Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
OS Ruminates On Dog Ownership And Our Present Situation
After about of year of searching, Mr. and Mrs. OS finally took delivery of a new border collie puppy. The search through the rescue services had been futile, as every attempt to inquire about a rescued pooch was either ignored or rebuffed. We have land, twenty years of vet references, and three other of the breed in the house, so it isn't like we were novice apartment dwellers...oh, well.
In the end, we found a breeder with puppies from a great sire and dam--both cleared for genetic problems, so we don't end up with a blind and limping dog. And The Puppy did not disappoint. She is a beauty, of sweet disposition and an outgoing personality.
Today was the day to mail off the AKC registration, and make the first visit to the vet. She checked out beautifully, and never protested all the poking and prodding.
On the way over, though, it did dawn on OS that he lives in a paradoxical moment. The Puppy, in her lifetime, will likely receive much better medical care than most of the residents of this county.
The analogy is not exact, obviously: Dogs don't smoke, drink, drive cars, or engage in sexual behaviors that put them in the path of venereal diseases or HIV. Their life spans are much shorter than humans, and even though they are mammals, they are less complicated than humans. They don't marry, go to school like we do, earn wages, have to make tough decisions about life. It costs much less to treat a dog than a human, and if the costs are prohibitive or the dog is too far gone, the euthanasia route is taken.
They're dogs. Can't do that to people, because they are, well, people.
And yet--there are a lot of people in this county who don't smoke, drink, or screw around. They live responsibly. And they live on the fringes of health care availability, usually waiting until they are acutely ill before they hit the emergency room and hear the bad news about the serious underlying condition that caused the acute misery. The Puppy is going to fare better than they, because OS is a responsible dog owner. There is a disconnect here, a dissonance. OS doesn't exactly know how to resolve it, or if it's possible. But it makes him uncomfortable.
Something else, last week, made OS uncomfortable: An 11:00 pm visit to a WalMart in a small Midwestern town. He saw more than a few moms with little children (and tattoos) grocery shopping. He saw a lot more people who looked terribly beaten down by life, people who seemed to to have lost hope that life was going to get better. He was there shopping for a bottle of wine to share with colleagues at a conference, and could not wait to depart the store. The conference involved teaching academic skills to motivated young people--all of them, even if of modest means, well-cared-for children from intact homes with motivated parents who scraped together money to make the week possible for their kids.
The contrast was disheartening. As proud and happy as he was about the kids he was teaching, he was shocked at the kids he saw at the Wal-Mart at 11:00 pm.
Something has seriously gone awry, and bumper-sticker slogans and thirty-second ads designed to ruin the life of a political opponent and the next tax scheme and the next election and the next aren't going to come close to solving the dilemma.
All OS could think of after his purchase was to get back to his conference and double down on teaching the kids he had in front of him. For now, that's still the only plan he has available.
Maybe time spent with The Puppy will renew his soul a bit, and some new idea will emerge. She's in her crate now, snoring away, blissfully uninvolved with any of the tragedies of the world outside her home.
She's doing her job perfectly, effortlessly.
She's a dog, after all.
In the end, we found a breeder with puppies from a great sire and dam--both cleared for genetic problems, so we don't end up with a blind and limping dog. And The Puppy did not disappoint. She is a beauty, of sweet disposition and an outgoing personality.
Today was the day to mail off the AKC registration, and make the first visit to the vet. She checked out beautifully, and never protested all the poking and prodding.
On the way over, though, it did dawn on OS that he lives in a paradoxical moment. The Puppy, in her lifetime, will likely receive much better medical care than most of the residents of this county.
The analogy is not exact, obviously: Dogs don't smoke, drink, drive cars, or engage in sexual behaviors that put them in the path of venereal diseases or HIV. Their life spans are much shorter than humans, and even though they are mammals, they are less complicated than humans. They don't marry, go to school like we do, earn wages, have to make tough decisions about life. It costs much less to treat a dog than a human, and if the costs are prohibitive or the dog is too far gone, the euthanasia route is taken.
They're dogs. Can't do that to people, because they are, well, people.
And yet--there are a lot of people in this county who don't smoke, drink, or screw around. They live responsibly. And they live on the fringes of health care availability, usually waiting until they are acutely ill before they hit the emergency room and hear the bad news about the serious underlying condition that caused the acute misery. The Puppy is going to fare better than they, because OS is a responsible dog owner. There is a disconnect here, a dissonance. OS doesn't exactly know how to resolve it, or if it's possible. But it makes him uncomfortable.
Something else, last week, made OS uncomfortable: An 11:00 pm visit to a WalMart in a small Midwestern town. He saw more than a few moms with little children (and tattoos) grocery shopping. He saw a lot more people who looked terribly beaten down by life, people who seemed to to have lost hope that life was going to get better. He was there shopping for a bottle of wine to share with colleagues at a conference, and could not wait to depart the store. The conference involved teaching academic skills to motivated young people--all of them, even if of modest means, well-cared-for children from intact homes with motivated parents who scraped together money to make the week possible for their kids.
The contrast was disheartening. As proud and happy as he was about the kids he was teaching, he was shocked at the kids he saw at the Wal-Mart at 11:00 pm.
Something has seriously gone awry, and bumper-sticker slogans and thirty-second ads designed to ruin the life of a political opponent and the next tax scheme and the next election and the next aren't going to come close to solving the dilemma.
All OS could think of after his purchase was to get back to his conference and double down on teaching the kids he had in front of him. For now, that's still the only plan he has available.
Maybe time spent with The Puppy will renew his soul a bit, and some new idea will emerge. She's in her crate now, snoring away, blissfully uninvolved with any of the tragedies of the world outside her home.
She's doing her job perfectly, effortlessly.
She's a dog, after all.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
OS Pauses To Remember Andy Griffith
Bless him, he brought us all such joy and gentle good humor. The cast of characters in his shows were so loved, because they so resembled people we love in our small-town Southern lives. Sheriff Andy kept order by moral suasion, by the constant appeal to everyone's better angels.
Yes, it was fiction. But this fiction made all our lives better, reminded us of who we might be.
In tribute, the great theme penned by Earl Hagen, Herbert Spencer and Everett Sloan--with the lyrics sung by Andy himself.
One of the great tunes of 20th Century America, with a lovely lyric to match. Andy would have wanted us all to enjoy one last moment...
Yes, it was fiction. But this fiction made all our lives better, reminded us of who we might be.
In tribute, the great theme penned by Earl Hagen, Herbert Spencer and Everett Sloan--with the lyrics sung by Andy himself.
One of the great tunes of 20th Century America, with a lovely lyric to match. Andy would have wanted us all to enjoy one last moment...
Sunday, July 1, 2012
More On The Roberts Fiasco At SCOTUS from CBS--Holy Cow What A Mess...
And remember, ya'll. We're stuck with this amoral cowardly turkey for life.
Which makes electing a fire-breathing conservative Senate imperative, so that the next appointments make Roberts irrelevant. He can play golf, go to cocktail parties, give commencement speeches, but he needs to be put in a position where he never ever influences public life again.
CBS News reports the shameful episode--linked above, excerpted a bit below.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
But, why would he do this, and how did he accomplish the coup? Read on, ya'll. It jes' keeps gittin'
slimier and slimier:
Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.
(In other words, he hijacked the process, and performed a 'switcher-oonie' on his colleagues. A classic three-card monte.)
Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
The Fix Was IN, ya'll. Roberts voted to strike down, then hijacked the process, then revealed his true intentions. This explains why several colleagues will no longer engage him in debate. From this point on, they have to assume when his lips are moving--he's lying.
The Executive Branch is in the hands of lawless hustlers. The Senate is in the hands of Obama's enablers. The House is breathing fire, but can't get much done, and the Supreme Court is about to grind to a standstill. The Chief Justice is a duplicitous, vain hack, and the other Justices know it.
This is a recipe for really, really, really bad trouble. Until grown-ups retake the Senate, and pay freaking attention to the people they appoint to lower courts, we are in for a world of hurt.
Which makes electing a fire-breathing conservative Senate imperative, so that the next appointments make Roberts irrelevant. He can play golf, go to cocktail parties, give commencement speeches, but he needs to be put in a position where he never ever influences public life again.
CBS News reports the shameful episode--linked above, excerpted a bit below.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
But, why would he do this, and how did he accomplish the coup? Read on, ya'll. It jes' keeps gittin'
slimier and slimier:
Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.
(In other words, he hijacked the process, and performed a 'switcher-oonie' on his colleagues. A classic three-card monte.)
Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
The Fix Was IN, ya'll. Roberts voted to strike down, then hijacked the process, then revealed his true intentions. This explains why several colleagues will no longer engage him in debate. From this point on, they have to assume when his lips are moving--he's lying.
The Executive Branch is in the hands of lawless hustlers. The Senate is in the hands of Obama's enablers. The House is breathing fire, but can't get much done, and the Supreme Court is about to grind to a standstill. The Chief Justice is a duplicitous, vain hack, and the other Justices know it.
This is a recipe for really, really, really bad trouble. Until grown-ups retake the Senate, and pay freaking attention to the people they appoint to lower courts, we are in for a world of hurt.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Fred Thompson Shares Words Of Wisdom On The ObamaCare SCOTUS Decision
OS is a Fred Thompson fan, has been since the late 1970's when Fred unraveled and took down Ray Blanton's criminal enterprise masquerading as the governorship of Tennessee. Ray was, shall we say, making a bit of money on the side by selling liquor store licenses and criminal pardons, and made the mistake of attempting to ruin the life of one lady serving on the Parole Board. She had a conscience, objected to what she saw happening, and Ray tried to bury her. Fred took her case, took Ray and his machine apart. Ray ended up in the Federal pokey, Fred ended up with an accidental acting career and a term as US Senator. The Democrats, Tennessee's homegrown version of an organized crime syndicate, have never forgiven Fred.
He also was a crucial figure in the Watergate tragedy, as minority counsel to Howard Baker on the Senate committee that uncovered Nixon's complicity and criminal behavior. Fred served his country and the rule of law first and foremost. Another reason the Dems will never forgive him...
Ironically, he was hired by the GW Bush administration in 2005 to help shepherd John Robert's nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All through those hearings, Fred was at the side of the future Chief Justice.
It has to be an uncomfortable day or two for Fred this week, not because he did anything wrong, but in that his efforts were expended on someone who turned out to be so amoral.
These things happen. Don't ask OS he knows.
Fred ran for President in 2008, and OS does wish he had prevailed, but alas. Fred remains active as a speaker, actor and advocate. In that capacity, he release a brief audio message which does help clarify the issues that face us, and reminds us of what Roberts' about face did not include.
You can find the link here. It's worth a listen.
As always, thanks Fred.
He also was a crucial figure in the Watergate tragedy, as minority counsel to Howard Baker on the Senate committee that uncovered Nixon's complicity and criminal behavior. Fred served his country and the rule of law first and foremost. Another reason the Dems will never forgive him...
Ironically, he was hired by the GW Bush administration in 2005 to help shepherd John Robert's nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All through those hearings, Fred was at the side of the future Chief Justice.
It has to be an uncomfortable day or two for Fred this week, not because he did anything wrong, but in that his efforts were expended on someone who turned out to be so amoral.
These things happen. Don't ask OS he knows.
Fred ran for President in 2008, and OS does wish he had prevailed, but alas. Fred remains active as a speaker, actor and advocate. In that capacity, he release a brief audio message which does help clarify the issues that face us, and reminds us of what Roberts' about face did not include.
You can find the link here. It's worth a listen.
As always, thanks Fred.
Kicking The Can Down The Road: The Roberts Court Ducks And Runs. Now It's Up To The Voters
A great deal of gloating on one side, and gnashing of teeth on the other over the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare. OS hasn't had time to read it through, and as of tonight, doesn't have the heart.
Brad DeLong, a liberal blogger, is tracking the story that Roberts changed his vote at the very last minute, after the opinion that was assumed to be the majority (striking the law down) had been sent to the printer.
Which lead OS to conclude that The Fix Was In. Back-door conversations between Obama's people and Roberts likely were underway long ago. With what did they threaten him? What was he promised?
In any case, he is young enough, and will live to be old enough, to see the horrible damage his decision to abandon the Constitution will create. It won't be punishment enough, but it will be a good beginning.
OS thinks, in the end, that Roberts decided to get along to go along. Let the voters and Congress sort it out, kick the can down the road. I live in an untouchable bubble anyway, so none of this affects me.
I'm a non-interventionist, after all. Congress cooked up this turkey, let Congress fix the problem.
So, it's up to us. If this terrible thing is to be repealed, it will require that every state legislature and both houses of Congress is occupied by fire-breathing and freedom-loving men and women who intend to restore the Constitution.
And it will require a Senate that will only appoint a federal bench that upholds the Constitution, from the top down.
It's a long shot, but it's the only one we've got.
Brad DeLong, a liberal blogger, is tracking the story that Roberts changed his vote at the very last minute, after the opinion that was assumed to be the majority (striking the law down) had been sent to the printer.
Which lead OS to conclude that The Fix Was In. Back-door conversations between Obama's people and Roberts likely were underway long ago. With what did they threaten him? What was he promised?
In any case, he is young enough, and will live to be old enough, to see the horrible damage his decision to abandon the Constitution will create. It won't be punishment enough, but it will be a good beginning.
OS thinks, in the end, that Roberts decided to get along to go along. Let the voters and Congress sort it out, kick the can down the road. I live in an untouchable bubble anyway, so none of this affects me.
I'm a non-interventionist, after all. Congress cooked up this turkey, let Congress fix the problem.
So, it's up to us. If this terrible thing is to be repealed, it will require that every state legislature and both houses of Congress is occupied by fire-breathing and freedom-loving men and women who intend to restore the Constitution.
And it will require a Senate that will only appoint a federal bench that upholds the Constitution, from the top down.
It's a long shot, but it's the only one we've got.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The Orders To Nullify Any Adverse Consequence From The Court Were Already Drafted, or, How The Obama Administration Is Shredding The Constitution One Provision At A Time...
Roy Beck from Numbers USA, obviously not a disinterested commenter, weighs in on today's ruling:
In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administration’s announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times.
"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.
"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."
As if to underscore Scalia’s assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week.
Only hours after the ruling...which says in effect--Screw the Congress, screw the States and their prerogatives, screw the Constitution, screw the Rule of Law, and screw you if you disagree with us.
If we don't like some provision of the law, we'll just ignore it!
Screw you!
(By the way, we'll always enforce the collection of taxes...)
In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administration’s announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times.
"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.
"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."
As if to underscore Scalia’s assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week.
Only hours after the ruling...which says in effect--Screw the Congress, screw the States and their prerogatives, screw the Constitution, screw the Rule of Law, and screw you if you disagree with us.
If we don't like some provision of the law, we'll just ignore it!
Screw you!
(By the way, we'll always enforce the collection of taxes...)
Monday, June 25, 2012
Peter Hitchens On US Interventionism
This just posted by Mr. Hitchens, and is well worth the time taken to read.
A most cogent portion states:
Personally, it fits very well with my own experience of the true nature of the Anglo-American Unspecial Relationship, which I have discussed here in the past, in the light of Bill Clinton’s decision to back the provisional IRA against the British government. Un unwise official from the West Wing told me, without meaning to, that the White House regarded Britain as fundamentally no different from Serbia.
