Columnist.
House Foreign Relations Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) recently briefed members of the Israel Allies Caucus on Capitol Hill. He spoke to supporters about Iran. Leading off with a question from decades ago: "What distinguishes the United States' nuclear missile arsenal from that of the Soviet Union?" That question was asked of President John F. Kennedy. And that young President answered succinctly: Attitude. Exactly right. The attitude of the United States is not one of dominance and aggression, whereas that the USSR was undeniably so. President Kennedy had only to point to the Berlin Wall — an ugly spike driven through the heart of a great old European city. Chairman Royce was too diplomatic to say it, but it is the case that liberal Democrats like Kennedy *used* to understand these matters. Not only could Kennedy brush away a pesky reporter's rude question with wit and concision, but he could play offense, too. Many Americans yet remember JFK at the Berlin Wall in the last hopeful springtime of his life. If anyone doubts that freedom is preferable to Communism, "lass is nach Berlin kommen" the young statesman said in very passable German: "Let them come to Berlin!" Happily, there are still some liberal Democrats on the Hill — supporters of the Israel Allies Caucus — who still *do* get it. They are part of a bi-partisan effort to make sure Iran does not get sanctions relief — a "signing bonus" in Chairman Royce's apt phrase — while making no real halt in its lurch for nuclear weapons.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, an expected GOP presidential candidate, drew the ire of the political right and left recently over his comments on immigration. When it comes to the immigration issue, Republicans are expected to use the tried and true, consultant tested "secure the border" talking point and move on to other issues. Gov. Walker, like former Senator Rick Santorum, has taken things further than just a discussion of illegal immigration. They have dared to discuss the impact of legal immigration on American workers. Like most Republicans, I'm still undecided about the presidential field. But I have an enormous amount of respect for these guys and what they have done as they campaign. I applaud their statements on immigration and their willingness to go against the status quo on immigration. What radical proposal could have inspired attacks from liberal media outlets like MSNBC, Mother Jones magazine and the Huffington Post as well as The Wall Street Journal and establishment Republicans such as Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)?
Speaker John Boehner recently made headlines by joining the growing chorus among conservatives on Capitol Hill calling for a "wind down" of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) – signaling he might be open to a plan by U.S. House Republicans to bring the New Deal-era program of economic cronyism to an end. The statement came before the April 30 joint Financial Services-Oversight hearing, in which Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg was questioned about the bank's politically motivated international handouts and the 31 ongoing fraud investigations. Boehner joins a large number of conservative lawmakers calling for the bank's end. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan have all expressed their desire to "break the bank," as have six Republican presidential candidates: Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Governors Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Scott Walker and former Governor Jeb Bush.
In the classic 1976 movie "Network," there is a famous scene where a character played by the late Peter Finch shouts, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" I feel that same sentiment is growing throughout America, as the cost of our debt and regulatory state has exploded. In the era of Obama, we are now pushing our way far beyond the current 101% debt-to-GDP ratio, which is a dangerous and job-destroying level of borrowing on behalf of the welfare state. As the Federal leviathan in Washington, D.C. continues to grow, power is shifted into the hand of bureaucrats at regulatory agencies who invent new ways to regulate American businesses.
The rioting in Baltimore is disturbing to all Americans, as the unresolved cause of Freddie Gray's death while in police custody should be, as well. It is right that political and religious leaders, community groups, business organizations, and law enforcement officials are commenting about all the causes and effects of the riots. But one thing seems missing from the discussion, a factor whose omission is unacceptable. It's called fatherhood. The rioting is inexcusable but should not be wholly surprising. It is likely that the great majority of it was been done by young black men — young black men without fathers.
While Washington is abuzz with raging debate on the nuclear deal with Iran, the narrative that the Obama administration keeps repeating is that you either take the deal or you are a warmonger. Not so fast! The US Congress is rightly fighting to play its due role in such an important national security issue. And on April 29 it took a bold, rather overdue move and invited Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. Mrs. Rajavi, advocates a tolerant, democratic Islam as the antithesis of Islamic fundamentalism. The NCRI and its principal constituent group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), have made headlines at various times since 2002 for revealing details of the Iranian nuclear program through an intelligence network inside of Iran. Her movement has suffered the brunt of repression at home at the hands of the theocratic regime, and tens of thousands of her supporters have been executed for their defense of human rights and democracy.
