The Goat Pen

I used to agree with AA's view of IB. I used to believe IB was posting tongue-in-cheek with his "unique"perspectives.

But now I'm convinced he really does believe what he says. Anybody who loves Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter can't be right in the head.

P.S. I'm amazed hedge and DSL are dignifying his misogyny by responding to it so assiduously.

Here's an idea. Stop sending trillions oversees and put that $ towards America and our own people.

"P.S. I'm amazed hedge and DSL are dignifying his misogyny by responding to it so assiduously."

Any excuse to sass is fine with me...

As usual, Will nails it.


Leaving aside the seriousness of lawlessness, and the corruption of our civic culture by the professionally pious, this past week has been amusing. There was the spectacle of advocates of an ever-larger regulatory government expressing shock about such government’s large capacity for misbehavior. And, entertainingly, the answer to the question “Will Barack Obama’s scandals derail his second-term agenda?” was a question: What agenda?

The scandals are interlocking and overlapping in ways that drain his authority. Everything he advocates requires Americans to lavish on government something that his administration, and big government generally, undermines: trust.

Liberalism’s agenda has been constant since long before liberals, having given their name a bad name, stopped calling themselves liberals and resumed calling themselves progressives, which they will call themselves until they finish giving that name a bad name. The agenda always is: Concentrate more power in Washington, more Washington power in the executive branch and more executive power in agencies run by experts. Then trust the experts to be disinterested and prudent with their myriad intrusions into, and minute regulations of, Americans’ lives. Obama’s presidency may yet be, on balance, a net plus for the public good if it shatters Americans’ trust in the regulatory state’s motives.

Now, regarding Obama’s second-term agenda. His reelection theme — reelect me because I am not Mitt Romney — yielded a meager mandate, and he used tactics that are now draining the legitimacy that an election is supposed to confer.

One tactic was to misrepresent the Benghazi attack, lest it undermine his narrative about taming terrorism. Does anyone think the administration’s purpose in manufacturing 12 iterations of the talking points was to make them more accurate?

Another tactic was using the “federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The words are from a 1971 memo by the then-White House counsel, John Dean, whose spirit still resides where he worked before going to prison. Congress may contain some Democrats who owed their 2012 election to the IRS’s suppression of conservative political advocacy.

Obama’s supposed “trifecta” of scandals — Benghazi, the IRS and the seizure of Associated Press phone records — neglects some. A fourth scandal is power being wielded by executive branch officials (at the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) illegally installed in office by presidential recess appointments made when the Senate was not in recess.

A fifth might be from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who solicited funds from corporations in industries that HHS regulates to replace some that Congress refused to appropriate. The money is to be spent by nonprofit ­— which does not mean nonpolitical — entities. The funds are to educate Americans about, which might mean (consider the administration’s Benghazi and IRS behaviors) propagandize in favor of, Obamacare and to enroll people in its provisions. The experienced (former governor, former education secretary, 10 years in the Senate) and temperate Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) compares this to the Iran-contra scandal, wherein the Reagan administration raised private funds to do what Congress had refused to do — finance the insurgency against Nicaragua’s government.

Obama’s in­cred­ibly shrinking presidency is a reminder that politics is a transactional business, that trust is the currency of the transactions and that the currency has been debased. For example:

Obama says: Trust me, I do not advocate universal preschool simply to swell the ranks of unionized, dues-paying, Democrat-funding teachers. Trust me, I know something not known by the social scientists who say the benefits of such preschool are small and evanescent.

Obama says: Trust me, the science of global warming is settled. And trust me that, although my plans to combat global warming, whenever the inexplicable 16-year pause of it ends, would vastly expand government’s regulatory powers, as chief executive I guarantee that these powers will be used justly.

Obama says: Trust me. Although I am head of the executive branch, I am not responsible for the IRS portion of this branch.

Obama says: Trust me, my desire to overturn a Supreme Court opinion (Citizens United) that expanded First Amendment protection of political speech, and my desire to “seriously consider” amending the First Amendment to expand the government’s power to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political advocacy, should be untainted by what the IRS did to suppress advocacy by my opponents.

Because Obama’s entire agenda involves enlarging government’s role in allocating wealth and opportunity, the agenda now depends on persuading Americans to trust him, not their lying eyes. In the fourth month of his second term, it is already too late for that.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:James Inhofe (R-OK) explains why he's all for federal aid to the victims of the Oklahoma tornado when he voted huge NO WAY to helping the NE after Hurricane Sandy

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/o ... 91664.html

Didn't he vote no due to the pork that had nothing to do with Sandy?

George Will. My favorite conservative commentator. Peace be upon him.

He's definitely got the schtick down, but I admit I much prefer the highbrow version of Rush and that blonde cunt IB loves so much. I always enjoyed watching Bill Buckley's show back in the day as well...

puterbac wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:James Inhofe (R-OK) explains why he's all for federal aid to the victims of the Oklahoma tornado when he voted huge NO WAY to helping the NE after Hurricane Sandy

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/o ... 91664.html

Didn't he vote no due to the pork that had nothing to do with Sandy?

In fairness, yes, i believe he wanted to hold up aid for Sandy in order to make sure no pork was contained in the bill and that it could be guaranteed there'd be absolutely no fraud.

Where he's hypocritical is that he wants aid to Oklahoma IMMEDIATELY and even stated that he knows Oklahomans, and they wouldn't defraud the govt (implying that you can't trust those fuckin east coasters).

Well, duh.

Natural disasters are good for business, esp. if you're doing business with the government..

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

puterbac wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:James Inhofe (R-OK) explains why he's all for federal aid to the victims of the Oklahoma tornado when he voted huge NO WAY to helping the NE after Hurricane Sandy

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/o ... 91664.html

Didn't he vote no due to the pork that had nothing to do with Sandy?

In fairness, yes, i believe he wanted to hold up aid for Sandy in order to make sure no pork was contained in the bill and that it could be guaranteed there'd be absolutely no fraud.

Where he's hypocritical is that he wants aid to Oklahoma IMMEDIATELY and even stated that he knows Oklahomans, and they wouldn't defraud the govt (implying that you can't trust those fuckin east coasters).

Cool. Thanks for the to be fair part. Could you imagine a congressman let alone a president voting no or vetoing a bill like this because he said he found no basis in the constitution to support it? I remember boortz talking about an event where some president vetoed some aid bill because he thought the constitution prevented it? Late 1800 or early 1900. Can't remember the detail.

But I digress.

So what do the lawyers say about the chick taking 5th after making an opening statement?

Did she actually waive it when she made the statement? Curious....

Surprised there no talk here yet about the muslums literally cutting a dudes head off on a street in London. I think this might just piss off the Brits enough to start to do something about their islam problem.

It's London. Who cares?

puterbac wrote:So what do the lawyers say about the chick taking 5th after making an opening statement?

Did she actually waive it when she made the statement? Curious....

I'm not sure of the specifics of taking the 5th, but I would guess it just means you can say anything you like if you choose to, but you are not obligated to answer any questions or say anything to incriminate yourself, either. In other words, not all or nothing. But I don't really know..

Jungle Rat wrote:Here's an idea. Stop sending trillions oversees and put that $ towards America and our own people.

Actually a good idea in view of current events.

Dear Customary US Foreign Aid Receipiant, the Honorable Nation of fill-in-the-blank

We are closing the pay window for the remainder of 2013 or until such time Congress and the Obama administration can come to terms with our ginormous Budget Sequestration. Hopefully this will be a temporary measure and you'll be back on the Star Spangled teat in short order.

Sincerely,

Uncle Sam

BTW, the IRS is sequestrated today. I don't know how those poor souls will survive...

AugustWest wrote:Surprised there no talk here yet about the muslums literally cutting a dudes head off on a street in London.

Because practitioners of the Religion of Peace beheading innocent strangers while chanting praises to Allah is so common that it is not news anymore. It's like a news story of Englishmen drinking tea.

I think this might just piss off the Brits enough to start to do something about their islam problem.

The world has an Islam problem.

But it is a religion of peace and love!! How dare you say Islam is a problem??!!??