The next weeks and months could determine President Obama's legacy.
The United States Department of Labor has stumbled upon a secret: Construction jobs are good. And as part of a never-ending quest to create equality in the workplace, a senior civil rights adviser with the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has penned an instructive article with this fact as its launch point.
In fact, the opening paragraphs should be required reading for every single member of the Obama administration, especially those deciding whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canada border.
Whether the pipeline will create 5,000-6,000 construction jobs as the State Department estimates, or as few as 2,000 as President Obama opined recently, it can’t be denied that creating thousands of construction jobs can only be good for both individual families and the economy as a whole.
Obama the demagogue: Obama is a speechifier and his recent talk has descended into demagoguery. He does not know how to do practical things and neither does the State Department.
America has been a curse abroad since Clinton’s Oslo Accords. Now there is nothing left but speechifying. In the last few weeks, Obama pitted black against white and poor against rich, hoping to bond the middle class with the poor in opposition to the “working rich.” This is the tradition of Trotsky and Malcolm X.
He thoroughly misunderstands Roosevelt as being in this demagogic tradition. But Roosevelt knew what it would take to rebuild: war. Summer reading for Obama might be Human Smoke: The Beginnings of WW II, the End of Civilization by Nicholson Baker, a detailed day-by-day account of Roosevelt’s return to prosperity not by speeches but by returning to war. And where is Obama's buddy Bill Ayers when he needs a demagogue?
Israel rises: To understand Israel today look to two people: Israeli columnist Caroline Glick, who has a blog under her name, and Israeli radio commentator Tamar Yonah.
"If Trayvon Martin was of age and was armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?" "If the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we should examine those laws." So said President Obama on Friday in an unusual appearance at the White House press briefing room podium.
The answer is yes. If Trayvon Martin was legally armed, and if (and this part is pivotal) he had been attacked physically, he could have stood his ground, according to Florida law, regardless of his race. However, the president would have us all believe otherwise.
He artfully ignored the fact that the "stand your ground" defense was not utilized in the George Zimmerman defense. He not-so-artfully ignored the fact that like him, Zimmerman was mixed race. To suggest that a jury of six women also ignored those points is an insult to thinking Americans.
If the IRS Tea Party scandal is at all reminiscent of the Watergate debacle that brought down a president in 1974, we may have just discovered the latter-day G. Gordon Liddy, the man who oversaw the chain of events that led to Nixon’s resignation.
Who would that be? Well, a good guess would be William Wilkins, chief counsel to the Internal Revenue Service. More and more evidence is sucking his office into the maelstrom of the IRS/Tea Party scandal.
Let’s take a look at him.
You can either laugh or you can cry. But in case you have any doubts, this past week provided proof that the world has indeed gone mad.
I hate it when timelines don’t work.
Here is the latest timeline on the IRS conservative targeting scandal that initially supplanted the Benghazi scandal and has since been pushed from the news by the NSA-spying-on-all-of-us scandal.
Eric Holder Jr., then deputy and later acting attorney general in the second Clinton administration, was so stained by the pardon that his boss, Bill Clinton, issued to billionaire fugitive from American justice Marc Rich on Jan. 20, 2001 — the day Clinton handed over the White House to George W. Bush — that Holder told friends and reporters his public career was over.
There is an old joke about a retailer named Fink, who had a sign in his store window that read: "My name is Fink, and what do you think? I sell clothes for nothing." A customer picked up a suit and started to walk out when Fink stopped him and said he owed him $40 for the clothes. “But your sign said you sold things for nothing," the hapless customer replied. Fink said, "My sign asked, ‘What do you think? I sell clothes for nothing?’ It was all a question of emphasis.”
I think of this old joke as I ponder what happened at the IRS when someone decided to question whether groups seeking charitable status were truly charitable or in fact were political. There would be nothing wrong with IRS officials noting the use of 501(c)(4) status to advance political versus charitable purposes by some organizations and instructing employees to watch for this and assure that is not done. That would be their job.