Views on the News
Views on the News*
July 12, 2014
The administration and the Democrat-media complex would have us believe that all the scandals truly just so happened, and happened to occur when it did, as a matter of coincidence, and not craftsmanship. An opposing view suggests that the stuff itself, as well as the timing of the disclosure of it, was manufactured or contrived. An event without a convenient angle (but not necessarily an inconvenient outcome for the administration’s agenda) would become part of a Friday news dump. At either end of possible truth of this view, the complex still spun and held its collective nose when any odors of inconvenient facts or extraordinarily convenient timing wafted by. The failure of an event to pass the smell test is what makes a charge of “conspiracy theory” ring true. The unusual nature, complexity, remarkable timing, volume and constant flow of “stuff” have combined to become a sort of defensive wall for the Obama administration. Jonah Goldberg recently remarked, “…basically the only way this White House can get out from under one scandal or controversy is by getting crushed by another?” That cycle -- scandal, outrage, subsequent rejection as “phony,” followed by another scandal has conveniently appeared throughout the Obama presidency. Pick any scandal and watch it run through the wash: Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Scandal exhaustion seems to be a part of the left’s “Cloward-Piven attempt to overwhelm opponents. With so many scandals out there, no single outrage can generate concerted, sufficiently visible opposition.” When President Obama decides to replace one scandal with another, the media loses interest, and two years later, we still don’t have answers to the simplest questions. The scandal-a-month program certainly appears to be working to the benefit of the Democrats. The fact remains that even one of the scandals, if shown in full but as fiction, would produce a screenplay too complicated to be remotely understandable, certainly not entertaining, much less believable. Add all the scandals together, and the story would never make enough sense to be considered acceptable fiction. While the Constitution, the economy and our national security crash and burn all around Obama’s stage, the teleprompter continues to scroll, the show goes on, and the media complex applauds. With the Democrat-media complex in control, the truth of Obama’s stage may never be fully revealed, but redemption awaits in the wings.
(“All Obama’s Worlds’ a Stage” by Cindy Simpson dated July 7, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/all_obamas_worlds_a_stage.html )
If you are a patriotic American, you believe that there are circumstances under which it is right to take up arms against your own government. The fact remains that the rationale for the existence of the nation known as the United States of America, which first appeared in print 238 years ago today, is entirely dependent on the premise that there are indeed times “…when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” and that such times may require the first group of people to “…mutually pledge to each other [their] Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor.” Dissolving those political bands with another people, the newly liberated people (“…and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War…”) may, among other things, protect themselves from a tyrannical power which engages in “…a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…” This is the argument presented to the world by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin. It was adopted and approved by the Continental Congress. No governmental official can deny the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which tie them to a tyrannical government, without at the same time denying the Declaration and, by extension, the Constitution on which his own power is based. There are certain ideas which are self-evidently true. One of those ideas is that we are created without legal primacy or inferiority with regard to one another. Another idea, which is just obviously true to people whose rational faculties are operating properly, is that the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of a prosperous life (which is what the word ‘happiness’ meant in 1776) are not alienable, that is they cannot have a lien placed on them by any other persons, not even representatives of the state. Not only is government denied the authority to put a lien on and repossess those rights, but it is further required to protect those rights. Not only is it necessary for government to protect these rights, but its use of power to do so is still only just if it also involves the consent of the people whose freedom and property are being protected. The TEA Party movement suggests that we are bumping up against the limits of legitimacy. 238 years ago the principles of the Declaration found that the central government had lost the right to rule and called on the people to withdraw allegiance to it. The most ardent believer in the American experiment has to acknowledge that the verdict of history is that no state remains committed to liberty forever, which means that such a time will come again, and the real question is whether we are there now!
(“The July 4th Question: 238 Years After the First Revolution, Is It Time for a Second?” by Jerry Bowyer dated July 5, 2014 published by Forbes at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2014/07/04/the-july-4th-question-238-years-after-the-first-revolution-is-it-time-for-a-second/ )
We all should celebrate how, a century after the Civil War, moral leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. persuaded Congress that it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color. Sadly, the country has lost sight of much of the reason the Civil Rights Act was supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress (more than 80% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats). People all across the political spectrum believed the promise of the new law, which was to replace segregation with a color-blind society, or something as close to it as we could get. In King’s famous words, people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Opponents of the Civil Rights Act warned that it might serve as a vehicle for racial quotas and reverse discrimination. In the years since then, many civil-rights advocates have continued to shift their goals away from the ideal of a color-blind society. The new problem is that race is increasingly trumping character when it comes to federal law. Federal laws written in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act required the demonstration of intentional discrimination in matters such as hiring, housing, contracting, and admission policies before action was warranted. Now the Obama Administration claims that enforcement of civil-rights law can be based on statistical evidence that supposedly shows a “disparate impact” on certain minority groups. Democrats have adopted a program of color-conscious solutions that focus on affirmative action and wealth redistribution. The country has never fully accepted the racial-entitlement revisionism that leftists have imposed on civil-rights issues. Americans support equal opportunity and outreach but still hold up the goal of a color-blind society. There are sound reasons that so many Americans resist a regime of racial entitlements. Schools now put a race-conscious fist on the admissions scale and clearly admit students based on race. Affirmative-action students are 75% more likely to drop out of science programs than are regular admits. At law schools, they are two or three times more likely to fail the bar exam, but students who attend a school where their entry credentials are similar to those of their fellow students are more likely to finish and fulfill their work and life ambitions. We now have fewer black doctors, lawyers, and business chiefs than we would have had under race-neutral admissions policies. The conclusion is that racial-preference policies have lulled substantial segments of the black middle class into complacency and half-hearted performance in our increasingly education-focused world, and that isn’t the outcome that supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 hoped for or promised.
