Veritas Salad

• Smug filled rooms
• John Donald O’Shea  on Understanding Limits of Executive Orders
• Immigration vote in strongly Democrat Oregon message to politicians
  
• De Blasio running for Democrat presidential nomination?
• Pope Francis disappoints ardent admirers

In an article titled Smug Filled Rooms – Clarice Feldman raises a term coined by Professor Charles Lipson to describe decision-making in Washington. It is such an apt description of the aura surrounding the creation of Obamacare especially as reflected in the revelations of Jonathon Gruber as to how and why Americans were hoodwinked about the legislation.  The why is simple enough –  the American people are too stupid to know what is good for them, so Gruber et al lied on purpose and on key matters to make it palatable.  Feldman quoting Prof. Lipson:

The Gruber videos are devastating because they say flatly that the deception was premeditated and was used self-consciously to pass the law. The professor goes further and says the law would have been defeated if its central provisions had been known to voters.

Argus-Dispatch columnist provides basic education – stark warning.

John Donald O’Shea of Moline is a retired Illinois circuit court (trial) judge and is a regular editorial page columnist at the Argus Dispatch.  His columns are superior to any other newspaper column produced in this area and rank with the nationally syndicated opinion columns appearing here as well.  In Saturday’s column Understanding limits of executive orders  O’Shea first discusses the limited Constitutional basis for such presidential decrees and then provides relevant parameters to the practice established by Supreme Court decision.  Seeing an Obama administration chronically abusing and violating such limitation O’Shea warns:

The same president who can override such laws, can override the will of the voters at the next election and decide that he shall remain in office because he thinks what he is doing will help families across the country. Or because it’s good for workers, employers and the middle class.

As if the rest of the election day results were not enough . . .

Note this AP article by Jonathan J. Cooper and Nicholas Riccardi: Oregon immigration vote is a warning for Obama

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.

Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver’s licenses to people who are

Of course in typical AP approach plenty of space is invested in the usual Democrat  suspects responding. Sometimes the AP can serve  truth by just letting Democrats talk. Exposed in the article is that Democrat operatives did not all get the memo to ixne “the voters are stupid” meme.  There was plenty of that excuse making and of course the usual “if we only had more money” (as if to suggest the ballot measure had a lot or even any behind it).   One of the readily checkable statements was the excuse that Oregon is not reflective of sentiment towards the issue of regularizing illegal immigrants because it has so few Hispanics.  So we checked — citations using census data indicated Oregon is 11.7% Hispanic, which means it has more as a percentage of its population than 36 other states.

Of course the Republican establishment has its head pretty deeply up its arse on the politics of the immigration issue and populist sentiment.

This should be fun . . .

. . . for everybody but the United States of America: De Blasio, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Hillary Whatshername. All good communists  . . .  and lucky us, we’ll have Jeb Bush!   From lucianne.com via International Business Times:

Bill De Blasio 2016? NYC Mayor Will Run For President, Beat Hillary Clinton, New
York GOP Chairman Predicts

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is maneuvering to run for president in 2016 and will use his progressive credentials to derail former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the White House, according to a prediction from the chairman of the Republican Party in New York. Ed Cox, the New York state GOP chairman, also said de Blasio’s plan will be successful, according to the New York Post. “It’s like Barack Obama; he was a brand-new freshman senator, and he ran for president and won. I think De Blasio is going to do it,” Cox said . . .

With a positive attitude like that from the Republican leadership, well what wonders await.*

Stating the obvious doesn’t make you a conservative either

Pope Veritaspac speaks

In and of itself what is taken to be the import of this should be so predictable, so unremarkable. Normally it might be treated as saying the sky is blue. We hope this doesn’t rank right up there with other assurances from powerful figures: “If you like your traditional marriage, you can keep it”

Pope Francis hammers home message of man-woman marriage.

Nevertheless we do appreciate these utterances from the Pontiff as related by Breitbart:

The Pope underscored the importance of both the man and the woman in a marriage, noting that “each man and each woman brings their own personal contribution to the marriage and education of children,” and that this “complementarity is the basis of marriage and the family.”

The Pope warned against speaking of the family in an ideological way. “The family is an anthropological reality,” he said, “and thus also a social and cultural reality.”

This Pope has repeatedly damaged faith in tradition, so is this just rhetoric after the deep concern expressed from the Bishops regarding marriage and homosexuality?  Know him by his appointments is an appropriate analytical approach .

DLH and R Mall

* OK we understand he may be baiting De Blasio, but then again it is a New York Republican making the call, so thus our concern.  By the way, apropos nothing,  the word origin of  “De Blasio”  goes back to the Italian words for  “speech impediment.”  Now we wonder how one can one tell such things speaking to a New Yorker?

0

0