The Foundation

“[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man…. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington

Government & Politics

McChrystal Heads for the Exit

In 2007, Barack Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois with only two years of national political experience (and zero years of military experience) under his belt, accused American troops in Afghanistan of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” Furthermore, according to the community organizer from Chicago, American troops who had made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in Iraq had “wasted” their lives. Nothing Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in his now infamous interview with Rolling Stone Magazine compares with Obama’s outrageous rhetoric, or that of numerous other congressional Democrats in recent years.

However, McChrystal tendered, and Obama accepted, his resignation Wednesday after the former’s comments berating some in the administration, including Obama, became public, creating the predictable firestorm of pomposity. But this was no Truman-MacArthur showdown. The things the general and his staff had to say were insightful observations, however inappropriately expressed and devoid of military discipline.

According to one of the general’s aides, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and former Marine Corps commandant, is a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.” Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke behaves like “a wounded animal” who “keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.” McChrystal complained about “another e-mail from Holbrooke,” saying, “I don’t even want to open it.” He described U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as “one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’” The general’s staff said that politicians like John Kerry and John McCain were “not very helpful” with their quick trips to the war zone and ensuing appearances on Sunday talk shows.

Perhaps the last straw was McChrystal’s observation (as stated through “sources familiar with the meeting”) that during Obama’s first encounter with his top military brass he looked “uncomfortable and intimidated.” As for McChrystal’s first meeting with the commander in chief, an adviser added, “It was a 10-minute photo op. Obama clearly didn’t know anything about [McChrystal]. … The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

Despite McChrystal’s apology, what he and his staff said was too much for the narcissist in the White House. “I don’t make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal as we are in full agreement about our strategy,” Obama said, and that could be true. But he also claimed, “Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult.” On the contrary, the decision to fire McChrystal seems to result from Obama’s desire to avoid appearing “weak.” As a consequence of his actions, though, he has shown exactly his weakness and thin skin. Yes, McChrystal, to quote Obama from another embarrassment, acted stupidly. He was right to have submitted his resignation, but we’re not sure that Obama should have accepted it. The two could have had a beer summit and carried on with fighting – and winning – the war.

That said, we have to give Obama credit for selecting Gen. David Petraeus to take over the Afghanistan campaign, though Obama has not always spoken highly of the general. Technically, this is a step down for the CENTCOM commander, but Petraeus is the best choice, given that he turned around the war in Iraq to the point that we rarely hear about it any more. Afghanistan is a tougher animal, but we hope Petraeus can succeed again. One order of business should be to loosen McChrystal’s overly strict rules of engagement that endanger American lives. Next would be to focus less on nation building and more on defeating the enemy.

Let’s be clear: Our nation’s warriors have a long history of speaking their minds between and among fellow warriors. McChrystal’s mistake (aside from having voted for Obama, which the article claims), was to allow an agenda-driven hack from an ardently leftist anti-war rag unfettered access to the conversations among his inner circle. We might also observe that the men under McChrystal’s command are bleeding and dying for their country in a war that their commander in chief seems only half-heartedly committed to. In this respect, their frustration is not only palpable – it’s justified.

News From the Swamp: White House Shakeup

White House budget director Peter Orszag will be leaving his post in July, moving on to the think-tank world. He is the first member of the Obama cabinet to depart, but the administration doesn’t plan to look far for a replacement. Candidates include Office of Management and Budget director Rob Nabors, Laura D'Andrea Tyson from the president’s Economic Advisory Board, and Gene Sperling, former Clinton economic adviser and current counselor to Timothy Geithner.

Orszag was a driving force behind the stimulus bill and ObamaCare as well as the skyrocketing federal budget. The big government pedigree of his possible replacements indicates that the Obama administration has no intention of changing its big spending ways – as if that were in question.

There were also some rumors circulating about Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel calling it quits after the midterm elections. The London Telegraph cited frustrations between the “abrasive pragmatist” Emanuel and the “optimistic inner circle” of the Obama team. The White House quickly labeled the story “ludicrous” and said it should be ignored, but Emanuel originally viewed the position as an 18-month job, and it’s no secret that he’s interested in running for mayor of Chicago in 2011. There also may be some credence to the report that Emanuel has been clashing with other Obama advisers. He has a well-established reputation as a tough customer, and the leftist ideologues who populate Obama’s team have reportedly rubbed him the wrong way more than once.

New & Notable Legislation

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a vote of 219-206 Thursday. The purpose of the bill is to roll back the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which undid the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting corporate participation in elections. The Court said that such restrictions on free speech infringe on the First Amendment. The Court was right. Under the legislation, however, the Associated Press reports, “nearly all organizations airing political ads independently of candidates or the political parties would be required to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid.” The only Republicans to support the bill were Joseph Cao (LA) and Mike Castle (DE), while 36 Democrats voted against it, some of whom were upset over the controversial exemption carved out for the NRA. There is a chance the 41 Republicans in the Senate can put a stop to the legislation, but that remains to be seen.

Congressional Democrats and the White House reached agreement on the new 2,000-page financial regulation bill late Thursday, meaning both houses will vote as soon as next week. As Reuters reports, “The most sweeping rewrite of financial rules since the 1930s aims to avoid a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, which touched off the recession and led to taxpayer bailouts of floundering financial giants. Financial institutions would have to pay $19 billion to cover its costs.” Of course, being a product of Democrats’ efforts to solve a crisis, the bill is full of draconian restrictions coupled with special deals, all while adding to the burden that helped create the financial meltdown two years ago. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) admitted, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.” He also crowed, “This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives.” That’s exactly what we’re afraid of.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) introduced the appropriately acronymous Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which would require congressional authorization for any new major rule proposed by the executive branch. This effort to trim the power of the executive has 57 co-sponsors and aims to address the steep climb in rules issued by federal agencies in recent years. Last year alone, 3,316 new rules and regulations were issued, creating yet another serious constitutional problem. Congress is supposed to be the body that makes the laws, not the executive. Ever since Abraham Lincoln – and especially since Franklin Roosevelt – the executive branch has steadily gained vast power. The REINS Act aims to reverse, or at least slow, that trend. We say fat chance.

The Senate didn’t act in time to spare doctors and other health care professionals from steep cuts in Medicare reimbursement payments. The Senate passed legislation, but the House has yet to act, and Medicare already began processing claims for June at the lower rate. The bill that was voted on will ultimately increase payments to providers by 2.2 percent and be paid for with various health care and pension charges. Vice President Joe “BFD” Biden blamed Republicans for not going along with a permanent payment fix for doctors, but few elected officials want to face the billions of dollars in additional costs that will be necessary.

Hope ‘n’ Change: Obama Now Says Mandate is a Tax

After Barack Obama went on the record to “absolutely reject this notion” that the individual health insurance mandate is a tax, his administration is now arguing exactly the opposite in court. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a Florida-based lawsuit seeking to overturn the health care overhaul and, according to American Spectator, “cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.” A DoJ memo argues that “no suit for the purposes of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” So for those wondering if Obama’s “no individual tax” promise would stand in a court of law, you should soon get your answer.

Meanwhile, with mid-term elections fast approaching, the Obama camp is putting insurance companies on notice not to raise rates artificially because of the new law. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following Orwellian warning: “We want to caution insurance companies that rate increases would be watched very closely.” As Aetna CEO Ronald Williams noted regarding the health care bill, however, “I think there was a recognition that consumers are going to get more. When you get more, you pay more.” Apparently, this administration has yet to acknowledge basic economics.

Support Liberty

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’” –Samuel Adams

We have all enjoyed the fruits of prosperity that our forefathers purchased at great sacrifice, many with their lives. With the current unprecedented assault upon Liberty, each and every one of us is called to make our own great sacrifices, now and throughout the remainder of 2010. Our posterity deserve no less.

With just a week left in our summer fundraising drive, we must raise $95,198. Help us honor our forefathers’ sacrifices and restore Liberty for our posterity by making a secure online donation to The Patriot’s 2010 Independence Day campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form.

Thank you and God bless!

