THE FOUNDATION

“The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Obama: Netanyahu Said ‘Nothing New’

(Read on for the full analysis of Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks below.)

In a rebuttal to Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, Barack Obama petulantly insisted, “As far as I can tell, there was nothing new. … The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.” But neither has Obama, which is precisely the reason for Netanyahu’s visit. The problem isn’t that Israel has no strategy for halting Iran’s nuclear program; rather Obama doesn’t agree with the military response it would likely entail. He claimed, “Iran has in fact frozen its program, rolled back some of its most dangerous, highly enriched uranium, and subjected itself to the kinds of verifications and inspections that we had not previously seen.” What delusional absurdity. Iran is doing the complete opposite, much of it underground, but Obama nevertheless says his plan is working and nuked Netanyahu for opposing the deal that prompted negotiations: “When we shaped that interim deal … Netanyahu made almost the precise same speech about how dangerous that deal was going to be.” Well, yeah. Look at where we are now. Amping up the tough-talk even further, Obama promised, “What I can guarantee is that if it’s a deal I sign off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.” And you can also keep your health insurance.

Comment | Share

Pelosi ‘Near Tears’ Throughout Bibi’s Speech

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi suffered mightily through Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech. And it had barely concluded before she released a statement: “The unbreakable bonds between the United States and Israel are rooted in our shared values, our common ideals and mutual interests. … That is why, as one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.” Netanyahu’s speech was of value because Barack Obama has so spectacularly failed when it comes to nuclear negotiations with Iran. Pelosi can cry about insults to her intelligence, but the real crying shame is her party is so partisan that many Democrats refused to stand even when Netanyahu declared there must never be another Holocaust. Astoundingly shameful.

Comment | Share

House Passes ‘Clean’ DHS Bill

Left with no viable alternative, the House voted 257-167 Tuesday to pass a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. More than two-thirds of Republicans voted “no.” The vote essentially ends the fruitless standoff over Barack Obama’s unconstitutional immigration actions, as the Senate passed the same bill, 68-31, last week. Unfortunately, Republicans spent more time fighting each other than countering Obama, and from the outset they chose an unwinnable strategy. As the old adage goes, never take a hostage you’re not willing to shoot, and Republicans clearly forgot that advice. Again. Speaker John Boehner blamed the Senate: “Unfortunately, the fight was never won in the other chamber. Democrats stayed united and blocked our bill, and our Republican colleagues in the Senate never found a way to win this fight.” But he also offered a silver lining. “I am as outraged and frustrated as you at the lawless and unconstitutional actions of this president,” Boehner told House Republicans during a conference meeting. “I believe this decision – considering where we are – is the right one for this team, and the right one for this country. The good news is that the president’s executive action has been stopped, for now. This matter will continue to be litigated in the courts, where we have our best chance of winning this fight.” Time will tell, but Obama has proved he’s not willing to bow to anyone. More…

Comment | Share

SCOTUS Hears Second Challenge to ObamaCare

Today the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in King v. Burwell, a challenge to ObamaCare that contends subsidies granted via the federal health exchange are illegal under the “Affordable” Care Act because the law permits them only under state exchanges. The pressure is on Chief Justice John Roberts, who was the deciding vote when the court upheld ObamaCare in 2012. In his last opinion on ObamaCare, Roberts – to paraphrase Charles Dickens – made the law into an ass, declaring the federal government could compel people to buy goods (a.k.a. health insurance) by calling it a tax. Because he showed himself susceptible to political intimidation in 2012, the Left is now running editorials claiming that, if Roberts allows SCOTUS to strike down ObamaCare this time, it will show itself to be a bench of activist judges. In The Washington Post, leftist reporter Robert Barnes wrote, “[T]he eponymous head of the Roberts court has the most to lose. After all, its decisions cannot be respected if the court is not respected.” In his nomination hearing, Roberts said he was an umpire that called “balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” But if Roberts ends up being the meek umpire at home plate scared of the crowd, he may redefine “state” to mean any level of government. And that ruling will not only cement ObamaCare into law, it will open up a flood of federal government expansion. More…

Comment | Share

Warren Buffett Doesn’t Like Being Demonized

Warren Buffett may be the poster child for the Left’s goal of taxing the rich through a “Buffett rule,” but it doesn’t mean the man likes the law when the political speech is stripped away. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been griping about the rich, not hiding the fact she wants to strip Wall Street of its money. Buffett doesn’t like it and he put down a Coke long enough to air his grievance to CNBC. “She would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” Buffett said. “I believe in hate the sin, love the sinner. And I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category. … I do think it’s a mistake to get angry with your – with people that disagree with you. I mean, in the end we do have to work together.” Looks like Buffett wants the government to ask politely if it could just take his money. Notably, Warren attained her position by playing people like him against a jealous middle and lower class. In other words, it’s Warren’s style that made the “Buffett rule” popular. More…

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

The Commando vs. the Community Organizer

In a much-anticipated and contentious address to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday spoke bluntly about the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. He was downright presidential – something our nation has sorely lacked for the last six years.