Last Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage showcased the need for a new federal law to protect private organizations who hold a view on marriage different from our growing and increasingly powerful federal government. If the Court decides the same-sex marriage question in the affirmative (its written opinion is expected in late June), its decision will have rippling effects throughout society — especially for those whose moral views and consciences compel them to disagree with the idea that marriage can be something other than a relationship between one man and one woman. One serious implication was on full view at the oral arguments, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was asked whether a college or university could have its tax-exempt status revoked if it opposed same-sex marriage. Representing the Obama administration's views on this matter, General Verrilli replied "I don't deny that ... it is going to be an issue."
Two questions will dictate not only the future of healthcare, but also the balance of power between Washington, D.C., and the states, and the separation of powers between the federal branches. One concerns state sovereignty, the other the heckler's veto. When justices heard arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) in King v. Burwell on March 4, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts suggested ways they might vote to uphold an Internal Revenue Service rule granting taxpayer subsidies to Obamacare exchange policies in states that refused to join that part of the ACA.
Will the next presidential election be won by a lie? Truth has long since been replaced by "narratives" on the American Left. Rather than discuss genuine issues and objective facts, progressives prefer to make up a politically effective story. It doesn't matter whether the story is false, as long as it sways the public's emotions and wins the day. The ends justify the means. This "lying game" strategy often shows up in politically sensitive scientific debates. In honor of Earth Week, let's look at one of the patron saints of environmentalism, Rachel Carson. Carson wanted to eliminate DDT, the most effective pesticide for fighting one of the greatest plagues faced by humanity, malaria, because it was weakening the shells of bird's eggs. So Carson falsified data to convince the public that DDT was carcinogenic. Carson brought about a global ban on DDT, probably saving a few birds, but at the cost of allowing malaria to blind or kill millions of people in the Third World. Carson may not have set out to kill people, but only Mao, Stalin and Hitler are responsible for more deaths during the twentieth century. Yet instead of condemning her, we name schools after her.
Republicans have been in control of both ends of Capitol Hill for nearly four months and one would be hard-pressed to notice any change. Apart from votes on Keystone and overtures to tax reform, most lawmakers have adopted a status quo, business as usual attitude. It's frustrating but not entirely unpredictable. In the innovation sector, however, some Republicans have cozied up to Obama's campaign contributors and to big business and have sold out small inventors and entrepreneurs by embracing a proposed overhaul of the U.S. patent system. The so-called Innovation Act is a gift to large, multi-national tech giants seeking to weaken the intellectual property rights found in our Constitution. And, rather than speak up against this monstrosity, many conservatives have embraced what I believe is the equivalent of Obamacare for innovation.
Almost seven months after the fateful, fatal encounter between Michael Brown and former Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, Attorney General Eric Holder officially announced a truth he had been holding close for months – that the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" mantra that had been used since August was based on a lie. The lie was widely embraced by the media, public officials, and some with celebrity status. We witnessed not only protesters in the streets, but Rams players, members of Congress, and CNN 'journalists' in 'hands up' poses. The lie of 'hands up, don't shoot' concealed deeper truths, truths all too common in America – that Michael Brown was yet another young black male engaged in serious crime and who invited a deadly encounter with a police officer who was merely doing his job. The vastly disproportionate involvement of young men of color as both victims of crime and as offenders had yet again materialized as a deadly specter, opening the door to the harder conversation on race and policing that the superficial 'hands up' chant did nothing to resolve.
Lower Wages and Less Security for Americans
The American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) submitted friend of the Court briefs in the Windsor case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. If the Windsor Court majority relied on those briefs, it was reliant on snake oil, not science. The APA and the ASA should be the guardians of good science. Instead, they have joined the ranks of the pink panzers of political correctness. Most studies we have seen that claim that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no disadvantages are so seriously flawed that in any other context, the ASA and APA would be the first to point out those methodological flaws. Some of the studies cited in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex parenting have serious methodological flaws, which are not small but so basic they violate "Stats 101." The most notable of these is the use of something called an opportunity sample. That error would be committed, for example, if you went to the magazine American Rifleman to ask questions about proposed gun control legislation. American Rifleman is a publication of the National Rifle Association. The results of a reader survey would suffer from volunteer bias. Another flaw is what we call the snowball sample. That would occur if NRA members were invited to enlist friends and family members to be part of the sample and respond to a questionnaire. That only compounds the methodological problem.
The foreign policy clerisy in this country was loud in its denunciation of Arkansas freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R) when he circulated a Round Robin letter with the signatures of 47 GOP senators. Sen. Cotton's letter simply states the obvious truth that no "executive agreement" with Iran can be guaranteed past the expiration of Mr. Obama's constitutionally limited term of office. Election returns from Israel show that Sen. Cotton was right. Israeli voters appreciated the strong support given to a realistic policy toward Iran and its dangerous drive for nuclear weapons. Israeli voters have to take seriously the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama's feckless Sec. of State, John Kerry, is paving Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. Many of the same chin pulling graybeards who tut-tutted over the Cotton letter also protested Prime Minister Netanyahu's acceptance of Speaker Boehner's invitation to address Congress. They and their Democratic Party-aligned flacks and hacks objected that it was "a violation of protocol" for the Prime Minister to speak to Americans and the world from the rostrum of the House of Representatives.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider whether to overturn the marriage laws of all the states -- as some activist federal judges have already done in *some* of the states -- conservatives are naturally calling for judicial restraint. We must warn the court against another exercise of "raw judicial power" like that handed down with its infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. That cruel and unjust ruling is viewed as illegitimate by tens of millions of Americans. Young people, especially, are turning against abortion-on-demand. We see this in every pro-life march. And this public outcry is being translated into a bumper crop of pro-life legislation bubbling up in state legislatures. The lethal Roe v. Wade ruling did serious harm to the Supreme Court's reputation. Now, the Court may once again overstep its authority. The justices are being asked not merely to redefine marriage, but to end it. That is because once marriage is no longer recognized as the union of one man and one woman, there is no legal or logical stopping point.
Hillary has already imploded. An unnamed Democratic leader in the important state of Iowa has publicly worried: "What if she implodes?" We believe she has already imploded. The current scandal du hour is but the latest in a long line of Clinton scandals. Have we all forgotten the Rose Law Firm papers that were subpoenaed as part of the Whitewater investigation? She just happened to "find" them several years late. Maybe she misplaced them while dusting the third floor of the White House. Then there was her accusation that Bill and Monica were all part of "a vast right wing conspiracy." Eight month later, after a number of terror attacks on our embassies while we were fixated on the latest Clinton scandal, we learned that it really was Bill and Monica after all. Hillary was, by her own admission, the last of 315 Americans to figure that one out.
Even in a Senate then controlled by Democrats, President Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan E. Rice, could not be confirmed as his second term Secretary of State. That's because she notoriously went on five Sunday television news talk shows to claim that the September 11, 2012 attack on our diplomatic compound at Benghazi was provoked by an anti-Islamic video. It soon became clear that cover story was false. She was then our Ambassador to the UN. Now, Amb. Rice is on TV making news again. She told PBS's Charlie Rose that the address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress slated for next week "injected a degree of partisanship" into the U.S.-Israeli alliance that was "destructive to the fabric of the relationship."
There's an old saying that all politics is local. If that is the case, it should follow that local politicians should be among the best informed, armed with iron-clad facts as they weigh in on issues that affect not only their areas, but the nation as a whole. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, however, has generated some confusion recently by throwing their support behind the embattled Export-Import Bank of the United States – apparently on the strength of some questionable data. The group has supported the bank in the past and passed a resolution in favor of renewing Ex-Im's charter last June as the debate over the it's reauthorization raged in Congress. At that point, politicians from both parties along with a number of groups and individuals outside government were questioning the necessity of this eighty-year-old institution to the American people.
The increasingly desperate attempts of the Obama administration to figure out what motivates ISIS and other Islamist terrorists are wearing thin. Now, even liberals think this administration has lost the bubble. Take State Department Spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf as two examples. They daily put us in graver danger by their juvenile responses to serious questions. Marie Harf was at pains to name the KONY rebels in East Africa as examples of Christian terror groups. So we shouldn't single out Islamists, she was arguing.
Stung by criticism that he has no strategy for confronting ISIS, President Obama told his hastily convened "summit on violent extremism" that what these young men need is jobs. Presumably, there are shovel-ready jobs these young terrorists could readily perform. Like grave-digging? Has there ever been a more fatuous response to murderous savagery? Yes. At the beginning of World War II, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ordered the Royal Air Force (RAF) to bomb Nazy Germany -- with leaflets. He ordered young RAF flight crews to risk their lives in order to drop German-language appeals to the people in Hitler's Reich. When one bombardier failed to cut the strings tying up one of these propaganda bundles, he was sharply rebuked: "That bundle could have killed someone on the ground!"
