Archive

Archive for the ‘obama’ Category

Benghazi Part III: Now with completely irrelevant questions

November 20, 2012 Leave a comment

No history montage today folks.  If you need to know how we got here, feel free to click herehere, here, and here.  In fact, please click all the foregoing because it makes my total numbers go up, which only increases my self-esteem.  So CIA Director/General Petraeus quit his job because he had an affair with some broad who wrote a book about him.  Eventually, that whole thing became an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, complete with some FBI guy sending a shirtless photo to the lady who approached the FBI about angry emails being sent to her by the Petraeus mistress.  The timing of the Director’s resignation seemed odd, since the FBI knew about the affair since late summer, but no action was taken until just before Petraeus was scheduled to testify in front of Congress regarding Benghazi (not to mention just days after Barry’s re-election).

Since then, Petraeus has agreed to testify behind closed doors, because apparently Americans don’t get to know what their employees are doing with all those taxes.  The entire focus of the meeting appears to be who told UN Ambassador Susan Rice to tell everyone else that the attack was caused by some YouTube video about Muhammed that no one watched, when others claimed everyone knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.

Not that Muhammed

Patraeus proceeded to agree with the other sources, and in doing so, contradict his earlier behind-closed-doors explanation.  Yes, everyone did know it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  So someone gave Susan Rice lies to read to America about how quickly we knew the attack wasn’t the result of a bad movie review.  Today we learned that someone at the Department of National Intelligence changed Rice’s lines from “terrorist attack” to “angry protestors who happened to have grenade launchers sitting around the house.”  All of this has taken about a week.  To all of this I ask: Who Cares?

Does it really matter why Susan Rice stated it was a protest over a video?  Does it even matter who told her to say that?  Isn’t it more important that Barry himself proceeded to tell both Univision and The View that it was a spontaneous protest something like a week later?  Or better yet, aren’t a whole bunch of things surrounding the entire attack significantly more important than why Rice claimed a terrorist attack was a protest?

I submit the following questions are far more important than any of the questions previously asked by Congress:

          1.  Why were repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi repeatedly denied?

          2.  Why would Ambassador Stevens choose to meet with someone in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, when he knew it lacked sufficient security?

          3.  Who was Ambassador Stevens meeting with that night, and why?

          4.  Who knew about the meeting and signed off on it?

          5.  Did any of the terrorists know about the meeting?

          6.  Why were reports from Benghazi, that an attack was imminent, completely ignored by whomever received the reports?

          7.  Why did it take 19 hours to get any military assets to Benghazi, even though everyone knew about the attack approximately 20 minutes after it started, and a live feed from an unmanned drone was being watched in the White House, in real time?

          8.  Is there any truth to the report from a Fox News source that Navy SEALs were repeatedly told to stand down after they reported hearing the attack as it was happening?

          9.  Is there any truth to the rumor that terrorists were being held captive, and interrogated, at the Benghazi facility?

These questions are all more important than who told Susan Rice to lie about the true nature of the attack.  It’s no mystery that the Obama Administration doesn’t like calling terrorism by its name.  These are the questions that the President should be made to answer.  If he refuses to answer them, than he should be impeached.  Will he be made to answer them?  Probably not.  But I’m sure the Repubs will make every effort to make sure we think they’re trying to make him answer them.

Advertisements

Benghazi Chapter 2: Generals, Timeliness, and Sex Under the Desk

November 12, 2012 1 comment

If you thought Benghazi was weird before, then you should probably sit down.  Before the election, all we knew about Benghazi was that four Americans were killed over a seven hour period, during an attack by a group of heavily armed protestors, and that the remaining facts were still unclear.  Of course, the conspiracy nuts out there thought the whole “we’re looking into it” thing was simply an effort by the Administration to stonewall until after the election.  Fools.  Well, my sources are telling me that Barry was actually telling the truth when he said he didn’t know much about the attack.   See, what happened is, he DVR’d the live feed of the attack so he could watch it later without commercials, but became too busy with the whole election thing to see it.

Just kidding.  I don’t have any sources, and Barry would never DVR an attack on Americans…unless it was to watch “Nashville,” which conveniently aired on September 12.

Barry LUVS country music.

Now that the election is over, however, hold on to your hat!  First, during the weekly Friday night document dump, the Pentagon released a timeline revealing that it took more than 19 hours for any military assets to arrive in Libya.

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why?  According to Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, the situation was “murky.”  It’s hard to believe that it was 19 hours murky, however, considering the consulate had notified the State Dept. about an expected attack three hours before it started, and that everyone, including the White House, was notified of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it began.  In other words, we still don’t know why it took everyone so friggin’ long to respond to the attack.

Also on Friday, we all learned that CIA Director General David Petraeus was resigning his position, effective immediately, because of an extramarital affair he had with his biographer.  The Administration, and its surrogates in the media, have obviously claimed the timing of the resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi or the fact that Patraeus was scheduled to testify before Congress this week.  The resignation follows the “retirement” of our head guy in Northern Africa (which is where Libya is located on the map. #geographybee).  General Carter Ham reportedly redirected an unarmed drone to the scene just 17 minutes after the attack began, and allegedly objected to orders to “stand down” after the first reports of the attack came in.

According to the FBI, however, the govt. already knew about Petraeus’s indiscretions from affair-related emails discovered this last summer.  So why did the resignation happen now?  It’s clear that the White House has been pointing its finger at the CIA since Benghazi hit the papers.  Is Petraeus the fall guy?  Or could it be that Petraeus leaked secrets to his mistress, which we all found out about when she gave a speech at the University of Denver on October 26.

‘I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually  had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner. And they think that the  attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back,’ Broadwell declared during the speech, at the University of Denver.

The CIA denied the existence of the alleged prison in Benghazi, but that’s to be expected.  Still though, was the resignation forced as a result of the speech, thus making its timing just a coincidence with Petraeus’s upcoming Benghazi testimony, or is it just a cover?

Why was the FBI investigating the head of the CIA in the first place?  It is being claimed that the FBI got involved when the mistress sent threatening emails to some random woman named Jill Kelley, and Kelley went to the FBI.  During its investigation, the feds apparently found the scandalous emails between the mistress and Petraeus.  I bet I couldn’t get the FBI to investigate the threatening emails I receive on a daily basis.  Just sayin’.

This whole thing is really weird, and is only going to get weirder.  Closing quote by the mistress’s father:

He told the Daily News: ‘This is about something else  entirely, and the truth will come out.’

Don’t bet on it.

**UPDATE**

Fox News has a source confirming the mistress’s story:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

I wonder if they were water-boarded.  That would be awesome.

Should Obama be Impeached?

October 24, 2012 4 comments

More information about the Benghazi incident is coming out everyday.  Of course, the source of the information isn’t the White House, which is continue to stonewall.  It’s been obvious for weeks that the Administration is trying to run out the clock on the murder of four U.S. citizens, which includes an Ambassador, until after the election.  If information concerning the incident continues to move towards its logical conclusion, however, the election may not matter.

We already know that our Ambassador was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year.  We also know that the attack took place at a “safe house” where Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a diplomat from Turkey.  We still don’t know why they were meeting, however.  We also know that Stevens requested additional security from the State Dept. several times, and was ignored.  Since the attack, the Administration has been regularly changing its story as to who knew what, and when.  Things are starting to become clearer though, and the White House is beginning to look complicit in the murders.

Today we learned that the White House was receiving continuous emails concerning the attack, the first one coming only 20-30 minutes after the attack began.  Also, the White House knew, as soon as two hours after the attack, that an Islamic terrist group, Ansar al-Sharia, was to blame.  It should be noted that Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen is considered to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda; no word on whether Ansar al-Sharia in Libya is such an affiliate (although if it isn’t, it may want to come up with a new name).  All of this information comes from emails leaked to Reuters.  As everyone knows by now, the White House first called the attack a spontaneous outburst resulting from some Youtube video that nobody saw.  This story continued while, at the very same time, the State Dept. reported it was a terrorist attack.

Now, one would think the alleged failure of Hillary Clinton to tell her boss, the President of the United States, that terrorists murdered a U.S. Ambassador would be an important issue to Americans.  On the other hand, when one’s presidency has been filled with incompetency, the failure to effectively communicate with staff doesn’t necessarily amount to a “holy crap” moment.  Either way, Libya does not seem to be impacting the President’s poll numbers much.  Now that we have the emails, however, the “failure to communicate” theory has been replaced with an active cover-up.

Why cover it up?  I believe it becomes obvious the longer this plays out.  This is from the Reuters article linked above:

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU’, meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’

Yes, you read that right: an email was sent advising the reader of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it started.  Keep in mind, the attack last several hours.  Who received the email?

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from  copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Yep, it went to the White House.  Where was the President?  This was his “3:00 a.m. phone call,” and by all accounts, it seems like he hit the snooze.

And it gets worse.  This isn’t just about the Prez lying to us about knowing it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  We had an unmanned drone flying over the attack as it was happening.  In other words, we were watching it happen.  If a drone can get there, why can’t our military?

The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

‘They stood, and they watched, and our people died,’ former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

[…]

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

So let’s review.  Not only did the White House absolutely know about the attack, as it was going on, it did nothing to protect our people.  This isn’t incompetence, or a failure to communicate.  This was purposeful inaction on the part of our Commander in Chief.  And not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it sure looks like the White House was pretty okay with Ambassador Stevens being killed on September 11.  Why?  As we said earlier, we still don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a Turkish delegate in a safe house in Benghazi; although we do know that heavy weapons are being shipped to Syrian rebels through Turkey.  We also know that Stevens was instrumental in running guns to Libyan rebels during the whole “let’s overthrow the government” thing.  We also know that some of the “rebels” who we were shipping guns to were members of Al Qaeda.

What does all of this look like to me (as well as others)?  Stevens, and three other Americans were killed by a group of terrorists that America armed, and it all went down with the President looking on.  Why did he do nothing?  We still don’t know.  But we will.  The biggest mistake the President made in all of this was blaming the CIA for bad intel.  Information will continue to leak out, and we’ll eventually have the full picture.  You won’t be able to ask Barry about it though, because he’ll be on The View, talking about Big Bird.

November will tell us a lot about Americans

September 7, 2012 1 comment

Jobs numbers are out.  Even though we added only 96,000 jobs, which is less than what we need to simply keep up with the population increase (in other words, it represents a net decrease in jobs), the unemployment rate actually dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%.  Why?  Because 368,000 people dropped out of the workforce, i.e., stopped looking for jobs.  This drops the labor force participation rate to 63.5%; its lowest since 1981.  The percentage of men in the labor force?  69.9%.  The lowest since 1948.

Let’s face it, the economy simply hasn’t improved.  It’s been 43 consecutive months of unemployment over 8%, and in addition to being a crappy unemployment rate, 8% also represents the primary argument for Obama becoming a one term proposition.  We were sold a bill of goods just a few months into the Obama presidency.  We were told that borrowing $800 billion of what is ultimately taxpayer money, and giving it to those constituents favored by the Dems, would result in unemployment never rising above 8%.  Not only has unemployment gone far above 8%, it has yet to drop below it.  8% would destroy any other president, and it should destroy this one.

This is where I get to the part about November telling us a lot about Americans.  Are we really that stupid?  And by “we,” I mean someone other than myself, since I didn’t vote for him last time.  Let’s face it: Hope and Change has given us about as much as one might rationally expect.  That’s right, I said “rationally.”  I’ve always said liberalism is the politics of the weak-minded.  Why?  Because it’s emotionally satisfying to say things like “everyone should have enough to eat,” or “everyone should have affordable health care.”  No one will ever disagree with these statements.  The problem is, actually making them so is impossible; decades of liberal policies have proven it.  The left’s desire to push low-income housing gave us the economic collapse.  The left’s Social Security and Medicare programs are bankrupt.  And now we have Obamacare, which seeks to force insurance companies to provide “government approved” plans to everyone, regardless of their health, for “governent approved” premiums.  These things aren’t possible.  But try telling that to a crowd consisting of college students, government employees, and these people:

We’re totally middle class

Gas prices have more than doubled since Obama became president.  He’s added more to our debt than any president in history.  There are more people using food stamps then ever before.  And now he wants to increase taxes on all the rich bastards, which will do something positive, although no one has ever been able to tell me what.

Barry wants more time.  Does he deserve it?  If any of us failed at his level over a four year period at our jobs, and then told our bosses we simply needed more time, we’d likely get just enough to clean out our offices.  Yes, he inherited a mess…that he specifically sought out.  It’s not like someone put his name in the presidential voting box as a joke, and he just happened to win (although sometimes I wonder…).  Four years ago, Barry put on his big-boy pants, bumped fists with Bill Ayers, and decided to spend millions to become the most powerful person in the world (notice how I didn’t say “most powerful man.”  #toleranceanddiversity).   As much as he’d like to run from it, he owns this economy.

The polls show a dead heat.  At this point in their race, Carter and Reagan were similarly situated, with Reagan eventually running away with it.  When push came to shove, the American people concluded that Carter was incompentent, so hey, let’s elect the other guy.  If Americans don’t come to the same conclusion in November, I will finally have the proof of what I have for so long suspected: everyone is stupid.  Especially Scarlett Johansson.

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over Fast and Furious Docs He’s Never Seen. Then Plays Some Golf.

June 20, 2012 Leave a comment

We’re transparent.
Hahahahahahaha.

Well, everybody else is saying it, so why not us?  “Most Transparent Administration Ever.”  Hahahahahaha.  Not quite.

We’ve commented before about “Fast and Furious,” the Dept. of Justice operation that resulted in large numbers of guns landing in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, that ultimately killed a U.S. border patrol agent.  Well, the House of Representatives has been trying to get to the bottom of whether Eric Holder, head of the DOJ, knew about the operation.  In its effort to figure that out, the House subpoenaed records from the DOJ…which was met with a lot of inaction.  So the House is about to have a vote on whether to hold Holder in contempt for failing to produce required docs.  So what does Holder do?  He calls up his boss.  And what does the Most Transparent President Ever do?  Be completely transparent, if by “transparent” you mean the exact opposite:

President Obama on Wednesday invoked executive privilege to withhold from a Congressional oversight committee some documents and communications among his advisers regarding the failed gun enforcement operation known as ‘Fast and Furious,’ in which weapons purchased in the United States were allowed to cross into Mexico.

And by “some documents,” we mean thousands.  Why would the President do this?  Well, a letter from Holder to The One may shed some light on it:

In a letter to Obama seeking the assertion of executive privilege, Holder said the documents involved related to the Justice Department’s ‘response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries,’ and that release of internal executive branch documents would have ‘significant, damaging consequences.’

You know what the letter doesn’t say?  What those “significant, damaging consequences” are.  I think that’s pretty telling.  You know what else is telling?  The fact that the President hasn’t even seen the documents for which he’s asserting the privilege.  If this were happening in a court of law, such shenanigans are sanctionable.

Personally, I find all of this to be interesting, hilarious, and infuriating all at the same time.  Interesting: What happens if the head of the DOJ is found in contempt (probably not much)?  Hilarious: Obama asserting a privilege over documents he’s never seen, and that obviously contain some juicy info. concerning a bone-headed, Obama Administration program, won’t help him any with independent voters.  Infuriating: That none of the records are actually privileged; that nothing significant will happen to Holder (or Barry); and that we’ll never actually find out anything of substance about how everybody, from Holder to Obama, knew about Fast and Furious, since no one will actually challenge the asserted privilege in court…despite the fact that we, as taxpayers, own every single piece of paper they’re all arguing about in the first place!

At the end of the day, however, this is just one more entry in what will go down as one of, if not the, most corrupt administrations this country has ever seen.  So I guess we have that going for us.

President to help middle class by paying them in fairness. Middle class not sure if it constitutes legal tender.

April 10, 2012 1 comment

Not that Buffett

Every now and then, an issue comes up that allows me to truly gauge the intelligence of the American people.  Well, I’m excited to report that such an issue has arisen: the Buffett Rule.  No, we’re not talking about my personal hero Jimmy Buffett; he’s too drunk to be paying attention.  I’m talking about that annoying old man Warren Buffett, who has allowed his inability to satisfy his secretary sexually financially to quickly absorb as much of my talk radio time as Jesse Jackson and his merry band of hoodie-wearers.  In case you didn’t know, Mr. Buffett, a man worth billions, has made it part of his bucket list to complain about how he pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.  This has caused many to offer him the practical option of simply paying more in taxes if he’d prefer.  In fact, he can even pay my taxes while he’s at it. Not surprisingly, the idea of a rich guy asking the feds to take more of his money is something the lefties can’t ignore; especially when all of their other economic plans have been as successful as a one-armed man rowing his boat in a straight line.  So, instead of making an effort to propose an actual budget that could get a single vote in the House of Representatives, our little dictator in chief has asked the Senate to vote on the “Buffett Rule.”

Mr Obama is promoting the ‘Buffett rule’, which would set a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the income of millionaires, as he attempts to establish a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger and a former private equity executive.

You may be asking why I’m using the Buffett Rule as a barometer of American intelligence.  Well, the last time I looked, a majority of Americans supports the proposition of “making the rich pay their fair share,” even if they can’t tell you what “fair” means.  To put it simply: if anyone is in favor of this proposition, then they obviously sustained severe brain damage.  And to support this point, I’m not even going to make reference to the fact that, while the top two percent already pays a disproportionate share of the total federal income taxes, half of this country doesn’t pay any.

No.  I’m going to focus on a lie that is so blatantly obvious that someone would need to be comatose not to catch it.  What’s the lie, you ask?

Still, throughout his speech, the message was clear: In 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrats are in favor of ‘fairness,’ of having those Americans who can afford to do so pay a bit more in taxes so that the rest of the country can thrive.

How is taking more money from the top 1% going to help the country “thrive?”  It’s a proven fact that the extra money won’t put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the national debt.  And it isn’t like we have a president who seems to care about deficits.  The implied argument being made here is that the middle class will somehow be helped by taxing the rich more.  How?  Well, notably absent from Barry’s plan is a tax cut for the middle class.  And it’s not like the extra money being extracted from the rich is going to be sent to the middle class.  So, how is this plan helping anyone?  That’s right, it’s not.  The Buffett Rule is a political stunt that the president hopes will distract everyone from the fact that his presidency has been less then stellar.

So, are you going to fall for this asshattery?  Of course not.  You’re one of my readers.  But your mom may not be.  So feel free to poke her with a sharp pin to make sure she responds to painful stimuli before giving her a summary of the foregoing.

Our little dictator lobs one over the bow of the Supreme Court. **UPDATE: Now with proof of my genius from the Fifth Circuit**

April 3, 2012 4 comments

Lest you forget, oral arguments concerning Obamacare were had last week in the Supreme Court.  At stake: the individual mandate, and potentially the whole friggin’ law.  Despite the assertions of the legal geniuses residing in their ivory tower law schools, the Supremes didn’t seem convinced that forcing every American to purchase a product constituted “regulation of economic activity.”  In fact, at least five, and possibly six, of the Justices seemed skeptical about whether inactivity was the type of activity that could be regulated.  After the hearings were completed, everyone proceeded to overreact.

The most over-the-top, and predictable, overreaction came from the president yesterday.  In a speech delivered with the heads of Mexico and Canada(?), Barry proceeded to threaten the Supreme Court, just in case they were stupid enough to go against the family.

‘Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ Obama said.

I’m not sure overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented.  The last time I looked, the Constitution considers the Supreme Court to be  equal to Congress.  Moreover, the job of the Court has, for a few centuries, been to review legislation passed by Congress for its constitutionality.  In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned laws passed by Congress before.  Thus, doing so here would not be “unprecedented.”  Also, being that the Democrats had to bribe some of their own members in the Senate to get the thing passed in the first place, I’d hardly call Obamacare legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (not that the number of “yes” votes matters to a law’s constitutionality).

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the ‘unelected’ Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

I agree.  Activist judges suck.  But overturning Obamacare because the mandate is an unprecedented overreach of the federal government wouldn’t constitute “activism.”  In other words, deciding that forcing an American citizen to buy something doesn’t constitute “regulating interstate commerce” isn’t exactly crazy.  In fact, as I eluded to earlier, the only way the mandate could be upheld is if the Court decides “regulate” and “activity” actually mean the exact opposite.  Don’t get me wrong…it wouldn’t shock me if the Court performed such a manipulation of the English language, but its choosing not to do so certainly wouldn’t constitute radical activism.

‘I think it’s important…to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,’ Obama said.

‘The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

‘There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.’

In a courtroom, the foregoing is what’s called “irrelevant.”  I’m sure my life would be much more enjoyable if Congress passed a law requiring me to buy a helicopter, and then provided me the money if I couldn’t afford it; but the satisfaction of laughing at the losers stuck in traffic while I sip champagne in my underwear doesn’t make it constitutional.

It should be noted that Barry’s rant against the Supreme Court is just another example of his dictatorial dreams.  Who can forget the fits he still throws when Congress doesn’t give him what he wants?  And just as he has done in response to Congress’s alleged “failure to act,” (giving unelected agencies like the EPA and FDA truly unprecedented power, for example), I’m predicting Barry tries to do something extreme if the Court overturns Obamacare.  Packing the Courts, a la FDR?  Something else?  We’ll have to wait and see.

**UPDATE**

The Fifth Circuit today, while hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare, revealed that it reads this very blog as part of its preparation for important oral arguments.

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Obviously a Fifth Circuit judge isn’t going to go on the record saying he or she relies upon a blog to provide pertinent legal background, but it’s obvious, right?  Didn’t I already point out that the Supreme Court has stricken unconstitutional legislation before?  Who else can provide this kind of legal research?  The president himself isn’t even aware, and he used to be a law professor!

Obvious questions remain: Will the Justice Department respond?  Will Eric Holder find the time between running guns to Mexico and racially profiling nuns (I made up the latter)?  Will Barry write the letter himself, in purple crayon (the most diverse color)?  WILL THIS BLOG FINALLY GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES?

%d bloggers like this: