Sunday, January 27, 2013

Palin: 'We Haven't Yet Begun to Fight!'

In my research for the film I made on Governor Palin, The Undefeated, I was constantly amazed at the anti-establishment stands she took at every step in her rise to power. Moves that a conventional politician would run from, she embraced: in Wasilla, in Juneau, and in the rise of the Tea Party. Her ability to see “over the hill” to what is really important, what really matters, is what sets her apart.

Andrew Breitbart embraced the Governor as a fellow warrior in the long struggle against a detached and venal political/media complex. He lives on in spirit and through the work of those he inspired—including, but not limited to, those who report and contribute at his site.
The Governor has been at the forefront of the fight against the Permanent Political Class and, as such, inspired Peter Schweizer and myself in our work last night on Fox News with Sean Hannity’s specialBoomtown.” We consider ourselves honored at Breitbart News to have her share with us her thoughts on the road ahead in this exclusive Q & A.

1. What's next for you?
Short term: I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism. That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation. We can't just preach to the choir; the message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.
Focus on the 2014 election is also imperative. It’s going to be like 2010, but this time around we need to shake up the GOP machine that tries to orchestrate away too much of the will of constitutional conservatives who don’t give a hoot how they do it in DC. DC is out of touch, obviously. Voices on the right like Mark Levin, Rush, and the writers here at Breitbart have come out strongly against the “go along to get along” politicians who wave the white flag before the battle even begins. We’re not going to be able to advance the cause of limited constitutional government unless we deal with these big government enablers on our side. And this all ties into the problem of crony capitalism and the permanent political class in the Beltway. We need to consistently take them on election after election – ever vigilant.
As far as long-term plans, the door is wide open. I know the country needs more truth-telling in the media, and I’m willing to do that. So, we shall see. And always in the center of it all I have an awesome, full, exciting, and large family living in a very unique part of America that keeps me hopping! I love it!
2. Where do you think the country stands at the beginning of the President's 2nd term?
Before the November election I wrote that we all know what Obama’s second term will look like because we’ve seen his first. I said: “We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a 'blame America first' foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.”
Predicting the future has never been easier because here we are! Already we see higher taxes, a stagnant economy, the same inflationary monetary policies, Obamacare looming like a dark cloud over small businesses, yet another demand for “debt ceiling” increases, continued stonewalling about the tragic Benghazi attacks, a Secretary of Defense nominee who has a history of being antagonistic to our ally Israel, and the attack on our Second Amendment rights by an administration that has no respect for the Constitution or the separation of powers.
The problem is that some on the Right are now skittish because of the lost 2012 election. They shouldn’t be. Conservatism didn’t lose. A moderate Republican candidate lost after he was perceived to alienate working class Reagan Democrat and Independent voters who didn’t turn out for him as much as they did for the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. Granted, those same voters also didn’t turn out for Obama as strongly either. We had an election defined by a biased media plus millions of voters who sat it out in disgust. As long as we allow the media and GOP establishment to tell us who our nominees must be, we can expect to lose. I’m not interested in losing. America’s next generation can’t afford another loss.
3. The MSM have declared both you and the Tea Party dead and buried. Reaction?
I was raised to never retreat and to pick battles wisely, and all in due season. When it comes to defending our republic, we haven’t begun to fight! But we delight in those who underestimate us. 

The Truth About Obamacare

1/26/2013 | Ward Dorrity

“Obamacare” is neither about health nor care. 

It is ultimately about control, the devaluation and the elimination of human life. Here is the Vulcan mind-meld translation of the core premise of the Left: you have no right to live. By their lights, you are no more than a thing, or an animal, or a machine. Therefore, you have no right to the fruits of your labors. You are a ‘resource’ at best, a fungible, and ultimately disposable asset of the State. Or you are in their way and must be eliminated. There are the last 200 years of leftist philosophy and its practical consequences in a nutshell.

The progressive refusal to acknowledge the value of individual human life over an evanescent conflation of group rights and collectivist ideology is one of the principal reasons why no peace, no accommodation, no compromise can ever be made with them. Theirs is a reckless, willful and fundamentally evil disregard for the most fundamental of all of our rights: and that is the individual’s right to live.