Netanyahu’s 45-minute speech recounted Iran’s past acts of terror, its continued call for the destruction of Israel, its recent success in spreading malign influence and control through the Middle East, and its track record of cheating and lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Netanyahu drew a line in the sand, and Barack Obama’s response will no doubt be on the wrong side.

Indeed, Obama immediately claimed there was “nothing new” in the prime minister’s speech, and in a sense he’s right: The facts about Iran are not new, nor are they in dispute, even among those currently negotiating with Iran. The key point is that Netanyahu and like-minded people believe the deal toward which Obama is working rewards Iran with a path to nuclear weapons rather than preventing Iran from obtaining them – something even the Obama administration still says would be “unacceptable.”

Obama obviously resents that a leader of Netanyahu’s stature would attempt to upset the diplomatic apple cart by speaking the plain truth at a time when the Obama administration seems determined to ignore the truth in pursuit of a deal –any deal.

Netanyahu raised three key points that the Obama administration is loath to acknowledge: The current Iranian regime is and will always be an enemy of the United States; Iran has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted; and this is a bad deal we are better off without. These three points are unassailable.

Here’s the most critical excerpt of the speech:

“Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

"Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. … So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

"The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember – I’ll say it one more time – the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

"But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons – lots of them. …

"The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.”

The Iranian regime is not just a regular dictatorship that hates and fears the United States. It is not Cuba, or Venezuela, or even North Korea. The senior clerics and office-holders in Iran are not just in power to enrich themselves and kill off their political enemies (although there is plenty of that in Iran). The entire leadership chain in Iran, from Supreme Leader Khamenei down through the legislative body and the parallel body of clerics that shape policy, are all true believers in the Islamic Revolution and as such are reflexively, congenitally anti-America. The “Death to America” signs so popular in Iran are not just political theater; they express the true feelings of the hard-liners who have ruled Iran since 1979. Despite all the swooning Western media talk about current Iranian President Hassan Ruhani’s “reformist” nature, he is of a kind with Khamenei, with his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indeed even with Old Whiskers himself – Ruhollah Khomeini.

Regarding Iran’s trustworthiness in any deal we might reach, we have said it so many times we’ve lost count: We are in the nuclear mess with Iran precisely because it has lied, cheated and obfuscated repeatedly under the previous deal known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Twelve years of work through the UNSC, the P5+1, the EU-3 and the IAEA Board of Governors were all about getting Iran to meet its sworn obligations under the NPT and demonstrate it was only working on peaceful nuclear energy.

In report after report the IAEA offered the same assessment going back to 2003: “We are unable to verify that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” But the Obama administration tells us with a straight face that somehow Iran can be held to the terms of a new deal.

As for the deal itself, political analyst Charles Krauthammer explained that it would allow Iran to finish the work necessary for an industrial-scale nuclear complex, including all the stages of mining, converting, processing, enriching and fabricating uranium. Only the final step of weaponization is left out of this deal, and Iran’s unresolved past and present weapons-related work is one of the largest points of concern at the IAEA. In other words, with the blessing of the United States and our negotiating partners, Iran would be allowed 10 years to build up its infrastructure without fear of sanctions or other penalties, and would suffer no penalty for splitting apart the NPT. This is a bad deal, and Netanyahu is right that we are better off without it.

Netanyahu ended his speech with a familiar refrain, but one that should not be taken lightly: “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. … For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

The Israelis have watched and waited as the United States and the rest of the world tried to convince Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but Israel will not wait forever. If Iran is not held to its NPT obligations to verify the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, a day will come, perhaps far earlier than any of us imagine, when Israel will decide it cannot wait any longer.

Finally, a post script of sorts. House Speaker John Boehner showed leadership in inviting Netanyahu to speak. He also very appropriately presented Netanyahu with a bust of Winston Churchill. In contrast, Barack Obama came into the Oval Office in 2009 to find such a Churchill bust, given by the British to George W. Bush. Obama promptly returned it to England.

Comment | Share

Hillary Clinton’s Transparent Deception

Hillary Clinton is reportedly telling donors she will enter the presidential race in April. She sees it as a move that would assuage worries within her party and prime the fundraising pumps. But Mrs. Clinton has far greater problems than when to announce her coronation bid.

Illustrating everything voters don’t like about the Clintons, The New York Times broke the storythat Clinton did not use or even set up an official government email account during her entire tenure as secretary of state. Instead, she used private email for all her official correspondence. Furthermore, the Times reported, her staff did nothing to preserve her personal emails on department servers. Failing to use a government email account for all correspondence is a violation of the National Archives and Records Act.

According to Jason Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario – short of nuclear winter – where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.”

The Times reports Hillary’s staff turned over 55,000 pages of her emails to Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select House Committee on Benghazi. But Gowdy responded that only “several hundred of these emails were … turned over” to his committee. He said also Clinton seems to have used multiple personal accounts. The primary one, clintonemail.com, was set up on the day her Senate confirmation hearings began in 2009. In other words, she had a plan.

“It was not as if she had both an official and a private email account,” Gowdy said. “She did not use personal email in addition to government email. She used personal email in lieu ofgovernment email. And she had more than one private email account.”

“[O]nly she has the complete record,” Gowdy continued. “And the committee is going to have to go to her, her lawyers and her email providers to ensure we have access to everything.”

Gowdy added, “One should also be concerned about the national security implications of former Secretary Clinton of using exclusively personal email accounts for the conducting of official U.S. foreign policy.”

By filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judicial Watch recently obtained a number of emails that prove the State Department knew immediately that our embassy in Benghazi was under attack by terrorists. The emails tell the story in a chilling series of short messages that describe the worsening events that occurred Sept. 11-12, 2012, as well as reveal the administration’s series of lies about what really happened. Not being privy thus far to Clinton’s own emails, we are left to wonder if the thousands of emails she generated on private servers over her four years as secretary of state will completely discredit her – that’s no doubt why she employed the method.

Clinton is by no means the first or only public official to use private email for public business, but she might be the first to do so exclusively. And media outlets Left and Right are attacking her for it.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review asked a particularly salient question about all the investigations into Benghazi. With the multi-thousands of pages of paper floating around, he said, “[Y]ou’d think the non-existence of an official e-mail account would have been noticed. Why did it take so long?” Goldberg credits Gowdy for being the first to notice the missing account.

But Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, had harsher words for the aspiring first woman president: “Two weeks ago we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from … Obama … that [none] were made during her tenure … were false.” Both Clinton’s and Obama’s actions were “sleazy and stupid,” Fournier added. “We’ve had sleazy and stupid – and, now, with these emails, suspicious. If she runs, are we going to have a full Seven Dwarfs? Seedy. Sanctimonious. Self-important. Slick.”

Fournier concluded that it may be time for Clinton to abandon her White House bid.

Naturally, Hillary is defiant. Tuesday night at an EMILY’s List party, she repeated ad nauseam her usual sermon about women’s empowerment and hammered away at “that old trickle-down economics” class warfare. She said nothing about the emails. After all, the presidency is her right, and she will continue to pursue it.

We hope Gowdy’s committee throws a wrench in the gears of Clinton’s election machine. He’s determined to get the emails, while she’ll do whatever she can to stop him. But many Democrats who’ve already been whispering about dumping Hillary (again) might decide the timing is right to find a better candidate.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Jim DeMint: If Not Now … When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything?
• Arnold Ahlert: Hillary’s Public Records Deception
• Ben Shapiro: The Hillary Cover-Up and the End of Democracy
• Terence Jeffrey: Why Would an Ayatollah Build Secret Uranium-Enrichment Facilities?
• Michael Barone: If America Is Mars and Europe Venus, How Is Europe Doing?

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Philosopher Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626): “It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty, or to seek power over others and to lose power over a man’s self.”

Columnist Jim DeMint: “Despite the fact that Republicans have majorities in both the House and the Senate that were elected on a pledge to fight against President Obama’s executive amnesty, and despite forcing through a big spending bill at the end of 2014 with the promise they would fight later on Homeland Security appropriations, they are now punting the issue entirely. … The absurdity of this situation is that fighting the president’s executive amnesty through Department of Homeland Security appropriations was the strategy created by Republican leaders. Now that the time to fight has arrived, the generals are running from the battlefield and blaming the infantry they told to lead the charge. If the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is not willing to take a stand and fight against the government takeover of America’s healthcare system or the president’s arrogant usurpation of the constitutional powers of Congress, then what will they fight for? Who will stand with freedom-minded Americans who sent this majority to Washington to fight for them? I hope my former colleagues will ask themselves: ‘If not us, who? If not now, when?’”

Comment | Share

Columnist Ben Shapiro: “On Monday, The New York Times reported that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never – not once – used her official State Department email address for her official communications. … Welcome to the most transparent administration in American history, where the Federal Communications Commission can regulate the Internet and keep those regulations secret before a vote, where top government officials can deliberately hide their emails from the public, but where your health records, income and emails are all government business. … What possible violations of the Constitutional system will Americans actually fight? The list of possibilities grows short. Reports emerged this week suggesting that President Obama will consider banning bullets by executive order, effectively castrating the Second Amendment by fiat. Shrug. The Obama White House announced this week that Obama was ‘very interested’ in unilaterally raising taxes. Shrug. Democracies die not with a whimper or a bang but with a shrug. When we don’t care enough about the system to stop its breakdown … the constitutional order collapses. But so what? By electing Hillary Clinton the presidency, we’ll strike a blow against non-existent generalized sexism in American society. And that’s far more important than having an answerable, accountable government.”