This is why I shudder at US behaviour in Syria. It is, once you have stripped away the rhetoric, interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. And if, one day, our sovereign nation, Britain, asserted its independence, might we, too find ourselves under attack first from international interventionist TV stations telling lies about us, then from a rabble of ‘activists’ who had mysteriously acquired arms and whose faults would be ignored or overlooked, then from ‘NATO’ airpower and special forces, intervening to ‘protect’ these ‘activists’ from the ‘repression’ of our government, which would be referred to by everyone as a ‘regime’? A ’No Fly Zone’ over East Anglia, to protect pro-EU ‘activists’ , anyone?
In a way it has already happened in miniature in Northern Ireland. Most Americans (and many continental Europeans) believed propaganda lies about what was happening there. The USA gave its backing to the ‘activists’ of the IRA. And we surrendered to pressure, stopped ‘killing our own people’ , as the British Army’s actions against the IRA would no doubt nowadays be described. Then we withdrew from the disputed territory (though most people haven’t yet realised that this is what has happened). In a way we were lucky that 24-hour TV and liberal interventionism were in their infancy in the 1980s, or NATO might have bombed London in support of the IRA. We would also never have been able to retake the Falklands.
A most cogent portion states:
Personally, it fits very well with my own experience of the true nature of the Anglo-American Unspecial Relationship, which I have discussed here in the past, in the light of Bill Clinton’s decision to back the provisional IRA against the British government. Un unwise official from the West Wing told me, without meaning to, that the White House regarded Britain as fundamentally no different from Serbia.
This is why I shudder at US behaviour in Syria. It is, once you have stripped away the rhetoric, interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. And if, one day, our sovereign nation, Britain, asserted its independence, might we, too find ourselves under attack first from international interventionist TV stations telling lies about us, then from a rabble of ‘activists’ who had mysteriously acquired arms and whose faults would be ignored or overlooked, then from ‘NATO’ airpower and special forces, intervening to ‘protect’ these ‘activists’ from the ‘repression’ of our government, which would be referred to by everyone as a ‘regime’? A ’No Fly Zone’ over East Anglia, to protect pro-EU ‘activists’ , anyone?
In a way it has already happened in miniature in Northern Ireland. Most Americans (and many continental Europeans) believed propaganda lies about what was happening there. The USA gave its backing to the ‘activists’ of the IRA. And we surrendered to pressure, stopped ‘killing our own people’ , as the British Army’s actions against the IRA would no doubt nowadays be described. Then we withdrew from the disputed territory (though most people haven’t yet realised that this is what has happened). In a way we were lucky that 24-hour TV and liberal interventionism were in their infancy in the 1980s, or NATO might have bombed London in support of the IRA. We would also never have been able to retake the Falklands.
The Executive Orders Are Drafted Already, Ya'll--Don'tChewWorry
This will be a big week for Himself.
Likely, he will lose on ObamaCare, since it is a 2700-page pile of unconstitutional offal.
Likely, he will lose on his dispute with the State of Arizona, again because he is in the wrong.
Eric Holder has been caught with his pants down so often that the contempt vote will not go Obama's way. The assertion of executive privilege will not hold water.
So...on Friday, OS expects a three-fer, in the manner of the ImmigrationReformByFiat stunt pulled earlier this month.
The executive orders have been drafted for several contingencies, and will be tweaked once the Supremes and Congress act. They will be issued Friday afternoon, under the radar, and this administration will commence to do what they wish to do, Congress and the Supremes be damned.
It's how Himself rolls, after all.
Chin-straps on, ever'body.
Likely, he will lose on ObamaCare, since it is a 2700-page pile of unconstitutional offal.
Likely, he will lose on his dispute with the State of Arizona, again because he is in the wrong.
Eric Holder has been caught with his pants down so often that the contempt vote will not go Obama's way. The assertion of executive privilege will not hold water.
So...on Friday, OS expects a three-fer, in the manner of the ImmigrationReformByFiat stunt pulled earlier this month.
The executive orders have been drafted for several contingencies, and will be tweaked once the Supremes and Congress act. They will be issued Friday afternoon, under the radar, and this administration will commence to do what they wish to do, Congress and the Supremes be damned.
It's how Himself rolls, after all.
Chin-straps on, ever'body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)