Internet Scofflaw

The New York Times reports that you can buy access to President Obama for $500k:

President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network. . .

Those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. . . Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.

Watch Jay Carney struggle to defend this, and ultimately give up and walk out:

What is hilarious — beyond his repeated efforts to change the subject, and his inability to make eye contact as he does it — is how transparently bogus his defense is. He tries to shuck this aside as the activities of an “independent group”, as if (1) Obama’s own campaign crew could be independent of the president, (2) a truly independent group would have even a prayer of becoming one of the nation’s top pressure groups overnight, or (3) the fact that they are selling access to the president — the very issue he’s being questioned about — doesn’t eviscerate any idea that they could be independent.

(Via Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Good point: OFA is so independent, they run Barack Obama’s Twitter account.

Nearly everything the Obama administration has said about the sequester has been a lie, so I guess this should be no surprise:

White House Report Claims Sequestration Will Affect Federal Department That No Longer Exists

(Previous post.) (Via Instapundit.)

The Washington Examiner reports:

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama’s. . .

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

The administration calls the memo “an unfinished review of gun violence research”. That’s because it’s never finished until it supports the president’s policy.

(Via Instapundit.)

New York City’s foolishness:

That ban on big sodas being pushed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is about to spoil family pizza night.

The ban on sodas over 16 ounces takes effect on March 12, and the New York Post reports it has some previously uncontemplated effects. For instance, ordering a 2-liter bottle of Coke, Pepsi, Sprite or whatever the family desires with a pizza delivery won’t be allowed. Even pitchers of soda at children’s birthday parties are going to be a no-no under Bloomberg’s far-reaching ban, according to the paper. . .

Customers will have to order smaller bottles, which cost more and increase plastic waste. It doesn’t seem to matter that the big bottles are typically meant to be shared – as are the pitchers of soda served up at kids’ pizza parties. . .

The ban will even take a toll on nightlife in the city that never sleeps. That’s because when clubgoers spring for a big bottle of booze, they expect to get the mixers thrown in. The typical carafe holds 32 ounces of soda, juice or tonic water. Under the ban, only water or pure juice will be allowed in containers measuring more than 16 ounces.

John Kerry discovers a new country: Kyrzakhstan. I’m looking forward to his upcoming visits to Egyprael and Colombuela.

(Via Instapundit.)

DHS steals a man’s boat because he refuses to commit perjury:

The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.

She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.

Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.

What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.

This man will probably get his boat back eventually, but it will cost him thousands in legal fees. However, under the doctrine of official immunity, the DHS agent who was too lazy to fix a form but was delighted to steal a man’s property won’t face any sanction whatsoever. This is our government today. We are being occupied by a hostile power.

Joe Biden says anyone who fears that his rights might be infringed is not law-abiding:

No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their Constitutional rights will be infringed in any way. None. Zero.

Vanderbilt is taking its persecution of Christian student organizations to the next level. Among a variety of other petty oppressions, they are not permitted to include persons from outside Vanderbilt in their activities, even though Vanderbilt is already denying them any recognition, and therefore has no business telling them who they can associate with.

They can employ a staff worker, but that staff worker must submit to a criminal background check conducted by the university. Vanderbilt actually has the audacity to claim that this provision is to protect the students.

Democrats and their allies in the legacy media like to call Republicans the party of big business. This is the exact opposite of the truth. Republicans are the party of free markets, while Democrats are the party of big business. In reality, big business opposes free markets much more often than it supports free markets. It’s small business that really wants markets to be free.

In the latest example, Minnesota Democrats are proposing a big new tax on business-to-business transactions. Such a tax wouldn’t affect big businesses very much, since they can do most of their legal and marketing work in house. However, small businesses, which need to contract all of that out, will be hit hard. This, of course, is just what big businesses want; they don’t want small competitors nipping at their heels and are happy when small businesses are driven out of business. In fact, rent seeking — such as driving out small competitors — has historically been the purpose of most economic regulation.

Paul Krugman says that we need death panels (yes, using the actual phrase) to fix health care.

That provision in the Washington State gun-control bill calling for warrantless searches of anyone owning an “assault weapon”, the one that Democrats assure us was just an accident (all three times it was proposed), has turned up in Oregon’s gun-control bill as well.

This is not an accident. This is what these people want. If they don’t respect the 2nd Amendment, why would they respect the 4th?

POSTSCRIPT: Also, the bills allows you to possess only one “assault weapon”, even if you give up your 4th Amendment rights. Any more than one are to be confiscated. Remember this when they tell you they’re not looking to confiscate guns. It’s a lie. It’s always a lie. They are just waiting for the opportunity. Don’t ever believe them again.

Because of Obamacare, employers are dumping spouses from their employees’ health plans.

Remember when Obama said if you like your health care you could keep it? That was a lie.

Bob Woodward calls the Obama administration on the carpet for its lies about the sequester:

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

(Emphasis mine.)

But this is also interesting:

The final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable [If you say so. -Scofflaw] . . . But that was not the deal he made.

Of course, expecting Obama to honor a promise is foolishness.

(Previous post.) (Via Instapundit.)

Obama used the phrase “peace in our time” in his inaugural address? Really? Can he really be that historically illiterate?

POSTSCRIPT: In fact, Chamberlain actually referred to “peace for our time”, but it is very commonly misremembered the other way.

The co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates admits that choosing Candy Crowley was a mistake. Gee, ya think?

Seriously, though, I think the real mistake is having such a commission at all. Honestly, what purpose does it serve?

Just a few months into the Obama administration, Sheldon Richmond wrote this:

A rule we can rely on to be unfailingly applied is this: No matter how much the government controls the economic system, any problem will be blamed on whatever small zone of freedom that remains.

I think of this when the chief of police of Chicago — the city with the most repressive anti-gun rules in the country — blames the gun lobby for his city’s horrifying murder rate.

As the Colorado legislature considered a bill that would ban the carrying of guns on college campuses, Representative Joe Salazar explained that women aren’t competent to judge whether they are really in danger or not:

According to the University of Colorado, here’s what women are supposed to do instead of defending themselves:

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

I particularly like the last one: “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Except for using a gun to defend yourself. We’ll decide that one for you. Try vomiting instead.

POSTSCRIPT: On this topic, it’s not just Colorado rapists who want to practice their hobby safely. The pro-rape, anti-gun lobby is active in Ohio too:

Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status

UPDATE: Another Colorado Democrat suggests that women fend off rapists using judo. Let’s be fair, they’re not pro-rape, they’re just anti-anti-rape.

Don’t worry. No matter how often this happens, it’s always an isolated incident:

Richardson claimed she had submitted an absentee ballot, but was afraid her vote would not count so she also voted in person. She also said she voted in the name of her granddaughter and yet another person.

“There was absolutely no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud,” she insisted.

The culprit in this case, was a veteran poll worker. But don’t worry, I’m sure she kept her jobs as an election fraudster and as a poll worker separate.

In a revealing development, a new gun-control bill in Washington State would allow citizens who currently possess a so-called “assault weapon” to keep it, but then the police may search their home once a year without probable cause or a warrant:

In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.

The bill’s sponsors say the provision is a mistake and they don’t know how it got there. Yeah, I’ve heard of legislative language spontaneously inserting itself into text files without any human action. That can happen.

Good grief, Media Matters will say anything. Like this:

what press cannot bring itself to report this week: Dems have NEVER EVER mounted a campaign to block cabinet pick the way GOP is w/ Hagel

“NEVER EVER” except for lots of times. I guess this hinges on a narrow and unspecified meaning of “the way GOP is w/ Hagel”, because there have been plenty of defeated cabinet picks:

• Henry Dearborn (War) under Madison
• James Porter (War) under Tyler
• James Green (Treasury) under Tyler
• Thomas Ewing (War) under Andrew Johnson
• Henry Stanbery (Justice) under Andrew Johnson
• Charles Warren (War) under Coolidge, twice
• Lewis Strauss (Commerce) under Eisenhower
• Robert Wood (HUD) under Lyndon Johnson
• John Tower (Defense) under George H.W. Bush

That’s including only the nominations that were formally rejected, not those that were withdrawn in the face of opposition, or that prevailed against opposition. It’s not easy to find out who fought the long-ago nominations, but certainly Democrats mounted the efforts to defeat Warren, Strauss, and Tower. That’s three times, indeed four if you count Warren twice.

Finding the full list took some Googling, but John Tower at least is obvious. The campaign against Tower was fairly recent, and was quite memorable, because it hinged on the argument (offered with a straight face!) that womanizers were not fit to serve in the cabinet. (Yes, Ted Kennedy was among the 52 Democrats who voted against him.)

So when Media Matters bleats about the right-wing bias of the mainstream media, they are lamenting that the media is only 97% in the tank for Democrats. Sometimes a left-wing talking point is too absurd even for them.

(Via JustOneMinute.)

I’m not sure why this is news again; I first saw it months ago. But people are buzzing about the claim that President Obama’s blistering attack on Paul Ryan — with Ryan in the audience — was just a big mistake. The story goes that Ryan was invited to the speech by accident, and when they noticed that he was there it was just too late to change the tone.

Don’t you believe it. First of all, the story makes no sense. They saw Ryan there before the president appeared at the podium, but it was too late to change the speech? Nonsense. They just didn’t want to. Even if Obama was unwilling to go off teleprompter, they could have taken a few minutes to soften the speech. It might be hard, but this is a professional communication operation. Come on.

Moreover, Obama is from Chicago and he likes to do that sort of thing. This is the in-your-face president. Remember him gloating over his election victory at the 2009 stimulus meeting, and at the 2010 health care summit? And those meetings were (ostensibly) for the purpose of forging bipartisan agreement! Remember when — in a direct parallel — he used the 2010 State of the Union address to attack the Supreme Court justices to their faces?

No, Obama said what he meant to say in the manner he wanted to say it. In your face. That’s what he does. It’s the Chicago Way.

The Obama administration, through its professional liar Jay Carney, is still claiming that the sequester was the GOP’s idea:

Question: Looking at all this, do you regret that this White House suggested [the sequester] in the first place?

Jay Carney: The notion much propounded by the spin doctors on the Republican side that the sequester is somehow something that the White House and the president alone wanted and desired is a fanciful confection.

In this case, Carney is using a bit of misdirection, by answering a different question than he was asked. But the message is clear, and Barack Obama himself has been less careful, claiming at the third presidential debate:

The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.

This is an outright lie. Here’s the photo that Republicans have been circulating, of a page from Bob Woodward’s book on the subject:

Also note the final line, below the highlighted box. “We have to get people to turn against the Republicans.” That was the entire plan. They don’t have a fiscal plan; they never did. This was all about setting the stage for attacking Republicans.

(Previous post.) (Via the Corner.)

As Obamacare looms, employers are cutting back on full-time employment.

Health insurance premiums are beginning to soar.

Iowahawk explains how to do business in Obama’s America:

Perhaps instead of starting a small business, young Matt should have taken the time-honored liberal approach and started a BIG business. Those rules are simpler: (1) come up with idiotic idea, (2) give large wads of cash to a politician, (3) reap ginormormous government contract.

Good ideas — which usually involve producing a product that people want and will pay for — are for suckers now.

(Via Instapundit.)