Category: Guest Authors

Obama Albatross

By John Fund
Courtesy of National Review

With less than four months to go until Election Day, Democrats increasingly have no confidence in the Obama White House’s political instincts. As a result, more and more Democratic candidates are avoiding the president when he comes to their neighborhood. Senator Mark Udall  famously avoided showing up with Obama at a fundraiser in the senator’s honor in Colorado last week. John Foust, the Democratic congressional candidate in a suburban Virginia district just outside Washington, D.C., snubbed the president this week by failing to show up for a presidential event in his area.

Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas was flabbergasted by Obama’s petulant refusal to visit the Texas border last week, calling him “aloof” and “detached” and his decision “bizarre.”

The Virginia Progress PAC, a Democratic committee supporting Senator Mark Warner, issued a list of talking points for potential donors that laid out the challenge the Obama albatross represents for Democrats this fall: “The 2014 midterm elections are shaping up to be similar to the wave elections of 1994 and 2010, particularly with an unpopular President and an unpopular piece of major legislation that will serve as a referendum on the sitting President. . . . A difficult political climate coupled with the rising unpopularity of President Obama could affect the Democratic brand as a whole and hurt Senator Warner.”

Bob Beckel, a former Democratic campaign consultant, said on Fox News this week that he spoke with a Democrat “intimately involved in [Obama’s] campaigns, both of them.” The message was sobering: “He said you have to know what it’s like to get through [presidential counselor] Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, and I think that’s a tough deal for anybody on a staff to do. . . . [Obama] lives in a zone that nobody else goes to.”

Indeed, Democrats are becoming increasingly vocal about their concern that their president is isolated and not connecting with the political reality around him. “The Democratic party is like a wedding party with the common goal of getting to the ceremony on time,” a former Democratic congressman told me. “There is a caravan of cars, but the lead car is driven by a guy who is weaving in and out of traffic and is dangerous to the other cars behind him. Do you follow the guy you agreed to follow, or do you make your own way to the wedding? More and more people are leaving the caravan.”

All of Washington is talking about our detached president — one who would go to two fundraisers in New York last night after a plane carrying 23 Americans was shot down over Ukraine. In 2012, Obama famously flew off to fundraisers in Las Vegas the day after the Benghazi attack killed our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

“Obama does not appear to relish being chief executive,” writes liberal journalist Edward Luce in the Financial Times. Luce notes that Obama has headlined 393 fundraisers since he took office, double the number that George W. Bush had attended at this point in his presidency. Veteran journalist Patrick Smith writes, “I can think of two names for this. One is ‘outmoded arrogance.’ The other is ‘asleep at the wheel.’  Whatever the moniker, some measure of incompetence lies behind it.”

Democrats are happy for the president to raise money, which he can still do by appealing to the fat cats in the party’s environmental, gay, and feminist bases. But they increasingly don’t want to appear with him in front of ordinary voters or follow his lead on policy. For example, more and more Democrats in swing districts or states are looking for a way to separate themselves from the Obama White House’s chaotic border policy. Much of the grumbling is private for now, but it is increasingly seeping into public discourse.

And the grumbling goes beyond politics. A disengaged, petulant president who gives the impression that someone else is minding the White House store isn’t good for the country.

One presidential historian says that if the president’s bizarre behavior deepens, people will start making jokes comparing Obama to President Woodrow Wilson, who was debilitated by illness during his last two years in office, with decisions increasingly made by his aides and his wife, Edith. “The comparisons of course wouldn’t be fair, but they don’t have to be to have elements of truth to them.”

 

Obama Albatross

Obama Albatross

Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

Courtesy of National Review

Barack Obama’s disdain for the slow, grinding mechanisms of government has become unmistakable of late. So it is little surprise that, frustrated by congressional inaction on his proposal for “comprehensive immigration reform,” the president last month declared that he would “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own.” The result, intimated by White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer last week, is a “very significant” executive action to be unveiled by the end of the summer. If reports of the contents of the order are credible, not only will the action fail to “fix” America’s immigration system, it will further undo the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers that this administration has already done so much to weaken.

The White House is reportedly weighing two options for executive action similar in kind to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was implemented — also by executive fiat, via memorandum — in 2012. One option would grant temporary legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, authorizing them to remain in the country and to work here. The second option would do the same for illegal-immigrant parents of DACA recipients. These actions could affect anywhere from 3 to 6 million people.

Although the specifics are unknown, any unilateral action of this magnitude and type would be unprecedented. Permission to work would secure for millions of illegal immigrants the benefits of lawful status despite the absence of a green card or a pathway to citizenship. Already illegal immigrants, taken in toto, represent a net drag on the American economy of $55 billion a year, according to the Heritage Foundation, since they and their families make use of direct benefits (such as Social Security and Medicare), means-tested welfare benefits, public education, and other government-funded resources. The tacit moral sanction granted by a new DACA-type program would ensure that program participants are eventually guaranteed these services.

It is not unlikely that a new program would, like DACA, be pitched as a temporary measure. DACA deferrals, for instance, are given in two-year increments, after which recipients must renew their grant. But these “temporary” programs are no such thing. Consider Temporary Protected Status, established in 1990 to provide for illegal immigrants who, for reasons of war or natural disaster, cannot return to their home countries at the moment, but who do not qualify as refugees. Not one TPS beneficiary has been deported because his status expired. TPS status still shields Honduran refugees fleeing Hurricane Mitch, which struck in 1998. By this precedent, there is no reason to believe the Obama administration will aggressively enforce any new, supposedly temporary program.

In addition, any new DACA-style program will have the tendency to encompass persons beyond its target demographic. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers report in the wake of DACA, anyone who appears to be under the maximum deferral age — that is, any illegal immigrant who appears younger than 33 years old — is presumed to be eligible for DACA. As of March 31, some 550,000 “DREAMers” have received permits under the order, but the program has functionally shielded from investigatory and/or enforcement actions probably 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants. No doubt a similar presumption would obtain under a new program, protecting millions who are technically ineligible.

DACA also belies the claim that unilateral executive actions are simply large-scale enactments of prosecutorial discretion, pragmatic measures necessitated by the federal government’s lack of resources. DACA has proven to involve a massive expenditure of both time and money that has required USCIS officers to table entrance applications from legal immigrants to accommodate the deluge of applicants from illegal immigrants. A de facto amnesty of 5 million illegal immigrants would overwhelm an already inundated system.

The problem, though, is finally one of constitutional order. Is Congress — and, through it, the electorate — responsible for the laws governing America’s borders? Or does one man get to decide who may enter and work in the United States? The assumption by the president of the ability to unilaterally welcome or reject migrants is a rank violation of the separation of powers. The president would no longer be enforcing existing law; he would be writing it anew at will on a scale heretofore unimagined.

Earlier this month Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill (S. 2666) that would cut off federal funds for the continued implementation of DACA and would prohibit any “agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government” from using federal resources “to authorize any alien to work in the United States” who was not lawfully admitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although the bill is unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, it will put pressure on red-state Democrats to defend their decision to countenance this executive-branch power grab.

Perhaps that can assist in the Republican campaign to retake the Senate. The campaign to restore immigration laws, and the rightful place of Congress in our constitutional order, will take much longer.
Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

Barack Obama DACA Cruelty

White House Mole

By

Personal mockery is a well-oiled and perpetually used tool from the Alinsky toolbox. The right tends to shy away from it. They should get over it. If rocks are being thrown at you, its perfectly reasonable to pick them up and throw them back. Palin, Bush and their spouses and children’s were fair game to the left. If you want to take higher ground, stick to the politicians themselves.

There is one thing that has always disturbed me about Barak Obama. Always. Even before I knew anything about him. He is touted as one of the biggest intellects in the world. From the day he came on our radar I wondered why he wasn’t smart enough to get that hideous growth nestled outside his nostril removed. After all he was being sold as perfection. If he wasn’t always sticking his nose in our business, I wouldn’t pick on it (sorry).

(Read more at FreedomRadioRocks.com)

 

White House Mole

White House Mole

Build Border Wall

By Chris Freind

The humanitarian crisis engulfing the United States — tens of thousands of parentless Central American children pouring across the southern border — will surely increase in scope. And the reason is simple: America continues to send the message that we welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, even young ones traveling alone.

That’s not just insane, but downright cruel.

It’s one thing if illegal immigrant advocates lobby for amnesty and open borders, but openly encouraging parents to send their children on a perilous journey is heartless. And make no mistake: That’s exactly the message being sent. Not surprisingly, the biggest advocate of all is the U.S. government.

The influx of these children has taken the immigration issue to a whole new level. And here’s the underlying short-term problem: While most are eventually designated for deportation (the key word being “eventually”), it often takes years to get a hearing in immigration court. In the meantime, the children are left in a scary, isolated limbo, not living a productive life, and, worst of all, remain far away from where they belong: at home, with their parents and families.

The parents, not seeing their children return home a short time after sending them off, assume deportations are not taking place, and that their kids have been officially accepted into American society as part of an open amnesty program. As the old shampoo commercial said, those parents tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, to the point where it becomes widely perceived that sending more children to America is the right thing to do.

But it’s not.

With so many dangers confronting these defenseless children during their trek to America, from sickness to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults in a host of horrible ways, we should be doing everything in our power to stop this exodus from Central America. Now. That would be the humanitarian thing to do.

Instead, as is the case for every major issue we face, we look to tactics, not strategies, to solve the crisis, amounting to Band-Aids on hemorrhaging wounds. America has lost its gift of foresight, becoming reactive instead of proactive and jettisoning its ability to eliminate problems before they start, or, at the least, confronting them head-on with the iron will to solve them.

A glaring example of this is the clamor, on both sides of the aisle, to better fund and staff our immigration courts as a way of alleviating the massive backlog of cases, now exponentially higher given the influx of children. (There are 243 immigration judges, an average of one to every 1,545 pending cases).

Nice idea, but it misses the whole point. Ramping up the immigration courts will never solve the problem, because it doesn’t address it. More courts, judges and hearings may slightly alleviate the supply side of illegal immigration, but does nothing to cut down the demand. Until we get serious about reforming a broken immigration system, which neither party has any interest in doing, things will only deteriorate, and more people will attempt to cross the order for the perceived amnesty. Tensions will continue to escalate between citizens and illegal immigrants they see as threatening their physical and economic security, and the situation will become measurably uglier. And when that occurs, no one wins.

Here are some common sense solutions, which, if articulated correctly, would be reasonable to the vast majority of Americans, while providing compassion to people who yearn for the better life America provides:

1. Build the border wall. This is the single most important step to fixing the problem, as a formidable barrier will instantly send the message that America has gotten serious about stopping illegal border crossings. When families in Central America understand this, they will stop sending their children into harm’s way, saving countless lives. Since we have a $17 trillion debt, funding the wall won’t be an issue (what’s a few billion more?), but costs could be controlled by utilizing nonviolent prisoners and illegal immigrants to construct it. If we were smart, we would also stop giving foreign aid to any nation that encourages illegal immigration, and that refuses to accept their citizens whom we deport. That funding alone would be enough to build the wall.

Common sense tells us that a secure border wall would absolutely cut down the “supply” side of not just illegal immigrants, but drug traffickers and terrorists. Protecting our children and eliminating al-Qaeda’s free pass (possibly with a nuclear weapon) should be top priorities. For proof of effectiveness, look at Israel’s success with its wall. Walls work. Build it. Now.

2. There is no need to militarize the border, as some advocate. The smart utilization of current resources (and a secure wall) would be more than adequate. The numbers tell the story: The southern border is 2,000 miles long. As of 2012, there were over 21,000 Border Patrol agents. Even if we take 3,000 agents out of the equation (more than enough to patrol the Florida shores and those sneaky Canucks), that leaves nine agents per mile, which is an extraordinarily high staffing level. Making America into a military state is anathema to what we stand for and totally unnecessary.

3. Marketing America’s legal immigration policies in Central American nations is not mutually exclusive to instituting “self-deportation” policies for illegal immigrants. America is the most generous nation on Earth regarding legal immigration, and immigrants have always made America stronger. But the emphasis must be on entering the country legally.

One easy and cost-effective way to cut down on undocumented workers skirting the law is to mandate that all employers utilize the free E-Verify system, which quickly determines the legal status of a potential hire. Companies that do not comply should face stiff penalties. This is a win-win, as stringent law enforcement measures on businesses would also serve to eliminate lavish public benefits enjoyed by illegal immigrants — the mammoth costs of which are borne by taxpayers.

4. We must place partisan politics aside and reasonably deal with illegals already here. Failure to do so will only exacerbate an already bad situation.

We can document the workers already here by issuing long-term or lifetime work visas (after they pass a criminal background check), while permanently denying them citizenship and possibly levying fines. In doing so, they would begin paying their “fair share” through taxes and lessen the financial burden on U.S. citizens.

That’s not amnesty, but the only realistic approach to finally solving a huge, decades-old problem. It penalizes lawbreakers, documents millions (bringing them out of the shadowy underworld) and makes them, and Americans, considerably safer. It would increase tax revenue and make formerly illegal workers pay into benefits programs.

Solving America’s illegal immigration crisis amicably and reasonably, while protecting the most vulnerable of any society — the children — can be summed up by the quote, “The solutions are simple; they’re just not easy.”

For everyone’s sake — Americans, immigrants, and especially the youngest generation — it’s time to finally roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

 

Build Border Wall

Pension Reform Failure Belongs To GOP

By Lisa Esler

I would like to respond to Delaware County Republican Party Chairman Andy Reilly’s assessment of why pension reform has not been dealt with in Harrisburg.

While we would expect all legislators to use integrity and common sense when making legislative decisions, Pennsylvania residents did give the Republicans the opportunity to right many wrongs over the past three and a half years by giving them majorities in all three branches. Perhaps the problem is not a Democrat/Republican problem but a taxpayer/special interest problem.

Despite high hopes from constituents, it looks like they left behind a litany of unfinished business as they exited the state Capitol for their summer break, and a much-wished-for list from the voters who had faith in their representatives.

When former Gov. Ed Rendell was in office the excuse for not getting “real pension reform” done was that Republicans did not have a majority so that was all they could do, kicking the can down the road. Then the Republicans took the majority.

In the past three and a half years the pension crisis has gone from $28 billion to $48 billion. Hmm. Perhaps we should have tackled the issue three and a half years ago. It would have been a lot less painful – common sense.

Andy, unless I missed something in civics, the minority cannot block legislation.

A few no-action items include: Liquor privatization, furlough of teachers for economic reasons, paycheck protection, elimination of prevailing wage and of course, the biggest daddy in the room, pension reform just to name a few.

Unfortunately, Harrisburg legislators could not or would not prioritize and address these issues before they left the Capitol.

But then again, politicians are best known for doing little to benefit their constituents, snookering them into believing they have their best interest at heart and getting reelected long enough to collect a pension – integrity.

Until all voters start looking at their representatives’ voting records, their political contributors and stop saying “he’s a nice guy” when asked about their opinion about them, we will never change Harrisburg.

I am so sick of finger pointing. The House points at the Senate. The Senate points at the House. They both point at the governor. The governor points back. And now we point at the Democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around but what we really need in Harrisburg are grown-ups!

Is that what you meant to say?

Pension Reform Failure Belongs To GOP

Pension Reform Failure Belongs To GOP

 

Sinister Truth Regarding Common Core

By Ryan M. Bannister

In response to a recent op-ed (York Dispatch)  by William Bartle, education policy director for Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, I would like to point out some conveniently ignored truths regarding Common Core.

Mr. Bartle, with either willful ignorance or contempt for the “regular class,” has lacked the integrity to offer full disclosure in his April 18 piece titled “Nothing sinister about Common Core.” The title itself screams “nothing to see here.”

I offer a public response to Mr. Bartle in order to enlighten him with the facts and further educate him on honesty in communication.

Fact: William Bartles’ organization, Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, has received three separate grants from the Gates Foundation to sponsor Common Core. These three grants total $935,859.

I wonder why he failed to mention this.

Fact: The president and CEO of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children is Joan Benso. Why is she important? Well, another fact that must have slipped the mind of Mr. Bartle is that Joan Benso has a husband named Thomas Gluck. Are you ready for this? Mr. Thomas Gluck is executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units. His organization also received grants from the Gates Foundation to support and promote Common Core. His grants totaled nearly $2 million.

The conflict is glaring, but I’m sure the elitist few have their reasons. After all, it’s for the children. It must be a difficult job as education director for Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children to sacrifice facts and honest disclosure for corporate interests in a federal takeover of education. The documentation from the commonwealth stating that Pennsylvania Core Standards and Common Core are the same thing is vast and abundant. It’s a wonder the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children can’t afford a fact-checker or staff researcher with all that Gates Foundation money. Somehow a “regular class” proletariat such as myself was able to locate these documents, and at no cost. I’ll be happy to share them with you if you want to get caught up on the facts.

Mr. William Bartle stated with such confidence that there is no federal control of education due to Common Core. That is a lie. In order to even apply for the federal grant money (wow, more money?) we had to have agreed to the federal Common Core standards and Common Core-aligned resources (technology, text books, etc. …).

Additionally, to apply for the SLDS (Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems) grant, we had to have first implemented a “womb-to-workplace” data collection system. Sounds sinister, huh? What’s even scarier is that those aren’t my words. The term “womb-to-workplace” was used multiple times by the commonwealth on the actual grant application. I’m sure these details slipped his mind as well.

Now that we’ve identified the conveniently ignored facts that William Bartle, fancy shmancy policy director of the bought-and-paid-for Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, left out of his op-ed, let’s discuss what Common Core in Pennsylvania means to the taxpayer.

In Pennsylvania, Common Core is a regulation, not a law. This is because our state Constitution (remember this document, Mr. Bartle?) requires any cost to the commonwealth associated with changes in education be put through the legislative process. That means it would be subject to amendments, alterations and a host of other political shenanigans in which the resulting bill could be something that is not aligned with the federal requirements for the Race To The Top federal grant money. Also, any actual law that involves federal control to our local education system would violate the 10th amendment as well as the General Education Provisions Act. Regulations seem convenient. This way no elected or publicly accountable official can tinker with Common Core.

The ridiculous description offered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in describing the cost of Common Core is that it will be … are you ready for this? … cost-neutral. This is efficiency at its finest, considering the Boston-based Pioneer Institute placed the cost to just implement Common Core in Pennsylvania to be at least $650 million. Luckily, the commonwealth doesn’t have to pay for this because it is cost-neutral (pause for laughter). That’s right folks. The cost will fall squarely to the local level. What’s that you say? Your local school district doesn’t have that kind of money to implement Common Core? Thankfully, the hard-working property owners of Pennsylvania will be there to foot the bill. Taxpayers, say hello to the unfunded mandate.

What have we learned today? The president and CEO, Joan Benso, of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children received nearly $1 million from the Gates Foundation to promote Common Core. Thomas Gluck (husband of Joan Benso) is the executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units and has received nearly $2 million to support and promote Common Core.

William Bartle, education policy director for Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, writes an op-ed from behind the curtain on April 18 to assure us that there is nothing sinister about Common Core.

It takes some decent money to support Common Core. It only takes common sense to oppose it.

We the taxpayers, the parents, the citizens of the regular class know better than this. We know that our children and the educational decisions to be made regarding our children should be managed at the local level, not through federal standardized tests and curriculum.

We can do better than the money takers. There are far more of us than there are of them. Let us be heard.

Ryan M. Bannister is a member of Pennsylvanians Against Common Core.

Sinister Truth Regarding Common Core

Sinister Truth Regarding Common Core

Hat tip Joanne Yurchak

Avoid Ukraine Conflict

By Chris Freind

Stay away. Far, far away.

Unless America wants to see the powder keg of Europe ignited once again — and it’s not a stretch to say that actively opposing Russia in its conflict with Ukraine could potentially start World War III — it will steer clear of that region. Avoiding another global war (this time with nuclear weapons) should be reason enough, but here’s another one: It’s not our fight.

Right now, it is a limited brawl between those two nations, and, despite the spin that Russia is the bad guy, it is not at all clear who is “right.” Either way, those powerful nations dominate that region; we don’t. To march in as a self-righteous superpower thinking we can “fix” the problem is arrogant, naïve — and dangerous.

Let’s analyze the situation:

1. Malaysia Airlines: They have now lost two 777s in the past couple of months. It’s enough to bankrupt any airline. In a span of four months, Malaysian Airlines planes have been involved in two of the worst airline tragedies in decades.

In the first incident, the jury remains out on just what happened to the missing Flight 370. While some conspiracy theories are absurd, others cannot be so easily dismissed. One thing is certain: The problems that have dogged the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines officials was on full display after Flight 370’s disappearance. A few months later, most experts believe Flight 17 was blown out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile. The tragedy over the Ukraine took place even after airlines had been repeatedly warned since April to avoid flying over that conflicted region. The Malaysian jet failed to heed that warning.

2. Apparently the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” has been lost on many American leaders clamoring for more action against the pro-Russian rebels and Russia itself. Last time we checked, it remains unclear who fired the missile, especially since the Ukraine military operates the exact same SA-11 system.

And it’s not unprecedented for missiles to be fired at the wrong targets. Iraq killed 37 sailors on the USS Stark in 1987 when one of its airplane missiles mistakenly hit the Navy frigate. Similarly, the American cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing nearly 300 people in 1988. We can’t have it both ways, stating that the Malaysian jet was unmistakably a passenger jet, yet excusing how one of the world’s most sophisticated radar systems (AEGIS) thought a jumbo jet was a small, attacking fighter. Our credibility on the world stage is at stake, so let’s think before we speak.

3. The question of which country the predominantly Russian-speaking people of Crimea want to be aligned with is not new; these ethnic and nationality issues don’t just transcend borders, but time, with allegiances going back hundreds, even thousands, of years. We are a nation barely over 200 years old, with absolutely no concept of how far back, and how strong, these European ties are. To think we can provide the solution is naivete at its worst.

We used the same approach for engaging Iraq and Afghanistan. How’s that working out for us?

4. Here a news flash: The Cold War is over. For those warmongers who missed it, perhaps we should declare victory again and move on, and out, of Europe. It’s been pointed out here before it’s time for America to stop policing the world, and start its exodus from Europe. Only four NATO countries meet their paltry requirement for defense spending, yet the U.S. always exceeds its obligation to pick up the slack. If the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is anybody’s business, it’s Europe’s. It falls entirely within their sphere of influence, so let them deal with it.

That’s not to advocate isolationism, as it is in America’s interest to have a global presence. But an aggressive and all-too-often misguided interventionist foreign policy (one advocated by both parties) leaves the perception of the U.S. as imperialistic aggressors, which creates exponentially more problems down the road. Time to stop expending blood and treasure in foreign lands while our protectees default on their end of the bargain, leaving us holding an empty bag.

5. We haven’t done too well choosing sides in other regional conflicts. We backed the Libyan rebels (the largest foreign force in Iraq to fight the U.S., by the way) who overthrew Moammar Gadhafi, after which 10,000 surface-to-air missiles disappeared and the Benghazi tragedy occurred. Bet the ranch neither would have happened had Gadhafi remained in power.

We are backing the Syrian rebels, who are unquestionably more radical and anti-American than the government of Bashar Assad; the Iraqi government we helped install is worthless; and Afghani President Hamid Karzai is astonishingly ungrateful. Instead of meddling in foreign affairs so much, maybe it’s time to focus on the people who should matter most: Americans. In America.

6. You know we’ve reached a low point when politicians bash the other side just to score cheap political points for some perceived gain, especially when doing so risks an expanded armed conflict in Europe, potentially putting American lives on the line.

For those hammering President Obama (with some even blaming him for the Malaysian shoot-down), one question: What exactly do you want him to do? Send “advisers” to the Ukraine, which always leads to more troops? Send more Navy ships to the region? Arm the Ukraine to the hilt? All will antagonize Russian leader Vladimir Putin and cause him to escalate the crisis. We cannot win a war there. Period. Since the outcome doesn’t affect us, let’s wait this one out on the sidelines.

As far as sanctions, good luck standing alone. Western Europe chose not to become energy independent, or at least dependent on friendly nations like Canada and the U.S. (which could be energy independent but is not). So it must rely on the Middle East, and even more so, Russia, for its lifeblood: natural gas. Watch for them to cheat on, or rescind, any sanctions.

Putin’s economy is sliding, but his people are rallying behind him and he is holding the better cards. Let Europe figure this one out.

Russia is not the superpower it once was, but it is still a powerful player that must be respected (after all, it’s the only ticket to our space station, but that’s another story). Warmongers’ cries of “appeasement” notwithstanding, playing “chicken-Kiev” with Russia is not sound foreign policy. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

Avoid Ukraine Conflict

IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

By Father Frank Pavone

Tax law says that Churches may not intervene in political campaigns. But the definition and boundaries of such intervention are vague and confusing. In its attempt at guidance, the IRS says “all the facts and circumstances” have to be examined. From one point of view, this standard itself is not a standard at all, but a mere statement of the obvious. After all, if a person, in making any kind of judgment, does not consider “facts and circumstances,” what, after all, does he or she consider — crystal balls, astrological signs, dreams and hallucinations?

From another point of view, how can one possibly consider all facts and circumstances of any action or decision? In real day to day life, we consider those facts and circumstances of which we are aware in the amount of time we have to make the decision, and which seem important enough to influence the decision. It’s a normal fact of life that, looking back on decisions we have made, we come to see facts and circumstances we did not have the time or ability to weigh at the time of the decision. Obviously, a consideration of “all the surrounding facts and circumstances” — if it can ever happen at all — can only happen after the action has been taken, and perhaps a long time after, or indeed never.

The Congressional Research Service has reported, “In many situations, the activity is permissible unless it is structured or conducted in a way that shows bias towards or against a candidate. Some biases can be subtle and whether an activity is campaign intervention will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Lunder & Whitkaker at 3.)

A question obviously arises here. Unless we are to say that Churches have no freedom to teach on issues that also happen to correspond to political debates, how are they protected from the accusation of being “partisan” simply because the position of the organization, or the teaching of the Church or the Gospel, corresponds to the position that one particular political party or candidate has, and is diametrically opposed to that of their opposing party or candidate?

The Church opposes abortion and stands up for the rights of the unborn. The Republican Party platform takes a similar position. The Democratic Party platform, on the other hand, supports abortion as a right. So now, is the Church’s pro-life position partisan, and therefore illegal to assert?

That would be both absurd and intolerable.

Erik Stanley states, “The predictable outcome of this state of affairs has been massive self-censorship among churches and pastors.” Even the Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has noted with concern what happens when people aren’t given a clear, bright line regarding what speech and activity is forbidden and what is not. “Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.’”(Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972) (quoting Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372 (1964)).

We at Priests for Life believe there is a solution to all this. We believe it’s time to stop censoring ourselves by the risk-averse mentality, often fostered by legal advisors, that wants to not only avoid breaking the law, but also avoid both the accusation and the appearance of breaking the law. This lack of willingness to fight leads to sterility and paralysis, keeping the Church’s mission from being fulfilled.

Instead, we should rely on legal counsel who are willing to interpret the IRS guidelines in a way that does not stifle our mission, and have the readiness to defend that interpretation. We need to conduct non-partisan activities in a way that common sense judges as non-partisan: no candidate or party is endorsed, and the activity is open to all. And we should push for legislation that provides a “bright line” test for Churches and tax exempt organizations so that they know ahead of time, by a clear, reasonable, and easily discernible standard, what does and does not constitute prohibited political intervention. A perfect example of this is provided in the Buckley vs. Valeo Supreme Court decision which, in another context, indicated the bright line to be defined by whether or not one uses “explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate.” The Court gave examples of such words and phrases: ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘reject.’

It is time to apply a clear standard like this in order to interpret the political intervention prohibition on Churches.

Father Pavone  is national director of Priests for Life

 

IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

IRS Speech Standard Needs Reform

Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

Obama Outhouse Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

The Obama Justice Department thinks this is racist. It was crated by a veteran about the unnecessary deaths caused by Veterans Administration policies and the ensuing coverup.

 

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Nineteen terrifying words from the Omaha World-Herald: The U.S. Department of Justice has joined the discussions over a controversial float in the Norfolk Independence Day parade.

Thus did the federal government dispatch an emissary to investigate a minor instance of Midwestern dissent.

A quick recap for the happily uninitiated: The “controversial float” in question was one of many included in this year’s Independence Day parade in Norfolk, Neb. The entry, which featured a zombie standing on an outhouse marked “Obama Presidential Library,” was created by a veteran named Dale Remmich, and was designed, Remmich claims, to express the “political disgust” that he feels at the Obama administration’s mismanagement of the Department of Veteran Affairs. As is the habit now, pictures of the float were quickly pushed around the Internet, attracting the attention and disapprobation of such august institutions as the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, and the Huffington Post — and, it seems, the interest of the United States Department of Justice. This week, the World-Herald reports, the DOJ “sent a member of its Community Relations Service team, which gets involved in discrimination disputes, to a Thursday meeting about the issue.” Present at the summit were the NAACP, the mayor of the Nebraska town in which the float was displayed, and the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, which sponsored the event.

Now for the obvious question: Why? What, exactly, was the problem here? Nobody was killed. Nobody was maimed. Nobody had their material or spiritual interests injured, nor were they stripped of their livelihoods. No federal or state laws were broken. Indeed, not even private rules were broken. More to the point, there was no “discrimination dispute” of the sort with which the DOJ likes to concern itself. Instead, a few free people were vexed because a politician that they like was depicted in an unflattering light. One might well ask, “So what?” Once, Americans tackled the Oregon Trail. Are they now in need of their political “discussions” being arbitrated by glorified social workers sent by Uncle Sam?

In a typically risible statement, Nebraska’s state Democratic party described the incident as one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.” That this is almost certainly true demonstrates just how much progress the United States has made in the last 50 years — and, in consequence, how extraordinarily difficult the professionally aggrieved are finding it to fill their quotas. If a fairly standard old saw is among the worst things to have happened to the Cornhusker State in recent memory, the country is in rather good shape, n’est-ce pas?

Exactly what it was about the float that rendered it “racist” was, of course, never explained. Instead, the assertion was merely thrown into the ether, ready to be accepted uncritically by the legions of righteously indignant keyboard warriors that lurk around social media as piranhas around a fresh carcass. But, for future reference at least, it would be nice to have the details of the offense unpacked. Are outhouses racist now? Are zombies? Or was it perhaps the overalls in which the zombie was dressed? Moreover, if any of these are now redolent of something sinister, at what point was this association held to be operative? A popular cartoon from 2006 depicted a latrine standing in the middle of the desert, on its outer wall the words “Bush Presidential Library.” Was this “racist,” or is this one of those timeless truths that were only discovered in 2009?

The float’s maker has insisted that the zombie represented himself and not the president. “I’ve got my bibs on, my walker, I’m covering my ears and I’m turning a bit green; I intended it to look like a zombie who has had enough,” he explained. Unsurprisingly, the NAACP didn’t buy it. “Looking at the float, that message absolutely did not come through,” the president of the outfit’s Iowa and Nebraska chapters griped. Fair enough. Arguendo , let’s presume that some of the spectators misunderstood the piece and believed that the president of the United States was being compared to a toilet-dwelling zombie. Again: Who cares? Are we now so hopelessly epicene that we expect federally funded conflict-resolution teams to swoop in on the hinterlands if the locals mutter too loudly about the government? I rather hope that we are not.

Frankly, as superficially appealing as they might sound, appeals to “the dignity of the office” are invariably prissy, serving more often than not as a means by which humorless partisans might grumble about their team’s being dinged without appearing hypersensitive. Indeed, far from damaging the national fabric, astringent mockery of the powerful is a healthy and necessary thing — a source of valuable catharsis that serves also as a canary in the proverbial coal mine. When I see the most powerful man in the country being not only mocked, but hanged and burned in effigy too, my first thought is less “gosh, how awful” than “wow, is this a free country or what?” A historical rule of thumb: If a ragtag group of political dissenters can simulate the violent execution of the head of the executive branch and not be so much as scratched as a result, the country is a free one. Who cares if a few of our more delicate sorts reach for the smelling salts?

It is always tempting to believe one’s own time to be particularly interesting or fractious, but there is little in politics that is genuinely new. Sharp and violent denunciations of the executive branch have been a feature of American life since the republic’s first days. Before the Revolution, the colonists routinely hanged likenesses of unpopular royal representatives, including King George III;Andrew Oliver , the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps; and the loyalist Supreme Court justice, Thomas Hutchinson . Afterward, having dispensed with the old guard, Americans took to lambasting the new, among them George Washington, who had effected the king’s defeat; Thomas Jefferson, who had authored the charter of separation; and James Madison , who had drafted the lion’s share of the new Constitution. Chief Justice John Jay’s 1795 treaty with the British was so wildly unpopular among the Jeffersonians that Jay reported being able to travel from Boston to Philadelphia by the light of his burning effigies. Later, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was subjected to the treatment. In one form or another, most presidents have been.

The modern era has served as no exception to the rule. During his two terms, George W. Bush was the object of considerable opprobrium, his likeness being frequently hanged, knived in the forehead, and even assassinated on prime-time television. At the height of the Left’s umbrage, progressive heroes Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield went so far as to take a twelve-foot effigy of Bush on a national tour, setting fire to it at each stop to the audience’s hearty cheers. Ben and Jerry make ice cream, not apple pie. But their barnstorming road trip could not have been more American. There are few things more indicative of human liberty than the ability to castigate power with impunity — up to and including the moment of offense. “To learn who rules over you,” Voltaire suggested, “simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Is Barack Obama to be a ruler?
Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.

 

Free Speech Exercise Prompts Fed Investigation

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson

By Chris Freind

 

 

“If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time.”

— Chinese Proverb

Since China took a chapter from America’s playbook on working hard and smashing through any obstacle to achieve success, it’s too bad we didn’t reciprocate by heeding those prophetic words from the Orient. If we had, China wouldn’t be the massive tiger whose influence becomes more global each day, and we wouldn’t be on the fast track to becoming a paper tiger.

Yet, too many refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States is, and has been, in a dangerous financial decline for decades, fueled by the self-interest of both political parties, and a public unwilling to demand accountability and a change in direction. In not believing that the rules apply to us, we continue to raise the stakes in a game we cannot win.

There is an extremely naïve mindset that we’re too big to fail (or fall) and that protests, righteous indignation and more money will solve everything, even when the books show we’re broke.

It is always easier to comprehend large issues on a local level. The recent spate of casino bankruptcies and closings in Atlantic City, and the reasons for their shutdowns, provide a microcosm of America’s problems. And it’s a sure bet that if America doesn’t turn things around soon, it’s bluff will be called and it will fold its hand, just as is happening in Atlantic City. Consider:

1. Former glory: The recent closing of the Atlantic Club Casino, along with the anticipated closings of the Showboat, Trump Plaza, and the new, $2.4 billion Revel would leave Atlantic City with just eight casinos, a whopping 33 percent decline since January. How could this happen?

Atlantic City was once a jet-set destination, the A-List place to see and be seen by the world’s rich and famous.

But that was then. As has been the case for decades, a huge percentage of residents live in extreme poverty, with an educational system so bad that even when the casinos were in full swing and had ample job opportunities, the city’s unemployment rate was double the national average.

Without education, and thus the prospect of gainful employment, crime and vice skyrocket, which we have seen not just in A.C. but nationwide, as America’s woefully inadequate (yet lavishly funded) public schools continue to fail our children. Despite all the promises of government leaders and industry officials to reinvigorate the city after building the casinos, the situation continues to deteriorate.

There are many who think that America’s glory days are behind her, as optimism in the future continues to wane, regardless of who occupies the White House. Jobs continue to be lost overseas, educational achievement levels are dropping, and the middle class is shrinking while an unaffordable and unsustainable entitlement class is growing. Despite blue ribbon commissions and campaign promises of a better tomorrow, things are going the wrong way with no solution in sight.

2. Resting On Laurels: America is still unquestionably the world’s most powerful nation — for now, but it has gotten sluggish. Content in its position, it refuses to see who is breathing down its neck. As a result, the competition is gaining while the U.S. remains stagnant. Each week brings news of the dollar’s further decline as more countries move to other currencies for their international transactions.

As America loses its reserve currency status, while continuing to print money to spend trillions it doesn’t have, the value of our incomes decline. But since no one wants to admit the mathematical certainty that insolvency is nearly upon us at municipal, state and federal levels, especially given the trillions in unfunded pension liabilities, the problems aren’t being addressed.

Atlantic City, located within driving distance of well over 100 million people, also rested on its laurels, as it had the casino industry all to itself. Until it didn’t — but by then it was too late. In its complacency, it never strove to better itself, nor was it proactive in re-inventing who it was and what it offered. That blindness made it impotent to compete when neighboring states started permitting casinos.

And then there was Vegas (a desert, without the allure of being next to an ocean), whose leaders had the foresight to make that town not just a gambling mecca, but a family vacation destination, a remarkable feat since the vast majority of visitors must fly there. Las Vegas markets itself brilliantly, keeps the city relatively safe and continues to attract people from all over the world. The numbers tell the story: Atlantic City’s gaming revenue has declined 50 percent since 2006, yet for the most part, Vegas continues to post moderate gains, and, unlike Atlantic City, the city still prospers even when revenues are down because of its diversification. The spoils go to the victor and Las Vegas is winning every hand.

Likewise, nations and financial institutions are parking their investment money in places other than America. And not only aren’t they buying American debt at previous levels, viewing it as an increasingly risky bet, but many are dumping it altogether. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that our house of cards strategy will, at some point, collapse.

3. Denial. Two plus two always equals four. If America continues to spend uncontrollably without reforming entitlements and rebuilding its moribund manufacturing base, there will be unprecedented pain. And no amount of protests, lobbying or complaining will change this.

In Atlantic City, casino employees and union members continue to protest the closings, playing the blame game and hammering owners, despite the mammoth losses being incurred by the casinos, with one union official even labeling the closing of one casino a “criminal act.”

Really? What planet are these people living on? If there’s no money, there’s no money. What part of that can people not comprehend?

If these casinos were profitable, they wouldn’t close. But they’re not. That’s why they are declaring bankruptcy and closing their doors. And the true blame must be shared by all: The city, which has for decades done nothing to improve itself; the industry, which sat on its derriere, arrogantly betting that people would always come; and the employees and unions who never prodded either to keep up with the times.

Now, with over 6,000 layoffs looming and certainly more to come, a city in despair, and the negative image associated with dying casinos, the few high-end stores that still remain in Atlantic City will eventually leave, furthering the death spiral.

Is there a solution? For Atlantic City, probably not. It would take a generation or more to turn that city around, yet there is not an iota of political or corporate will to do so. So the implosion will continue until that once great city won’t even be a shadow of itself, but just a sad ghost of the past.

Luck always runs out, so if America is to avoid A.C.’s fate, it needs to stop gambling with its future. Otherwise, it’ll be left holding a Dead Man’s Hand.

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson