RUTHFULLY YOURS

Monday, in National Journal, Ron Fournier considered President Obama’s odd scheduling choices over the last several days. Why, Fournier asks, did the White House see a game of pool as more presidential than crisis management? Fournier then ventured an answer:

[Obama] and his advisers are so certain about their moral and political standing that they believe it’s enough to make a declaration. If we say it, the public should believe it.

Indeed. But this dysfunction is not only due to arrogance. Ultimately, it’s a symptom of the administration’s strategic incompetence. Since January 2009, administration officials have never wavered in their belief that Obama’s rhetoric is a portal to policy utopia. If only, they assert, Obama would speak more, his agenda would come to fruition.

It’s easy to understand their assumption. Many of Obama’s White House staffers are inside-the-bubble warriors who served in the 2008 rapture-like presidential campaign and who helped haul Obamacare to legislative victory (if not popular support). These insiders are the Obama dream, and his “change” is one they will always believe in. Their self-righteousness feeds what I call the Obama matrix.

Correspondingly, White House officials simply can’t understand that many Americans have escaped the matrix and shut their ears to the standard Obamaite spin. Most damaging, these officials don’t seem to realize that rhetoric detached from action is the opposite of persuasive. And Obama’s failure of leadership isn’t limited to any particular issue. Just speak to congressional staffers. In public, Democrats will praise the president’s initiatives and Republicans will criticize him. In private, Republicans will still criticize Obama, but they’ll also offer possibilities for compromise. But what’s most interesting is what Democrats say behind closed doors (or in bars). Their typical complaint? Outreach from the White House is pathetic.

This has been a long-brewing problem for the president, and it’s fostered much rancor in D.C. Take John McCain’s disdain for the administration. In a 2012 interview with the Hill’s Alexander Bolton, McCain explained the alienating effect of Obama’s photo-op-style approach. “Let’s get real here,” McCain said. “There was never any outreach from President Obama or anyone in his administration to me.”

Were it only McCain, one might write off the complaint. But it isn’t just McCain. The Obama administration’s anti–charm offensive began in 2009, when the president withdrew without explanation the appointment of retired General Anthony Zinni as ambassador to Iraq. Obama has continued the pattern of snubs, keeping an unfriendly distance from Congress and even from his cabinet — in his memoir, former defense secretary Bob Gates provides a litany of examples of the Obama White House’s paranoia toward Pentagon personnel.

Even as the nation celebrates the passage of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, some liberals are using the occasion to bash Republicans as inheriting the legacy of Jim Crow — ignoring the fact that a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

President Obama recently accused the GOP of waging an all-out assault on voting rights. Speaking to a group founded by Al Sharpton, that non-paragon of racial healing, Obama claimed: “The stark simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today. . . . This recent effort to restrict the vote has not been led by both parties. It’s been led by the Republican party.”

Leaving aside the fact that clear majorities of both African Americans and Hispanics support voter integrity measures such as showing voter ID at the polls, Obama is using incendiary rhetoric in an area where reasonable people can disagree.

The American Civil Rights Union, a conservative group that has filed suit in favor of voter-integrity measures, has had enough of such tactics. Its leaders include former attorney general Ed Meese and former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell. ACRU has just published a booklet on the real history of Jim Crow. Available for free at TheTruthAboutJimCrow.org, it sets the record straight on a hidden racial past that many Democrats would rather see swept under the carpet. While Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” is constantly referenced in the media as a tool to attract white voters, less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson’s segregation of the entire federal civil service; FDR’s appointment of a member of the KKK to the Supreme Court; John F. Kennedy’s apathy toward civil-rights legislation; and the rise of Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, to the post of Democratic leader in the Senate in the 1980s.

Is it fair to remind people of the awful historical antecedents that can lurk within a political party? The study quotes author Bruce Bartlett as asking, “If the Republican party is to bear responsibility for Joe McCarthy through all time, why doesn’t the Democratic party have to bear responsibility for a century of racist leaders?”

The majority of the ACRU study focuses on the horror of Jim Crow, which at its core was a system of state-enforced laws that relegated blacks to inferior status. When police enforcement wasn’t enough, lynchings were used to keep Jim Crow in place. At least 3,500 blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years, and people were murdered right up through the mid 1960s.

It was a really nice try.

Heritage Action (the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation) invited Senator Elizabeth Warren to speak at an event dedicated to phasing out the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im, as it’s known inside the Beltway, has become a favorite target of populist forces on right.

The Ex-Im gives U.S. taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the foreign customers of giant U.S. corporations that don’t need the help. It socializes the risk while privatizing the profits. Basically, it’s free money for big businesses like GE, Caterpillar, and particularly Boeing (hence the outfit’s nickname, “the Bank of Boeing”). Even Barack Obama, shortly before he became president, derided Ex-Im as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

Ex-Im is up for reauthorization in September. Not surprisingly, both the people who get free money and the people who enjoy giving out money that doesn’t belong to them would like to continue doing so.

Since Warren is the dashboard saint of left-wing populism these days, denouncing big business and Wall Street at every turn, the puckish policy pixies at Heritage Action thought they could enlist her in their cause. As first reported by Bloomberg News, Heritage sent Warren a letter asking her to speak against Ex-Im “and the political favoritism it engenders.”

“We, like you, are frustrated with a political economy that benefits well-connected elites at the expense of all Americans,” Michael Needham, the head of Heritage Action, wrote. “Your presence will send a clear signal that you are going to fight the most pressing example of corporate welfare and cronyism pending before Congress right now.”

Warren didn’t take the bait. Her spokeswoman told Bloomberg, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations.”

Warren’s decision to turn down the invitation sparked numerous charges of hypocrisy from Ex-Im opponents. As one writer for Reason magazine put it, “That’s right: The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.”

It is not hard to tell what kind of persons penned the University of Chicago’s “abguide,” given passages like this:

*While this guide may refer to “women” when discussing study results or use female pronouns in some instances, we recognize that individuals seeking pregnancy counseling or abortion may not identify as women. We encourage readers to keep this in mind and provide sensitive counseling and care.

Abguide.uchicago.edu is the University of Chicago’s online abortion guide, “Accessing Abortion in Illinois: A Guide for Health Care and Social Service Providers,” and the above sentences appear on the homepage, presumably to prevent visitors from journeying further into the site still clinging to a binary view of gender. Created by the university’s Section of Family Planning & Contraceptive Research and its (deep breath) Center for Interdisciplinary Inquiry and Innovation in Sexual and Reproductive Health, or Ci3, the abguide is a narrowly tailored resource: Only those determined to counsel women not to seek an alternative to terminating their pregnancy need peruse.

The site contains a predictable conglomeration of reassuring abortion statistics, warnings against crisis-pregnancy centers, and paeans to the importance of value-free pregnancy-option counseling. If, however, your values need “clarification,” you can access this handy worksheet developed by the National Abortion Federation.

All of this, the site announces on its homepage, “should be considered through a reproductive justice framework. . . . As described in one foundational document, the reproductive justice framework recognizes that ‘women’s ability to exercise self-determination — including in their reproductive lives — is impacted by power inequities inherent in our society’s institutions, environment, economics, and culture.’”

The foundational document in question is “A New Vision,” published in 2005 by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ). The “Reproductive Justice Movement” — yes, there’s a movement — “explor[es] and articulat[es] the intersection of racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism, and class oppression in women’s lives.” Because “reproductive oppression” is “both a tool and a result of systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, age and immigration status,” reproductive justice must “engage with issues such as sex trafficking, youth empowerment, family unification, educational justice, unsafe working conditions, domestic violence, discrimination of queer and transgendered communities, immigrant rights, environmental justice, and globalization.” The ACRJ casts a wide net.

A premature Gaza cease-fire would help Hamas.

Nations must be militarily strong and determined enough to ensure their own survival. Israelis have long understood this harsh reality of global politics, and it has never been clearer than this week as the world browbeats Israel and the terror group Hamas for a “cease-fire” in Gaza.

President Obama and John Kerry have adopted this ostensibly even-handed trope, and on Tuesday the European Union went further and deplored Israel and Hamas as if they were equal perpetrators. Hamas should stop its “criminal and unjustifiable acts,” the EU said, but it added that it was “particularly appalled” at the human cost of the Israel ground offensive. Particularly?

This all may be intended as fine impartiality, but the reality is that a cease-fire now would help Hamas. The terror group rejected Egypt’s offer of a cease-fire last week after Israel had accepted it, perhaps figuring that Israel wouldn’t risk a ground invasion. Or perhaps it wanted such an invasion figuring the world would condemn Israel for civilian casualties and Hamas would win the propaganda war.

In any case now that it has moved on the ground, Israel will lose if it stops before it achieves its main military objectives. This means blowing up the entire network of tunnels that Hamas uses to infiltrate into Israel and to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Egypt. It also means destroying the stockpiles of rockets and storage sites.

The Israelis are best positioned to judge their progress, and the U.S. should publicly support its military response in a war it didn’t start. This is what will bring the most rapid end to the violence.

We’ve seen what happened at the IRS when Democrats launched a political campaign to crack down on tax-exempt groups that don’t disclose their donors. A similar animus is now at work in the states, where two attorneys general are forcing 501(c) groups to disclose their donors if they want to raise money in those states.

In New York, tax-exempt groups must apply for a license to solicit contributions, a process that has traditionally required the submission of their public IRS form 990. But Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has begun demanding that nonprofits also file their confidential list of donors found on IRS form “Schedule B.” The AG from Occupy Wall Street says a failure to do so makes an application “deficient” and exposes a group to fines or ban for violating the state’s law against unregistered solicitation.

Under New York’s Administrative Procedure Act, a change like this must go through a period of public comment, but Mr. Schneiderman acted by unilateral fiat. In May the 501(c)(4) Citizens United sued on grounds that the AG’s diktat violates its First Amendment and due process rights by imposing a rule without consultation or notice. The suit is pending in federal court.

Mr. Schneiderman says the information will be kept confidential, but New York state law has a robust bias in favor of freedom of information. How long before one of the AG’s liberal allies petitions the government to produce those files? The IRS recently paid $50,000 to settle a suit over the leak of donor information from the National Organization for Marriage to its political adversaries at the Human Rights Campaign.

In California, meanwhile, the Center for Competitive Politics is challenging the Golden State’s requirement that the group must cough up its donors if it wants a license to solicit contributions. The state says the power to seek donor information has been on the books for years, but the Center for Competitive Politics says the state’s demand this year is the first time the information had been required. This new arbitrary enforcement is happening amid the general liberal attack on conservative campaign donors.

California claims its wants disclosure to deter fraud, but state tax-law infringement doesn’t justify a rule that would cover donors nationwide. The Center for Competitive Politics is based in Virginia and draws donors from all over the country. The requirement means a Massachusetts contributor to a Virginia group would be disclosed to the California state AG.

The issue of Obamacare prominent in the 2014 elections….incumbents and challengers have, without some exceptions, listed it as one of their top priorities….the Dems defend it pretty tepidly- while most of the Republicans aim to amend or repeal….stay tuned….rsk

A pair of federal Appeals Court rulings have sown further confusion regarding ObamaCare, even as they illuminate stark differences in ideologically-inspired interpretations of the law. First, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Americans are not entitled to subsidies for their healthcare premiums if they live in a state where the federal government set up a healthcare exchange. Shortly thereafter, a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA unanimously determined exactly the opposite. The survival of ObamaCare may depend on which decision ultimately prevails.

Both rulings hinge on the wording of the statute. In order to entice the states to set up their own marketplaces, the law used clear language noting that premiums subsidies for low- and middle-income purchasers of health insurance would only be available on exchanges “established by the State.” Democrats and the Obama administration erroneously believed that the threat of withholding subsidies would force the states’ hands. When it didn’t, and only 14 states and the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges, the Obama administration employed an IRS rule to stretch the meaning of the law to include every state in the country, contending that Congress “meant” the law to work that way.

In Halbig v. Burwell (previously known as Halbig v. Sebelius) the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument. “Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” Dissenting Judge Harry Edwards, who characterized the case as a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” the healthcare bill, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”

If the ruling stands its effects would indeed be dramatic. The federal government’s HealthCare.gov website serves residents of the 36 states that refused to set up their own exchanges. In those states 86 percent, or approximately 4.7 million Americans, currently receive subsidies to offset the cost of their health insurance. Without those subsidies many enrollees will no longer be able to afford such coverage. And since those policies would no longer be “affordable” as defined by the healthcare bill, those affected will no longer be required to have health insurance this year, or pay a fine for lack of coverage next year.

The resultant exodus would more than likely produce a cascading effect of raising premiums for non-subsidized enrollees who remain on those plans. As a group those who remain are also likely be less healthy, which in turn could drive up premium costs even further.

As IDF troops were preparing to enter the Gaza Strip, with the goal of stopping incessant rocket fire on Israeli cities and neutralizing the threat caused by Hamas’ extensive tunnel infrastructure, Balad MK Haneen Zoabi penned an op-ed for the Hamas-affiliated felesteen news site imploring Palestinians to “besiege” the Jewish state (which she referred to throughout her article as ‘Israel,’ in quotations).

“‘Israel’ will in no way eliminate Hamas, the motives for the resistance or the motives for [pursuing] liberation,” she wrote. Zoabi justified Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians as a means to ending the “soft occupation” on the Strip.

In response, Hamas spokesman Husam Bardan praised Zoabi as a “Palestinian patriot worthy of the respect of our people.” He expressed hope that other Israeli-Arab politicians would follow her lead.

And indeed they have.

One day after the launch of Operation Protective Edge, MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) accused the IDF of “committing war crimes in Gaza, including blowing up houses and killing entire families intentionally.”

During the same Knesset plenum, his fellow MK Ibrahim Sarsour read aloud the names of Palestinians who had been “murdered by IDF soldiers,” a scene bearing an eerie resemblance to the Yad Vashem exhibit in which the names of those who perished in the Holocaust are recited.

Arab MK Masud Gnaim, also from Tibi’s party, accused Israel of perpetrating a “massacre” in the Strip.

These outbursts parallel the Israeli-Arab leadership’s collective response to the recent kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens.

Zoabi again was front and center, describing the abductors not as terrorists, but rather as beleaguered people “forced to use these means until Israel will wake up a little.” When pressed in an interview whether she was openly siding with the kidnappers, Zoabi responded: “I’m surprised you’re still walking around freely.”

She went so far as to endanger the life of her own relative, rejecting seventeen-year-old Mohammad Zoabi’s call for the three boys’ immediate release as “stupid” and “twisted.” (Mohammad subsequently received multiple death threats, necessitating a round-the-clock security detail.)

Secretary of State John Kerry – who was heard last Sunday on an open mike between Sunday TV appearances disparaging Israel’s efforts to limit civilian casualties in Gaza – arrived in Cairo on July 21st to frantically cobble together an immediate ceasefire. Seeking the help of Egypt and the United Nations, and even the Hamas-friendly countries of Turkey and Qatar, Kerry is looking for some kind of consensus by the major players in the region for a peace-at-any price formula. He is insisting on a premature ceasefire before Israel is able to find and destroy all the tunnels built under Palestinian civilians’ homes, schools and hospitals, which Hamas is using to hide its weapons and as bases from which to sneak its jihadists into Israel for the purpose of abducting or killing its citizens.

“The objective here is to get the fastest possible ceasefire. That doesn’t mean that it’s going to be fast, and it certainly doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy, but that’s the goal,” a senior US official travelling with Kerry was quoted by AFP as saying on condition of anonymity.

Kerry is even throwing in additional money for Gaza to help seal the deal. On top of the half a billion dollars that the Obama administration is continuing to send to the Palestinian “unity” government in which Hamas is a partner, Kerry has just offered a $47 million bribe in the form of so-called “humanitarian” aid for Gaza. Some of the $47 million would flow through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This is the very same agency which found at least twenty Hamas rockets in one of its schools and which is reported to have returned those rockets to the “local authorities.” In Gaza, the “local authorities” are presently the Hamas operatives who govern Gaza. Presumably, UNRWA will be sharing the Kerry-provided windfall with those same “local authorities.”

As usual, while the Obama administration is prepared to reward the Palestinians, it seeks to pressure Israel into agreeing to a short term peace that will simply buy Hamas more time to build up an even greater arsenal of deadly weapons. Before Kerry left on his latest jaunt to Cairo, he was heard on the open mike issuing a not-so-subtle warning to Israel not to try the Obama administration’s patience. “I hope they don’t think that’s an invitation to go do more,” apparently referring to the Obama administration’s rhetorical support for Israel’s right of self-defense. “That better be the warning to them.”

After arriving in Cairo, Kerry acknowledged Israel’s right to defend its citizens from Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks, but then added: “We are deeply concerned about the consequences.”

Elizabeth Warren was the star at the annual Netroots Nation conference in Detroit last week. Netroots Nation is the largest gathering of left wing activists, the Left’s answer to those on the extreme Right of the Republican Party. A kiss on the cheek by the Massachusetts squaw, after her talk, left a gay-rights activist “verklempt.” “I want to bottle her and take her everywhere,” said Debby Dingell. (As an aside and totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, Ms. Dingell, wife of retiring Congressman John Dingell, is running for the seat her husband is vacating after 59 years, and which his father occupied for twenty-two years before that. Perhaps, like 19th Century European royalty, a Dingell feels entitled to represent Michigan’s 15th District!)

Liars can be found in abundance in Washington. In fact, it may be that the ability to fabricate is woven into the fabric of a politician. But there are few you can tell whoppers with such aplomb, while exuding such innocence, as the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Standing before a crowd of adoring worshippers, as she did recently in Detroit, she shamelessly called out Republicans for “rigging” the system. Yet “rigging” is exactly what she did in securing her teaching job at Harvard Law School. She brazenly lied, claiming to be of Cherokee descent, in order to be considered a minority. And Harvard, arguably home of the nation’s finest law school, never bothered to investigate her claim. She lied to get to Harvard. She lied to secure her Senate seat. She is a student of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in political warfare – don’t debate your opponent; demonize the person, freeze the image, personalize the target in whatever slanderous way you choose and then polarize the pulverized individual to avoid any possibility of sympathy. History is replete with political leaders like Ms. Warren, but very few of them served in a democratic republic.

What is it about the illiberal left wing of the Democrat Party that likes people for what they symbolize, rather than for who they really are? Such attitudes mean we nominate and elect people with little understanding of their true underlying character. Barack Obama was elected President because he had great oratorical skills that allowed him to promise much, but neither the Press (other than some on the right wing), nor most people inquired into his background. His lack of experience in any leadership roles, or, for that matter, his very limited time in Washington was ignored. His associations with those like his minister Jeremiah Wright and mentors like Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Derrick Bell and Bill Ayers did not ring alarm bells. People saw the package, and not the contents. He was intelligent, articulate, good looking, and African American. Voting for him allowed people to feel sanctimonious, and cleansed from any deep-rooted tinge of racial prejudice they might previously have felt.