Nate Jackson
Managing Editor

National Security

Judicial Benchmarks: SCOTUS Upholds ‘Material Support’ Ban

On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, ruling that the government may prohibit all support to designated terrorist groups, even if that support consists of only peaceful, otherwise legal activities. Pointing out the obvious, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, “Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends.” The case was brought against the government by “humanitarian” groups, which said the law violated their First Amendment rights. Surprisingly, the White House argued that the “material support” law, part of The Patriot Act, is an important terror-fighting tool. It has been used about 150 times since the 9/11 attacks, resulting in 75 convictions, although most cases involved actual material support, rather than the kind of speech support involved in this case.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer objected to the majority’s conclusion “that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for giving only instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives, further stating, “Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights.” Leaving aside the question of whether a terrorist organization can even have lawful political objectives, it will be interesting to see if, in the soon-to-be-decided McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case, the leftist Breyer says something like, “Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of inner city gangs can require automatic forfeiture of Second Amendment rights.” We won’t be holding our breath.

Not surprisingly, America’s second-worst president, Jimmy Carter, said he was disappointed by the court’s decision and is concerned that the ruling may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom” with such peace-and-freedom-loving groups as Hamas and Hezbollah.

In related news, the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad, pleaded guilty to 10 counts against him while giving a rambling rant that detailed his terror plans and provided insight into his motivation. “One has to understand where I’m coming from,” he said. “I consider myself … a Muslim soldier.” Will the Left ever take our enemies at their word as to why they fight?

Immigration Front: Administration to Sue Arizona

As the Obama administration continues to flip flop on whether it will sue Arizona for protecting its borders and state sovereignty, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) has revealed that during a private meeting with the president, Barack Obama stated his real reason for fighting the new immigration law, and – surprise – it’s his political agenda. According to Kyl, our fearless leader stated, “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.” Of course, the White House is denying this, and in effect, calling Senator Kyl a liar. (Any guess as to whom we tend to believe here in our humble shop?)

Arizona’s new immigration law, while vilified by the Leftmedia, is a mere mirror of existing federal law. It does not, as the administration and its drones would have you believe, strip anyone of civil liberties. Arizona law enforcement, during a “lawful stop,” must ask suspects for documentation if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally. These are the same standards for a police officer stopping you for a traffic violation, and then searching your car if he has a reasonable suspicion that you may have an illegal weapon or drugs.

Nobody knows this better than Obama and his enforcers. During Janet Napolitano’s lackluster career as governor of Arizona, nine Memoranda of Agreement were signed by law enforcement agencies around the state, agreeing to enforce the federal law for the express purpose of combating the problem of illegal immigration and the crimes resulting from it. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security has 70 such Memoranda from agencies around the country, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from vilifying Arizona for protecting its citizens. Arizona currently has the highest kidnapping rate in the nation, and Phoenix is second only to Mexico City for the world kidnapping title.

When faced with the choice of protecting the security of this nation (to say nothing of the constitutional foundation on which it was built) and building political leverage, this president always chooses the latter.

This Week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ Award

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks the federal government should be determining immigration policy. The Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.” –Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Arizona’s immigration law in an interview in Ecuador

“To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorian interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.” –Arizona Governor Jan Brewer)

Business & Economy

Judge Reverses Drilling Moratorium

“Are all airplanes a danger because one was?” That was the question posed by U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman in his unequivocal rejection of the Obama administration’s political six-month moratorium on new deepwater oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Calling the ban “arbitrary and capricious,” Judge Feldman took the administration to task for (among other things) making “no effort to explicitly justify the moratorium” and “not discuss[ing] any irreparable harm that would warrant a suspension of operations.” These reasons and more led Feldman to conclude, “[T]he Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium.”

Indeed, according to one company that filed a lawsuit against the ban, “[T]ens of thousands of workers across the Gulf Coast states and beyond … make their living serving the offshore oil industry.” As The Wall Street Journal notes, “The drilling industry has estimated the moratorium will cost rig workers as much as $330 million a month in direct wages, not counting businesses servicing those rigs.”

Predictably, the Left immediately mobilized a bottom-of-the-barrel smear campaign against this Reagan appointee. Just as predictably, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has pledged to reinstate the ban. However, as Judge Feldman so eloquently pointed out, a little thing called the law is standing in the way.

Meanwhile, the federal government has halted sand-berm dredging intended to protect the Louisiana coast from oil. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department was concerned that one area where dredging is taking place is a sensitive part of the Chandeleur Islands, and said that Louisiana had not installed the requisite pipe to draw sand from a less-endangered area.