Comment | Share

Comedian Argus Hamilton: “Washington, D.C., officially legalized the possession and home growing of marijuana at midnight on Thursday. The city is now the only national capital in the world where pot is legal. The next day the president confronted Michelle and claimed half of her White House garden as community property.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

THE FOUNDATION

“If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. … If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” –John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

Hillary Clinton Broke Law Using Private Email Account

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) isn’t done leading the committee investigating the Benghazi attack, and already he’s dredged up a bombshell that previous investigative committees missed. During her time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton never used a government email account – a move that violates federal record keeping law. Former Director of Litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration Jason Baron told The New York Times, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario – short of nuclear winter – where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.” At this point, Clinton’s defenders may chime in: What difference does it make? Well, for one thing, if Obama’s administration is the “most transparent in history,” what would this mean for another Clinton administration? One clue: Clinton used a domain registered the day of her Senate confirmation hearings. Clearly, she had a plan from the start to obfuscate and hide her wheeling and dealing. It’s time she was put under oath again to defend this. Preferably before she announces her presidential candidacy. More…

Comment | Share

Lawmakers Write ATF to Object to Ammo Ban

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently announced it is considering aban on M855 ammunition, which is popular among AR-15 owners for target shooting. The “rationale,” if it can be called that, is the ammo could be considered “armor piercing,” and, with the advent of AR-15 pistols, will become dangerous to police (never mind that zero police officers have been killed with it). Several lawmakers called out the ATF on its backdoor gun control in aletter. The ATF’s framework, the lawmakers say, “establishes an unduly restrictive standard, does not comport with the letter or spirit of the law, and will interfere with Second Amendment rights by disrupting the market for ammunition that law abiding Americans use for sporting and other legitimate purposes.” Of course, the Second Amendment isn’t primarily for “sporting purposes,” but they’re right about the infringement. Not that it matters to Barack Obama’s administration. Spokesman Josh Earnest explained, “I’d put this in the category of common-sense steps our government can take.” Ah, yes, “common sense” – who could possibly opposethat?

Comment | Share

Netanyahu to Address Congress, Obama Calls It ‘Distraction’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address Congress today to warn of the threat of Iran’s nuclear program. Advance details of his speech are limited, but one thing is clear: Barack Obama is really perturbed that Netanyahu is here. Administration officials have previously promised “there will be a price” for this “departure from … protocol” – despite Netanyahu having waited for Obama to be notified before accepting the invitation. (The New York Times finally got around to acknowledging this in a correction.) On Monday, Obama called Netanyahu’s speech a “mistake,” again pointing to Israel’s upcoming elections. “It makes it look like we are taking sides,” he complained, “It is a distraction from what should be our focus.” In this case, even Obama said the focus should be preventing Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, he’s also lost this focus, recently indicating we just need to “reduce the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” and, if it happens anyway in 10 years, what’s that to Obama?

Comment | Share

IRS Says It Can Dump Gobs of Money on Amnestied Illegals

The Internal Revenue Service is digging in and standing by its claim that illegal immigrants areeligible for back tax credits if they get Social Security numbers. Under Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, four million illegal immigrants can apply for Social Security numbers. An unknown number of them will be able to claim back tax credits – even though Obama’s “law” doesn’t require them to pay back taxes. In a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote, “Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the [Earned Income Tax Credit] EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed.” Gee, remember a time when was the IRS this friendly to U.S. citizens? More…

Comment | Share

Obama Lies About Keystone

Barack Obama earned the infamous “Four Pinocchio” rating from The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog for his recent comments defending his veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama’s argument wasn’t that Congress infringed on the executive branch’s responsibilities. No, he claimed to be doing what was good for the American people. “I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf,” Obama told a North Dakota reporter. “It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that’s something that we very much support.” But, as the Post points out, the oil that would flow through Keystone would also come from the North Dakota oil fields. And while construction wouldn’t keep any permanent jobs – few construction projects ever do – it would keep Louisiana refineries busy. Instead, Obama repeated an untruth to stick with his environmentalist dogma. More…

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Obama’s Plan to Defeat ISIL.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

DOJ’s Racial Witch Hunt Isn’t Over

The Justice Department will soon release its final investigative report on the Ferguson Police Department, and chatter suggests the report will accuse Ferguson police of engaging in sustained discriminatory practices against the black population. Surprise! The report will allegedly also claim these practices led to years of racial animosity in the city, culminating in last summer’s shooting of Michael Brown and months of racial unrest.

According to recent data from the Missouri attorney general, blacks accounted for 86% of traffic stops in 2013, but make up 63% of the population. Black drivers were twice as likely to be searched during a stop, yet searches were more likely to turn up contraband with white drivers.

The fines collected from such traffic stops are Ferguson’s second largest source of revenue. The Justice Department report goes so far as to suggest that the city uses disproportionate traffic stops against blacks to meet municipal budget shortfalls.

