Posted on May 25, 2013 by Scott Johnson in Media, Obama Administration Scandals

In the matter of James Rosen

The latest reporting in the matter of Fox News Channel’s James Rosen indicates the Obama administration fought to keep the search warrant for Rosen’s private email account secret, arguing that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time. Thank you, Ryan Lizza.

And one more thing. Despite Eric Holder’s his protestations of ignorance regarding the Rosen matter, NBC reports that Holder himself authorized the warrant application. Hmmm. Does that mean he might not have been entirely forthcoming about the matter in his testimony to a House Committee on the matter? The White House has gone silent over the Memorial Day weekend.

Our observant reader with long experience in the criminal investigative division of the IRS has an interesting sidebar on the affidavit supporting the Rosen email search warrant:

I thought I’d point out another Great Moment in Government Competence, this one from Eric Holder and his Justice Department in the Rosen “scandal.” Take a look at the documents which were unsealed recently, particularly the Motion to Seal which was originally filed to protect the search warrants. That’s Exhibit B. The papers are all at New Yorker’s website, where Ryan Lizza wrote about it today.

Everything cruises along pretty smoothly until you get to this little gem on page 2: “The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing and has found none that would suffice to protect the government’s legitimate interest in attempting to locate and prosecute those responsible for THE BOMBINGS.”

I added a little emphasis to highlight the most interesting part. So is Mr. Rosen involved in bombings? He sounds like a bad guy. Or did some idiot FBI agent or (more likely) AUSA recycle a motion from another case? It certainly would have reflected better on the author had he actually proof read his motion before he turned it in to the magistrate judge. Who obviously didn’t read it, either. And apparently the US Attorney and, if reports are to be believed, Eric Holder also didn’t read it closely enough to catch a pretty glaring error.

It’s a little thing, I know, though Mr. Rosen might not appreciate being linked, however incompetently, with “bombings,” but these are the same people who are asking to be trusted with investigation of the other scandals out there. It would be nice if one had some confidence in their ability to get the facts straight, especially in a federal court pleading.

I think it’s fair to say that these are men in a hurry. Mistakes, as they say, were made.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Barack Obama, Islam, Terrorism

The future of an illusion

As ABC and other news outlets had it, the White House billed President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University on the status of our efforts to thwart agitated acolytes of a certain belief system as “The Future of Our Fight Against Terrorism” (for that lapse into Bushspeak regarding “Terrorism,” read “Violent Extremists”). The White House text of the speech is posted here without a title.

I thought the speech might more aptly have borrowed its title from Freud’s take on religion: “The Future of an Illusion” would be more like it. Paul ably dissected the speech and collected astute commentary on it in “Obama signals retreat in the war against terrorism.”

The quality of the thought on display was (John) Lennonist. The small print on the sign below doesn’t quite come into focus. The sign reads “WAR IS OVER! IF YOU WANT IT.”

Obama declared: “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.” In our efforts against agitated acolytes of a certain belief system, Obama intimated that we have won, but he didn’t exactly say so, and the evidence to the contrary is not insubstantial.

In the groves of the utopian left, “WAR IS OVER!” is something like timeless wisdom. Recall Jimmy Carter’s Notre Dame commencement speech of May 1977. Carter announced that we had overcome our inordinate fear of Communism. One could only groan in disbelief. Obama’s analysis is approximately as sapient as Carter’s. Speaking of drones, the President of the United States drones on in Year 5 of the Age of Obama about closing Gitmo. Assessing Obama’s speech, Michael Ledeen speaks for me: “He’s actually getting worse.”

Posted on May 24, 2013 by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration, Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s embarrassing appearance on Fox, Part Two

In a post below, I noted that during his appearance tonight on Sean Hannity’s program, Marco Rubio failed to defend his immigration bill, even though the format of the show was highly favorable to the Senator from Florida. Here is what happened.

Hannity asked a central question that has become even more pressing in view of recent Obama administration scandals, particularly the one involving the IRS. That question, in essence, is: given that current immigration law isn’t being enforced, and given what we know generally about how government operates, how can we have any real confidence that the border security provisions of Schumer-Rubio will be carried out effectively?

Rubio did not respond by arguing that his bill will ensure border security. Instead he responded by saying, more than once, that if we can’t write a law that ensures border security, it won’t pass — and shouldn’t.

There are obvious problems with this shocking answer. First, it isn’t necessarily true. Second, it’s an admission that Rubio is advancing a bill he can’t say will be effective, and thus an admission that he has abdicated his responsibility as a legislator.

We cannot depend on Congress to reject immigration reform legislation that won’t bring about effective border enforcement. Why not? Because Democrats are committed to amnesty with or without border security, and thus will vote virtually unanimously for immigration reform legislation that doesn’t secure the border.

This means that such legislation can be enacted even if only about 10 percent of Republicans in the Senate and the House support it. Does anyone believe that congressional Republicans are 90 percent foolproof on immigration reform (or anything else)? I don’t.

Second, and more fundamentally, how can Rubio write and sponsor legislation on such an important issue when he (1) cannot say that the legislation will be effective (indeed, he basically said it won’t be effective under a liberal Democratic administration such as the one we have now) and (2) concedes if it isn’t effective it shouldn’t pass? Rubio acts as if the legislation is someone else’s thought experiment, not his own handwork.

President Obama is famous for detaching himself from the policies carried out by those who work for him. But I doubt even Obama would detach himself from legislation that he wrote.

Since Rubio seems agnostic about the enforcement provisions of his own bill, maybe he should vote “present.”

Rubio knows, as we all do, that the bill’s enforcement provisions could have been significantly stricter in a number of respects. He even said on Hannity’s program that Congress should look at ways of better ensuring that enforcement occurs.

So why didn’t Rubio include such provisions in the bill that he drafted? He knows that the Democrats can’t attain their holy grail of amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals without Rubio’s participation.

It is simply unconscionable that Rubio agreed to sponsor legislation the efficacy of which he cannot vouch for, on the theory that other, more responsible legislators will make sure the legislation won’t pass if it’s deficient. His stance is only marginally more responsible than Nancy Pelosi’s view that we should pass Obamacare so we can find out what’s in it.

Frankly, I don’t believe Rubio won many converts for his bill tonight. If anything, he may have lost some backing.

Unfortunately, though, Rubio continues to dominate the Fox airwaves, thereby crowding out strong expressions of anti-amnesty sentiment. Absent those strong expressions in large media outlets like Fox, Schumer-Rubio’s chances of passage are good, notwithstanding Rubio’s supposed confidence that Congress would never pass a bad immigration bill.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in European Decline, Islam, Terrorism

The Inevitable Decline of Great Britain (Cont.)

The brutal murder of an off-duty soldier by two Muslim activists continues to dominate the news in Great Britain. The scene was utterly bizarre: in broad daylight, in a busy section of London, the two Muslims apparently ran the soldier down with a car, within a block or two of his barracks, and then attacked him with knives and a meat cleaver. They attempted to behead him, apparently not quite successfully, as hundreds of passers-by looked on. No one stopped them–private ownership of firearms being illegal in the U.K.–but three random women, who have been extravagantly praised for their bravery, tended to the soldier’s body and engaged the murderers in conversation, in hopes of diverting them from killing anyone else. This went on for quite a while.

I was puzzled by early reports which indicated that police were present at the scene from the beginning, but also suggested that the killers waited for something like 20 minutes for policemen to arrive, whereupon they attacked them. It turns out that the reports were not inconsistent. There were policemen on the scene from the beginning, but they were unarmed:

Although other bystanders watched in horror and police waited helplessly for armed officers to arrive, Gemini modestly insisted her [sic] and her mother were not heroes and had done what anyone else would do.

The idea of policemen in one of the world’s major cities “wait[ing] helplessly for armed officers to arrive,” while murderers parade up and down the street soaked in blood and the body of a half-beheaded soldier lies in the street, is almost unbelievable. And yet that is the state of law enforcement in Great Britain. The average American household is better armed than a London policeman, and as a result, it was left to a few women from the crowd of bystanders to try to deal with cleaver-wielding murderers.

But that doesn’t mean the British are entirely lax with respect to law enforcement. No, not at all: it just depends which laws you are talking about. If you mean laws against carving up innocent people on the street with knives, well, the Brits have a problem. But if you complain about such an outrage on Facebook or Twitter, you’re going to be crushed by the full majesty of the law. (Via InstaPundit):

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

That’ll show ‘em! There is more:

A second man was visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the spokesman added.

Flatters has been remanded in police custody and will appear before magistrates in Lincoln tomorrow.

The charge comes after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.

Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

I take it that the men on whom the law has descended like a ton of bricks made some adverse comment about Islamic terrorism. Like, they may have mentioned that it is Islamic. We certainly can’t have such lawlessness in a country where crazed murderers, soaked in blood past their elbows, cow unarmed policemen! In England, arresting you for disapproving of murder is what passes for law and order.

It reminds me of the story about the guy who is crawling around on the ground under a street light, late at night. A passer-by stops and asks what he is doing; the guy says he is looking for his watch. The passer-by asks whether this is where he lost it. The guy says No, I lost it over there–pointing some distance away–but the light is better here.

Likewise, in Great Britain, the authorities have no idea what to do about the real problem, an endless series of murders and attempted murders by fanatics yelling “Allahu Akbar!” So they do the next best thing: they go for the easy targets, searching where the light is better: arresting those who haven’t beheaded anyone, but who have expressed their outrage at those who do. Thus does civilization end with a whimper.

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration, Marco Rubio, Media Bias

Marco Rubio’s embarrassing appearance on Fox, Part One

Tonight, Sean Hannity had Marco Rubio on his show for an hour to advocate the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill. The program was an embarrassment at two levels. First, as I feared, the format was heavily skewed in favor of Rubio and his position. Second, even with this skewing, Rubio’s main arguments were pathetic.

As to the format, Rubio spent roughly the first half of the program answering questions from Hannity. Some of the questions were good, but they were no substitute for debate. Hannity is not an expert on the legislation, and thus wasn’t in a position to challenge Rubio’s answers.

Why didn’t Fox have Jeff Sessions, for example, appear with Rubio to ensure the effective presentation of both sides? Probably because, as I understand it, Rubio refuses to appear with Sessions.

So can we expect an hour-long program in which Sessions or a comparably knowledgeable opponent of the anti-amnesty position appears with Hannity? Don’t hold your breath. The powers-that-be at Fox appear to be in the tank for the Schumer-Rubio bill.

The second half of the program consisted of Rubio fielding questions or comments from a panel of immigration “experts.” This segment was a bad joke.

Some of the questions/comments consisted of little more than folks — an immigration lawyer, for one — thanking Rubio for his work. In other instances, the questioner asked Rubio to explain why this or that portion of Schumer-Rubio is so good or why it is true to conservatism.

The lowlight was the appearance of pro-amnesty hatchet man Mario Lopez, who (with Rubio’s help) has pushed the slander that leading opponents of immigration reform aren’t conservatives at all, but rather pro-abortion advocates whose opposition to immigration reform stems from a desire to avoid population growth.

This slimy operative asked Rubio to explain how Rubio-Schumer is consistent with the American dream. That isn’t softball; it’s t-ball.

Why didn’t Fox invite to its discussion a leading opponent of amnesty, such as Mark Krikorian, one of those Lopez has slandered? Probably because the powers-that-be at Fox appear to be in the tank for the Schumer-Rubio bill.

In the entire half of the show devoted to audience participation, Rubio got only two challenging questions that had not already been asked by Hannity. Rep. Louis Gohmert asked why we should burden an already crippled immigration bureaucracy with the task of investigating and processing more than 11 million additional applications. Pointing to Boston bombers, Gohmert argued that the immigration bureaucracy system simply is not capable of doing what Schumer-Rubio purports to require of it.

Rubio did not answer the question.

The other semi-tough question — from a member of the Chertoff Group — was: why a path to citizenship? Rubio first denied that his bill creates a path to citizenship and then argued that the path to citizenship his bill creates is a good thing because it will cause the formerly illegal immigrants to “fall in love with America.” Clearly, Sen. Rubio speaks with a forked tongue.

This leads me to the second sense in which tonight’s show was an embarrassment. Even with all of the softball questions, the lack of opportunities for follow-up, and the absence of Schumer-Rubio’s leading critics, Rubio failed to defend his bill. And I don’t mean that he failed to defend it effectively — I mean that he didn’t defend it.

I’ll discuss this in later tonight in a follow-up post.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Obama Administration Scandals

Whose Administration Is It, Anyway?

President Obama’s response to the multiple scandals besetting his administration has been revealing. It turns out that they have nothing to do with him: he has no idea what is going on in the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the IRS, or, apparently, anywhere else, other than what he reads in the newspaper. He takes no responsibility for the actions of those whom he appointed to high office, and seems entirely indifferent to their misdeeds. For a man whose job it is to run the Executive Branch, his detachment is remarkable.

Michael Ramirez sums up Obama’s absentee presidency:

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Media Bias, Social Issues, Sports

When Did the Sports Pages Get More Liberal Than the News?

Most of us read a newspaper’s sports pages for a respite from the generally depressing news of the day, and there was once a time when we could even expect a conservative outlook from most sports reporters. But those days are long gone. For some reason, today’s sportswriters are, if anything, farther to the left than their brethren in the news room. Moreover, some of the most obnoxious, far-left news reporters are former sports writers.

Which brings us to gay marriage. Here in Minnesota, gay marriage has been a contentious issue. Last year, there was a pro-traditional marriage amendment on the ballot. It failed, and a week or two ago, our Democrat-controlled legislature enacted a law recognizing gay marriage. During the 2012 campaign, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings, Chris Kluwe, was an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage. He gave speeches, appeared on television, and so on. Our sports reporters unanimously applauded him for his “courage,” but why, since he received nothing but applause for his outspoken stance?

Kluwe was an expensive, aging punter, and the Vikings drafted a punter and released him. Which brings us to today’s most clicked-on story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Adrian Peterson was asked about gay marriage.

Peterson, unlike Kluwe, is a superstar, the best running back in the NFL. But why his views on gay marriage should be newsworthy is a mystery. Nevertheless, the subject came up when he was interviewed on SiriusXM NFL Radio. This is how the Star Tribune breathlessly reported the interview:

[W]hen asked about the Vikings’ release of punter Chris Kluwe earlier this month, Peterson didn’t steer around the obligatory request for comment on Kluwe’s activism in favor of gay rights and marriage equality.

When a sportswriter refers to “marriage equality” with a straight face you know where he is coming from.

Said the reigning league MVP: “To each his own. I’m not with it. But I have relatives that are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love them. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But to each his own.”

That is about as mild a comment on gay marriage as you can imagine; yet, Peterson failed to toe the party line. He continued by praising Chris Kluwe:

I’m sure the Vikings organization did not release him based on that. They know Kluwe. They’ve been knowing him for a long time. And they know he’s outspoken. But it hurt me to see him leave. He was a good friend of mine and a really cool guy, man. Probably one of the smartest guys I’ve ever been around, man. Different.

Here, Peterson echoed the unanimous press line on Kluwe–he was extraordinarily brilliant, once he came out in favor of gay marriage, despite having been known mostly as a video gamer until then. However, while Kluwe’s enthusiastic endorsement of “marriage equality” was entirely uncontroversial and unanimously praised, Peterson’s mild demurrer–”to each his own”–strikes our local sports reporter as subversive, even dangerous:

Is it outrageous for Peterson to speak candidly on the gay marriage topic? No. Is it a bit dangerous, potentially stirring up an unwanted storm? Absolutely.

The reporter puts Peterson’s comments in the context of recent news stories:

The topic of acceptance and tolerance of gay athletes has been on the front burner recently, particularly after NBA big man Jason Collins came out last month, becoming the first pro athlete in any of the four major sports to reveal his homosexuality while still active.

For what it’s worth, Collins’s career is at its end, and if he catches on with an NBA team next year, it will likely be as a result of his “coming out.”

Collins’ announcement generated an impressive wave of support. But the question still looms as to just how ready a men’s professional sports locker room is for an openly gay player. If and when the first NFL player follows Collins’ lead and reveals his homosexuality, how will that be accepted?

Peterson’s remarks hint at some of the hurdles that remain.

Really? Note how any distinction between being indifferent to a teammate’s sexual practices and supporting gay marriage is casually obliterated. Peterson addressed the latter issue, and said nothing about the former, apart from the fact that he “loves” his gay relatives and is “not biased toward them.” But that isn’t good enough: in the world of today’s sports journalism, enthusiastic endorsement of homosexuality and gay marriage is the only non-controversial–heck, non-hateful–option. Our reporter concludes with this bit of condescension:

Yes, Peterson remains one of the NFL’s true good guys, a likeable superstar, who was also the Vikings Community Man of the Year in 2012. He is at once down to earth and giving of his time. And in his interview with Murray and Toomer, he made clear his intentions to deliver financial aid and a personal helping hand to the tornado ravaged parts of Oklahoma, where he went to college.

And no, Peterson’s answer to the Kluwe question doesn’t register as malicious or overtly intolerant. But it will almost certainly become a source of debate.

Got that? If you don’t toe the pro-gay marriage line, you are presumptively malicious and intolerant–in Peterson’s case, the sportswriter admits, not “overtly” so. This is the kind of biased, mindless claptrap that we expect from newspaper editorialists. Why on God’s green Earth do we have to put up with it in the sports pages?