THE FOUNDATION
“[T]o preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [the Constitution] has established … are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 1823
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
It is argued that the “round 'em up and send 'em back” solution to illegal immigration is not an option. Indeed, that would be very difficult given the fact that millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. more than a decade, and most are very socio-economically integrated. But therewas a successful round-up a half century ago. Mark Alexander first wrote about Dwight Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” in his 2007 column insisting that border security must preclude any discussion about “immigration reform.” In 1954, illegal immigration across the Mexican border swelled the illegal population to almost three million. Ike cut off this traffic with a decisive policy and only about 1,000 Border Patrol agents – fewer than a tenth of the force now on our border – in an operation praised by veteran agents to this day. According to a 1954 New York Times article on illegal immigration, “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.” Sound familiar? In June of 1954, Ike launched “Operation Wetback,” and in three months, agents arrested almost 150,000 illegals and sent them back deep into Mexico. Consequently, another 1.5 million illegals left the U.S. “voluntarily,” which is to say that, when enforcement got serious, illegals got the message. Veteran Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards notes, “Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can! … When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. CNN’s Chris Cuomo called out White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on the disconnect between Barack Obama’s failure to pass “immigration reform” in 2009 or 2010 when he had control of both the Senate and House, and then his repeated subsequent assertions that he did not have the authority to use an executive order to legislate that reform. “The president promised not to do this,” Cuomo argued, noting that Republicans warned Obama, “If you care about working with us, don’t do it, and then he did it. What’s the calculation?” Earnest trotted out the worn out “House Republican obstructionism” rhetoric, prompting Cuomo to respond, “The problem is how this was done may overshadow what was done because now the motivation is to stop this from happening, not to come up with their own plan. I mean, you had to see that coming, Josh. … [Obama] had a lot of time; he didn’t do it. Now all the sudden he has to do it?” Cuomo is driving home the point Mark Alexander argued last week in The Democrats' REAL ‘Immigration Reform’ Strategy: “[Obama] and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants. Why? Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric centered on issues like ‘living wages’ and increasing the minimum wage. Democrats don’t really want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower. So Obama crafted an EO that Republicans can take apart. Then Democrats can get credit from their Latino constituents for trying, and blame ‘obstructionist Republicans’ for blocking them.”
Remember all those “missing” emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner the IRS said it was unable to retrieve? According to the IRS inspector general in a Friday afternoon news dump, they’ve now magically reappeared. Via the Washington Examiner: “Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever. The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of ‘disaster recovery tapes’ that were used to back up the IRS email system.” That’s awfully convenient timing now that the midterm election is behind us. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said, “This discovery … underscores the lack of cooperation Congress has received from the IRS. The agency first failed to disclose the loss to Congress and then tried to declare Lerner’s emails gone and lost forever. Once again it appears the IRS hasn’t been straight with Congress and the American people.” Don’t expect the agency’s obfuscation to end with this new revelation, either. The question remains: What is Lois “Plead the Fifth” Lerner hiding? Stay tuned…
The U.S. House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration Friday, arguing the administration violated the Constitution when it used non-appropriated monies to fund the “Affordable” Care Act and amended the law by using a Treasury regulation. House Republicans first talked of suing the president in July. They finally found a lawyer, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, to represent them. Obama’s newest constitutional overreach – his immigration executive action – is not part of this suit. “The Administration has made no secret of its willingness, notwithstanding Article I of the Constitution, to act without Congress when Congress declines to enact laws that the Administration desires,” the complaint said. “Despite such fundamental constitutional limitations, the Administration repeatedly has abused its power by using executive action as a substitute for legislation.” Even with both chambers headed toward a Republican majority, the GOP is working cautiously to rein in Obama. The House’s true power – impeachment – is still politically impossible. More…
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released its report after two years of studying the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that left an ambassador and three other people dead. No one did anything wrong, it concluded, except the compound could have been better secured. “In summary, the Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. … Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. … Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for – and which was used for Ambassador Rice’s public appearances – was flawed.” Did the intelligence community do its job, or did it give politicians bad information? While the report suggests Ambassador Chris Stevens died because of a bumbling government, this is not the last investigation into the Benghazi attack. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) still leads the Select Committee on Benghazi, which has yet to release its findings. More…
For more, visit Right Hooks.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Special Column
Read The Emperor Strikes Back, on Obama’s speech announcing his immigration executive order.
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here.
RIGHT ANALYSIS
Thursday evening’s executive decree by Barack Obama marked a particularly significant reversal. But it’s not what you might think.
In September 2012 at their nationally televised party convention, Democrats loudly booed the mention of God and the proposal by former Democrat Governor Ted Strickland to add the Judeo-Christian God, Jehovah, to the party’s platform written and approved every four years. Despite delegate opposition to the amendments, Los Angeles Mayor and DNC Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa overruled the vocal crowd to return this statement to the 2012 platform: “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Now, just two years later, the president evokes Scripture in announcing policy. It wasn’t from the New Testament, which leftists frequently select – especially the Sermon on the Mount – for the purpose of pushing “social justice,” but from Exodus, that book where Jehovah handed down the Law to Moses to govern the conduct of the nation of Israel and its people.
Flowing across the lips of one of the most secular leaders in our nation’s history came, “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.” He was paraphrasing Exodus 22:21 and Exodus 23:9, the former of which says, “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” He did this merely to add moral authority for his unconstitutional action.
Will America soon see Barack Obama’s newfound application of the Bible in other policies such as monogamous marriage between a man and a woman or the protection of the life of the unborn?
Let’s pray to see that miraculous conversion.
On Thursday, America witnessed a despicable demonstration of grazing from the oft-used Biblical Buffet, picking and choosing Holy Scripture to fulfill one’s argument, justify a narrative, and, yes, even to justify sin.
To Obama, progressives and all those who worship the secular triune of me, myself and I, plucking Holy Scripture out of context is deemed useful and is employed to rationalize select agendas. However, they say employing those same Scriptures in their entirety to govern one’s behavior, applying virtues in the corporate world, selection of education, entertainment, relationships, et al, should be viewed as extremist and not be permitted in the public square of debate or civic engagement.
All of Scripture testifies to Jehovah, characteristic of mercy, grace, compassion, limitless love – and righteousness, justice and wrath toward sin. Selective application of God’s Truth is exposed as false teaching and bearing a false witness to the Gospel.
Those of us watching Obama use God’s teaching in such a craven way winced. He supports the murder of the unborn; he has scrambled domestic and military policy to normalize homosexuality in our culture; he was disciplined in racial hate and leftist “liberation theology” by Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright; he has openly mocked those who “cling to religion”; and he supports all manner of activism contrary to our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundation.
To see the president flippantly use his momentary public profession of faith to Christianity in justifying the disregard for America’s laws as he evokes a commandment of Jewish law was too rich. Remember, this is the same president who refuses to identify and work to eradicate Islamic terrorism while hundreds and thousands of Christians in the Middle East are persecuted and executed for their refusal to denounce Christ as Lord.
Yet, the reality is raw: Gone are the Olympic-god-invoking Greek columns of Obama’s coronation in Chicago’s Butler Field in 2008. Gone are the screaming, fainting crowds of hundreds of thousands in Germany. Gone are the soaring statements of great intellect and political prowess amongst media and colleagues after the merry-go-round of scandals.
After having his six years in office, Obama’s policies and his team of fellow progressives overwhelmingly rejected on Nov. 5, this former political messiah has been exposed. He has no personal authority that remains credible – he’s broken the trust of those he was elected to serve.
While all who watched Thursday’s proclamation know that the policy of legal immigration must be reformed and enforced with humanity, we witnessed a failing leader attempt to justify his own lawlessness and that of millions by standing on a moral platform that, until now, he has openly mocked and betrayed.
The pitiful display of the countless who continue to defend Obama and practice the overt disdain for truth, integrity and goodness should send those of us who abide in the Almighty to our knees and on our faces in prayer. America deserves leadership that is not double-minded and is rooted in honor – on both sides of the political aisle.
This is a tale of two Bills, one black, one white. Both are high-profile celebrities, household names if you will, and both share what appears to be a rather large appetite for extra-marital affairs. Some of those affairs allegedly involve sex that may not have been consensual. Despite such remarkable similarities, one of these Bills is in the process of being socially ostracized. The other remains not only popular, but revered as a feminist icon.
Bill Cosby’s descent into a hell seemingly of his own making began four weeks ago when a bitby stand-up comic Hannibal Buress went viral. “Bill Cosby has the f–ing smuggest old black man public persona that I hate,” Buress jibed. “‘Pull your pants up, black people. I was on TV in the '80s. I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.’ Yeah, but you raped women, Bill Cosby. So, [that] brings you down a couple notches. I don’t curse on stage. But yeah, you’re a rapist.”
Cosby did himself no favors when he fired back on Twitter. “Go ahead. Meme me!” he tweeted. That response elicited a barrage of slurs amassed at the #CosbyMeme hashtag. Next, a Washington Post column written by alleged Cosby victim Barbara Bowman appeared on Nov. 13, followed by an NPR interview two days later, during which Cosby maintained complete silence when host Scott Simon asked about the allegations. Prior to both the column and the interview, Cosby’s name was deleted from the “Late Show With David Letterman” guest lineup for the following week.
Since then, Cosby’s ostracization has ramped up in earnest. NBC canceled a deal for a Cosby sitcom, one of his live shows was axed by an Arizona casino, Netflix dropped the launch of stand-up comedy special “Bill Cosby 77,” and cable channel TV Land canceled reruns of “The Cosby Show,” one of the most popular sitcoms in television history. And while all of this was unfolding, model Janice Dickinson and other women joined the chorus accusing Cosby of sexual assault.
Barring something completely unforeseen, Cosby’s career is over, and it is more than likely he will remain a pariah for the rest of his life.