China Poised to Unseat U.S. as Manufacturing Leader

Many Americans may be surprised that China hasn’t already overtaken the U.S. in terms of manufacturing, given the plethora of items stamped “Made in China,” but according to the economic gurus at IHS Global Insight, a firm which studies such matters, the United States may hang on to the leading manufacturer crown for one more year before China takes over the top spot in 2011. This shift comes about in part because of China’s huge population and its shift to a large-scale manufacturing economy. Exports remain the key part of China’s industrial output, but internal growth fuels its success as well, despite workers there being paid pennies on the dollar compared to American workers. (China’s artificial pegging of its currency in comparison to real value to encourage exports doesn’t hurt either.)

If the IHS prediction holds true, it would end America’s run of more than 110 years as the world’s leader in manufacturing output – a reign that began when William McKinley was president. However, increasing union labor costs and onerous regulations have eroded our advantage over the last few decades, and our supremacy at making goods for the rest of the world may be soon coming to an end. Ask any unemployed factory worker.

A New Old Idea for Teen Unemployment

It’s a conundrum almost as old as the chicken and the egg: How can one get the job experience employers desire without being hired by someone in the first place? These days, teenagers in America are placed in the difficult position of seeking this answer because unemployment among the group has surged – more than one quarter of teenage job-hunters have yet to find work this summer and prospects remain dim.

One reason is that chronic joblessness among older workers has placed them in direct competition with teenagers for scarce positions – those smiling faces behind the counter at the local fast-food joint, a traditional entry-level job for American teens, may be more furrowed and gray than they used to be. Studies also show that increases in the minimum wage – as we have seen regularly since its inception – also increase the unemployment rate among teens. This problem has led some to suggest the idea of a “training wage” for those ages 16 to 19. Put another way, the plan is a modern-day apprenticeship.

Backers say this makes sense because teenagers generally aren’t the family breadwinners and having a job – even at a lower wage – builds valuable experience and makes future employment easier to find. Getting the foot in the employment door is more valuable long-term than fewer dollars earned over the course of a summer, they argue.

Unfortunately, Big Labor and Democrats have no intention of accepting any sort of wage decrease, claiming it would cause a ripple effect across the employment spectrum. Yet even union contracts have provisions where lack of seniority or being hired in after a certain point equates to a lower wage, making their opposition hypocritical. Teen job seekers typically don’t care whether the jobs out there are unionized or not – they just want the work.

Income Redistribution: Tax and Spend

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says that, given the economic crisis, Democrats had no choice but to spend our money – a whole lot of it – but he chafed at accusations of spending being out of control. “If ‘out-of-control spending’ refers to the Recovery Act and other jobs programs that are responsible for more than two million jobs and only a small fraction of our deficit, I’d ask what the alternatives were. Whether we are spending or cutting taxes, creating jobs in a recession means adding to the deficit in the short term.”

Okay, Steny: One example of spending being out of control would be $54 million awarded to Connecticut’s Mohegan Indian tribe, which, according to ABC News, “operates one of the highest grossing casinos in the U.S. The tribe runs the sprawling Mohegan Sun casino, halfway between New York City and Boston, which earned more than $1.3 billion in gross revenues in 2009.” Another example can be found a bit further away from home – $2 million for an effort to increase condom use among intravenous drug users in Kazakhstan. Of course, Democrats could probably find $2 million in a couch in the Capitol lobby.

Want further proof that Democrat spending is irrefutably out of control? Hoyer announced that Congress would not release a budget blueprint in 2010. According to The Hill, “The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974.” Democrats plan to wait for the recommendations of Obama’s debt commission, which, conveniently, won’t arrive until after the November elections.

Hoyer does evoke fiscal “responsibility” regarding one item: taxes. He says Democrats can’t afford not to raise them. “As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks,” Hoyer said, “we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction.”

Culture & Policy

‘Voluntary’ Standards Are Top-Down Mandates

Voluntary: of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled. Perhaps someone should e-mail that definition to the White House, because the Obama administration seems to be laboring under the misconception that “voluntary” is synonymous with strong-arming, blackmail and coercion.

