There have been times over the last year and a half where voters probably wondered what they’d gotten out of a Republican Senate. This week, they know the answer: reassurance that GOP leaders won’t allow a lame-duck president to stack the Court with liberal jurists. After taking some well-deserved flak for not using his majority more, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) may have just chosen the most important moment to do so.

“I have many faults,” the Kentucky leader told reporters, “but getting off message is not one of them. In short, there will be no action taken.” To most Americans, who can’t stand the thought of another lifetime guardian of Obama’s legacy, this is the best return on their 2014 investment yet. It’s this same unflinching resolve that voters hoped they’d be getting when they handed Republicans the keys to both chambers two years ago. Now, those elections do have consequences — serious ones, for an administration desperate to have a permanent ideological grip on the court.

For McConnell, colleagues say, the quick decision to draw a line after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was an unusual one. Instead of deliberating with others, the Senate Majority Leader dug in almost immediately, insisting there would be no hearing or vote for Scalia’s replacement. McConnell knew the urgency of the moment and seized it. Naturally, Democrats pitched a fit — knowing the Republicans’ stand would devastate their radical agenda if they stuck to it. For once, the president — who’s built a bypass around Congress bigger than the D.C. Beltway — needs the Senate. If he could appoint a Supreme Court justice by executive order, he would.

Now, at the mercy of a Senate he’s so often spurned, it’s no wonder he’s talking about “rising above ideology and partisanship” (two things he’s never managed himself). Democrats have exhausted their lawless options. Their only hope is that Republicans will forget the last seven years, their statements advocating the GOP’s same position, and their own decision to blow up Senate precedent with the nuclear option. Yet, Obama is calling for “regular order and regular processes” (the same ones he shunned in 2005) — not because he respects them, but because it’s one of the few times he’s had any use for them. That phony allegiance to precedent is tough for anyone to swallow now.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “[These are demands] for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations… Minority Leader Harry Reid complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments!” Liberals never hesitated to use their power — or misuse it — to achieve their ends. In this, the Senate GOP is well within their rights to withhold their consent. If the president wants to nominate a replacement for Scalia, the Constitution grants him the authority. But the same document also stands behind Senator McConnell’s decision to ignore it — which he’s determined to do.

Asked [Tuesday] night if he’d back down, the Kentucky leader didn’t flinch. “There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that’s gonna happen.” Republicans have risen to the challenge. It’s time for voters to do the same and give them a president worthy to make the decision they’ve postponed. For more on the GOP’s position, as well as Joe Biden’s own statements in support of it, check out my interview with Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) on [Tuesday’s] night’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” Also, the dynamic duo of Ken Klukoswki and FRC’s Ken Blackwell are back with a great new Breitbart column, “Antonin Scalia’s Wisdom on Faith and American Success.”

Originally published here.

CSU Censorship Reaches Hypocritical Mass

WARNING: Conservatism can be damaging to your mental health. That’s the argument college students at California State University Los Angeles made to school officials about a campus event with Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro. A speech that exposes liberal hypocrisy poses “a threat to our lives,” students complained to University President William Covino. And proving the sad state of higher education, he agreed — cancelling tomorrow’s appearance by Shapiro to the shock of his conservative sponsoring organization, Young America’s Foundation.

Despite being approved by the student board, the Shapiro event became the subject of liberal protests and even lawsuit threats. Of course, it turns out that Ben didn’t need to speak on the topic “When Diversity Becomes a Problem” — the school made his point for him. “After careful consideration,” Covino caved, “I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity.”

That’s interesting, Fox Business points out, since the university didn’t mind featuring talks like “Exploring Whiteness” and “Do Muslim Women Really Need Freedom?” Obviously, the small-minded academics don’t believe in critical thinking — just criticizing thinking. Terrified that someone might disrupt the liberal monopoly on college campuses, too many officials take the cowardly (and illuminating) way out.

As far as Shapiro is concerned, no attempt at pseudo-diversity is going to stop him. He plans to go to the auditorium tomorrow anyway and dares CSU officials to stop him. “The campus fascists have taken over,” he fired back. “I pay taxes in the state of California; I’m paying for these whiny children to be indoctrinated by radical leftists. For CSULA to pretend that they’re trying to provide balance isn’t just stupid, it’s insulting… I am the balance and they’re too afraid to let me speak.” If anything is a threat to these students, it’s the Left’s censorship.

Originally published here.

Radical Terrorists: Coming Soon to a City near You!

Apparently, it wasn’t enough to invite terrorists into America as part of an unvetted refugee pool. Now the president wants to fly them here personally as part of his stubborn plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The Cuban facility has been a target of the president’s since his initial campaign in 2008, and he’s tried for more than seven years – unsuccessfully — to persuade Congress of the idea’s merits.

Unfortunately for him, Democrats and Republicans have been so overwhelmingly opposed to the idea that they passed a law in 2011 banning the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to U.S. soil. But the president, more eager to please Cuban dictator Raul Castro than promote national security, continues to insist that he’ll make good on his promise to shutter the prison. Now, the administration is trying again with a new plan that would send some of the world’s most dangerous prisoners to prisons in the U.S. and to other countries for “monitoring.” Of course, as Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) pointed out, it is more than a little revealing that the plan didn’t identify which American cities those would be — no doubt recognizing how unpopular the idea would be in local communities.

Even Democrats are wary of his latest scheme, since sending the 9/11 masterminds to any district isn’t exactly a people-pleaser. Not only does it provide the perfect avenue for radicals to recruit, but it makes these communities a terrorist target! Either President Obama is ignorant to the threat, or more likely, doesn’t care. As FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) explains, “U.S. intelligence has already confirmed that at least a third of these detainees will return to terrorism when released. This is just what can be confirmed — the number is probably at least half of those released who will return to terrorism in one way or the other. Recent YouTube videos of Al Qaeda operative Ibrahim al-Qosi, a former detainee, demonstrate the recidivism of these released terrorists.”

In the meantime, Congress is already on the move to block the president’s plan. Senator Ayotte and three other Republicans have introduced a bill forbidding the president from giving America’s base back to Cuba without Congress’s approval. And while there are very real concerns that the president will try another executive order end-run around Congress, members have “almost totally tied the administration’s hands,” Zach Beauchamp points out. “It is currently illegal, under U.S. law, to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States for trial, hold them in a facility on U.S. soil, or even use federal funds to prosecute them in civil court.” But, as we all know, our nation is one lawless decision away from transferring these enemy combatants to U.S. soil. That would be an insult to every serviceman and woman in the U.S. military. How many of them died or were wounded bringing these people to justice?

Originally published here.