Justified? It would certainly seem that way – provided one is content with the reality that Cosby has never been criminally charged with sexual assault, much less rape. Or provided that one must deal with the reality that one of his accusers, Joan Tarshis, alleges Cosby drugged and raped her twice, meaning she gave Cosby a second opportunity to abuse her after the first incident. And provided the screaming double standard of a suddenly self-righteous Hollywood that has long lionized convicted child rapist Roman Polanski can be ignored.
Bowman offered an explanation for such behavior in her column: “The entertainment world is rife with famous men who use their power to victimize and then silence young women who look up to them. Even when their victims speak out, the industry and the public turn blind eyes; these men’s celebrity, careers, and public adulation continue to thrive.”
Changing “entertainment world” to “political world” brings us to Bill Number Two, as in former President Bill Clinton. His numerous extramarital dalliances were dubbed “bimbo eruptions.” It was a phrase coined by 1992 presidential campaign Deputy Chairwoman Betsey Wright, and one rife with the kind of denigrating implications of women that should have set feminists' teeth on edge.
Yet those feminists, along with countless others, were more than willing to dismiss more than 20 years of sexual assault allegations against Clinton. They remained indifferent when Paula Jones, who won an $850,000 out of court settlement from Clinton after he allegedly exposed himself to her in a hotel room, was constantly referred to as “trailer trash” by the Clinton smear machine. Clinton’s “intentionally false” testimony during that trial cost him a $90,000 fine and the loss of his law license, and it still didn’t matter.
Nor did it matter when the man in the most powerful position in the world took advantage of then-19-year-old Monica Lewinsky, shamelessly lied about it to the nation, and trashed her reputation – until a semen-stained dress revealed the truth.
The response? It was “just about sex” and the investigation that ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice was little more than a “witch hunt”orchestrated by a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.”
What about allegations of actual rape? “[Clinton] turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ‘no.’ … He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. … And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no.’ … He wouldn’t listen to me,” alleged Juanita Broaddrick on “Dateline” in 1999. NBC had thoroughly vetted Broaddrick’s accusation and found it credible, but didn’t air it until almost two weeks after Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.
Bill Clinton has remained a highly regarded, celebrity ex-president ever since – one that still sets feminist hearts a-flutter.
Why the blatant discrepancy? Politics. A longtime, in-your-face challenger of liberalism’s “victimist” black American narrative will inevitably be held to a higher standard than an ex-president whose “pro-abortion on demand” bona fides have apparently granted him a lifetime absolution from anything resembling genuine scrutiny, much less accountability.
Thus concludes the sordid Tale of Two Bills. Cosby is headed for the celebrity ash heap, Clinton could end up back in the White House, and the army of hypocrites who defend the latter Bill will remain willfully oblivious to their contemptible double standard. That’s the way it goes in a nation where some alleged sexual abusers are “more equal” than others.
For more, visit Right Analysis.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
For more, visit Right Opinion.
OPINION IN BRIEF
The Gipper: “Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back – with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free.”
Economist Larry Kudlow: “Obama’s executive actions not only usurp powers that are not his, they don’t really solve key immigration problems. Mainly, not even Obama is attempting to increase visas (that are the purview of Congress). Therefore there’s no clear legal immigration process for the most important group: the high-tech brainiacs who are likely to be the entrepreneurial engines of new business start-ups and overall job-creating growth. Tight limits on high-skilled worker visas and the whole whacky system of green-card, permanent-resident status are not being fixed. This can only happen through legislative change. In other words, Congress has to act (in this and a dozen other places). So the Silicon Valley crowd is not cheering Obama’s executive actions. … As Michael Barone has noted, it’s the high-tech brainiacs that we want to invite and protect. They are more important than the low-wage groups. … If the president had come to the GOP leadership and said, ‘Give me something in a couple of months,’ the whole immigration problem could be solved. But he didn’t. So now even I’m saying it looks like this game is not worth the candle.”
Columnist Burt Prelutsky: “[B]eing American should never be the end result of sneaking across our border in order to give birth. Sneaking in is against the law, and in no other circumstance are people permitted to benefit from the commission of a crime. If that’s too complicated for Obama and the self-righteous members of the Congressional Latino Caucus to grasp, it would be tantamount to an illegal alien robbing a bank and his family getting to keep the money. What’s more, in 2011, Obama told an audience that he lacked the constitutional authority to grant any form of immunity to illegals. Although he’s done his best to ignore the fact, the Constitution hasn’t changed over the past three years.”
Comedian Argus Hamilton: “Missouri’s governor called out the National Guard ahead of the grand jury verdict in Ferguson. The weather is chilling both protestors and the police. It’s so cold in Ferguson that CNN just retreated back to their warm studio and resumed looking for the missing Malaysian airliner.”
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 term *facepalm* (The act of dropping one’s face / forehead into one’s hand) may be the most fitting end-reaction to watching this skit. (Following the laughter, of course.)
Pretty much all post-election analyses – on the left and right alike – agree that the Republican landslide earlier this month was a result of broad voter discontent with Obama’s agenda.
