It’s been proven that rabble-rousing on the South Side of Chicago does not qualify one to lead anything more significant than a golf foursome (though you have to give Obama credit for spending his time doing what he’s best at, showing a clear understanding of the principle of comparative advantage).
Similarly, one wonders just what the newly named czar, Ron Klain, has “organized” that should give the American people confidence that the most incompetent administration in modern U.S. history is doing what needs to be done to keep citizens safe from a virus that the media is turning into the biggest medical scare since the Spanish Flu.
To wit, Ron Klain — no doubt a very smart man and talented lawyer, including having graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and clerking for a Supreme Court justice — is best known for organizing and advising Democratic politicians from Ed Markey to Bill Clinton to Al Gore to Gen. Wesley Clark to John Kerry, and most recently serving as Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden (proving that intelligence cannot be gained by proximity) before taking a job in the private sector.
Other notes of interest about Mr. Klain include his membership in the Algore Cult of Global Warming and that he was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, helping a firm that required tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts with “regulatory issues,” according to the Washington Post. He has publicly supported the ill-conceived “Buffett Rule” — calling for higher taxes on the wealthy — although within an analysis that at least recognizes that the “middle class” is as skeptical of Democrats as it is of Republicans.
Clearly the man is indeed a qualified organizer — of the office workings and spin machines of liberals.
Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator:
Mr. Will and I have similar opinions about why Cory Gardner should beat Mark "Uterus" Udall...
Here in Colorado, a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box: The reliably liberal Denver Post endorsed Republican Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner over incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall.
Why did this happen? Because Mark Udall’s campaign has been — as I predicted three months ago on these pages — an unrelentingly negative and mindless barrage of “war on women” drivel.
Even the Post, whose editors noted that “we disagree with (Gardner) on same-sex marriage and abortion rights,” recognized that “Udall's campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman's call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince.”
Political campaigns have never been welcoming of your mother’s maxim that “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” But Mark Udall, unable to conjure up even a mirage of an accomplishment during his Senate tenure, has offered nothing but what I called in July “a cynical, disgraceful scorched-earth campaign” to those of us who suffer daily through his television and radio ads as we watch Monday Night Football or listen to (shameless plug warning!) the Ross Kaminsky Show.
Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:
When you pick up Jason Mattera’s eye-opening new book Crapitalism and Daniel Hannan’s masterful Inventing Freedom, you wouldn’t expect such different works to lead you to the same destination. But despite the former being about “Liberals who make millions swiping your tax dollars” and the latter being the story of “how the English-speaking peoples made the modern world,” each leaves the reader with a palpable combination of anger and inspiration at what the U.S. could be as compared to what it currently is.
Jason Mattera, best-selling author and “ambush journalist” (you’ve no doubt seen his recent attempted conversation with former IRS thug Lois Lerner), is one of the few conservative writers who consistently brings humor to his work and targets young adults with a message of “open your eyes while you still have a country to save.”
Crapitalism is a full-throated utterly vernacular defense of free-markets explained through maddening contrast with 27 Crapitalists — almost all Democrats — who use the power of government to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of us. The ways that these people, ranging from members of Congress to lobbyists to entrepreneurs, are able to fleece taxpayers vary widely in method but share a common stench.
Congresswoman Maxine “Money” Waters steered bailout money to a bank her husband invested in, procured an earmark for a college that then became a major donor to her campaign, and makes sure that her children are hired by business and politicians who want her support, earning millions of dollars for her Mafia-like family business. As Mattera puts it, “You’d think being affiliated with Waters would be some sort of political STD, with only distance, time, and a healthy dose of penicillin being able to make it all better.”
But Waters is a piker compared to the serious Crapitalists whose pilfering of the taxpayer ranges into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Please read the entirety of my article/review for the American Spectator here:
On Wednesday morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama to discuss, according to the White House schedule, “the situation in Gaza; developments related to Iran; and the international effort to combat ISIL.” The schedule effusively claimed that “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit is a demonstration of the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel, and our close consultations on a range of regional issues.”
We’ll never know the tenor of the private meetings between these men who have a famously prickly relationship. But if by the end of the day Bibi wasn’t saying (or at least thinking) that the Obama administration should shut the #&%@ up or perhaps perform some unnatural physical acts on themselves, he certainly should have been.
Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:
I have to say it was an email I never expected — from a producer for PBS television asking me if I’d like to participate in a televised town hall-style special in St. Louis, Missouri, hosted by Gwen Ifill, on the subject of race relations in “America after Ferguson.” (The show will air this Friday night at 8 PM EDT on PBS stations across the country. Record it and watch!) Apparently, the producer had read my American Spectator article, “Ferguson on Fire” and thought that I’d be a good representative of a “conservative” viewpoint without being a “bomb thrower” and without coming across as racist.
