Columnist.
I hope and pray that my Democratic friends are outraged by yet another criminalization of political differences with the bogus criminal indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry. What is this all about, you ask -- in case you haven't heard? Well, a grand jury indicted Perry on Friday on first-degree felony charges for allegedly abusing his powers by vetoing $7.5 million of funding over two years for the unit run by Texas state prosecutors who investigate public corruption. Perry is also charged with the third-degree felony of coercion of a public servant.
I am constantly amazed at the tendency of some to use the perspective of hindsight to condemn decisions of those who did not possess the supernatural gift of predictive prophecy at the time they made their decisions. So when a friend asked whether I believe that those who supported George W. Bush's decision to attack Iraq should feel remorse, considering the chaos and genocide occurring there now, I said "no," with some qualifications. I believe that Bush and his team based their decision to invade Iraq on the best available intelligence (as to weapons of mass destruction) and a reasonable belief that Saddam Hussein fostered and supported terrorism -- not to mention his serial violation of multiple U.N. resolutions -- and thereby represented a threat to the national security interests of the United States and its allies.
President Obama claims that the extremism and reality-challenged nature of his political opponents explain his limitless policy failures, which, of course, he also refuses to acknowledge. This is truly rich but nothing new. Obama told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, "What you've seen with our politics ... is increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme, maximalist positions." He continued: "Sooner or later, that catches up with you. You end up not being able to move forward on things we need to move forward on. ... We need to rebuild our infrastructure. You go to the Singapore airport and then you come back to one of our airports and you say, 'Huh?' We're not acting like a superpower."
It's time to revisit the widely disseminated myth that compromise in politics and governance is the highest virtue. Recently, I heard a television host whom I like and respect lament that Congress left town without taking action on our border crisis. Members of Congress, the argument goes, just need to get together, put aside their partisanship and get something done. After all, even couples going through an acrimonious divorce can sit down in the same room, close the doors and work out some agreement.
Tell me: Has any other United States president ever goaded the opposition party to bring impeachment proceedings against himself? Has any other so sneeringly mocked and taunted the other party? President Obama is not only not the uniter he promised to be; he is the agitator in chief. Just consider the contrast with President George W. Bush, who didn't even defend himself often, much less deride, needle and dare Democrats to oppose him.
Have we arrived at the point in our nation that a Democratic president and powerful members of his administration can act as lawlessly as they choose without any significant objection or protest from the Democratic Party, the liberal media and Democratic voters? Deny it as they might, liberals seem to have less fealty than conservatives to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Stop right there, you say. Democrats are no different from Republicans. Both parties are equally guilty.
True, the Halbig case, if it makes its way to the Supreme Court, will present an opportunity for Chief Justice John Roberts to redeem himself from his abominably activist salvation of Obamacare. But more important, it will be an opportunity for the high court to reaffirm this nation's commitment to the rule of law. In Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Affordable Care Act federal health insurance subsidies are available for policies purchased only on state exchanges and not those purchased on the federal exchange.
I don't think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama right now, but I also don't think that considering the idea is "crazy talk." The man has, in my view and that of many others, committed multitudinous impeachable offenses, and we need to strenuously object and bring it to the public's attention every chance we get. The idea of turning our heads and looking the other way is repugnant. Yes, the elections are too close for Republicans to risk impeachment proceedings at this point, unless it became clear that the majority of Americans have the political will for that action -- as Andy McCarthy eloquently explains in his book "Faithless Execution."
Attorney General Eric Holder once again played the race card -- this time on national television, in an interview on ABC's "This Week," claiming that he and President Obama have been targets of "a racial animus" by some of the administration's political opponents. "There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me (and) directed at the president," said Holder. "You know, people talk about taking their country back. ... There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don't think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some, there's a racial animus." Reminded of his comments during Obama's first year as president that the U.S. is a "nation of cowards" on race, he refused to back down.
Only if we understand that Wednesday was "Opposite Day" can we comprehend President Obama's bizarre remarks in Texas concerning our border crisis. He said he had asked Gov. Rick Perry, "Are (members of Congress) more interested in politics, or are they more interested in solving the problem? ... If the preference is for politics, then it won't be solved." Everything Obama does is about politics. If he weren't endlessly raising money for his hyper-partisan Democratic Party, he wouldn't have even bothered to fly to Texas in the first place. His entire approach to the immigration issue is to fast-track as many illegals as he can, with the long-term goal of turning the country permanently blue, which happens to be a political, not humanitarian, motivation. Obama is so thoroughly political that commentators can't even discuss Obama without focusing on the "optics." Would it be that hard for them to assess, just once, whether he's doing the right thing?
Do we conservatives really mean it when we say that we need to promote our ideas in the popular culture through books, movies and other media? If so, we need to support people like Dinesh D'Souza and his latest movie and book, "America: Imagine the World Without Her." I saw the movie, and I loved it. Dinesh is a passionate patriot who "chose this country" and loves it with every fiber of his being. Like many of the rest of us, he recognizes that America is under assault, and he is doing all he can to save it. In the movie, Dinesh describes how the political left has infiltrated our culture and educational institutions and presented a damning moral indictment of this nation and free market capitalism.
It's no accident that Obamacare has become emblematic of the Obama administration overall, because it exemplifies so thoroughly what Obama represents ideologically and functionally. Obamacare symbolizes government largesse, incompetence, inefficiency, arrogance and heartlessness, a government that knows better than you what is good for you. It epitomizes staggering spending, waste and debt. It typifies a government that is too big for its britches, which is crushing your liberties while telling you that it has your best interests at heart and that you can't live without it. It stands for wholesale dishonesty -- something that is entirely different from what it pretends to be and what we were told it would be.
Do you remember what President Obama initially said about the Internal Revenue Service scandal? Do you recall his professed outrage? Obama wanted us to know how furious he was. He said, "The misconduct that (the inspector general's report) uncovered is inexcusable." "It's inexcusable," he repeated, "and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency -- but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives." He declared that the "responsible parties" would be held "accountable." He reported that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew "took the first step by requesting -- and accepting -- the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS (Steven Miller) because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward." He said he had directed the agency to implement recommendations from the inspector general to ensure that this outrageous conduct would not be repeated.
More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America's decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he's deliberately or even directly causing it. You have to admit that it's outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many of us have been warning about it for years now. It is gratifying that others -- albeit belatedly -- are waking up. There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?
I'm probably in some minuscule minority, but I am just not too worried about Hillary Clinton's prospects to become our next president. I sense that people will detect her lack of authenticity and also properly associate her with Obama's failed policies. So far, many have given Hillary a pass on her enabling her husband's serial mistreatment of women in his personal life. She was complicit every step of the way, yet many view her as the victim rather than a co-conspirator. She also seems to have avoided the Obamacare taint, even though her Hillarycare was its bastard forerunner, but it's doubtful that will continue if she runs for president. Even if you buy into the false narrative -- as even many conservatives have -- that Bill Clinton was ultimately a moderate, Hillary has radical roots that remain with her today. It's doubtful she'll receive virtual immunity for those the same way Obama has.
Do you think leftists are the slightest bit troubled by the public's overwhelming opposition to their crusade to force the Washington Redskins to change their name? That was rhetorical; I give you more credit. Despite leftists' ongoing effort to convince Native Americans and the rest of us that Native Americans must be offended by the long-standing name, the polls don't seem to be moving in their direction. But that hardly deters them. They are the final arbiters of who may be (and who is being) offended.
My good friend Andy McCarthy has another book out, "Faithless Execution," which couldn't be timelier in view of the deplorable state of current events in America. Though I have been a consistent critic of President Barack Obama's -- decrying his lawlessness and his disastrous and destructive policies -- I have always replied in the negative when people have asked me whether Republicans should pursue impeachment against him. My response has never been based on any doubt that Obama has committed impeachable offenses. Rather, it has been my painful awareness that impeachment is more a political matter than it is a legal one, and enormous political obstacles would surely prevent the successful conclusion of such a pursuit.
If people aren't extremely concerned about what's going on in this country now, you might want to check them for a pulse. Frankly, I am having a hard time getting my mind around the rapidity of the nation's decline. I have written two books chronicling President Obama's nightmarish path of destruction, but since the second one was published, events have been happening at an even more explosive pace. Who would have ever imagined that Ronald Reagan's famous statement that "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" would turn out to be a gross understatement?