This premise is, has been, and continues to be central to the justification for the wholesale slaughter of millions of human beings – and the enslavement and impoverishment of hundreds of millions more. I have written a modest essay concerning the ideas that animate these killers without conscience. Many of these ideas are on display in the details of 0bamacare, for example. At its core, 0bamacare represents the deliberate and willful devaluation of human life – the reduction of people to mere objects. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if it is not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.
And worse. Far, far worse. But that’s precisely the intent of the so-called “Obamacare” legislation. Why else would modernity’s Left seek to ‘move the goalposts’ that define life? And further, to define the value of individual life by its utility? “Utility” – to whom or for what? Take careful note of the nature of the discussion and the debate over Obamacare: it has moved from questioning whether any sane human being should be allowed to make such decisions to dithering over who will get to decide. How can such things be done right in front of our very eyes? Slowly and by degrees. Then it simply becomes part of the discussion and before you know it – that discussion has turned into the reality. This is monstrous. And if any of you feel that this is hyperbole or tinfoil hattery, consider the source of such ideas.

Listen to Dr. Peter Singer speaking blithely of extending that ‘right to choose’ to children as old as 28 months! Why? Because Singer argues that at that age, well… they’re not fully conscious and capable of reason! In other words – they’re not human beings! Is Singer some crackpot who no one takes seriously? Hardly. Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He is celebrated, not censured, and his ideas are almost universally applauded within academia. Why else would we hear of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel – Rahm Emanuel’s brother – also an ‘advisor’ to 0bama, advocating the assessment of the relative ‘quality of life’ under the aegis of his innocuous-sounding “Complete Lives” program? Emanuel’s guidelines are strictly utilitarian, and are based in part upon the notion of an individual’s ‘value to society’. Emmanuel cites this entry from the Jan. 31, 2009 edition of the British medical journal Lancet:

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants and young adults over very elderly people.” “Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Again, this is an argument for the value of human life based upon its social utility and it is not difficult to trace this view of human life back to its origin in late 19th and early 20th century eugenics.

Dr. Emanuel blithely reassures us that this system will not be subject to corruption. At best, this fantasy assumes that all men are angels and the millennium has arrived. Systems such as this one, once entrenched, are easily co-opted by fiat and placed in the service of those who wish to arrogate the power of life and death to themselves. Lest we mistake Dr. Emanuel's views on the matter, note that he offers the following as commentary to the Lancet article cited previously:

“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

So very humanitarian of them, eh? As recent history has so clearly shown, euthanasia for humanitarian reasons soon becomes a matter of euthanasia in the service of social utility. Eventually, euthanasia for whatever reason becomes the engine of slaughter for political undesirables. Now some persist in crediting Dr. Emanuel with an unblinking and fearless rationality. For those wh othink that way, it will doubtless be smug self-congratulation and high fives all around for these high-minded progressives until they face the real and practical application of the utilitarian praxis of what Dr. Emanuel and his ilk advocate.

Say, for example, when an unelected and unaccountable government panel – not them or their doctor – decides that their premature newborn infant will receive only painkillers because society has nothing invested in the baby and the calculus of the cost-benefit trade-off indicates that the care required will cost too much and have too uncertain an outcome.

Or, when they discover that the treatment for their particular malady is now ‘off the menu’ because it hasn’t met one of the many new Federally-mandated prerequisites and regulations for its use and application. A paperwork detail, to be sure. But too late for them. Imagine the dismay when they find out that the treatment for the cancer that their Mom or Dad survived in their sixties is no longer available to them because, after all, it doesn’t serve the ‘common good’ to spend limited resources on the elderly – excuse me, elderly "units'" as 0bamacare now deems them – in the last few months of their life, does it? But they’ll doubtless take comfort in the knowledge that those resources will go to “people of worth,” as genocide enthusiast and Obama advisor Audrey Thomason defines them. Won’t they?

So the question now becomes: what sort of society, what sort of existence will we have when –
The goalposts defining the beginning and the end of life at last converge?
The decision as to who lives and who dies eventually passes from individuals and to the state – as it most surely will if so-called progressives are allowed to have their way?

The answer is the stuff of your worst nightmares. If that seems a tad, well, extreme to some of you, consider this: there are those who believe that Dr. Emanuel deserves a medal for his fearless and enlightened rationality. Dr. Singer’s prescription for infanticide without guilt are warmly applauded in the halls of academe. Far from being an exercise in ivory-tower utopian fantasy, the ideas advocated by the likes of Peter Singer, the ‘progressive’ concepts of how we should regard human life have been given currency in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a peer reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics. There, a recently published article by two Australian philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesa Minerva, poses the question: After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? Why, indeed? Again, ask yourselves this: how did we get from whether those decisions should be made to who will be making those decisions?

Make no mistake about it - these ideas have consequences: they pave the road to a nightmare world of slaughter and atrocity – and if you don’t think so, then you simply haven’t been paying attention to the history of the last 200 years. Progressives, and more importantly those whom they serve are on the verge of achieving their sick utopian dreams. The nudge, the gradual squeeze – and then the shove into submission, slavery and the oblivion of the mass grave.

This is the foundation and the prerequisite for the sort of world that Orwell envisioned in his 1984, a world in which neither love, nor mercy, nor hope survives. It is a world where all of your hopes, aspirations and dreams, where all of your love of country and family count for nothing, for those hopes and aspirations – and you – will be extinguished as if you never had existed. Because you surely must be eliminated if these will-to-power driven monsters are to rule without fear of opposition. One of the chief instruments to achieving their ambitions has and continues to be the substitution of a culture of death for the culture of life that lies at the heart of the values that uphold Western civilization.

Pope John Paul II in his 1995 work, The Gospel of Life made this observation regarding the rise of the culture of death in modern times:

This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.
You surely don’t have to be Catholic to understand the truth of what JP II has said. The believer and the unbeliever alike can clearly see where this leads. There is only one way that the monsters who seek to impose such a hellish existence on this world can be stopped. Only one way.

Guns are Just the Latest Symptom of the Right's Anti-Obama Delusion!

PoliticusUSA ^ | January 19, 2013 | Rmuse

There is an epidemic taking hold in America that appears immune to intervention or therapy, and despite the best effort of the nation’s brightest minds to find a cure, it seems likely to remain virulent, but limited to a particular segment of the population for the foreseeable future. The disease’s symptoms are beliefs with the strong conviction despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and unlike beliefs based on confabulation, faulty or incomplete information, there are no known remedies for delusion. Unlike most severe mental disorders, this epidemic has a traceable beginning and a very predictable demise, but that is little comfort as it is just now reaching peak efficacy.
The current outrage and unfathomably ignorant claims from gun-fanatics that President Obama is sending federal forces to confiscate their precious firearms is a microcosm of the past four years of teabagger claims their liberties and freedoms are being trampled asunder. The fallacious claims go hand-in-hand with equally bogus charges the President is rending the Constitution apart in typical Fascist tyranny that leaves white, well-armed patriots little choice but to prepare for armed conflict to “reinstitute the basic tenets of the Constitution.” One might think the gun fanatics’ deluded claims the President is a dictator is the result of four years of tyranny, but the delusion began shortly after Obama’s inauguration and before the earliest stages of the healthcare reform debate. What is telling is that claims of tyranny, unconstitutional power grabs, and loss of liberty are the product of delusional thinking in that not one teabagger, gun fanatic, or real American can cite one instance of tyranny, loss of freedom, or unconstitutionality in any of the President’s actions. The overblown gun-control controversy is a perfect example of sheer delusion without a shred of proof the President is overstepping his Constitutional authority...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What would Thomas Jefferson Think?

American Thinker ^ | Dec. 8, 2012 | Dennis Lund
Inspired by the words of Thomas Paine, the new nation's leaders sought to resolve grievances with the government to allow the citizenry to live free from tyranny, while remaining true to the concepts of civil rights and individual liberty.
James Madison, in his letter of October 24, 1787 to Thomas Jefferson voiced concerns: "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority." His words have now been proven justified.
In writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, guided by Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense', laid out the grievances against the king, many of which have now been foisted upon us by our current rulers.
President Obama, with new found empowerment from his recent victory, now has the flexibility he sought, without the constraints of seeking reelection. The result will be a more all encompassing government ruled by those who favor state control.
Looking closer at Jefferson's grievances, which the patriots were willing to die for, we see that we have now fallen into that which Madison feared; Oppression by the majority abetted by a government which is now "but a necessary evil."
One has to wonder if President Jefferson would have had the same response to the actions taken today by this administration, as well as by those who have enabled these actions:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Continues to Violate His Own ‘Stimulus’ Law by Not Releasing Quarterly Reports!

The Weekly Standard ^ | Jan 26, 2013 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Have you heard much about President Obama’s $787,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” (now estimated to cost $831,000,000,000) lately? In its last report, published in 2011, the president’s own Council of Economic Advisors released an estimate showing that, for every $317,000 in “stimulus” spending that had by then gone out the door, only one job had been created or saved. Even in Washington, that’s not considered good bang for the buck.
Obama salutes
Moreover, that was the fifth consecutive “stimulus” report that showed this number getting progressively worse.
Alas, that was the last report we’ve seen. Never mind that Section 1513 of the “stimulus” legislation, which Obama spearheaded and signed into law, requires the executive branch to submit a new report every three months. It reads:
“In consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers shall submit quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives that detail the impact of programs funded through covered funds on employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.”
(The head of the Council of Economic Advisors, currently Alan Krueger, is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and works in the Executive Office of the President. He is the president’s chief economic adviser.)

Melissa Harris-Perry Admits: U.S. Military 'Despised By Many Progressives'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

It's hardly a secret. After all, in a letter to a senior officer, no less than a young Bill Clinton openly admitted that many of his cohort to "loath[ed] the military." Still, it's stunning to hear a modern-day liberal make a similar admission.

On her MSNBC show today, Melissa Harris-Perry stated that the U.S. military is "despised as an engine of war by many progressives."

View the video below:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rahm Emmanuel to major banks: Stop serving gun manufacturers!

The Examiner ^ | January 26, 2013 | Joe Newby

In a letter sent Friday to the CEOs of TD Bank and Bank of America, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel urged the banks to stop serving gun manufacturers unless they support gun control measures, CBS Chicago reported.
According to CBS, Emmanuel wants the banks to "stop lines of credit, financing for acquisitions and expansions and financial advising" unless the manufacturers agree with him on issues like background checks and what he called “commonsense reforms."
“In the past, the gun industry has stood in opposition to these safety measures. They opposed a ban on assault weapons on America’s streets, opposed a ban on military-style clips, opposed a criminal background check on all gun purchases and opposed any effort to crack down on criminal gun traffickers,” he wrote.
In his letter to TD Bank CEO Bharat Masrani, he demanded the bank uses its influence “to push this company to find common ground” on gun bans and background checks, noting the $60 million line of credit the bank gives to Smith and Wesson.
"Why shouldn’t they have a line of credit?" Jason Howerton asked at The Blaze. "The company has done nothing illegal and AR-15s are perfectly legal weapons."
Emmanuel noted that Aurora movie shooter James Holmes used an AR-15, but as Howerton wrote, the mayor failed to mention that the rifle reportedly jammed during the shooting spree. Emmanuel also failed to mention the incident in which a 15-year-old boy protected himself and his sister from two burglars using an AR-15.
He also demanded that Bank Of America CEO Brian T. Moynihan take the same actions against Sturm, Ruger & Co., a manufacturer with a $25 million line of credit.
“Collectively we can send a clear and unambiguous message to the entire gun industry...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Yes, He Can: Twenty Ways Obama Can Use Executive Power to Push a Progressive Agenda!

The Nation ^ | The February 11, 2013 Issue | The Editors

When President Obama announced his sweeping new plan for preventing gun violence on January 16, it included no fewer than twenty-three “executive actions,” in addition to a series of legislative proposals. The message was clear: in the face of congressional intransigence—on gun control and beyond—Obama will push changes through the executive branch that he believes to be for the good of the country. “Congress too must act, and Congress must act soon,” Obama said, while making it clear that the White House will not wait for the GOP-controlled House.
It was not the first time the president has flexed his executive muscle. Obama deployed such power during his first term on a number of notable occasions. The “Mini–Dream Act” executive action, for example, was hugely successful, both in terms of public policy and progressive politics. It helped people in an immediate and tangible way, was enormously popular with Latinos and Asian-Americans, and may well have won him re-election.
Others, like raising the CAFE standards to demand better fuel efficiency from carmakers and capping student loan payments, were part of the Obama administration’s “We Can’t Wait” initiative, launched in the fall of 2011, following the debt ceiling fiasco and the House Republicans’ refusal to seriously consider the American Jobs Act. “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job,” Obama said at the time. “Where they won’t act, I will.”
The president has also acted through the appointment process. He made a recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, despite intense congressional opposition, and another three recess appointments to the five-member National Labor Relations Board, putting it back in action after the Republicans refused for months to confirm any new members...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Two Wales!

