Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: George W. Bush

The President is Rapidly Becoming Irrelevant

This article first appeared at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, November 17, 2014:

Matthew Dowd, George W. Bush’s campaign strategist, saw it coming almost a month before the midterms, telling ABC News on September 15th that the president is “fast becoming irrelevant in Washington” and noting further that Obama was at precisely the same point George Bush was in 2005:

That point in time it was basically the beginning of the end of President Bush’s presidency.

 

I think the president [Obama] is a very big fan of history. He watched that go on with [Bush]. Unless the president changes his trajectory, he is on the road to irrelevancy.

He hasn’t, and he is. The Baltimore Sun used the “R” word (relevance) in its review of the demolition of the Democrats on November 4th:

Keep Reading…

Obama’s Poll Numbers Continue to Drop

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 17, 2014:

English: In January 2009, President of the Uni...

In January 2009, President of the United States of America, George W. Bush invited then President-Elect Barack Obama and former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter for a Meeting and Lunch at The White House.

With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, pollsters are coming out of the woodwork expressing their opinions on the outcome on November 4. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll, focusing on President Obama’s handling of the ISIS crisis and terrorism and foreign policy in general, shows him not only setting new personal lows, but lows never before recorded by the survey:

Keep Reading…

ATF: Guns are the Problem

This article first appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 24, 2014: 

English: New York, NY, September 14, 2001 -- N...

Initial hopes were that somehow the bad press that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (still known as ATF) has been receiving had caused the agency to pull back in its prosecution of criminal cases involving guns. But those hopes have faded.

Reports from Syracuse University showed that there were 6,791 such prosecutions recommended by the ATF in President George W. Bush’s last year (2008), while there were just 5,082 gun violation cases under Obama in 2013 — a decline of 25 percent. The all-time high occurred during the Bush administration in 2004, when 8,752 cases were brought by the Justice Department. And so far this year, prosecutions have declined even further, likely to end the year at fewer than 4,400, if the present trend continues.

On the surface this appears to contradict the president, who stated, following the Newtown massacre, “We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

The obvious incongruity between these numbers and public pronouncements by the anti-gun president was reflected by Robert Cottrol, professor at George Washington University: “We have this irony. The Obama administration, which is asking for more in the way of gun regulations … is actually prosecuting less of the gun laws already on the books.”

Many excuses were offered to explain the dichotomy — among them, budget cuts and bad press. This appeared to be reinforced by some ATF agents interviewed anonymously by the Washington Times, who said the agency had been burned by scandals such as Fast and Furious and an extensive report by USA Today on setting up fake stings to entrap potential criminals:

The current climate within ATF is: Let’s take a step back and not go after too many hard-hitting violent crime cases that use informants or undercover agents. We can’t just go it alone anymore….

We need buy-in from everybody: local law enforcement [and] other agencies. Then, and only then, [will we be] able to sell it [and have] the U.S. attorney come on board.

There was sequestration, which a spokesman for the ATF used to explain the apparent decline: “ATF faces key resources challenges in staff attrition …  resources are limited and difficult choices must be made with regard to priorities.”

The press has certainly been bad for the ATF. The “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal has become common knowledge in the United States, while the USA Today study is causing people to link “false stings” with the ATF as well. Back in June 2013, journalists at the paper invested hundreds of man-hours poring over thousands of pages of court records and agency files, not including hours of undercover recordings of sting operations that transcended the law. According to the paper, here’s how the ATF conjured stings to create arrests and convictions:

The stings work like this: When agents identify someone they suspect is ripping off drug dealers, they send in an undercover operative posing as a disgruntled courier or security guard to pitch the idea of stealing a shipment from his bosses. The potential score is almost always more than 5 kilograms of cocaine — enough drugs to fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars on the street, or to trigger sentences of 10 years or more in prison.

When the target shows up ready to commit the robbery, he and anyone else he brings with him are arrested and charged with a raft of federal crimes, the most serious of which is conspiring to sell the non-existent cocaine.

Upon conviction, the unsuspecting target could spend the next 25 years of his life in jail.

USA Today quoted a former ATF supervisor who asked rhetorically, “Do you want police to solve crimes, or do you want them to go out and prevent crimes that haven’t occurred yet?” Another ATF source defended the practice:

Are we supposed to wait for him to commit a murder before we target him as a bad guy? Are we going to sit back and say, well, this guy doesn’t have a bad record. OK, so you know, throw him back out there, let him kill somebody, then when he gets a bad record, then we’re going to put him in jail?

Judges have increasingly answered that question by calling such stings “disreputable,” “tawdry,” and bordering on entrapment.

A closer look at what the ATF is doing, however, shows a change in direction with undiminished enthusiasm. The focus now is not on the criminal and his crime, either present or future, but instead on the gun — who’s making it, shipping it, or buying it. For that, the ATF is using an obscure section of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) that allows the agency to go after violations perceived in the making, shipping, buying, and selling of firearms. The rules are tricky and often difficult to follow. Here’s a brief snippet:

No person shall make a firearm unless he has (a) filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, to make and register the firearm on the form prescribed by the Secretary; (b) paid any tax payable on the making and such payment is evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (c) identified the firearm to be made in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (d) identified himself in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; and (e) obtained the approval of the Secretary to make and register the firearm and the application form shows such approval. Applications shall be denied if the making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.

According to the Justice Department, just when prosecutions of criminals using guns has appeared to taper off, prosecutions under this obscure part of the NFA has increased an astounding 243 percent just in the last five years, and is up another 129 percent so far this year.

And then there’s the Hobbs Act, enacted in 1946, prohibiting the interstate shipment of property, including firearms, where there is any perception of illegality in the process. It is on track this year to become the third-most-prosecuted gun statute, compared to just a few years ago, according to the Times.

Robert Sanders, a former ATF assistant director, says the shift from criminals to guns is deliberate. “The agency’s philosophy has shifted to ‘guns are the problem and access to guns is the problem’ rather than the criminal being the direct instigator of crime.”

The ATF is not going away any time soon. It’s just morphing into a more efficient, effective, and frightening version of itself.

s email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Keep Reading…

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 27, 2014:

In Search of the Second Amendment

On Thursday, a federal judge upheld Colorado’s new gun-control laws that mandate background checks for all gun sales and limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger issued her 50-page ruling on the 2013 laws after a two-week civil trial in late March and early April in Denver.

The lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiffs including sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters, and shooting ranges. Krieger ruled last year that the sheriffs could not sue the state in their official capacities but they could join the lawsuit as private citizens.

In her ruling, Judge Krieger (who was appointed to the position in 2001 by then-President George W. Bush) made clear from the beginning that she wasn’t going to rule on whether or not the new laws made sense:

A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation. Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible….

The judge just only compares the public policy adopted by the legislature against the constitutional minimums that protect individual rights….

This Court will not express a qualitative opinion as to whether a law is “good” or “bad,” “wise” or “unwise,” “sound policy” or a “hastily-considered overreaction.”

After determining that most of the plaintiffs had standing to sue, she focused her attention on the impact that limiting magazine capacities would have on both criminal shooters and law-abiding citizens:

Plaintiffs argue that by limiting magazines to 15 rounds or less, this statute impairs an individual’s Second Amendment “right of self-defense.” Colorado reflexively responds that because people can still defend themselves, no Second Amendment right is impaired.

She then notes that the offending laws do not directly regulate firearms at all, but only the size of the magazines that feed them:

Because [the magazine limit law] regulates only the number of rounds in a magazine, it does not affect whether the semiautomatic firearm can be used, or even whether it can be used in a semiautomatic mode. It only affects how often it must be reloaded.

She said the scope of the law is universal but its impact is not severe enough to render it unconstitutional:

This ban applies to every person in Colorado, in every venue, and for every use, including self-defense inside and outside of the home.

It impacts a large number of semiautomatic firearms, both handguns and rifles. Viewed in this light, the scope of the statute is broad, and it touches the core of an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

But because its impact on that right is so minor, the judge said, she overlooked it as any kind of impediment to the government’s overriding interest in “public safety”:

Despite such broad scope, however, the statute’s impact on a person’s ability to keep and bear (use) firearms for the purpose of self-defense is not severe….

Thus, this statute does not prevent the people of Colorado from possessing semiautomatic weapons for self-defense, or from using those weapons as they are designed to function. The only limitation imposed is how frequently they must reload their weapons.

She decided that the “pause” (when a criminal shooter runs out of ammunition during an attack in order to reload gives his victims time to run away and hide while giving more time for armed officials to intervene) was a distinct advantage of the new law. She failed to mention that the alleged invented shooter in her scenario wasn’t likely to limit himself under the new law. Instead, she concentrated on how limiting magazines to 15 rounds would scarcely impact an honest citizen’s ability to defend himself: “No evidence presented here suggests that the general ability of a person to defend him or herself is seriously diminished if magazines are limited to 15 rounds.”

Besides, she wrote, most “incidents” involved criminals intending mayhem are resolved without any shots being fired:

First, the defensive purpose of firearms is often achieved without shots being fired whatsoever. Mr. [Massad] Ayoob [an expert witness called for the plaintiffs in the case] testified that, often, merely the defensive display of a firearm is sufficient to defuse the threat….

In these types of circumstances, a restriction on a magazine size in no way diminishes the ability of the firearm user to defend him or herself.

Therefore, wrote the judge, the modest infringement of a Second Amendment right is acceptable:

The Court finds that although [the law limiting magazines to 15 rounds] burdens the operation of semiautomatic weapons, the burden is not severe because it does not materially reduce the ability of a person to use a semiautomatic firearm for self-defense, not does it reduce the effectiveness of self-defensive efforts.

One wonders if our nation’s Founders would be impressed with the argument that infringements of the Second Amendment are allowed because they are modest.

Krieger made short work of another complaint, that background checks required in all private transactions are unconstitutional. She noted that the plaintiffs didn’t really make that argument at all, but instead focused on temporary transfers being hampered unnecessarily:

Plaintiffs do not argue that requiring background checks for the private sale of firearms is unconstitutional. Rather, they focus their challenge on the effect of the statute on temporary transfers [i.e., loans] when ownership of the firearm does not change.

But since the Second Amendment and other court rulings have failed to address the issue of such temporary transfers of a firearm from an owner to a borrower, therefore it doesn’t count:

It is not at all clear that the Second Amendment prevents the government from restricting the ability of persons to acquire firearms via temporary loans from others….

Logically, if the government can lawfully regulate the ability of persons to obtain firearms from commercial dealers, the same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial [private] transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

Upon learning of the decision, the plaintiffs had plenty to say about it. The Colorado State Shooting Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, called it “disappointing on many levels” and asserted that the ruling missed the whole point concerning the Second Amendment:

The significance of the Second Amendment as a core portion of the Bill of Rights and its importance has virtually no reference in the decision. Most noteworthy was the court’s focus on the important government interest at hand while ignoring the complete absence of support for [it] in the legislative record.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, a leader among the plaintiffs, added:

While we respect the judge’s ruling today, we believe that it is plainly wrong on the law and on the facts….

[The laws] are still unenforceable. And that is borne out in that there has not been one arrest on these two laws to date.

The ruling was not without its supporters, however. State Senator Mary Hodge, a Democrat from Thornton and a sponsor of the bills, remarked:

This is public safety. Having people have to pause to reload [during a mass shooting] saves lives. These school shooters, for the most part, did not know how to reload their weapons, so this limit on large-capacity magazines is good.

Eileen McCarron, head of the anti-gun Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund, said the lawsuit was a waste of time and money:

This was a politically motivated lawsuit that has been grasping at straws from day one. These laws are reasonable protections against gun violence that many states have adopted and have repeatedly passed the test of constitutionality.

And Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, whose office defended the laws, said he was just doing his job:

Like Judge Krieger, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has never asserted that the laws in question are good, wise or sound policy. As it does in all cases, the AG’s Office has fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the Colorado law[s] in question. The Attorney General’s Office fully expects the case to be appealed and looks forward to final resolution of the issues as soon as possible.

If left to stand upon appeal, Judge Krieger’s ruling illustrates just how our fundamental rights given by God and guaranteed by the Constitution are lost: an inch at a time. Krieger, in her ruling, failed to address the word “infringe,” which could have shed more light on the rights she was allowing to be compromised. “Infringe” means to violate, transgress, encroach, or trespass. The Latin root infringere means “to break” or “weaken.” In that light, the laws just ruled constitutional by her court remain unconstitutional after all.

One awaits the appeal with eager anticipation.

Please Log In To Comment

Keep Reading…

Jay Carney Resigns, Sets Record for Obfuscation

 

New White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's f...

New White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s first briefing (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

This article first appeared at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, June 2, 2014:

In an astonishing admission, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, after reviewing the Obama administration’s scandals, wrote:

The Obama presidency’s parade of miscues is jaw-dropping….

This president and his closest aides are the most negligent managers of the federal government in our lifetimes.

There’s the Fast and Furious scandal, the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the IRS attack on conservative groups, the ObamaCare disaster, and now the Veterans Affairs scandal. These, along with others, have made White Press Secretary Jay Carney’s life miserable.

He has been the media mouthpiece for the administration since February 2011, the same administration that is “committed” to “transparency.” Here’s what the president said following his inauguration in 2009:

Keep Reading…

Two Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions Grant Immunity to Police, Secret Service

Police Tape

Following the announcements on Monday of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions in two “qualified immunity” cases, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, expressed dismay:

Not a day goes by without reports of police officers overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and brutalizing, terrorizing and killing the citizenry. Indeed, the list of incidents in which unaccountable police abuse their power, betray their oath of office and leave taxpayers bruised, broken and/or killed grows longer and more tragic by the day to such an extent that Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

This lawlessness on the part of government officials, an unmistakable characteristic of a police state, is made possible in large part by the courts, which increasingly defer to law enforcement and prioritize security over civil liberties. In so doing, the government gives itself free rein to abuse the law, immune from reproach, and we are all the worse off for it.

A closer look at the two cases to which Whitehead refers, however, reveals

Keep Reading…

Media Hides Real Reasons NY Times’ Senior Editor was Fired

The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr

The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr (Photo credit: Thomas Hawk)

This article was first published at The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, May 16, 2014:

All was sweetness and light following the meeting on Wednesday afternoon when New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. pulled the plug on his Executive Editor, Jill Abramson:

I chose to appoint a new leader for our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom….

It is not about the quality of our journalism, which in my mind has never been better. Jill did an outstanding job in preserving and extending the level of excellence of our news report[ing] during her time as executive editor and, before that, as managing editor and Washington bureau chief. She’s an accomplished journalist who contributed mightily to our reputation as the world’s most important news provider.

Further, this is not about any disagreement over the direction of our digital future or any of the steps we have taken recently to create and launch new digital products and services. Jill and I agreed fundamentally about the need to embrace new platforms and new expressions of our journalism. She helped a great deal in moving the Times further into our digital future.

And Abramson responded in kind:

I’ve loved my run at the Times. I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much [outstanding] journalism.

If everything was so lovey-dovey, why was she canned? After all,

Keep Reading…

Senior Editor at New York Times Fired on Wednesday

IMG_5653

(Photo credit: US Department of Labor)

The only people caught by surprise at the sudden firing of Executive Editor Jill Abramson at the New York Times on Wednesday were those not paying attention. Back in January she infuriated the White House with her candid assessment of its restrictions and lack of transparency for reporters from the Times trying to vet various articles for the paper. She told Al Jazeera:

Keep Reading…

Faux Republican Conservative Ben Sasse wins in Nebraska

Nebraska, Our Nation's Capital

Nebraska, Our Nation’s Capital (Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)

The winner of the Nebraska Republican primary on Tuesday was Midland University President Ben Sasse, and Tea Partiers rejoiced. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, was delighted to learn of Sasse’s victory, exulting that he would add to the influence of other Tea Party favorites (i.e., Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) already in Washington:

They’ve got reinforcements coming in January. This is a win not just for Ben Sasse but for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.

She probably hadn’t read Dean Clancy’s musings on whether Sasse is the real deal, or not. Early in February, Clancy, Vice President for Public Policy at FreedomWorks, posted a blog entitled

Keep Reading…

IRS Revokes Tax-exempt Status from Patrick Henry Center

English: US Postage stamp, Credo issue of 1961...

US Postage stamp, Credo issue of 1961, 4c, famous quote by Patrick Henry (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, at last, Gary Aldrich is free to speak his mind on matters of great concern to him without having to worry about overstepping the bounds imposed on his First Amendment rights by the Internal Revenue Service. His Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty had its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code revoked, effective last July. The final determination letter was dated December 31 but just released to the media this week. It said:

Keep Reading…

Preliminary Polls Show Chances Improving for Repubicans to take back the Senate in November

Alan Abramowitz introducing former foster yout...

Alan Abramowitz (Photo credit: flguardian2)

Despite the elections being seven months away – a virtual lifetime in politics – pollsters are coming out of the woodwork to offer their statistical opinions on the outcome in November.  Most of them agree that control of the Senate, now firmly in Democrat hands, is

Keep Reading…

America’s Economic Freedom Slide Continues, says the Heritage Foundation

The latest Index of Economic Freedom released by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal shows just how successful the Bush and Obama administrations have been in their seeming attempts to turn the United States into a third world economy. The index shows

Keep Reading…

1.3 million Lose Federal Unemployment Benefits, Another 2 million to Follow

Because the budget deal signed into law last week didn’t extend federal unemployment benefits, some 1.3 million people won’t be getting their $1,166 monthly checks, starting in January. By June another 1.9 million will be cut off.

