Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Revised March 8

I'm going to cut to the chase (a little film-making lingo there). Perhaps this will help explain Trump's anger over o's surveillance of him.


During the election last year, Barack Obama used some singular powers of his office as president to engage in tactics that were only legal for certain types of surveillance. The president could direct that the security agencies conduct surveillance on certain parties without regard to laws prohibiting that activity in other circumstances.

There is a set of tightly crafted rules regarding domestic versus foreign people and information. I only have a vague understanding, and I might have it wrong, but I think that not many have it right. This is one of those areas where more information leads to more confusion instead of clarity.


Laws against surveillance of American citizens can be circumvented by a simple order from the president. It did not have to be a case of national security, but national security was the reason that the law was written the way it was.

We (I) frequently forget that Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He never made his living practicing – teaching it was his job – and he probably could not have, but constitutional law was his specialty.

Splitting hairs of legality is a lawyer's stock in trade, and Obama is a master craftsman. [Lesson to budding writers: I demonstrate how to use hackneyed clichés in that sentence.]

I think that o not only had surveillance teams on Trump, but there were others that he deemed important enough to watch. These names will come out eventually. This was all done with the expectation that Hillary would be elected president, and would inherit all his surveillance advances. Obama's actions would never come into question from Democrats. 

Hillary did not succeed him. Obama's law-skirting methods will become well known; they are beginning to come into the light now. They must be pretty apparent if an aged practitioner of another profession can figure them out.


Perhaps o is not so clever.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Revised March 6


Check the Kimberly Strassel section, above right for new articles.

New post above right on Race by Shelby Steele.


It seems that no matter how much trouble I take to avoid writing about the big o, he does something to make that impossible.

The latest is the revelation by Donald Trump that o has been monitoring his quarters in Trump Tower, Trump's home and office, through electronic surveillance means. Obama did this, of course, through surrogates who did the work.


Trump's  response Saturday was about these illegal actions. 


To whit: "I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" Tweet Posted by the Donald, himself.


There are several more tweets in a similar vein.


The actual bugging of his residence and office may even have been done by agencies of the United States government. More on that as details become available.

There is little reason to doubt that this allegation is true. Mr. Obama's actions in office leave no question that he would find this type of activity reasonable and proper. Obama's ego – his hubris – is not bounded by the limitations that we mortals must endure.

That website of Mr. Obama's, (https://www.ofa.us/) is a reminder of all of those wonderful characteristics of Mr. Obama's that we enjoyed for eight long years.


Obama has done some very offensive things in the name of liberal causes, and he has gotten the idea that anything goes in the name of furthering his agenda. Trump thinks, along with others who respect the law, that laws against certain actions must be followed.


Wiretaps and other surveillance methods are illegal without a warrant. If you use them, you should go to jail, Mr. Obama.  


Before receiving the news recounted above, the intention was to dedicate today's literary masterpiece to the triumph of the Tuesday night address. It was a masterful speech. It was interesting, it was patriotic, and it was emotionally stirring.

Democrats responded to it predictably. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer showed themselves, once again, as the purveyors of the particular nastiness to which we have become accustomed from this pair. Ms. Pelosi, in particular, along with several other House Democrat women, showed up for Trump's speech in white garb for some obtuse reason.

They are losing it, folks. They have no apparent reason for their actions. The things that they are doing make no sense, and the result is that their audience tunes them out.

Let's hope that's the case, anyway. It is what they deserve.


Back to o...

Along with Mrs. Clinton, abetted by Mr. Clinton, Obama has become the leader of the anti-Trump coalition. He has moved Valerie Jarrett (that awful Muslim operative) into his Washington mansion (!) and is putting her to work in some capacity, presumably a position equivalent to her chief of staff role in his administration.

This is, unquestionably a shadow government in thrall to o. Presumably, its purpose is to run the Democrat party, the party of obstruction, in a way that will maximize the damage it can do to President Trump. There is nothing about the maneuvering we have witnessed that can be positive for the country.

The president has more ideas, though, and is not taking this lying down. He gives as good as he gets. The tweet above is an example of that.

Democrats are used to dealing with Republicans who run at the first sign of a fight. Donald Trump will not run. That tactic of facing them is the only way to combat them. The only thing they will respect is a smack in the mouth (proverbially).


There was a faux pas of sorts this week by Jeff Sessions, US Attorney General, who recused himself from participation in the brouhaha over Russian contacts. This is a real shame, for there is no there, there. This whole thing about Russia was concocted by Democrats for the sole purpose of disrupting Jeff Sessions' and Donald Trump's, time in office.

By recusing himself, Sessions has given the Democrats a tiny win, one which they will make into a big deal through leverage; they are single-minded in that way.

Jeff Sessions is a smart man and a good Attorney General. He proved this through years of service as AG in his home state of Alabama, where racial divisions were rampant. He managed to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan, while walking the tightrope of ethnic responsibility, and still managed to acquit himself favorably.

Maxine Waters and others have vowed that Trump's impeachment is their goal. Even small losses like the one noted will be used to their fullest advantage by the Democrats.

Democrats will continue hounding Republicans in this way for as long as Trump is in office. They are used to an enemy who cowers at the thought of racial accusations. Donald Trump is confident in his racial bona fides.  He will not turn and run, but will go at them toe to toe.

Bring it on.