Memory Hole

No Shit?

Right Wingers

Hold Still


Equal Opportunity Destroyers: Politicians Of All Types Damage Small Business America! ^ | January 27, 2013 | Austin Hill

It’s not just an out-of-control IRS or EPA. And it’s not merely the punitive demands and restraints of the new federal healthcare law.
American enterprise is being stifled and squelched by state and local governments, in ways that most Americans don’t even see. With increasing propensity, elected officials nationwide are at times suffocating private businesses with regulations, and at other times competing directly against them – and it happens among both Democrats and Republicans.
A striking reminder of this emerged last week, when it was reported that Democrat San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee was contemplating some sort of “ban” on alcohol sales during the Super Bowl. Drunken vandals got out of hand last year in “the City by the Bay,” when the Giants swept the World Series. The same thing could happen on Super Bowl Sunday this year, with either a 49ers win or loss. So, therefore, the city should step in and try to keep the booze away from the bad guys – at least that’s how the official reasoning went.
The news first emerged with local newspaper and radio websites reporting that the Mayor was seeking a ban. By the time global publications like “International Business Times” had picked up on it, the Mayor had tempered his rhetoric a bit, saying that he was “seeking input from business owners” on how to prevent alcohol-induced vandalism.
The irony here is obvious. This is, after all, San Francisco, a place where, in terms of social and cultural “norms,” almost anything goes. It’s the city where elected officials almost did not pass a ban on public nudity for the first time last November, and yet city officials now want to control liquor consumption.
But here’s the part of the story that nobody reports: such mandates by local governments, arbitrary and unexpected as they often are, damage businesses. Restaurant and bar owners all over the country are naturally banking on steady foot traffic and lots of food and beverage sales on Super Bowl Sunday. No doubt some owners craft their monthly or quarterly budgets around an expected uptick in sales on that day. When politicians disrupt this, they hurt small business owners.
But travel northward some 1200 miles or so from San Francisco, and a less imaginable, more difficult to understand phenomena is happening with private enterprise the worse for it. The state government of Idaho has actually developed a voracious appetite for buying and owning for-profit small businesses of a variety of sorts, and competing against private owners.
Language in that state’s Constitution declares that the land originally granted from the federal government for the creation of Idaho must be managed “in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted.” From that language, Idaho politicians down through the ages have determined that they have a “fiduciary responsibility” to produce investment returns. So once the first of the original endowment lands were sold, a trust account was established, and state politicians have been “investing” the money in for-profit businesses ever since.
In the past four years alone, the state government of Idaho has purchased everything from a neighborhood beer pub to commercial office space, all under the leadership of Republican Governor C.L “Butch” Otter. This controversial practice came under national criticism back in 2010 when the Idaho government bought “Affordable Storage,” a small self-storage business in the capitol city of Boise, and then began telling would-be customers that “our rates are lower because we don’t have to pay taxes.” Ask residents of “red state” Idaho what they think of President Obama’s forced acquisitions of General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation, and they’ll likely tell you it was wrong. Yet most are unaware that their own state government is doing much the same as the President has done, and is competing against their business-owning neighbors.
While it’s hard to find an American politician who will tell you that they are anything short of “supportive” when it comes to small business ownership, it’s even more difficult to find one that really understands what it means to be that type of leader. The change in government policies that our nation needs won’t begin to happen, until American voters start paying attention and making better choices on election day.

Obama's Abuse of Power (ruling potentially invalidates dozens of NLRB decisions)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 1/25/13

Meantime, the ruling potentially invalidates dozens of NLRB decisions since the illegal recess appointments were made. A similar mess occurred in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in New Process Steel v. NLRB that some 600 decisions made by the NLRB without a three-member quorum were invalid.

The decision also means that Mr. Cordray has no authority to run the consumer financial bureau, which has been busy issuing thousands of pages of regulations since he was illegally imposed in the job. Mr. Obama renominated Mr. Cordray this week, which is an insult to the Senate and after this ruling to the Constitution too.

One question is whether Mr. Cordray can legally keep accepting his paycheck. Especially as a former Attorney General in Ohio, he ought to resign for having agreed to play along as a constitutional usurper.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...