Columnist.
It's hard to believe we twice elected a president who refuses to defend the United States. I think people who used to dismiss our criticism of President Obama as extreme are now realizing just how naive they were. On the morning before the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, Obama was bragging that ISIS is contained. Are you kidding me? Even before the attacks everyone knew ISIS was on the march and couldn't possibly be contained. What have you done to contain them, by the way? And why are we even talking about "containment" instead of wholesale destruction of a known enemy? What is Obama's strategy?
I get the feeling that the Republican presidential field is gradually beginning to narrow and that we will see interesting dynamics among the principal survivors. I would be shocked if John Kasich moved up, because he has demonized conservatism itself and tried to shame conservatives, hinting that he's a more compassionate practitioner. He exudes an impatience that voters don't recognize his superior goodness and competence.
Since I began reading the Bible, I have been fascinated by the story of Jesus' encounter with two of his apostles on the road to Emmaus, a village close to Jerusalem, in one of his resurrection appearances. The two men were despondent because Jesus, who had been crucified and buried just a few days before, had died without delivering Israel from its enemies. How could this have happened? He was supposed to be the promised Messiah.
Some of you, especially those on the left side of the political aisle, are scratching your heads over Ben Carson's recent surge in the polls. I get why you're surprised, but you shouldn't be. This has definitely been the year of the outsiders in the Republican race, but this "outside" group may be more multifaceted than you think. Many people supporting outsiders are not just tired of business as usual from the beltway establishment. They are not just aghast at the disastrous direction in which this nation's economy and foreign policy are headed.
So CNBC's John Harwood is not only unashamed of his disgracefully biased moderating of the GOP debate, he's doubling down — entrenched as a five-year-old boy guarding his Halloween candy. After the debate he tweeted, "GOP debate in 2015 enriched my understanding of challenges @SpeakerBoehner has faced and @RepPaulRyan will face." I assume he was not speaking complimentarily of these "challenges."
I dedicate the lead of this column to thanking CNBC for displaying its rank liberal bias in last night's GOP presidential debate for all the world to see. In relative terms, "all the world" is not that far off if you consider last night's audience size compared with the network's usually paltry ratings. The more people who saw this charade from the network's alleged moderators the better for America.
Isn't it just great that the liberal establishment views Hillary Clinton's testimony in the Benghazi hearings in terms of performance art rather than substance? That's the liberals' way of telling you how much they value integrity. It would be one thing if the mainstream liberal media said, "Clinton got caught red-handed in a number of lies, and not just on insignificant matters but on very important ones, but overall she held up well under pressure, and because of her performance, the hearings may actually be a net plus for her."
There are many opinionated people on each side of the political spectrum, including me, but I haven't heard of any conservatives trying to muzzle leftists. Liberals on the other hand? Ha. Man-made global warming liberals ridicule skeptics as corrupt or brain-dead deniers, and their advocate in chief, President Obama, habitually derides conservatives for rejecting his hysterical narrative on climate change.
People initially were in disbelief that a card-carrying socialist such as Bernie Sanders could make a competitive bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I trust it's now obvious how wrong they were. Pointing to the rise of Donald Trump and Ben Carson in the Republican race, some say Sanders is doing well because this is a year of the outsiders. But to suggest there is commonality between Democratic outsiders and Republican ones is lazy thinking.
Fair people are disgusted with GQ columnist Drew Magary's vile denunciation of Ben Carson and his comments on the Oregon shooting, but it shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with leftist vulgarity and double standards. Not only did GQ print the post, in which Magary wrote "f— him," but also it titled the piece "F— Ben Carson." So much for civility, decency, tolerance, intellectual heft and — oh, yes — racial sensitivity. GQ tweeted a link to the column, which means it wants people to read it.
How about the next time the mainstream media decide to fabricate a controversy against a conservative presidential candidate, they choose something less laughable? The media's latest faux gasp concerns Dr. Ben Carson's comments about the Oregon school shooting. When I first watched news reports on it, I didn't immediately grasp the reason for the fuss, not having the artificial sensibilities of the MSM.
In his speech on the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon last week, President Obama sounded more upset about America's gun laws than about the horrific massacre. We barely had the preliminary facts about the shooting, the shooter and the victims, and he was already lecturing the nation again on gun control. Instead of calling the nation to prayer, he said we would learn about the victims in the coming days and then "wrap everyone who's grieving with our prayers and our love."
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's questioning of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards exposes the depravity and dishonesty of her organization. Richards and her colleagues act like cornered criminal defendants whose only defense is to dissemble and counterattack their accusers, for the truth is not in them. Planned Parenthood piously holds itself out as a benevolent, quasi-sacred entity, selflessly devoted to improving women's health. It has consistently denied critics' claims that it performs no mammograms, but at the hearing, Richards unremorsefully conceded the charge and pretended she never said otherwise. And it's not just about mammograms. Americans United for Life has shown that under Richards' leadership, there has been a marked decrease in cancer screening and breast health services while there has been an increase in abortion.
Establishment Republicans inside and outside Washington miss the grassroots' point. Even if we don't eventually prevail with defunding Planned Parenthood, we need to take this issue to the American people. Establishment types believe that just as we are finally poised to recapture the White House, crazy tea party extremists are about to mess everything up because voters would blame and punish the GOP in 2016 for a shutdown. But they always tell us to wait until the next election. When we didn't control the House, they told us to wait until we did. Same with the Senate. Now they say we have to wait until Jeb Bush is president.
Normally, the issue of the pope's infallibility wouldn't much concern me, but it does get my attention when opportunists attempt to leverage his heft to advance their political agenda. As an evangelical Christian, I don't subscribe to the view that the pope is infallible, but I respect Catholics who do and have no desire to offend them in the slightest. So let's put aside the question of whether the pope is infallible and assume, for argument's sake, that he is. The next question is on what range of issues is he deemed infallible? Without researching the matter too deeply, I think we can safely assume that it is only on doctrinal matters. But where do we draw that line? The question is interesting because theology often overlaps with politics and because everything in our society seems to be about politics these days.
Once again the media are hyping an issue that has nothing to do with the problems confronting this nation. Shame on them for trying to manufacture a controversy — again — about President Obama's faith. During a town hall event for Donald Trump in Rochester, New Hampshire, Thursday night, a questioner said that Obama is a Muslim and that "he's not even an American." Democrats, the media and some Republicans pounced on Trump for not condemning the questioner. For all the media's obsession over it since, you'd think Trump himself called Obama the 12th imam. They are badgering every other candidate to repudiate Trump and affirm that Obama is a wonderful Christian.
I wish the presidential debates could focus on what's wrong with the status quo and solutions rather than on what one candidate thinks about another's silly remarks. I don't want to hear Jeb Bush cajoling Donald Trump to apologize to his wife in front of millions of people. I don't want moderators to force a food fight between Trump and other candidates about whether he should have his finger on the nuclear button. I don't want them provoking a conflict between Chris Christie and Ben Carson over politicians' expediency. And I sure don't want to hear a candidate commenting on his rivals' physical appearance. This stuff is embarrassing, is unproductive and trivializes vital issues facing the nation.
Much of the establishment's criticism of Donald Trump comes from its failure to comprehend the reasons for his soaring popularity. Establishment types seem untroubled by the problems facing America, so they can't understand the urgency that fathered Trump's rise. Minor adjustments to the Hindenburg's dining room menu just aren't going to get it. Their overwrought analysis, their hand-wringing and their contemptuousness for Trump betray a disdain not only for Trump but for Americans who recognize the gravity of America's predicament — and who, in desperation, have turned to Trump for bold action.
Why do so many who castigate Kim Davis for flouting the law routinely cheer on President Obama for actions far more lawless and consequential? Why are those demonizing the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk so indifferent to the Supreme Court's rank abuse of power that created the atmosphere of conflict from which her actions arose? Who died and made the Supreme Court god? Well, the Supreme Court made itself god in 1803, with the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which it asserted its power of judicial review — the right to declare acts of the legislative and executive branches unconstitutional.
Is there something in the water in the Washington State University faculty lounge, or are its professors conspiring against common sense? Three faculty members, showing their contempt for free speech, threatened to punish students who disobeyed them on race, gender or immigration terminology. The Daily Caller reports that in his "Introduction to Multicultural Literature" syllabus, professor John Streamas warned white students that "to do well in this class," they must "reflect" their "grasp of history and social relations" by "deferring to the experiences of people of color." This professor once berated a student who advocated limits on illegal immigration as "just a white s—bag."