I agreed, of course.
It turned out that I was the only invited panelist (out of ten) who was overtly not a liberal, participating in front of a room full of several hundred people (almost all PBS-watching liberals) at the Touhill Performing Arts Center at the University of Missouri—St. Louis.
The entire experience was interesting and informative, simultaneously uplifting and disheartening, and it gave me a chance to meet a few people whom I would likely never run across even in my more-political-than-average life — people whom I already consider friends despite our having, on the surface, approximately zero in common.
Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:
Mosul, Iraq, October 8, 2014 — Multiple sources have confirmed that Free Syrian Army (“FSA”) forces, part of the “moderate” rebel groups recently trained and armed by the Obama administration, have defeated three small groups of ISIS fighters — with perhaps 25 to 40 members of the terrorist organization killed in each battle — on the outskirts of Raqqa, the Syrian city thought to be home to ISIS leadership. In his daily briefing, a smirking White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, “Today’s victories conclusively prove that the president’s critics were operating from ignorance and partisanship, and not in the best interests of the United States and the region.” President Obama is scheduled to appear on NBC’s Meet the Press this Sunday to discuss this rare Middle East success for his administration.
Mosul, Iraq, October 13, 2014 — Turning away from battling ISIS forces which have regrouped and repelled each FSA attack since the “moderates’” modest victories last week, the Free Syrian Army has returned to what its leadership has consistently said is its true goal: attacking the forces of the Assad regime. Although the FSA has some weapons superior to those used by the Syrian government’s regular army forces, especially in small and vehicle-mounted guns, there appear to be both Russian and Iranian military advisors serving alongside the Assad forces and giving them a distinct tactical advantage over the quickly trained FSA. So far, while the FSA has not lost many men, they have not taken any new ground and have ceded control of several small towns and villages in northern Syria to government forces. When asked about the events, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said simply, “We can’t expect never to lose any battles against a foe as extreme as ISIS.” When pointed out by a reporter that the battle did not involve ISIS, Mr. Earnest offered only, “Just remember, Osama bin Laden is dead. We don’t have anything to prove.”
Please read the rest of my article (and tomorrow's news today!) here:
My first ever piece for TheHill.com:
Democrats are in a froth over a statement by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) suggesting that some Republicans want to avoid a vote supporting President Obama’s military action in Syria because “We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”
Despite Kingston himself strongly supporting a congressional debate and vote, Democrats are shocked – shocked!! – that politicians would behave politically. They are scandalized that, as Juan Williams put it, some Republicans “delight in not working with Democrats.”
But from the “turnabout is fair play” files, a reminder of recent history is in order:
In January 2009, newly-inaugurated Obama met with congressional leadership to discuss the so-called “stimulus” bill. Then House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) offered suggestions which ABC News reported as “some of the day’s most engaging moments.” But when the conversation moved to actually incorporating those ideas, the president’s response was, “I won.” In short, Republicans’ ideas are simply not welcome. This was the tone set by the leader of the Democratic Party within 72 hours of his taking office.
Please read the rest of my piece for TheHill.com here:
On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”
Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.
But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.
In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.
The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.
The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.
Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:
One of the main reasons that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blew up the traditional applicability of the filibuster in the United States Senate was so that President Obama could pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with liberal judges, anticipating the need for bias, or at least partisanship, on the bench in order to defend Obamacare from legal challenge.
This particular appeals court, officially called the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is often considered the second-most important court in the country since it handles so many cases related to the regulatory power of the federal government.
Prior to the confirmations of Judges Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard in December 2013 and Robert Wilkins in January 2014, the court had an even balance of Democratic and Republican appointees (four of each) and had such a light caseload that the existing judges were substantially underworked. Judge Millet ended up getting two Republican votes for her confirmation, while Judge Pillard was opposed by all Republicans and three Democrats. Judge Wilkins was confirmed on a 55-43 party-line vote.
A decade earlier, when President George W. Bush proposed nominating judges to this same court, Democrats argued strenuously that the court’s caseload did not justify adding more judges. In fact, after current Chief Justice John Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Democrats blocked the nomination of the man President Bush had chosen to replace him.
But because the current administration recognized this court as critical in future legal challenges to Obamacare, they wanted to – and hypocritically did – shift the balance of the court in a decidedly Progressive way – which is to say in a way which recognizes almost no limits on government power nor on the appropriate behavior of judges in expanding that power.
Please read the entirety of my article for The Federalist here: