Displaying the most recent of 91920 posts written by

Ruth King

OBAMA’S ABUSE OF POWER

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578263793332301584.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop An appeals court says his recess appointments are unconstitutional. President Obama has shown increasing contempt for the constitutional limits on his power, and the courts are finally awakening to the news. A unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the President’s non-recess recess appointments are illegal and an […]

Long Tradition of Presidential Appointments During Senate Breaks Faces Constitutional Challenge

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578263772492524536.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

By MELANIE TROTTMAN, JESS BRAVIN and MICHAEL R. CRITTENDEN

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in filling labor board vacancies, a decision that could reshape a long-standing practice by U.S. presidents to make recess appointments.
A federal appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor panel. Aaron Zitner reports on Lunch Break. Photo: AP.

Such appointments—which bypass Senate approval to install top administration personnel—have been used by presidents for at least 90 years. But in the past two decades, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton ratcheted up use of the tactic to avert congressional obstacles. Friday’s decision, if it holds, would restrain that power.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the National Labor Relations Board for the past year has lacked the quorum required to conduct most business because three board members were named by Mr. Obama in recess appointments the court ruled invalid.

The decision strips the board of key powers and could void some of its actions over the past year.

The board made more than 200 case rulings last year, including a decision that protected workers from being fired for complaining about working conditions on sites like Facebook, FB +1.48% and a decision that gave greater rights to unions in employee-discipline cases.

ANDREW HARROD: NO MERE EXISTENCE FOR ISRAEL

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/no_mere_existence_for_israel.html Inauguration weekend has come and gone, and with it the preceding “No Blank Check for Israel” rally on Saturday, January 19, 2013. Rally participants first assembled in Farragut Square to hear various speakers and then marched through adjoining streets to Pennsylvania Avenue between Lafayette Square and the White House where President Barack Obama two […]

MARK STEYN: THE OBAMA SIMULACRUM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338863/obama-simulacrum-mark-steyn

This administration sneers at reality and its consequences.

If I’m following this correctly, according to one spokesperson for the Marine Corps Band, at Monday’s inauguration Beyoncé lip-synced to the national anthem but the band accompanied her live. However, according to a second spokesperson, it was the band who were pretending to play to a pre-recorded tape while Beyoncé sang along live. So one or other of them were faking it. Or maybe both were. Or neither. I’d ask Chuck Schumer, the master of ceremonies, who was standing right behind her, but he spent the entire performance staring at her butt. If it was her butt, that is. It might just have been the bulge of the Radio Shack cassette player she was miming to. In an America with an ever more tenuous grip on reality, there’s so little to be sure of.

Whether Beyoncé was lip-syncing to the band or the band were lip-syncing to Beyoncé is like one of those red pill/ blue pill choices from The Matrix. Was President Obama lip-syncing to the Founders, rooting his inaugural address in the earliest expressions of American identity? (“The patriots of 1776 . . . gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.”) Or maybe the Founders were lip-syncing to him as he appropriated the vision of the first generation of Americans and yoked it (“preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”) to a statist pitch they would have found utterly repugnant.

The whole event had the air of a simulacrum: It looked like a presidential inauguration, but the sound was tinny and not quite in sync. Obama mouthed along to a canned vocal track: “We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” That’s great! It’s always reassuring to know the head of state is going to take issue with all those people wedded to the “belief” that America needs either to shove every granny off the cliff or stake its newborns out on the tundra for the wolves to finish off. When it comes to facing the music, Obama is peerless at making a song and dance about tunes nobody’s whistling without ever once warbling the real big numbers (16 trillion). But, like Beyoncé, he’s totally cool and has a cute butt.

A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:

“Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

IN SPITE OF ISLAM: NURIT GREENGER

It is better to tell the truth about Islam and be called ‘Islamophobe’ than to lie about this religion to appease the Moslems’ ear. —Daniel Pipes is an American historian, writer, and political commentator. He is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum and its Campus Watch project, and the editor of its […]

ANDREW McCARTHY: APES, PIGS AND F-16S

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338892/apes-pigs-and-f-16s-andrew-c-mccarthy
When you arm Islamists, you become a willing participant in your own undoing.

When Mohamed Morsi dehumanizes Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” there’s an elephant in the room. We find it here:

Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil — these are many times worse in rank, and far more astray from the even Path!

You see, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood mahoff–turned–president did not conjure up the apes-and-pigs riff on his own. When Morsi fulminates that Muslims “must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them,” he is taking his cues straight from the Koran. Or rather, from the Holy Koran, as “progressive” American politicians take pains to call it in the off hours from their campaign to drive every last vestige of Judeo-Christian culture from the public square.

The excerpt above is not from the Life and Times of Mohamed Morsi. It originates with that other Mohammed. Specifically, it is Sura 5:60 of the Koran, the tome Muslims take to be the immutable, verbatim commands of Allah, as revealed to the prophet. And as Andrew Bostom illustrates (with a disquieting amplitude of examples), the verse is not an outlier. It states an Islamic leitmotif.

Contrary to the fairy tale weaved by apologists for Islamists on both sides of America’s political aisle, Jew hatred is not a pathogen insidiously injected into Islam by the Nazis (with whom Middle Eastern Muslims enthusiastically aligned). Nor did the ummah come by it through exposure to other strains of anti-Semitism that blight the history of Christendom. Jew hatred is ingrained in Islamic doctrine. Consequently, despite the efforts of enlightened Muslim reformers, Jew hatred is — and will remain — a pillar of Islamist ideology.

You may recall hearing this little ditty from the Hamas charter — often echoed by ministers of the Palestinian Authority and in the preachments of Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on whose every word millions hang weekly on al-Jazeera (or is it al-Gore?):

The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”

MARTIN SHERMAN: BE AFRAID…..VERY AFRAID

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=300885 The election results indicate the Israeli electorate has become dangerously detached from real challenges the nation needs to address. If Yair Lapid, Tzipi Livni and Shelly Yacimovich join Netanyahu’s coalition without Bayit Yehudi and the ultra-Orthodox parties, Netanyahu will have no option but to follow the path of Begin, Rabin and Sharon and reach […]

THE WORLD’S MOST AMAZING SUBMARINE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2203110/Deadly-Hunter-Killer-submarine-capable-hearing-ship-leaving-port-New-York–sat-underwater-English-channel.html#ixzz26SLVilYf Inside the Navy’s new £1billion supersub: Deadly Hunter Killer submarine is capable of hearing a ship leaving port in New York… whilst sat underwater in the English channel One of the world’s most sophisticated and powerful nuclear submarines Carries dozens of cruise missiles capable of hitting targets 1,200 miles away Her sonar can detect […]

DAVID MAMET: GUN LAWS AND THE FOOLS OF CHELM ****

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet. Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded […]

MY SAY: HILLARY CAN DISH IT OUT BUT CAN’T TAKE IT

Before her caterwauling display at the hearings , Hillary Clinton choked up and almost wept recalling how she hugged the families of the victims of her bungling in Benghazi. Gee, maybe she should get a job as a comforter in a funeral home.

The interesting thing is how snarky she was at a Congressional hearing. Remember how she called General Petraeus a liar? And, she was not talking about his marital infidelity here, another subject which she once attributed to a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

“Last week, it got a little dramatic. Senator Hillary Clinton called General Petraeus a liar. And believe this, if there’s one thing she knows, it’s how to spot a guy who’s lying.” –Jay Leno

Read this:

http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-spars-with-petraeus-on-credibility/62426/

WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Referring to the charts General Petraeus brought to the House and Senate this week, Mrs. Clinton said, “Although the charts tell part of the story, I don’t think they tell the whole story.” She said the “bottom-up” political reconciliation was “anecdotal” and that the success in Anbar province, where sheiks turned on Al Qaeda, started before the surge.

At the end of her speech, Mrs. Clinton pointed to what she saw as a discrepancy in the general’s responses to questions from other senators about whether he would recommend that America keep 130,000 troops in Iraq a year from now if no progress was made toward national reconciliation.

“Don’t you think the American people deserve a very specific answer about what is expected from our country in the face of the failure of the Iraqi government and its failure to achieve its political agenda?” she asked.

General Petraeus responded calmly. “I don’t see quite as big a difference as you do,” he said. “I would be very hard pressed at that time to recommend a continuation of our current troop levels” if conditions on the ground were the same in a year as they are now. He added that Mrs. Clinton’s question was “quite a bit hypothetical.”