Keynesians are sputtering nonsense about the need to extend benefits. President Obama called it an

Keep Reading…

New York Times Touts New Study to Resolve Mental Health Conflict with the Second Amendment

The front page of Sunday’s New York Times led with “When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill”, a nearly 5,000-word essay by two journalists amping up the volume in the latest attack on the Second Amendment. The motive was clear from the beginning:

Keep Reading…

Charges that the GOP is Caving on the Shutdown Prove False as President Drops Further in Polls

Within days of the government shutdown pundits began to estimate just how long the hard-core Tea Party members in the House would maintain their stand against funding Obamacare. One even listed the names of eighteen members who were already “caving in” while noting another four

Keep Reading…

Lifting the Curtain on Booz Allen Hamilton and its owner, the Carlyle Group

According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton, have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. By the time top management at Booz Allen learned that one of their top-level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.

For years Carlyle had, according to WaPo,

Keep Reading…

National Taxpayers Union Finds Major Spending Shift in 112th Congress

The report from the National Taxpayers Union’s foundation, the NTUF, published on Tuesday, illustrates a massive shift in spending versus cutting that occurred during the 112th Congress from 2010 to 2012. If the trend continues in the current Congress and on into 2014 and beyond, the 112th Congress might just be the

Keep Reading…

The Changing Demographics of Election 2012

Voting 1

(Photo credit: Cle0patra)

On Sunday before Election Day, the Pew Research Center released its final prediction on the outcome of the election: President Obama would win, beating Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney, 50% to 47%. When all votes were tallied, Obama beat Romney, 50.6% to 47.8%.

Pew acknowledged that the president’s virtual takeover of the media in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy just before the election persuaded some who were undecided to vote for the president. According to Pew:

Obama’s handling of the storm’s aftermath may have contributed to his improved showing. Fully 69% of all likely voters approve of the way Obama is handling the storm’s impact.

Even a plurality of Romney supporters (46%) approve of Obama’s handling of the situation; more important, so too do 63% of swing voters.

In its final pre-election survey of 2,709 voters conducted from October 31 through November 3, Pew began to see how the electorate was moving. 39% of likely voters supported Obama strongly whereas just a third of them strongly supported Romney. Noted Pew: “In past elections…the candidate with the higher percentage of strong support has usually gone on to win the popular vote.”

Among women voters, Pew noted the most dramatic shift towards Obama, favoring him 53% to just 40% for Romney – a 13 point margin and a 6 point gain from just a week before.

Meanwhile, Pew noted that among voters age 65 and older, Romney’s support began to fade down the home stretch. Romney’s 19-point lead in Pew’s previous poll had declined to just 9 points in the latest one.

On Wednesday, November 7, Pew released its post-election analysis and noted that its prediction was

Keep Reading…

Another Obama Lie: “Trickle Down” Caused the Great Recession

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Jonah Goldberg does a pretty good job in neutralizing Obama’s claim that tax cuts and the free market caused the Great Recession. Obama refers to it incessantly:

“Now Gov. Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.” — President Obama, in an ad released Sept. 27.

As Goldberg notes, Obama uses it because it “resonates” with the voters – the ignoranti, I call them – who have not clue what he’s talking about, except that someone in the Romney camp is to blame.

Goldberg tries to explain why it’s a lie:

[Glenn Kessler, the “fact checker” at the Washington Post]  found that the Obama campaign has virtually no citations to back up the claim. The supporting material for the ad quoted above cites a single column by the Post’s liberal blogger, Ezra Klein, who told Kessler: “I am absolutely not saying the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence of that.”

So, surprise, surprise, the Obama campaign is telling a lie over and over again, because it “resonates,” not because

Keep Reading…

Obama Lost the Debate Because He Just “Showed Up”

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

This is a brutal yet accurate assessment of what happened at the debate: Obama was out of answers.

This was the first debate in which Obama has had a record to defend. In 2000, he ran for Congress in a primary race against [communist Black Panther] Bobby Rush and attacked the incumbent. In 2004, he ran successfully for the U.S. Senate, offering all sorts of promises — but never ran for re-election on their fulfillment.

In 2008, a blank-slate Obama ran for president and won by lumping in challenger John McCain with unpopular incumbent president George W. Bush — while offering [communist slogans] like “hope and change” and “yes, we can!”

Victor Davis Hanson is right on the button. When confronted with irrefutable facts, Obama folds like a cheap suit: 

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.