CHALLENGE
THE PREMISE

Newsmakers

ARCHIVE - FEBRUARY 2015

The Best of The Best

Who will be the
2016 candidates
for President of
the United States?


Republicans


SCOTT WALKER!

Walker has broad appeal to
GOP constituencies and is a
proven winner. Look for him
to select New Mexico
Governor Susanna Marinez
as his running mate.



Who, from among this
strong, diverse field , will
emerge victorious to return
the GOP to the White
House?

COMPETITORS
The road to the White House
leads past the Governor's
mansion. Marco Rubio, Rand
Paul and Ted Cruz need to
go back to their state capitals
and fill out their resumes.
Among governors, Jeb Bush
and Rick Perry are stale, and
worse, remind people of
GWB 43. John Kasich is
unappealing to the base.
Mike Pence is an intriguing
alternative to Walker; the
other Mike (Huckabee) is
NOT!

Democrats


ANDREW CUOMO!????

Look for Hillary to drop out
and open the way for Bill
Clinton's HUD Secretary.
Cuomo, also Cinton's
neighbor in Westchester
County, finished his 2014
re-election with $8.8 million
in the bank, and would have
no problem raising much,
much more. Look for him to
pick MA Senator Elizabeth
Warren - or even Hillary
Clinton! - as his running
mate.



Is Hillary a foregone
conclusion, or will
someone else swoop in and
steal the show?


COMPETITORS
A Clinton run is a 50/50
proposition at best, given
her failures as First Lady
(HIllaryCare) and SecState
(Reset). In the meantime the
prospect keeps her speaking
fees in the stratosphere, and
keeps a path open for the
Clinton's hand-picked
designee: Cuomo. Warren is
an instant contender if she
jumps in. Everyone else is an
also-ran at this point. Webb
is an interesting Presidential
candidate, but a non-starter
in the Primaries: this is the
extreme left Democratic
Party of Sanders and
Warren.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW USURPER

2015/02/19 - “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing”, a quotable quote attributed to the football coaching legend Vince Lombardi. Unfortunately, some people actually take it seriously. But, the fact is, there are many things more important than winning, and one of them is to protect the integrity of the game.

Consider this: would you really want your favorite baseball team to win Game 7 the World Series if you knew that the home plate umpire was being bribed to shape-shift the strike zone? Obviously, not just the game but the entire league implodes if it deteriorates into nothing better than a bidding war for the umpire’s sympathies. Then there is no more game, and no more winning, because you can’t win a game that isn’t played.

Notwithstanding Coach Lombardi’s wit, the integrity of the process is more important than winning, and when people can’t see that, it calls into question their judgement, even their character. They are what we call "cheaters".

Just like football, baseball, or any other sport, countries also have rule books that are a prerequisite for orderly function. In the United States, our rule book is the Constitution, and it is crucial for our elected officials conduct the Nation's affairs according to the rules, to adhere to the Constitution. It is more important than a policy victory. Violating the Constitution undermines the integrity of our institutions, our government, our country, our culture, our very selves.

And it is through this lens that we view the President's executive order. It is not a debate about immigration, it is a debate about the functioning of our Democracy. Irrespective of which policy outcome we might support, and seek to achieve, we must pursue our objectives within the constraints of the Constitution.

President Obama’s executive actions are clearly unconstitutional. He has said so himself. Twenty-two times, in fact, he has made comments like “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed”.

But after Obama issued his executive order on immigration back in November he said he "just took an action to change the law". According to our Constitution the President simply does not have the power to change a law. The legislative branch – Congress – legislates (passes law), and the executive branch – the President – executes (enforces laws). It’s very simple. And when a President usurps the power of Congress by changing laws, he becomes a tyrant.

So it was good and appropriate that Judge Andrew Hanen this week issued an injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security from proceeding with Obama’s changes to the law.

The judge pointed out that while the Administration does have some leeway in terms of prioritization and passivity of enforcement, and case-by-case prosecutorial discretion, not enforcing the law at all amounts to prosecutorial dereliction. Further, actively rewarding those illegally present with benefits such as social security, rather than deporting them, is the complete opposite of the intent of the law.

Obama tried to change the law, he even said so. And now a judge has said so too. And no, Obama does not have the power to change a law, he said that as well. Twenty-two times. And now a judge has said so too.

President Obama, this self-styled constitutional law professor, has had a bad record on challenges to his actions. For example, in NLRB v. Noel Canning, his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0, and thus all of that illegal board's decisions were also overturned.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out next Friday, February 27. The House has passed a bill to fund the Department through the remainder of the year, except for Obama’s unconstitutional changes to immigration law.

We are calling on the Senate to pass the House bill and send it to the President. We are calling on ALL Senate Democrats to vote with Senate Republicans, to support our Constitution, and defund the President’s usurpation of your Congressional power. If you will not stand up for yourself, how can we, the people, expect you to stand up for us?

We are calling on these six Senate Democrats and Independents by name, who have expressed objections to the President’s power grab, to stand up for our democracy, and vote with Senate Republicans to pass the House bill:
• Joe Donnelly, D – Indiana
• Heidi Heitkamp, D – North Dakota
• Claire McCaskill, D – Missouri
• Angus King, I – Maine
• Jon Tester, D – Montana
• Joe Manchin, D – West Virginia

To us, it seems obvious that Obama's executive order is illegal. We believe the debate should proceed through our legal system, and we believe that ultimately the Supreme Court will shoot down Obama's machinations. There is no way Congress should vote to use our taxes to fund this program until the Courts have come to complete and final resolution of it Constitutional basis.

Senators must vote to defund Obama's scheme, both to protect their Constitutional authority, and to protect taxpayers from illegal spending.



THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR ARMS UNDER OBAMA

2015/02/10 - The Obama Administration’s bumbling in Iran, and in Ukraine, have more in common than just the fingerprints of its namesake. The common thread is nuclear weapons, which, as we all know – but this Administration seems to have lost sight of – have the power to destroy humanity. Nuclear proliferation is not something to be trifled with, not something to be politicized.

Iran, of course, is developing a nuclear program, and is on a track from which it could join the nuclear club. Presently there are nine countries with nukes. North Korea is the most volatile of the nine, but the constant tension between Pakistan and India also keeps these two members in the forefront when modeling doomsday scenarios.

It would seem axiomatic that we would do anything practicable to reduce, or failing that, to limit the number of nuclear nations. Alas, as Commander-in-Chief of the greatest nation on the planet, and the leader of the free world, this solemn responsibility falls, unfortunately, on the feckless shoulders of Barack Obama. A vain man who, it seems, just wants a treaty named after him, irrespective of how good or bad that treaty is.

Instead of tightening the screws on the Iranians, providing every carrot to cancel and eliminate their program, and inflicting every stick if they continue, Obama, renowned as one of the worst negotiators in history, is obsessed with providing concessions and freebies – it is Obama, after all – and allowing them to go 99.9% of the way.

We have seen this before. North Korea is a miserable country ruled by a cruel despotic regime that perpetually torments its people. Ideally the regime should have been eliminated long ago and the two Koreas merged into a single free peaceful nation. Instead our leaders – our Chamberlains – allowed them to slow walk their way to nuclear weapons, and now they are a scourge that is a growing threat to world peace, indeed, world survival. And in the meantime, they use the threat of nuclear weapons to extort concessions from their peaceable neighbors. We can thank Bill Clinton for that (more on the Clintons later).

Iran is hardly better than North Korea. These two despicable regimes, along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, made up the "Axis of Evil", a classification that still holds true. Why Obama would allow Iran to proceed down the nuclear path, so they can play North Korea's odious games, is beyond any rationale.

Consider the billions of dollars in foreign aid that Pakistan receives from the United States. Does anyone doubt that their stock of nukes adds a zero to the end of the checks they receive courtesy of the American taxpayer? Why would anyone want Iran to obtain the leverage that the power to destroy civilization provides?

Now we have Obama capitulating to Iran the way Chamberlain did to the Nazis. Chamberlain’s folly did not end well, neither will Obama’s. Fortunately, we have someone coming to pay us a visit and explain the facts. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be addressing Congress on March 3. Maybe this will set the narrative passionately against Obama.

So what does Ukraine have to do with this? Ukraine was a nuclear power at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, In 1994, they agreed to de-nuclearize. The Budapest Memorandum, which the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation were signatories to, guaranteed the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. But Russia has flagrantly violated the agreement by annexing the Crimean Peninsula, and invading the mainland under the thinly-veiled ruse of an insurgency.

Yet we hear nothing about Crimea, as if the US and UK have given up, and have surrendered it to the Kremlin Kleptocrat. We do nothing to help Ukraine – OK, some MRE’s and blankets. That’s all our guarantee is worth? Some TV dinners? Many in Ukraine feel cheated and sold out, that if they had kept their nukes Russia would have been deterred from attacking.

And then there’s Libya. After the US bombardment of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear program in order to normalize relations with the United States. Then look what Clinton and Obama did to him. Does anyone think we would have bombed a nuclear Libya?

Libya paid the price for giving up its nukes, and now its Ukraine’s turn. North Korea has gained the benefits of going nuke, and now its Iran’s turn, apparently. This is the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama foreign policy doctrine in action. Appease your enemies, punish your allies.

The Obama Administration has made a total mess of nuclear non-proliferation. In Obama’s fantasy world in the twilight zone (as Pat Caddell put it) there is every incentive for countries to bulk up on nuclear weapons – if you have them, do NOT give them up like Ukraine foolishly did. And if you don’t have them, get them.

Someone on the world stage needs to school Barack Obama. We look forward to the visit to Congress from Benjamin Netanyahu.



Random Ramblings


February 27, 2015 - This week we were treated to The Great McConnell Cave-In of 2015. Actually, make that "of February 2015" - based on the spinelessness we saw this week, we can only fear that a McConnell collapse under minimal pressure will be the norm.

Senate Democrats - the minority party - successfully filibustered the passage of a DHS funding bill on the self-defeating grounds that it blocked spending on Obama's unconstitutional executive overreach.

Worse for McConnell, a number of Senate Dems were already on record as agreeing, as do we, that the Obama executive order is an affront to our system of government.

So the tail wags the dog. We are disappointed that Majority Leader McConnell was unable to protect the Constitution. We expect Democrats to ignore the Constitution. We had, perhaps naively, expected better from McConnell.




February 23, 2015 - In 2008 Senator Barack Obama availed himself of the opportunity presented by the Fourth of July holiday to disparage the patriotism of President George W. Bush.

Did Obama ever apologize? Of course not. So if a Democrat can question the patriotism of a Republican President, why can't a Republican question the patriotism of a Democrat President?

If this sounds to you like a rhetorical question, you would be wrong. The media issues gaffe-passes to all Democrats. There is a double standard - Obama can say such things about Bush, but Rudy Giuliani cannot say such things about Obama?

At Chalprem, we don't like questioning people's patriotism. It sounds off-key to hear it from commentators, but it sounds like nails on a chalkboard to hear it from someone like then-Senator Obama who was actively running for the highest office in the land.

This kerfuffle is nothing but a hypocritical liberal subterfuge to keep the spotlight off of President Obama's failures. Let's get back to business.



February 20, 2015 - Yesterday the New York Times headlines and photos screamed out about the sub-zero cold gripping the eastern half of the country. Today, same thing - cold weather.

Question: Why would this newspaper, obsessed as it is with man-made global warming, be hyping minor news that if anything only savages its own agenda?

Answer: Bait, to knock us off message. To change the subject. A subterfuge. To offer its philosophical opponents (like us) something else to talk about. Minor news. Because the major news is so bad for Clinton and Obama.

If the Times was the paper it claimed to be, then the foreign policy failings of the Clinton/Obama Doctrine (COD) in Ukraine and the Mideast, and Democrat Obama's idiotic extremism summit that concluded yesterday, would be the front pages headlines. Instead, it's all about cold weather.

How different will the headlines be when Republican Scott Walker is elected President? We already know.



February 18, 2015 - The injunction granted against Obama's amnesty order by federal judge Andrew Hanen has interesting consequences.

A spending bill affectionately known as "Cromnibus" was passed in December that basically funded the federal government for the full year, except for the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding will run out next week.

And so the showdown over Obama's dodgy amnesty executive order is set - if a funding bill is not passed the Department goes off line. The judge's decision bolsters GOP arguments that in no way can DHS funding be used to support this illegal enterprise.

But the sensible funding bill passed by the House cannot get through the Senate without some Democrat support, so now all the pressure is on Senate Democrats to defy the President and pass the DHS spending bill that defunds executive amnesty.



February 17, 2015 - A federal judge in Texas, Andrew Hanen, has upheld a request by 26 states for an injunction to block President Obama's executive order that will ultimately reward illegal entrants with an easy path to citizenship.

Many believe that Obama's executive order exceeds his authority, that it stretches current immigration law beyond all recognition, effectively nullifying Congress and sabotaging the Constitution in the process.

Obama's dodgy order was set to take effect Wednesday. The injunction is temporary, allowing time for the plaintiffs to pursue their lawsuit against the order. The Administration has filed an appeal against the injunction in the US Court of Appeals.

The injunction sets the stage for the upcoming budget battle to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which administers immigration law. The department is funded only through February 27, and the House is attempting to cut off funding for Obama's dubious executive order.



February 12, 2015 - The curious case of Kayla Mueller, a case where we actually found ourselves agreeing with the President and his Administration.

Mueller was a 26-year-old from Arizona who got it into her head to go to Syria to help people, but, predictably, soon joined the ranks of those needing the very help she came to provide. Eventually she was killed. Predictably, it is Syria, after all.

While we commend her kindness, we are dismayed at her
irresponsible choices. Her decision placed an unnecessary, substantial and useless obligation on the American taxpayer, put the lives of our service personnel at risk, and compromised our government's position relative to Daesh.

And yet her family has the gall to blame the President and complain about the State Department's failure to negotiate her release. They should blame themselves for allowing their daughter to put us all in such a lose-lose predicament.



February 09, 2015 - Today's press conference held by Barack Obama and Angela Merkel was quite pathetic.

What exactly was the point? To publicly express to Putin that the West will not contest his geopolitical adventures? That we will not take a strong stand against Russia's flagrant violations of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum?

Besides, it is the United Kingdom's David Cameron, and not Merkel, that the President should have held the presser with. The UK and US, along with Russia, are the signatories of the Memorandum that, well, on paper, guarantees Ukraine's borders and sovereignty.

What was Merkel doing there? And where is Cameron hiding? And for that matter Bill Clinton, who signed the accord on behalf of the United States? And what makes Obama think he has the option to "think over" providing serious military assistance to Ukraine?

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, the list goes on and on, of allies who do not respect our dithering, blithering President. Can our President support our allies? Can he fulfill our commitments? Apparently not.



February 06, 2015 - Chris Christie and Rand Paul struggled this week with comments regarding measles and vaccinations.

The hubbub was unwarranted, of course. As always, at chalprem, we defend in individual rights, and we exhort individual responsibility. It's what we're
about.

Yes, people should step up to their responsibilities and get their vaccinations, and no, the government should not dictate measles shots.

Unfortunately so much of the nanny-state narrative advocated by the left today is that it is judgmental to expect people to be responsible, instead people should surrender their freedom and let government force them what to do.


Archives

© Copyright 2015 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.