Today’s Big Story: This Scandal Is Yuge!

Today’s Big Story involves a burgeoning DC scandal.

It is not a new story, but only now is it coming to light. And for one reason … it involves Democrats.

More specifically, it involves the Democrat National Committee, the former chairwoman of that committee and quite a few Democrat members of Congress. And though the Liberal Media Complex has done their best to ignore it … this story is now beyond ignoring.

For more details … click here and here.

A Nuclear Iran: A False Man’s False Choice

 

President Obama and his minions have busied themselves these past several days selling their nuclear deal with Iran, encouraging its public approval in the U.S. and abroad. They have made little effort to find support in the U.S. Congress, ironically the one place they ought to have first taken their bone-headed agreement – not a treaty, mind you, as that would require approval by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, something clearly not in the offing.

In a manner consistent with other of his purported accomplishments (such as ObamaCare and administrative overhauls of internet regulations and of U.S. immigration policy), Mr. Obama’s just completed executive agreement with Iran reeks of arrogance and partisanship and is, despite its significance, a contrivance. Thus, we see Mr. Obama and his supporters employ a false argument and a false choice to defend it.

Their choice: either we accept the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran or we go to war – our only viable options, according to Mr. Obama and his supporters. It reminds one of the argument that Mr. Obama’s economic policies, such as they are, saved America from a second Great Depression. The panache of such rhetoric is that it ultimately cannot be proved, and so ostensibly cannot be disproved. This is also the argument’s limitation. Undeniably, other options do exist.

Short of war, and aside from the one-sided terms that Mr. Obama’s team negotiated, there were separate diplomatic options and potential solutions (among them the economic sanctions that were so onerous on Iran’s economy as to bring them initially to the bargaining table, before Mr. Obama offered to remove said sanctions, on his way to giving away the store). Mr. Obama chose his own course, and this agreement, which he has negotiated so poorly, all but guarantees a nuclear Iran and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. By the time these things come to pass, as they sadly and mostly likely will, Mr. Obama will have sought another audaciously false argument, to place blame with someone other than himself.

For now, simply consider how many millions of Americans have lost access to their doctors and health insurance plans because of ObamaCare, despite President Obama’s unequivocal promise that such would not occur. Can we trust the same man’s assurances that the world is now a safer place because Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons – period?

What’s at Stake in ObamaCare Ruling

As the U.S. Supreme Court today listened to highly anticipated oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, one could read commentary on both sides of the issue, suggesting it would be a good or bad thing should the court “gut” ObamaCare when it rules on the case later this year.

According to the plain language of the ObamaCare statute, more formally known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), subsidies are available for certain health care plans purchased through exchanges established by one of the fifty states. The statute contains no provision for subsidies to be made available via federal health care exchanges. If the court interprets the ACA as written, it will rule in favor of the plaintiff and against the Obama administration. But regardless of how it rules, the court will in fact not be gutting ObamaCare.

If they rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case, the justices, far from gutting the statute, will simply be restoring one portion of its original wording, as passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Obama himself. ObamaCare may well be the single worst piece of legislation ever signed into law by a U.S. President, one that, among its many faults, allows for no federally provided subsidies; but that is a problem the Democrats hoisted on themselves, and sadly upon the American people. Still, this would provide an opportunity for the new Republican-controlled Congress to step in and propose solutions to the ongoing debacle that is ObamaCare.

If, on the other hand, the justices rule in favor of the Obama administration, they will legitimize a form of executive overreach whereby America’s current President, as well as future Presidents, can unilaterally make changes to duly passed legislation when they find laws as written to be either too inconvenient or politically inexpedient. The President would ultimately supplant congress as de facto author of legislation. About that our constitution is quite clear – the drafting and passage of legislation shall rest with the Congress, not the President. One is hard pressed to imagine a more fundamental transformation of our constitutional republic than what the Obama administration proposes in this case, or a more disconcerting one.

The Audacity of ‘Nope’

Fallout continues from the poorly calculated State of the Union Address that President Obama delivered last week. The general consensus seems to be that, on a number of fronts, the President has lost touch with reality. He took credit for things he had nothing to do with, such as increased domestic oil and gas production and falling gasoline prices. And he suggested a flailing U.S. foreign policy has made the world safer and more stable than it really is; here note Russia on the move in Ukraine, ISIS continuing its horrific advance, Iran ever closer to nuclear capability and consolidation of its regional dominance.

Another telling miscalculation was the tenor of Mr. Obama’s speech, one of petulance and desperation. After refusing to acknowledge that Republicans had just won a landslide electoral victory, Mr. Obama proceeded to lecture them about all the things he would not allow them to do with their new and newly enhanced legislative majorities, backing up his bluster with one veto threat after another. Mr. Obama is attempting to force Republicans into a defensive posture, hoping desperately that they’ll recalculate their priorities. One envisions Mr. Obama, in the non-stop campaign mode to which he has relegated himself, repeatedly spouting lines such as … Why do you keep sending me legislation you know I’m going to veto? Stop clogging up the works and send me something I can sign. Let’s get some work done for the American people … blah, blah, blah.

Unless he recalculates his own priorities, Mr. Obama’s reflex will be to oppose and chastise. He will ignore the fact that the party with a mandate from voters is not his own, but rather the one he purports to lecture. Rather audacious, this strategy of saying ‘Nope’ not only to congressional Republicans, but to the voters who sent them to Washington with a mandate – to stop Barack Obama in his tracks.