(“Color Over Character” by John Fund dated July 4, 2014 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381989/color-over-character-john-fund )
President Obama is treating the border crisis, more than 50,000 unaccompanied children crossing illegally, as a public relations problem and is “not letting this crisis go to waste.” These kids are being flown or bused to family members around the country and told to then show up for deportation hearings. These illegal aliens then do not show up, since they are receiving superior schooling, superior health care, superior everything, so as a result, only 3% are being repatriated, to cite an internal Border Patrol memo. Immediate deportation is exactly what happens to illegal immigrants, children or otherwise, from Mexico and Canada. There is a quirk of the law, a 2008 law intended to deter sex trafficking, that mandates that Central American kids receive temporary relocation, extensive assistance and elaborate immigration/deportation proceedings, which many simply evade, which was designed for a small number of sex-trafficked youth, and has been used to justify treating them differently than other illegal aliens. Stopping this wave is not complicated. A serious President would go to Congress tomorrow proposing a change in the law, simply mandating that Central American kids get the same treatment as Mexican kids, i.e., be subject to immediate repatriation. When the first convoys begin rolling from town to town across Central America, the influx will stop. Yet this wave of children has doubled in size in the past two years and is projected to double again by October. The new variable is Obama's unilateral (and lawless) June 2012 order essentially legalizing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came here as children. Message received in Central America. A comprehensive law would not have prevented the current influx. Indeed, any change that amnesties 11 million illegals simply reinforces the message that if you come here illegally, eventually you will be allowed to stay. Completing the border fence is for the long term. For the immediate crisis, the answer is equally, blindingly clear: Eliminate the Central American exception and enforce the law, and it must happen soon or the nightmare will continue until it does.
(“Here’s How Obma Can Fix America’s Border Crisis” by Charles Krauthammer dated July 10, 2014 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/071014-708224-obama-ask-congress-to-end-central-america-exception.htm )
It's no accident that ObamaCare has become emblematic of the Obama administration overall, because it exemplifies so thoroughly what Obama represents ideologically and functionally. ObamaCare symbolizes government largesse, incompetence, inefficiency, arrogance and heartlessness, a government that knows better than you what is good for you. It epitomizes staggering spending, waste and debt. It typifies a government that has grown too big, crushing your liberties while telling you that it has your best interests at heart and that you can't live without it. It stands for wholesale dishonesty, something that is entirely different from what it pretends to be and what we were told it would be. President Obama has come to personify these very traits, so it is only fitting that ObamaCare has fixed itself to him as he fixed himself to it. He personally represents government largesse, incompetence, arrogance, someone who knows better than you do what is good for you, someone who recklessly spends the nation's resources with no apparent concern for citizens' will or their financial well-being, a man who is subordinating (and thus destroying) our freedoms to his ideology, and someone who is fundamentally dishonest with the American people. Through his arbitrary and capricious implementation of ObamaCare, he is also showing us his singular propensity for lawlessness. As ObamaCare goes, so goes Obama, and lately the verdicts on ObamaCare have been horrendous. It's no accident that Obama's approval ratings are in the toilet right along with his "signature achievement." Nothing good is coming from this miserable ObamaCare law, except perhaps that it is accelerating people's learning curve about Obama's true intentions and his underlying character.
(“As Obamacare Goes, So Goes Obama” by David Limbaugh dated July 4, 2014 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2014/07/04/as-obamacare-goes-so-goes-obama-n1858733 )
President Barack Obama again sought to make the case to the American people for “dealing with the rapidly growing threat of climate change.” Right up front Obama said that his speech would not have “a lot of spin, just the facts,” but when a politician says that, you know to expect the opposite. Most skeptics have very sound reasons for their opposition:
· First, the exact extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions, which are only a small portion of total emissions, affect the climate is uncertain. Advocates have damaged their credibility significantly by making extreme predictions of rapidly accelerating warming and more frequent, more intense natural disasters, predictions that have not been supported by real-world experience.
· Second, the cost of implementing meaningful constraints on greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGs) would be enormous. A recent Heritage Foundation analysis of the administration’s war on coal projects that the onslaught of regulations would cost America 600,000 jobs and more than $1,200 per year in income for a family of four.
· Third, U.S. action alone would be ineffective. International negotiations have centered on placing the economic burden of addressing climate change on a few dozen developed countries while asking little or nothing from more than 150 developing countries. The primary source of greenhouse-gas emissions is increasingly the developing world. Unless and until this issue is resolved, the U.S. would be foolish to consider unilateral restrictions on the U.S. economy that would be merely symbolic.
Congress has justifiable reasons to question the President’s call for unilateral U.S. action on climate change. Moreover, contrary to the President’s claims, polls indicate that people tend to agree with Congress that climate change is not a high priority. It is not Congress that is out of step with the American public or even global opinion, but President Obama and the global elites who are leading the charge on climate change that the public does not want.
(“What Obama Has Wrong on Climate Change” by Brett Schaefer and Nicolas Loris dated July 6, 2014 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/06/climate-change-really-obama-says/ )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections: