The Democrats’ Free-Speech Hypocrisy

Photo Credit: The Daily Beast
Last week, the war on the First Amendment entered a new phase when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his support for S.J. Res. 19, a proposed constitutional amendment designed to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes.” The intent of the proposed amendment is to empower the Congress and the States to limit all categories of campaign-related spending and contributions and overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which held independent political expenditures by businesses and unions alike to be protected by the First Amendment.

In plain English that’s called censorship. It’s also called hypocrisy, as many of the proposed amendment’s supporters—and most of its likely opponents—take a situational stance on the First Amendment.

More often than not, politicians think free speech is a fine thing so long as you agree with them. What do I mean? Well, in 2006 the then-Republican-controlled Senate failed by a single vote to move forward a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the legal authority to ban flag “desecration.” Fortunately, the Constitution mandates that a proposed amendment obtain the backing of two-thirds of both the House and Senate before it can be sent to the States for ratification, and the flag-burning amendment garnered only 66 of the 67 votes it needed.

But here’s the thing. Back then, many of the same folks who would stifle free speech if it comes in the form of money—but not in kind, as in the form of a favorable New York Times editorial—had no problem saying that it was constitutionally OK to put Old Glory to the test by putting it to the torch. The roster of Senate Democrats suffering from First Amendment schizophrenia includes former constitutional law professor and Senator Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and senior Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, and Ron Wyden—who rightly took the position that free speech should not be diluted in the name of some greater good, hurt feelings, or offended sensibilities…

So when Democrats decry money in politics are they really being serious, or are they just posturing? One thing’s for certain, money isn’t leaving politics anytime soon. As long as government is around, and politicians need their palms greased, money will be there as well. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans alike will drape themselves in the Constitution and the flag, except when it gets in their way.

Read more from this story HERE.

Goodwin: The American Spirit is Breaking

Photo Credit: NYPostBy Michael Goodwin.

The official opening of the 9/11 museum brought President Obama to New York and sparked fresh reminders of the horror of that awful day. The president called the site ­“sacred” and gave a moving speech about the American spirit, saying, “Like the great wall and bedrock that embrace us today, nothing can ever break us.”

It is the right thing to say and the right place to say it. But is it true? Is the American spirit really unbreakable?

I have my doubts.

There are many examples that say our spirit is breaking if not already broken. One involves a Wall Street Journal report that, six years after the housing bubble popped and sank the economy, federal officials want to lower mortgage standards again so more people can buy houses that they can’t afford. Been there, done that would seem to be the logical response, but the idea is gaining momentum because so few people can legitimately qualify for credit that the only way to spur housing growth is to junk the standards.

The same thing is happening in schools. Americans overwhelmingly agree that our educational system, once the envy of the world, is now lagging.

The cry to challenge students spawned a movement to raise the bar through the Common Core curriculum, but it is now grinding to a halt in New York and other places. The problem: Too many students are failing the tougher tests, making teachers look bad, parents unhappy — and politicians nervous.

Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Wikimedia CommonsThe loneliness of American society

By Janice Shaw Crouse.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported in its General Social Survey (GSS) that unprecedented numbers of Americans are lonely. Published in the American Sociological Review (ASR) and authored by Miller McPhearson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew Brashears, sociologists at Duke and the University of Arizona, the study featured 1,500 face-to-face interviews where more than a quarter of the respondents — one in four — said that they have no one with whom they can talk about their personal troubles or triumphs. If family members are not counted, the number doubles to more than half of Americans who have no one outside their immediate family with whom they can share confidences. Sadly, the researchers noted increases in “social isolation” and “a very significant decrease in social connection to close friends and family.”

Rarely has news from an academic paper struck such a responsive nerve with the general public. These dramatic statistics from ASR parallel similar trends reported by the Beverly LaHaye Institute — that over the 40 years from 1960 to 2000 the Census Bureau had expanded its analysis of what had been a minor category. The Census Bureau categorizes the term “unrelated individuals” to designate someone who does not live in a “family group.” Sadly, we’ve seen the percentage of persons living as “unrelated individuals” almost triple, increasing from 6 to 16 percent of all people during the last 40 years. A huge majority of those classified as “unrelated individuals” (about 70 percent) lived alone.

The compelling findings about loneliness and isolation and the ramifications for American society prompted numerous publications and talk shows to focus on the prevalence of loneliness in America. It is no accident that the social interaction trend declined sharply in the mid-1960s when “doing your own thing” became vogue and “sexual freedom” separated the physical act of sex from the embrace of an emotional attachment and/or a romantic relationship. Rabbi Daniel Lapin suggests that “we are raising a generation of children who are orphans in time.” He laments that today’s generation of young people is “incapable of integrating their past and their future … [living] instinctively in an almost animal-like fashion only in the present.” He notes that it is virtually impossible, then, to connect time and space in a way that enables them to build their “present.” Thus, they wander aimlessly about without connections — physically, emotionally, or spiritually.

Rather than acknowledge family breakdown, some commentators blame the increase in social isolation on television. In his book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam cited a dramatic increase in television watching — five percent of American households had televisions in 1950 compared with 95 percent in 1970. Now, many homes have a TV in every room. Putnam provides further reasons for the fragmentation of the family circle and disintegration of family life since the 1960s: Families have 60 percent fewer family picnics and 40 percent fewer family dinners.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Obamas: It Is All About Us

Photo Credit: RedState One of the more public displays of narcissism by Obama has been his constant inserting of himself into every situation. It started out funny when it was noticed that Obama had been inserted into the official White House biographies of other presidents. Then he became a part of Rosa Parks’ legacy by having himself photographed in the bus where she refused to give up her seat. This had been followed by other images sent out by the White House placing Obama center stage in commemorations of such significant figures as:

– Nelson Mandela
– George Washington
– Abraham Lincoln

When teenage thuglet, Trayvon Martin, was killed while conducting a beatdown on a neighborhood watch volunteer, Obama first said:

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,”

Read more from this story HERE.

“Honey, I Shrunk the Presidency”

Photo Credit: ReutersAs Barack Obama enters the twilight of his tenure, the debate over his legacy is ­beginning, but one conclusion already seems certain. It can best be described as “Honey, I shrunk the presidency.”

Not since Jimmy Carter was held hostage by Iran has the Oval Office seemed so inconsequential against the forces of international darkness. The mismatch is particularly striking because smallness has been Obama’s choice.

Although he is guilty of executive overreach at home, that bully behavior only sharpens the contrast with a foreign policy that is feeble when it is not comatose. The president’s estrangement from the demands of global leadership is giving a green light to tyrants and malevolent opportunists everywhere.

His preference for navel gazing over action was on full display last week. As Russia and China menaced their neighbors and Islamist terrorists set off bombs in a half-dozen countries, Obama accepted an award from Hollywood pal Steven Spielberg for fighting genocide. Passing up a chance to give a full-throated defense of freedom and Western civilization, the president lapsed into what The New York Times called a “meditation” on the limits of his power.

That’s far too kind. It was a white flag of surrender and more proof that Obama lacks the capacity to shoulder the responsibilities that have belonged to the Oval Office for 100 years.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Obama Coalition is About to Come Apart

Photo Credit: UPIFor the past decade the Democrats have managed to defy gravity by bolting together an unlikely coalition of the richest and poorest Americans. It’s no secret. Ever since President Bush’s re-election in 2004, the pattern has been clear. People making above $100,000 and below $40,000 vote Democratic. The people in the middle vote Republican.

But now that top-bottom coalition is about to come apart, or lose its majority status at least. And the issue will be one that may loom larger than the debacle of Obamacare — the Keystone Pipeline.

Forget all that business about Barack Obama being the first African-American President, the child of poverty and discrimination who fought his way to the top through sheer brilliance and doggedness. Sure African-Americans vote 90 percent for him and form an indispensable part of his coalition. But Obama hasn’t done a thing for them since taking office except increase unemployment.

No, the real Obama is the one who came out of Harvard and Chicago Law Schools, picking up everything he knows in the faculty lounge. That’s where he met the people who taught him that middle Americans are frustrated yahoos “clinging to their guns and religion,” the ones who set him on the lunatic path of believing that what the weather is going to be like in 50 years is the most important issue facing America.

Obama’s critical support comes from the upper crust of America, the citizens who live comfortably sheltered in academia and the non-profit sector, who don’t care much about electricity or the manufacturing economy but who honestly believe that we can shut down the whole middle portion of the country and turn off the lights in order to save the world from the “pollution” of carbon dioxide.

Read more from this story HERE.

Bring Back the Girls—Quietly

Photo Credit: APAt the end of the first Gulf War I saw something that startled me and gave me pause. More than 20 years later I can still see the image in my mind, so vivid was the impression it made.

It was June 8, 1991. America had just won a dazzling victory. We’d won a war in a hundred hours. Saddam Hussein had folded like a cheap suit and slunk out of Kuwait. The troops were coming home and the airwaves were full of joyous reunions. It was good.

Then the startling thing: There was a huge, full-scale military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington—two miles of troops, tanks, helicopters, even missiles. They marched from the Capitol past the White House, where there was a reviewing stand full of dignitaries. An F-117 stealth fighter streamed overhead.

I watched it on the news, from New York. When I saw the tanks, those big heavy bruisers, rolling down the avenue, it looked to me for all the world like a May Day parade in the Brezhnev era—militarist, nationalist, creepy. The journalist Michael Kelly captured some of the feel of it in the afterword of his book, “Martyr’s Day.” The parade was “a splendid evocation of military might and military discipline,” yet he found it “oddly disquieting.”

Disquieting was exactly the word. It was all such a rolling brag for a brief engagement we’d won with brains, guts and superior technology. More important, the size and nature of the parade seemed to suggest we were forgetting something: that war is a tragedy. People die in wars, the brave are sacrificed. War is sometimes necessary but always a mark of failure, the last bloody stop after breakdowns of diplomacy and judgment on all sides. War isn’t something you throw a fizzy party for while showing off your shining hardware.

Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Hearings Are a Truth Hunt, Not a Witch Hunt

Photo Credit: REUTERS

Photo Credit: REUTERS

By Charlie Daniels.

In the early days of the inquiry into the Benghazi debacle, it became obvious that the Obama administration was going to stonewall efforts to find out what happened when they tried to feed the American public the lie about the whole thing being caused by some obscure piece of film that insulted Mohammed and was played on television in the Muslim world.

They even stood at the coffins of the four murdered Americans, President Obama and Hillary Clinton still maintaining to the parents of the four men who had given their lives in service to this nation and let them believe that their sons and loved ones had been slaughtered by a random group of Muslim fanatics who just happened to be in the area and decided to kill some Americans.

The lie was soon exposed, but there were others like myself who never believed it to start with. I told my Twitter partners in 2012 that I was going to bring up Benghazi every day until the truth was known and I have, every day since.

People question me as to why I continue to post the Benghazi reminders daily because it’s old news, or they claim that the situation has been adequately explained, all the questions answered and it’s time to move on.

I vehemently disagree with those positions. To me, Benghazi is a symbol of a government that is poorly-led and out-of-control, an example of the indifference of a president who calmly went to bed and flew off to Las Vegas the next morning for a fundraiser.

Read more from this story HERE.

______________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: NEWSCOM

Photo Credit: NEWSCOM

Who’s Crazy?

By Stephen F. Hayes.

Benghazi, crazy. That’s the association the White House and its allies want to encourage as a House Select Committee begins what should be the most thorough investigation of the Benghazi attacks to date. The White House wants to delegitimize the process before it begins and preemptively discredit the findings. So last week senior White House adviser David Plouffe claimed that “a very loud, delusional minority” is driving the Republicans on Benghazi, and former representative Jane Harman compared questions about Benghazi to conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and aliens.

At first blush, it might seem an odd strategy. A Fox News poll taken in mid-April found that 60 percent of voters want Congress to continue investigating the Benghazi attacks—a total that included 77 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of independents, and 42 percent of Democrats. The same poll found that 61 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration is “trying to cover up” the real Benghazi story—87 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents, and 33 percent of Democrats. Just 26 percent think the administration has been “open and transparent.” Notably, this poll was taken before the court-ordered release last month of previously withheld White House emails and talking points, a revelation that provided fresh evidence of White House stonewalling.

But the Obama administration’s strategy isn’t intended for the country at large so much as it is for the Washington press corps. The goal is to convince reporters that by investigating Benghazi they are doing the bidding of crackpots and political hacks. The White House is betting that journalists are more cynical about House Republicans and their motives than they are about the Obama administration’s mendacity on Benghazi. There’s some evidence that’s right.

Most of the reporting after John Boehner’s announcement of a select committee hinted at political motives. The New York Times, in a story that typified the coverage of the latest developments, led this way: “House Republicans on Friday escalated their battle with the White House over the continuing investigations into the 2012 attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, ensuring that the issue will not recede in the midst of a fierce partisan fight for control of Congress.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Steyn: #BringBackOurBalls

Photo Credit: Steyn Online

Photo Credit: Steyn Online

It is hard not to have total contempt for a political culture that thinks the picture at right is a useful contribution to rescuing 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist savages in Nigeria. Yet some pajama boy at the White House evidently felt getting the First Lady to pose with this week’s Hashtag of Western Impotence would reflect well upon the Administration. The horrible thing is they may be right: Michelle showed she cared – on social media! – and that’s all that matters, isn’t it?

Just as the last floppo hashtag, #WeStandWithUkraine, didn’t actually involve standing with Ukraine, so #BringBackOurGirls doesn’t require bringing back our girls. There are only a half-dozen special forces around the planet capable of doing that without getting most or all of the hostages killed: the British, the French, the Americans, Israelis, Germans, Aussies, maybe a couple of others. So, unless something of that nature is being lined up, those schoolgirls are headed into slavery, and the wretched pleading passivity of Mrs Obama’s hashtag is just a form of moral preening.

But then what isn’t? The blogger Daniel Payne wrote this week that “modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing”. He was musing on a press release for some or other “Day of Action” that is, as usual, a day of inaction:

Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future.

It’s that easy! You go to a concert and someone “calls on government” to do something, and the world gets fixed.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Blames GOP For His Failed Administration

Photo Credit: RedState

Photo Credit: RedState

As we observed during the Clinton Administration, once you have rid yourself of any sense of shame the world is your oyster. If you can’t be deterred from an action by shame then there is no action you can’t undertake. Barack Obama has shown us that when it comes to shamelessness, Bill and Hillary Clinton are rank amateurs.

On Wednesday, Obama gave another in his unending series of fundraising speeches. This one on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

As usual, Obama fell back on his four point style of governance: deny everything, admit nothing, blame others, and make counter accusations.

But here’s what’s more disconcerting. Their willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them. The conclusion is, well, nothing works. And the problem is, is that for the folks worth fighting for — for the person who’s cleaning up that house or hotel, for the guy who used to work on construction but now has been laid off — they need us. Not because they want a handout, but because they know that government can serve an important function in unleashing the power of our private sector.

The Washington Post has already demolished his bizarre claim of 500 filibusters by Republicans, the dense and gullible Glenn Kessler awarding it Four Pinocchios…

Read more from this story HERE.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on Fox News: Obama is an “Outright Coward”

ralph_petersIn a blistering interview Friday on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom,” national security analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters castigated President Obama for not being interested in saving American lives during the Benghazi attack.

The former military intelligence officer and Soviet Union specialist suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus should be subpoenaed again “to pry this Stalinist administration open.”

“I mean it’s Orwellian, how this administration lies and sticks to the lies and stonewalls,” Peters said, according to the clip, “and the media is often complicit with it.”

“Obama”, he added, “wasn’t interested in saving American lives” during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

“He didn’t want to militarize the situation because that would call more attention to it,” he said. “I mean, the White House made political calls, strategic calls, but not patriotic calls.”

Read more from this story HERE.