Columnist.
Had you been in Philadelphia on Sept. 19, 1796 and picked up a copy of the American Daily Advertiser, you would have discovered a remarkable statement — not on the front page, but on the second. It was from a high-ranking and popular elected official who had no interest in keeping his office. "Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary," he said, "I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it."
Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?
Many reporters attending oral arguments in the Supreme Court sit in assigned chairs on the far left side of the chamber. These chairs stand behind a double row of massive marble columns. Brass gates, some opened and some closed, stretch between the columns; burgundy curtains, pulled back by cords, hang behind them. Given their assigned seats, some reporters may not be able to see any of the justices holding forth at the front of the chamber. All they hear are their voices.
The United States of America was verbally assaulted this week from Cuban soil — by our own president. "Cuba," the State Department said in its latest human rights report, "is an authoritarian state led by Raul Castro, who is president of the council of state and council of ministers, Communist Party first secretary, and commander in chief of security forces." Yet in public appearances in this "authoritarian state" — where he was a guest of the "Communist Party first secretary" — President Obama criticized the United States.
The federal government has a duty to enforce this nation's borders and do it in a humane manner that minimizes harm to human life both inside U.S. territory and on the approaches to it. The best way to do that at the border with Mexico is to build effectively impermeable barriers that send a simple, straightforward message: You can only cross this border legally. For years, our government has sent a different message: You may be able to cross illegally. More recently, that inapt message has been compounded by another: If you make it here illegally, we may let you stay.
America has seen a decade of political upheaval. Ten years ago, voters took control of Congress from the party of the incumbent president and gave it to the opposition party. Two years later, they gave the White House to that other party, too. Two years after that, they gave the House of Representatives back to the party that opposed the new sitting president. Four years later, they gave the Senate to that opposition party, too. Now, in this presidential primary season, it has become a cliche to say many voters in both major parties are angry at the government and driven by an anti-establishment sentiment.
Will President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry falsely declare that the Islamic State is not guilty of genocide against Christians and other religious minorities in the areas it controls? If so, they will show contempt for the truth.
"I have never been more optimistic about America's future than I am today." That is what President Barack Obama said in the letter he sent to Congress with his annual economic report. What is there to be optimistic about as Obama moves through the eighth — and final year — of his presidency? Certainly not the economic future of the United States. As this column mentioned two weeks ago, real GDP grew by less than 3 percent in each of the 10 years from 2006 through 2015, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That is a record: Since 1930, the first year for which the BEA has calculated real annual growth in GDP, this was the first time the United States went 10 years without 3 percent growth.
"Why is this different from bigamy?" It was one of those lance-like questions Justice Antonin Scalia frequently threw at lawyers making flawed arguments. What Scalia's questions (and dissenting opinions) often exposed was a Supreme Court ready to unilaterally change the meaning of the Constitution — and, thus, undermine our representative form of government.
How will history remember the presidency of Barack Obama? In the budget message he sent Congress this week, Obama portrays himself as a president who led America back to economic good times. "When I took office, our nation was in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression," Obama wrote. "The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs a month. The auto industry was on the brink of collapse and our manufacturing sector was in decline. Many families were struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. Millions more saw their savings evaporate, even as retirement neared.
In October, President Barack Obama said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership his administration had just finished negotiating "reflects America's values." In November, in an official notice to Congress, he called it "a free trade agreement." Yet the deal itself expressly affirms government-ownership of industry. The deal's preamble states that the "Parties to this Agreement" resolve to: "Establish a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment ..."
As of December 2012, the total population of the United States — including members of the Armed Forces stationed overseas — equaled 315,255,012, according to the Census Bureau's estimate. At some time during 2012, according to a study the Congressional Research Service published last month, approximately 134,800,000 people qualified for one or more of "nine major need-tested benefit programs" and approximately 106,000,000 actually received benefits from at least one of them.
In a free country, the answer is obvious. Yet in the Supreme Court last week, it was up to Justice Antonin Scalia to ask the question. "Is it OK to force somebody to contribute to a cause that he does believe in?" Scalia asked. Note: Scalia did not ask if it is OK to force somebody to contribute to a cause he does *not* believe in. "I wouldn't think, your honor, that you could force Republicans to give contributions," responded lawyer Michael Carvin.
"Our last message is to the Americans," Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said in an audio recording released on Jan. 21, 2014. "Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching." Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk quoted these words from Baghdadi in written testimony he submitted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 5, 2014.
"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness, as you confess those invaded by the Stamp Act to be," John Dickinson wrote in 1766. "We claim them from a higher source — from the King of Kings, and Lord of all the Earth," he said in a public letter he signed simply "A North American." "They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals," Dickinson said. "They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice."
A little over a month from now, voters in Iowa will be heading into their local caucuses to cast the first substantive votes in the process that will determine whom the major parties nominate for president. In Jan. 2017 — just over a year from now — the United States will inaugurate only its third president of the 21st Century.
The Executive Office of the President of the United States — aka Barack Obama — released a document in the days leading up to Christmas that proves once again that reality conspires against even the most careful liars. The White House intended the document in question — dryly titled "Long-Term Benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" — to build the case for expanding the value and availability of food stamps.
"This is an early Christmas present." That is what a very merry Barack Obama said earlier this month when he signed into law a bill sent to him by the Republican Congress. The Republicans in Congress entitled it "The Every Student Succeeds Act." They wrote it to replace the "No Child Left Behind Act" — which was sponsored 14 years ago by then-Rep. John Boehner, a future Republican House speaker, and signed by George W. Bush, the last Republican president.
When President Barack Obama addressed the nation Sunday night about the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, he was careful to build a wall of separation between the terrorists who had murdered 14 Americans and the religion they claimed to embrace. "But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West," Obama said. Were the president to exhibit this same zeal in defending the integrity of Christianity, he would drop his administration's legal pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor.
President Barack Obama has expressed an apocalyptic vision he suggests other reasonable people must embrace. On Monday, in Paris, he said he foresees: "Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow." And also: "Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own." Climate change, he argues, threatens to cause these problems. Therefore, at the international climate change conference, he repeated his call for an international agreement that seeks to curb global carbon emissions from human activities.