The final report will likely include a list of recommended changes Ferguson will need to implement. Otherwise, the city could face a federal lawsuit to force compliance – just like the four open lawsuits against cities that have not rolled over. Most cities facing such actions comply with the Justice Department’s demands. During Eric Holder’s time as attorney general, the DOJ has gone after more than 50 police departments for some form of discrimination or another, often at the behest of the NAACP or the ACLU.

“This is about expanding federal power in the police departments,” former DOJ attorney Hans von Spakovsky told The Wall Street Journal. “The lawyers at Justice believe they are the ones who should be promulgating national standards of how cops should behave. And police departments are so afraid of bad publicity that they agree to settle the case with all kinds of rules that Justice wants to impose.”

It is within the responsibility of the Justice Department to investigate matters in which discrimination may be taking place, but, when the AG is someone who sees everything through a racial prism like Holder, the potential for trouble escalates. For example, Holder is so motivated by his own racial grievances that he resolutely refuses to address the outrageous number of murders of blacks by other blacks.

FBI statistics from 2012 show that 2,614 whites were killed by other whites that year, and 2,412 blacks were killed by other blacks. If Holder were as concerned about proportionality as he demonstrates when comparing white and blacks, then one would think he would have been troubled by these numbers. As a portion of the population, black-on-black murder remains substantially higher than white-on-white murder. And the FBI numbers for 2012 combined white and Hispanic murder rates, making the disparity even greater than at first glance.

Yet, throughout his tenure at Justice, Holder has maintained his focus on race, letting himself get mixed up with professional race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He has followed their pattern by continually blaming racism and discrimination for the plight of the black community. The actions of his Justice Department confirm Holder’s view that blacks are targeted for their skin color, not because of their behavior.

Perhaps that’s why Sharpton says, “No other U.S. attorney general has a civil rights record equal to Holder’s.”

Amy Wax, a former DOJ official teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote, “Contrary to frequently voiced accusations and despite a voluminous literature intent upon demonstrating discrimination at every turn, there is almost no reliable evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system’s handling of ordinary violent and non-violent offenses. Rather, the facts overwhelmingly show that blacks go to prison more often because blacks commit more crimes.”

The Justice Department’s months of investigating did not bring up enough evidence to charge Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson with civil rights violations in the death of Michael Brown. Similarly, they were not able to pin such charges on George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.

In fact, for all of Holder’s posturing, all Justice has really been able to accomplish is perpetuating the same problem they claim to be addressing. The pattern of racial indignation set by Sharpton and Co. that has been picked up by Holder’s Justice Department has only served to make police less likely to engage in minority neighborhoods. This won’t make inner cities less violent, and it won’t make lives better for blacks.

Shortly after taking office, Holder accused America of being a nation of “cowards” for not engaging in a frank discussion about race. As he prepares to step down in a few weeks, Holder still has not engaged in that discussion, either. He’d rather place blame and wag his finger because that’s what makes headlines and turns out the aggrieved vote. As for the real work that it will take to reduce black-on-black crime and make minority neighborhoods safer, well, apparently that’s just not worth his time.

Comment | Share

Next Executive Overreach: Taxes

For someone who claims to be a constitutional scholar, Barack Obama sure doesn’t understand or respect the limits on the federal government the Founders put in place. Obama has ignored the limits placed on the executive branch, abusing his power in order to accomplish his agenda.

When Congress did not pass immigration reform in accordance with Obama’s wishes, he acted unilaterally. Obama’s executive order provided for more than four million illegal immigrants to receive some form of legal status – work permits, Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses. Instead of securing our borders, he wants to secure votes for Democrats.

Surely, Obama shouldn’t get away with this egregious overreach, but who’s stopping him? Worse, his immigration actions only established a pattern.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest indicated there are possibly more executive orders coming our way. Earnest confirmed Monday that Obama is “very interested” in taking unilateral executive action to raise taxes. He explained, “The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle-class Americans.”

Earnest continued, “Now, I don’t want to leave you with an impression that there is some imminent announcement – there is not, at least not that I know of. But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. … [T]he president is very interested in this avenue generally.”

Obama is so bent on “fairness” that he’s willing to “examine” the possibility of taxing Americans without Congress. Obama declared in his State of the Union address that Congress needed to act to close the loopholes in taxes among corporations. So perhaps he will ask Congress to pass corporate tax hikes, and, when Congress inevitably says no, Obama may simply turn to the IRS to implement the taxation. The IRS already has a track record of helping him politically – Lois Lerner was no “lone wolf.”

Since there isn’t enough revenue to pay for Obama’s $4 trillion boondoggle budget, he can claim now is the time to act; now is the time to raise taxes on those who need to “pay their fair share.”

Progressives in general erroneously claim America’s debt problem is a lack of revenue, while they continue to spend ever more money on failed programs and policies. A recentCongressional Budget Office report shows that “compared to historical averages, from 1965 to 2014, spending is rising much faster than revenues.” Not that it takes a CBO report to see that the debt is growing.

It so happens the greatest increase in spending and debt has occurred during Obama’s administration. Further, the gap between spending and revenue is projected to widen, therefore increasing our debt.

Clearly, Obama doesn’t believe we have a problem with spending or debt, even though during his six years in office the national debt has risen nearly $8 trillion to a whopping $18.1 trillion.

With Obama’s executive actions on immigration and his potential maneuver on raising taxes, the question to ponder is when will he stop? The tragic reality is he likely won’t. The only limit on his power he seems to acknowledge is whatever he deems unnecessary.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Tony Perkins: Prime Time: Netanyahu Pitches Congress on Iran
• Ed Feulner: Standing With Israel
• Dennis Prager: Why Obama So Dislikes Netanyahu
• Arnold Ahlert: A Democratic Republic Is a Terrible Thing to Lose
• Thomas Sowell: The Honesty Gap

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Augustine of Hippo (354-430): “Put no faith in salvation through the political order.”

Columnist Dennis Prager: “Appeasers hate those who confront evil. Given that this president is the least likely of any president in American history to confront evil – or even identify it – while Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the latter. … [T]hose who refused to characterize the Soviet Union as evil loathed Ronald Reagan and other anti-communists for doing so; and those who objected to the ‘Axis of Evil’ label placed on North Korea, Iran, and Iraq loathed George W. Bush and his supporters. The loathing of Benjamin Netanyahu is simply the latest example of the rule that those who will not confront evil will instead confront those who do. (It’s much safer, after all.) Since the end of World War II, there has been a name for the people who refuse to confront evil and who resent those who do: leftists.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Ed Feulner: “This is no time to make more concessions. It’s a time to stand up against Iran’s nuclear program, which threatens not only the security of the Middle East, but the U.S. as well. As the 2015 Index of Military Strength shows, Iran’s missile threat is growing at an alarming rate. Its longest-range current missile can reach as far west as Egypt, and as far east as China – and it’s working to go much farther. ‘Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015,’ the Pentagon reports. As in this year. It’s crucial that we stand with Israel, a staunch ally fighting on the front lines, at this critical time. The safety of millions depends on us doing the right thing. Will we?”

Comment | Share

Comedian Jimmy Fallon: “There’s this picture of a dress that someone took, and people online are fighting over what color it is. Some people say it’s black and blue. Some say it’s white and gold. I think someone should ask Obama, our country’s first gold president.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

THE FOUNDATION

“It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.” –Benjamin Franklin, letter to Samuel Cooper, 1777

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS

GOP Rends Over Immigration Fight

Congressional Republicans tried to defund Barack Obama’s unconstitutional immigration actions through a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but instead they suffered a political defeat that leaves the party uncertainly plotting the next move. As the Friday deadline loomed, Republicans taking a hard line on the immigration fight helped defeat House Speaker John Boehner’s bill to fund the department for three weeks. It was Nancy Pelosi who saved the night,telling Democrats to support a bill funding DHS for a meager seven days. Now, there are rumblings that some Republicans will try to force Boehner from his speaker position. And House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggests the Senate should simply press the red button anddeploy the nuclear option. That’s the wrong answer. A Wall Street Journal editorial concludes, “Republicans need to do some soul searching about the purpose of a congressional majority, including whether they even want it. If they really think Mr. Boehner is the problem, then find someone else to do his thankless job. If not, then start to impose some order and discipline and advance the conservative cause rather than self-defeating rebellion.” This weekend showed Republicans have leadership issues, which Obama continues to exploit. More…

Comment | Share

Left Changes Tone as Netanyahu Arrives in Washington

Just a few weeks ago, the White House threatened there would be consequences for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress. This Sunday, Netanyahu touched down in Washington to talk about the U.S.’s deal with Iran, and everybody has put on their politician smiles. Secretary of State John Kerry essentially denied the Obama administration was plotting to undermine both the event and Netanyahu’s administration. “The prime minister is welcome in the United States at any time,” Kerry told ABC. “We have an unparalleled close security relationship with Israel, and we will continue to. I talk to the prime minister regularly, including yesterday. We don’t want to see this turned into some great political football. Obviously, it was odd, if not unique, that we learned of it from the speaker of the House and that an administration was not included in this process. But the administration is not seeking to politicize this.” Politicize this? Democrat legislators have issued sound bite after sound bite saying Netanyahu doesn’t speak for them, or that they’ll boycott the speech. And that’s not to mention Obama’s political shenanigans. No, the Left has already succeeded in making a foreign policy speech by one of America’s closest allies into a partisan brouhaha. More…

Comment | Share

Lerner’s Email Cover-Up ‘Potential Criminal Activity’

Timothy Camus, Treasury deputy inspector general, told the House Oversight Committee “there is potential criminal activity” in how the IRS refused to give Congress Lois Lerner’s emails when it was investigating the agency’s political targeting of conservative groups. The Daily Caller reports, “Treasury Department inspectors general testified Thursday that they cannot provide any relevant information related to their search for Lois Lerner’s missing emails. But at least three bits of information came out: the investigation is on hold over software issues, there is potential criminal wrongdoing, and nobody at the IRS even asked for Lerner’s backup email tapes from the people in New Martinsville, West Virginia, who had them.” The IRS told Congress Lerner’s emails were destroyed and irretrievable. But the IG got the emails after two weeks of searching, and that may warrant a criminal investigation. It’s perhaps confirmed one thing that Americans have long suspected, though: The IRS is run by criminals. Oh, and by the way, one of Lerner’s emails to a colleague was this gem: “No one will believe your hard drive and mine crashed within a week.” No, no one will believe that. More…

Comment | Share

Durbin: Constitution Was ‘Fatally Flawed’

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) defended Barack Obama’s executive amnesty in the Senate by declaring Obama was just doing what was necessary to save the Constitution from itself. “Before any of us can serve in the United States Senate, we stand in the well of the Senate chamber and publicly take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Durbin said. “I know we all take that seriously, as we should.” (Pause for laughter.) He continued, “This is not just another government document. It is really the inspiration of this government and it still governs our actions to this day. Yet, if we view this document with honesty, we know that it was fatally flawed from the start. It got the issue of slavery wrong, in addition to some other issues. It got the issue of race wrong. And since the days when the document was drafted and signed, we have struggled as a nation to right that wrong. It has taken a long, long time.” There’s no question that the Constitution, as a human document, has its flaws. That’s why our Founders set up an amendment process. But Durbin and his fellow Democrats think they are more enlightened than the Founders and, therefore, can do whatever they want with the Constitution – abandoning the legitimate amendment process altogether. And then they have the gall to claim they take theiroaths seriously.

Comment | Share

Who Vets Fox News ‘Experts’?

STUPID, particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment, is almost exclusive to the Left, but occasionally it slips under the wire on the Right. That is certainly the case with this analysis from Tucker Carlson’s Fox News “2A expert” Regis Giles. Commenting on the absurd ATF ban of 5.56 M855 AR-15 rifle cartridges, Giles' remarks were so profoundly ignorant that FNC should have preceded her segment with one of their ubiquitous “FOX NEWS ALERT!” graphics.

According to Giles, “To say that this [5.56 M855 round] is going to pierce through the armor of cops is ridiculous because it’s a tiny bullet like this big [demonstrating the size with her fingers]. And to say that the cop’s Kevlar isn’t tough enough to handle that ammunition is ridiculous. And, like the FBI said, no one has used this in a handgun to shoot a cop.”

Who vets Fox News guests? Giles must have been smoking “green tips.”

Now, for the record, according to the ATF and FBI, there IS NO RECORD of a police officer being murdered with a 5.56 M855 round – and, of course, the ATF ammo ban really has nothing to do with “protecting police” and everything to do with Obama’s incremental encroachment on the Second Amendment. But come on Carlson – giving a platform to Giles did nothing to help 2A rights.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Hooks.

Share

RIGHT ANALYSIS

Hillary Lied, Four Americans Died

Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an “offensive video” was abald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth doesmake a big difference at this point.

The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton’s office. It read as follows:

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department” responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line “Attack on Benghazi 90112012”:

“DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.”

At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack”:

“I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.”

Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:

4:54 p.m.: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”

6:06 p.m.: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

11:57 p.m.: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”

And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? “Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi”:

“Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.”

Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office – with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”

Hillary Clinton’s response? An official statement calling the attack “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, “Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?”

The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign – sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama’s assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public’s intelligence – can no longer be obscured.

America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama’s lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton’s critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises – one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

And that’s if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.

On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: “These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath.”

Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation’s peril.

Comment | Share

The CPAC Sizzler: Red Meat for Primaries

The Republican presidential primary virtually began this past weekend right outside the Washington Beltway. The event is also known as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The gathering of thousands of activists was treated to candidates and experts engaged in extensive and serious policy discussions. There were no doubts where participants of CPAC stand regarding America’s exceptionalism, Liberty and the Constitution.

Some highlights:

In the face of growing threats in the world (and no, we don’t mean the climate), potential presidential contenders emphasized national security and foreign policy. The Islamic State was clearly identified as Islamic and named as a necessary target for destruction to end its evil and medieval barbarism.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio jumped from the obvious problem of ISIL and the cauldron of toil and trouble of the Middle East to pledging to reverse Obama’s cancellation of the missile defense installations in Europe to appease and pacify the angry Bear of Russia. Rubio pegged the KGB-raised Vladimir Putin as a danger in need of countering, arguing for an expansion of missile defense into Eastern Europe beyond Poland and the Czech Republic.

Rubio assessed Obama’s “JV” foreign policy, characterizing the commander in chief’s frame of reference thusly: “America, and American engagement, is more often the source of our problems than the source of our solutions.” Rubio slammed this view as wrong and dangerous.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hammered the administration’s “jobs for Jihadistan” approach: “We don’t need a war on international poverty, we need a war on the evil radical Islamic terrorism.” Furthermore, Jindal asserted, Obama’s administration has incompetently failed at formulating and executing a realistic plan aimed at “degrading and destroying ISIS.” Therefore, Jindal concluded, Obama “has shown himself incapable of being our commander in chief.”

On immigration policy, most all of the CPAC featured speakers were in unison in supporting a secured southern border and enforcement of existing laws to encourage and reward legal immigration.

Rubio – of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” fame – said he’s learned his lesson: “[Y]ou can’t even have a conversation about [illegal immigrants already in the country] until people believe and know – not just believe, but it’s proven to them – that future illegal immigration is brought under control.” He’s absolutely right, despite what many conservatives view as his blemished track record.

On the other hand – and this is no surprise – Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and wannabe-GOP-nominee with big donors on his side, was honest enough not to pander in his proclamation, “Yes, I support a path to legalization” for illegal immigrants currently in our nation. (He also began his tack Left on same-sex marriage, perhaps signaling he won’t even bother trying to convince voters a la Mitt Romney that he really is “severely conservative.”)

The CPAC speaker with the most election wins (three) over the last four years, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, clearly articulated the most basic spirit of America: “Up there in Washington, we have a president who measures success by how many people are dependent on the government. There’s a reason we celebrate the Fourth of July and not April 15, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government and not our dependence on it.”

And former Texas Governor Rick Perry offered up downright Reaganesque optimism: “I’ve never been more certain than I am today that America’s best days remain in front of us. The weakness and incompetence of our government shouldn’t be confused with the strength, the ingenuity and the idealism of the American people.” Perry listed the nation’s painful sufferings through the War Between the States, two world wars and the Carter administration before assuring CPACers, “We will survive the Obama years too.”

The economy, education, tax reform, God, guns and family were other key areas where speakers strummed the heartstrings of this constitutionally conservative crowd. Speeches are one thing, but the most important question left unanswered is this: Can the GOP win the White House in 2016? Or will the GOP lose in the same way it lost in 2012 – with lots of highly paid consultants, an embarrassing ground game and a timid approach to a vision for a great America? Based solely on the roster of CPAC speeches, we’re hopeful that history won’t repeat itself. But we’ll find out soon enough.

Comment | Share

For more, visit Right Analysis.

TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS

• Jeff Jacoby: The Squabble Over Bibi’s Speech
• Star Parker: Why Does Obama So Oppose Netanyahu’s Speech?
• Stephen Moore: It’s Time to Kill This Tax (Entirely)
• Peggy Noonan: Sorry, Jeb, the Race Is Wide Open
• George Will: Two Reading Lessons From the Supreme Court

For more, visit Right Opinion.

OPINION IN BRIEF

The Gipper: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

Columnist Jeff Jacoby: “[B]y reacting so poisonously to Netanyahu’s scheduled appearance, the White House has only fueled more interest in what he has to say. Obama may have guaranteed that Israel’s leader will give the speech of his career to a once-in-a-lifetime audience. Only at a superficial level is this about partisan or political loyalties. Immensely more important is the lethal threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Even without the bomb, Iran is the world’s most dangerous regime – apocalyptic incubator of terrorism and jihad, ruthless suppressor of human rights, unflagging zealot for wiping Israel ‘off the map,’ and fanatic about bringing ‘Death to America.’ Like any democratic politician, Netanyahu can be maddening or fickle. But there is no issue on which he has been so consistent, for so long, as preventing Tehran from acquiring the nuclear capability that would empower it to fulfill its genocidal goals. The fuss over protocol and personalities is interesting. It won’t keep Americans from giving their ally’s leader a respectful hearing.”

Comment | Share

Columnist Star Parker: “The President has a bully pulpit waiting for him whenever he wants to use it to explain to the American people why he doesn’t want Benjamin Netanyahu to give this speech. Instead of shooting straight with us, the president is sending out his foot soldiers, his proxies, Democrats in Congress, including the black Caucus, to do his business for him, with flimsy explanations. What’s up with our President? And what’s up with the press? Why aren’t they asking penetrating questions? All of us recall as students reading about the tragedies in history and asking how they could have happened, why they weren’t prevented. We should hear the Israeli Prime Minster’s concerns. And our president, himself, should tell the American people why he so opposes this very sensible speech.”

Comment | Share

Comedian Seth Meyers: “Obama’s former press secretary, Jay Carney, will reportedly become a senior vice president at Amazon. Carney says he’s excited to work for someone who doesn’t take six years to deliver.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.