The latest attempt to redefine the word concerns our education system. It began with the Race to the Top competition, which, announced in July 2009, offered $4.35 billion in federal funds to “worthy” school systems. The catch: The school systems had to adopt national standards created by the Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Initially, only two states, Texas and Alaska, decided not to take part because they disagreed with the national standards requirement. As Texas Governor Rick Perry said at the time, the requirement “is an effort to undermine states’ authority to determine how their students are educated, and is clearly aimed at circumventing laws prohibiting national standards.” Since then, other states have expressed concerns that the national standards are not up to par with theirs; both Virginia and Minnesota have already withdrawn from the competition for precisely that reason.

True to form, the Obama administration, when faced with the prospect of dissent, is now resorting to coercion. A recent “blueprint” issued by the Department of Education outlines an overhaul of No Child Left Behind, including the federal government’s intention to make receipt of $14.5 billion in Title I funds dependent on the state’s adoption of national standards. Of course, the blueprint also stresses participation in the program will be … “voluntary.”

Village Academic Curriculum: It’s Elementary?

“What did you do at school today, Billy?” “I colored a picture, went to recess and picked up a condom in the nurse’s office.” Imagine that exchange between you and your elementary school student. Well, such is already the case in Provincetown, Massachusetts, where the town’s school committee approved a policy under which first- through fifth-grade students would be given condoms – with or without Mom and Dad’s consent – provided the student talks to the school nurse or a “trained” counselor first.

“We’re talking about younger kids,” said Dr. Beth Singer, school superintendent. “They have questions they need answered on how to use them, when to use them.” How and when? As for parents who object, Singer says, “I would rather parents say they don’t want their kids to have sex instead of saying I don’t want my child to have a condom.” These are six- and seven-year-old kids we’re talking about, Beth. Naturally, the school “disapproves” of sexual activity, but if students do engage in it “against our better judgment,” at least they should have a condom. We can only hope that outraged parents knock some sense into these “educators” soon.

Faith and Family: Same-Sex Couples Score Another Victory

While Congress wouldn’t touch the issue in an election year, bureaucrats in the Labor Department did the bidding of homosexual-rights groups and expanded the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act to include coverage of children of their same-sex partners, even if the partner’s child hasn’t been adopted by the worker. Adoption by same-sex partners is problematic in many states which bar the practice.

It’s the latest of a string of gifts to the militant homosexual lobby, which has found a staunch ally in Barack Obama. While the most newsworthy was the debate over the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, April saw the president announce plans to allow same-sex partners hospital visitation rights while his Department of Justice extended the Violence Against Women Act to same-sex partners. Ironically, the Family and Medical Leave Act will now cover children of same-sex partners but not the partners themselves, because same-sex relationships aren’t recognized under federal law. We’re sure the Obama regime is plotting an end run around that, though. Making law out of whole cloth is just another tactic to please their rainbow of special interests.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated “LGBT Pride Month” by encouraging State Department employees to give teenagers the message that homosexuality is fine. “[T]here are still so many who need the outreach, need the mentoring, need the support to stand up and be who they are,” she said, “So I would ask you to please think of ways you can be there for everyone who is making this journey.” She concluded, “So as we continue to advance LGBT rights in other countries, we also must continually work to make sure we are advancing the agenda here.” Sadly, that’s already the norm in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where a 10-year-old boy has been named the grand marshal of a pride parade this weekend.

To Keep and Bear Arms

A couple in Kansas City, Missouri, were working in their yard one day when they were approached by a man behaving strangely. After yelling at the couple, the suspect grabbed the woman and took her with him into the house where he began to take valuables. As the suspect proceeded to leave the house with a flat screen TV, the woman’s husband confronted him with a gun that he kept in his truck. He shot the criminal once in the leg after the perp ignored his demands to stop. One of the homeowner’s neighbors said, “What makes me feel better is [the] homeowner took action, and he did something about it.”

And Last…

Is it too soon yet to judge Barack Obama as our worst president? Perhaps. But it’s certainly too soon to name roads after him, though that’s just what’s happening in Orlando, Florida. Pres Barack Obama Pkwy is being constructed using stimulus cash, creating 200 jobs for the first $10.5 million phase. Of course, we noted last week the plan in Arizona to build squirrel bridges using stimulus cash, and all in all, it would be far better to name those after Obama than a road near Disney World. We’re not saying that the road isn’t necessary, but there’s no doubt that spending taxpayer dollars to stroke the president’s huge ego is the Obama Way. In a sense, though, it’s somewhat fitting that we can now say the road to the Magic Kingdom is paved with campaign promises.