Ken Hoagland pens a great piece

I read a piece by Ken Hoagland at the Daily Caller today and wanted to share it, word for word. It speaks eloquently to the very core of American values and the political philosophy of the great Founding Fathers, from which it came. [Link]


Our Constitution is designed to allow citizens to both limit and empower their government. Citizens were given this power because the Founding Fathers were thoughtful scholars of history. They understood that, throughout history, concentrated power has always sought more power.

But the last seven years of the Obama administration has fundamentally changed the agreement between citizens and their government. Congress, the elected voice of citizens, was designed to share a co-equal role in governing. That is no longer true. The citizen’s role in defining our government has now been reduced to the popularity contest between candidates. The absence of any effective GOP remedy to this violation is the root cause of the fracture of the GOP.

Federal agencies now routinely refuse Congressional oversight and hide or distort reports on their activities and spending. The laws that define the duties, work and goals of agencies are now amended, exceeded or ignored without Congressional approval and without consequence. Rules that govern every aspect of American lives are adopted without public comment or by simply ignoring public opinions.

The media, when they even bother to pursue stories, is consistently misled. And, the Freedom of Information Act, as we’ve learned from the State Department and Hillary Clinton, is routinely frustrated or simply ignored. This has gone so far that for the “greater good” (to stop Trump) some journalists now astoundingly argue that erasing public documents is really no big deal.

The president’s National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, felt so comfortable with lying to reporters and editors that he later crowed about it as did ObamaCare architect Johnathan Gruber who bragged about the value of misleading a “stupid” populace (and a complacent media). Years now go by while responsible media outlets petition our courts to enforce unambiguous laws that require disclosure to the public of what public servants are doing.

The Constitution forces accommodation both between the branches of our government and often widely divergent views in the population. But in the name of “getting things done” Barack Obama has run over the Constitutional limits that require such accommodations. Even agreements with foreign nations that are pregnant with consequences like the Iran “deal” or release of terrorists from US custody are now beyond citizen input through their Members of Congress.

Indeed, even standing laws and normal practices have been ignored in the name of some greater good. One can’t help but conclude that FBI director James Comey traded away, “all equal before the law”, a bedrock American principle, so that the nation’s highest law enforcement agency would not interfere in the Presidential election. He granted participants in the investigated crimes immunity and “client-lawyer” protections that are never granted to lawyers who act in furtherance of the investigated crime. He then substituted “intent” for the “negligence” that is the central element of the violations of national security laws.

We risk all by easing or erasing the rules and laws that govern a civil society. When laws are ignored, when the people’s elected body is bypassed and when knowing lies from our highest officials are excused as justified (because of their popularity and and their goals) we risk never returning to standards of principle and virtue that over time maintain the fidelity of our national experiment.
Similarly, when the media that is essential to keeping the powerful honest decide that the stakes are so high that journalistic principles of fairness and even handed adversarial coverage should be abandoned we have thrown ourselves down a slippery slope that has no bottom.

Those who pay the price are those who have lost the power invested in them by our nation’s Founders—our citizens. Our fates will now be increasingly decided by those with greater and greater power. Their agenda’s will be beyond the reach of American citizens–exactly what the Founding Fathers feared.

The state of America, and the state of the world, is in a violent, bloody shambles.

Whatever each of us feels about the intentions, or politics, or policies, or grand designs, of Barack Obama, the results are in as he approaches the end of his two terms in office.

These days we hardly need paragraphs to characterize those results. Instead, a mere cut-and-paste of some headlines from today and the recent past will do just fine.

  1. “Report: Virtually Every Remaining ObamaCare Exchange Is On The Verge Of Total Collapse” <link>
  2. “Baton Rouge: Three US police officers shot dead” <link>
  3. “Sheriff Clarke: Obama is the most anti-cop president” <link>
  4. “Nice attack: At least 84 dead as truck rams into Bastille Day crowd in terrorist assault in French Riviera city” <link>
  5. “Dallas Police ‘Ambush’: 12 Officers Shot, 5 Killed During Protest” <link>
  6. “Dallas Sniper Suspect ‘Wanted to Kill White People,’ Police Chief Says After 5 Officers Are Gunned Down” <link>
  7. “$20 trillion man: National debt nearly doubles during Obama presidency” <link>
  8. “Iran conducts 4th missile test since signing nuke deal” <link>
  9. “Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force” <link>
  10. “US Military in Deep Decline as Threats Rise” <link>
  11. “Group of 7 seeks way forward for aging, faltering economies” <link>
  12. “Global central banks are running ‘out of ammo'” <link>

There are so many more available, of course, and all point towards the same colossal failures in nearly every area of our lives, at home and abroad.

On top of this partial list is the sustained weakening of our government institutions, including the State Department, which Hillary Clinton apparently used to curry favor with foreigners in exchange for cash donations to the Clinton Global Initiative, and the IRS, which the Obama administration used to harass political opponents, and other branches of government such as ICE, DHS, etc, which have been hamstrung or undermined.

Finally, there is the mockery by the Obama administration of the Rule of Law. A few years ago there was the Attorney General stonewalling Congress (successfully, as it turns out, despite being held in Contempt by Congress), and more recently there was his successor meeting with Bill Clinton just prior to the Hillary Clinton non-indictment, a sequence of events that even many Liberals see as the death knell of whatever shred of integrity our federal government had left under this president.

In summary, we are now living through the terrible results of bad and even destructive policies, yet also seeing our sacred institutions torn asunder, and the Rule of Law itself torn asunder.

The sad thing is that these things were all very easy to predict back in 2008, and again in 2012, and many people did make such predictions. And yet here we are.

It is always amusing when a Socialist objects to central control — a rare thing indeed.

And yet here is Bernie on the proposed Puerto Rico debt bailout bill currently up for a vote in Congress:

In a letter to Senate colleagues released Monday, Sanders rips the agreement to restructure the island’s $70 billion in debt…

In particular, Sanders takes issue with a new oversight board created under the legislation to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances because the majority of the seven-member panel…The board will have expansive power over Puerto Rico’s economy. <Politico.com, link>

And now for Bernie’s strong statement against central control:

In my view, we must never give an unelected control board the power to make life and death decisions for the people of Puerto Rico without any meaningful input from them at all.

That’s right, Bernie! Welcome to the side of liberty, where have you been?

It is refreshing to see a candidate for president vigorously opposing a powerful, unelected Board whose members are appointed by Washington officials (Democrats and Republicans each get Board seats that would control Puerto Rico).

But, Bernie, I ask you: did you oppose the IPAB inside of Obamacare?

Do you remember Barack Obama’s IPAB?

As I wrote in 2012, the Affordable Care Act includes something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member board that is appointed by the president. Its stated goal is to control Medicare spending. How will it do that? From Cato.org, my emphasis added:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the Houseand the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court<Cato.org, link >

This is fascism (or socialism, if you prefer): a 15-member panel, unelected, makes decisions that automatically become law and control the amount of care Americans will receive.

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

As of this writing, the IPAB remains a part of Obamacare. It’s still in there, though some Democrats have since come to their senses and urged for repeal of it (link).

So I ask you, Bern baby Bern, where do you stand on the draconian, Barack Obama IPAB?



Donald Trump has upended the Republican party — some say destroyed it, though that’s over-stating the case — by running an anti-establishment campaign in the primaries. By winning so many primary contests (in so many states), he has proven that his messages resonate with a large population of the American people.

Many fail to notice how many primaries allow open voting (i.e., Democrats and vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa), and also fail to notice how many Democrats support Trump.

This is why Trump can win it all (whether you like him or hate him): he transcends both parties.

Here is a comment from last night’s West Virginia voting in the Democrat primary, which Bernie Sanders won big (emphasis added):

Given a choice between Trump and Clinton, one third of West Virginia Democrats said they would vote Trump, and another 20 percent said they wouldn’t vote at all. <ABC News, link>

One third of Democrats would vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton…

On top of this, Trump is no Mitt Romney. As we recall, painfully, Mitt Romney was afraid to sling the political mud against Barack Obama, even as Obama was ripping him to pieces in every way possible.

As for Trump, we already have been shown a taste of what Hillary is going to face:

Hillary has bad judgment!

A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on


Certain news stories are guaranteed to appear in the Liberal mainstream media. One of those is the fiction that “…deficits have gone down during Obama’s tenure…”.

National Debt under Obama


Never mind that the national debt has increased from $10 trillion when George Bush left office to over $19.2 trillion right now — we are still subjected to this kind of blatant propaganda / Lies (emphasis added):

But Americans just don’t get his economic achievements, he [Obama] insisted to the New York Times Magazine last month.

“If you ask the average person on the streets, ‘Have deficits gone down or up under Obama?’ Probably 70% would say they’ve gone up,” Obama said “with some justifiable exasperation,” according to the magazine, because the deficit has declined during his presidency. <Los Angeles Times, link>

The deficit has declined? Obama wants credit for reducing the deficit?

I don’t see a year of decline in the above chart, do you?

Of course not, and Americans know this even in a general sense:

Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe the opposite to be true, setting up a challenge for the White House truth-squadding campaign.

Ha ha, “setting up a challenge for the White house….” What challenge is that, convincing people that Up is really Down?

Not only have we had huge deficits in each year, the total debt at this point is bigger than the entire U.S. economy.

Debt Clock 2016

For shame.


I was shocked, for just a brief moment, when I read that the Koch brothers were possibly intending to vote for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, over Donald Trump, in the general election assuming both of them win the nomination of their respective parties.

Oil tycoon and conservative mega-donor Charles Koch had kind words for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in an interview Sunday, saying there was an outside chance he could support her in November. <CNN, link>

But then I quickly realized that mega-wealthy donors to national politicians need candidates whom they can influence, and Donald Trump does not fit the bill (nor does Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side).

Hillary Clinton, however, does fit the bill.  Oh, how she has been bought by powerful interests, hundreds of times over, and the Koch brothers prefer someone like her to Trump, who does not appear to be “Buy-able”.

First, there are Hillary’s Wall Street and other speaking fees, which total $153 million (emphasis added:)

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. <CNN, link>

When Bernie Sanders and his supporters call her out for being in the pocket of the big banks, he has good reason to do so.

She is owned by them, and everybody knows it.

Check out this amazing photo from 2014 of Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman, Sachs, and his candidate, Hillary Clinton.  I was going to add some fun labels to this photo, but then I thought “Why ruin such a perfect indictment of who Hillary Clinton is?”.

That smile. That smirk.

Blankfein and Hillary

Here is a nice quote from Bernie, who tells it like it is and is beloved my millions of Democrats as a result (CNN, link):

What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests

Bernie knows what we all know — that Hillary Clinton is a big liar when she claims to be “fighting for the people”.Clintonocchio

Second, we have more millions — actually, BILLIONS, of dollars donated by foreigners to the Clinton Global Initiative, her private “good works” entity that cynics might say serves a dual purpose: it allows foreigners to contribute to a presidential candidate, something that is illegal in the United States.

The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001. <Washington Post, link>

How much was that?

Two Billion dollars.

Is Hillary above accepting millions from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State — a clear conflict of interest?

No, not at all:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

She is owned by them, and everybody knows it.

So the Koch brothers, those very same Republican rich guys whom Liberals love to hate, are now on record supporting Hillary Clinton, and why shouldn’t they when Donald Trump as president would scare them to their very bones by being a president who doesn’t need and doesn’t want their money.

Which is why many Bernie supporters will either sit out the election if Hillary gets the nomination, or will vote for Trump (and not tell anyone for fear of being shamed).

In either case, the Republican wins.

What a great piece today written by Marc Theissen in the Washington Post.

Here is the opening few paragraphs:

Historian David Maraniss notes, in Sunday’s Post, that President Obama came to office with the goal of changing “the trajectory of America” and leaving “a legacy as a president of consequence, the liberal counter to [Ronald] Reagan.” 

On the foreign-policy front, he is the anti-Reagan for certain. Reagan defeated Soviet communism and left us a safer world; Obama presided over the rise and metastasis of the Islamic State and left us a far more dangerous one. 

Domestically, Ronald Reagan told the American people: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ” Obama wanted to convince Americans that they were not terrifying. And the way he was going to do it was through the only great liberal legislative achievement of his presidency: Obamacare. 

He failed. Even before he leaves office, Obamacare has begun unraveling.

Read the rest here [link]

The Obamacare death star is one of history’s great examples of a massive government program that was sold by a messianic leader using lie after lie after lie and then, once implemented, revealed the truth of the most ugly predictions made about the program when it was wrangled through Congress.

Obamacare was never defensible, though many tried to argue it was, and is certainly not defensible now. Thought there are a few holdouts who still claim that the ACA is a “success” on this or that level, they are increasingly isolated and looking increasingly foolish as Obamacare co-ops continue to fail and disappear and large private insurers back out of exchanges.

It was always a ponzi scheme, and here we are.

Obamacare Hindenburg