“It does help but I think David is right; this is about Cruz much more than it is about Trump. And when he says it makes him a little cynical, I would have to say that that’s an understatement. It should make you very cynical.”
“I love the way Ted Cruz said ‘after searching his conscience.’ Whenever a politician says he is “searching his conscience,” you can assume it was a quick search of a very small space. I’m not saying anything personal about Cruz, but remember — he and Trump were the outsiders. And what was their calling card from the very beginning? “We don’t act like the Washington insiders. We don’t scratch each other’s back. We speak our conscience.”
“Well, it turns out in the end that they do what you’d expect of any other candidates, which is why — I mean, I don’t denounce them or deplore what they are doing here. This is business as usual. But weren’t they the candidates who were against the business as usual? Read the rest of this entry »
“You’ve heard by now, Hillary Clinton violated email rules. What? There’s email rules?”
At observer.com, writes:
…Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would have had no trouble accessing Ms. Clinton’s emails, particularly when they were unencrypted, as this column has explained in detail. Yet Hillary was more worried about the American public finding out about what she was up to via FOIA than what foreign spy services and hackers might see in her email.
What she was seeking to hide so ardently remains one of the big unanswered questions in EmailGate. Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation for financial misdeeds, specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation.
That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information….
…Even The Washington Post, hardly a member of the VRWC, has conceded that EmailGate is a certifiably big deal, and “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server.” Its editors went further, issuing a blistering statement castigating Ms. Clinton’s “inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” They minced no words: “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.”
Although Post editors were at pains to state that Ms. Clinton had not broken any laws with her gross negligence at Foggy Bottom, the issue remains open.
Not broken any laws? Really?
At Hot Air, Larry O’Connor writes:
Mark Levin blew apart the media narrative that Hillary Clinton “broke email rules” at the State Department.
Wednesday’s release of the State Department’s Inspector General emphasized Clinton’s violation of internal email policies, but Levin went right to the core of the matter explaining that these “policies” are in place because of federal law:
“You’ve heard by now, Hillary Clinton violated email rules. What? There’s email rules? Thats how Politico headlined their breaking story. ‘State Dept watchdog: Clinton violated email rules.’ No. She didn’t violate email rules, she violated federal law. ‘The State Department Inspector General concluded that hc didn’t comply with the agency’s policy on records.’ Guilty. GUILTY! She’s guilty of violating a federal law. It’s not just the State Department that comes up with these policies. These policies are put in plac to undergird the federal records act.”
Source: Hot Air
Michael Patrick Leahy writes: Conservative talkradio host Mark Levin made news Thursday when he addressed the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a “non-partisan membership association of state lawmakers,” and it wasn’t just because he reiterated his call for an Article V “Convention of the States” to propose new amendments to the Constitution.
On Thursday, Levin framed the Article V Convention of the States as the beginning of the process in which state legislators can reassert their constitutional power and become, in effect, the kind of check on the out-of-control federal government the framers expected the three branches of federal government they created in the Constitution would be on each other.
“Take your power back,” Levin told the enthusiastic crowd of state legislators from around the country.
Watch Levin’s entire speech here:
Critics who claim an Article V Convention could become a “Runaway Constitutional Convention” miss the point entirely, Levin said. Critics think such a convention would have no impact, as the federal government is ignoring the Constitution already and would have little reason to observe any amendments, subsequently ratified by the states, that emerged from the Convention of the States.
“So if you ask me what makes you think the federal government will follow amendments to the Constitution if it won’t follow the Constitution today, then you don’t understand this process,” Levin told the audience.
“By giving the state legislatures the ultimate say on major federal laws, on major federal regulations, on major Supreme Court decisions, should 3/5 of state legislatures act to override them within a two year period,” Levin said, ” it doesn’t much matter what Washington does or doesn’t. It matters what you do.”
“The goal is to limit the entrenchment of Washington’s ruling class,” he stated. Read the rest of this entry »
Memories of Futures Past
Kevin D. Williamson writes: Alex Seitz-Wald, the poor man’s Hendrik Hertzberg, has in the latest issue of National Journal heaved a Ciceronic sigh and declared that the Constitution “isn’t going to make it,” that it should be replaced by the wise men of our generation, who have “learned what works and what doesn’t.” This sort of essay is practically a genre unto itself. The print version of Mr. Seitz-Wald’s article is headlined “Get Me Rewrite,” as were the Boston Globe’s 2006 essay on the same subject, Lewis Lapham’s 1996 version in the New York Times Book Review, a 1999 San Francisco Chronicle version of the same piece, and a half-dozen other offerings, the main variation being the occasional presence of an exclamation point, as favored by the excitable Mr. Lapham.
Mr. Seitz-Wald’s is not the most intelligent of the selections, but it satisfactorily adheres to the conventions of the genre, which are: (1) the question-begging assertion that our federal government “isn’t working” because it stubbornly refuses to do such things as Mr. Seitz-Wald wishes it to do; (2) the conceit that we have at long last reached the stage in our social evolution at which we can best the work of the founding generation; (3) populist techno-fetishism, which since the first days of radio has been promising to unleash the forces of democracy against the arrayed lines of big business, malefactors of great wealth, vested interests, and the rest of that bunch.
This is mainly a progressive interest, though not exclusively so. Conservatives such as Mark Levin also are interested in making sweeping changes to our constitutional order, though Mr. Levin would work within that order, specifically through the amendment process, to achieve his version of a more perfect union. Mr. Seitz-Wald, on the other hand, writes admiringly of Arthur C. Clarke’s Imperial Earth and its fictitious political system, which “asks the public to choose leaders from a preselected pool of candidates who have been algorithmically chosen for leadership potential.” One suspects that the main attraction of that idea is the opportunity to write the word “algorithmically,” and Mr. Seitz-Wald all but squeals with delight as he considers the new possibilities offered by technological development: “These tools are still in their infancy, but scaled up they could change what democracy looks like in ways we’re only just beginning to imagine. At the extreme, we could theoretically have smartphone-enabled direct democracy, where the public could vote directly on legislation and where Congress would almost be irrelevant. At the same time, Lorelei Kelly of the New America Foundation and the Smart Congress project warns against ‘mob sourcing.’ One glance at what’s trending on the White House’s ‘We the People’ petition platform — e.g., ‘Investigate Jimmy Kimmel Kid’s Table Government Shutdown Show on ABC Network’ — confirms this. Instead, she says, we need something more like Rotten Tomatoes democracy. Unlike typical crowd sourcing, the movie-reviewing site privileges expertise and aggregates reviews for smarter results.” Note the loving use of California business-speak — “scaled up” for “improved,” etc. — and the general undertone of Silicon Valley envy. Read the rest of this entry »
On Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” on Fox News Channel on Monday, conservative talk show host Mark Levin reacted to the pushback from prominent Republicans not on board with using the continuing resolution process as an instrument to attack Obamacare, calling them “French Republicans” who “don’t have big victories.” [VIDEO]
“I have seen these French Republicans before,” Levin, the author of “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic“, said. “I have fought them my entire career. Anybody who served Ronald Reagan has fought them their entire career. Margaret Thatcher fought the equivalent of the same in Britain all these years. These are people who are quite happy with the status quo. They want to timidly play around on the fringes but they like big government. Look at the past administration, prior to Obama — the Bush administration. Several of his staffers, as a matter of fact, are commentators on Fox [News] … they’re all over the place, as a matter of fact.”
“They’re not really troubled by any of this,” he continued. “The fact of the matter is George W. Bush bloated the debt — the second-highest in American history but for Barack Obama. So the problem is the Gerald Ford, John McCain, Romney wing of the Republican Party has the mantle, but the grassroots wants nothing to do with them. The tea party came to be not just because of Barack Obama, but because of the last days of Bush, with TARP, with massive spending, with subsidizing GM and Chrysler and so forth. The people have had enough, and when these people — when these moderates and RINOs — say ‘we need to be smart,’ when is the last time they were smart?” Read the rest of this entry »