Reporting Unbiased from a Star Ledger Columnist?

Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the “wink, wink” conservative Star Ledger is nothing more than David Wiildstein in sheep’s clothing.

January 13 headlines read for his column “Chris Christie has no credibility”. His last sentence reading, “But as of noon Tuesday, that cover-up will start coming uncovered.” . . . As of yet there is no proof of a cover-up on the Governors part.

January 27^th Paul Mushine headlines about Chris Christie . . .” A Caesar who fell on his own sword in the Bridgegate scandal”.  Stating that the governor didn’t lift a finger to stop it . . . There was nothing for the governor to stop.

Paul Mulshine doesn’t really know where he stands on the issue and jumped all over the Christrie flack along with every other media liberal reporter and now predicts, “Now that I think of it, aside from the current kerfuffle, this may actually be a good sign for Christie in the long run. This could be an indication that Wildstein has no knowledge of Christie involvement pre-closure. If that's the case, the Gov would likely survive this scandal damaged but still standing.”

Pretty much what I wrote January 22^nd  in Matt Rooney's Save Jersey, “ If there are no hard facts after the bridge fiasco to link the Governor with having a hand in what transpired by showing his resolve to deal with controversy and still do his job, Christie may come out of this stronger than the storm.”

Mulshine can’t wait to find the smoking gun on the governor hoping he would have the “hold the presses story” but yet he found no wrong with a diplomat being killed. He has stated, “. . . if I never hear the word "Benghazi" again, then I will enter either heaven or hell as a happier man.”

Now that is what I call unbiased reporting from an unbiased man.

The Grand Poobah Exhaulted Ruler

In a December speech Obama said “I believe this is the defining challenge of our time, it drives everything I do in this office”.  He is correct as his economic policies have failed miserably and it is everyone else’s fault but his.

 The president is supposed to work with Congress. His assertion that he will subvert the system by doing it his way if he has too is nothing more than sheer arrogance, a belligerent tactic bordering on bullying.

 As Paul Ryan stated, “He’s basically saying, ‘Let’s just keep doing more of the same,’ which — look at where we are.” I believe Ryan was correct in his statement of accusing the president of “going around the Constitution” in his recent vow to take executive actions, arguing it constituted a “violation of his oath.”

 Obama’s job-approval rating has fallen from grace and he is more or less a lame duck president. He is strutting’ his stuff in a meek attempt to show that he is still the boss.

 Texas senator Ted Cruz points out in the Wall Street Journal: “The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.” Just today (Tuesday) came a potential tenth — a three-judge federal-appeals court unanimously found that the Obama administration violated the Freedom of Information Act in trying to keep secret the government’s data on how much individual retailers take in from the food-stamp program.

 Cruz also noted, ”he did not say a single word to the over 5 million Americans who’ve lost their health insurance because of Obamacare . . . He left them out in the cold.”

 Obama stated that he would go around Congress as if it were something new to him. It isn’t  . . . he has overridden statutory law at least 15 times to delay or change the law’s written provisions. Historically both Democratic and Republican presidents have worked with Congress to make changes in major laws that have been passed. But president Obama the Almighty had determined that he is hell bent on leaving some kind of mark in the history of his presidency and declared himself king.

 Obamacare may not be his legacy to America. The longer lasting effects would be his aversion to following protocol.

 In the end his most noteworthy legacy may be his contribution towards eroding the rule of law . . .  an imperialistic approach future presidents will be tempted to emulate when their political agenda is hampered.

A trend if allowed to continue by future leaders, 1776 will have been erased as America will find itself once again 238 years in the past.