Right Opinion

Arizona, the Racist State?

Though the Supreme Court overturned much of the Arizona law, just not the part the liberals and their media friends loathed the most, it wasn't hard to predict the networks would once again line up with the amnesty lobby. ABC's Diane Sawyer mourned "the most inflammatory part of the law" was upheld. Once again, those impartial network producers are making themselves the sob sisters of illegal aliens. ABC found a man who carries a document in his glove compartment insisting that if he's deported, his children shouldn't go into foster care. NBC put on a woman watching cartoons with her cute little kids, wearing a T-shirt saying, "Arrest (Sheriff Joe) Arpaio, Not the People." Reporter Savannah Guthrie predicted more lawsuits to repeal the one section the court upheld -- because liberals never accept defeat. It's so predictable. So predictable, in fact, that now there is no pretense of objectivity whatsoever. ABC's Diane Sawyer also turned to one of the most biased journalists in America, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who just pounds the drum for amnesty at every opportunity. Yes, a news anchor. He lamented the Supreme Court decision, saying "the last hope is gone" and blamed both parties for failing to pass "major immigration reform." Sawyer asked him to tell the stories of Latinos, and he summarized, "It's fear, and fear of persecution in the future."

Team Obama's Brother Sharpton Moment

Attorney General Eric Holder's people have no shame. After months of stonewalling, misinformation and petulant disregard for the victims of the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, President Obama's Justice Department is hiding behind the most despicable race-card demagogues on the planet. "Post-racial" America never looked so bitter, clingy and cowardly. At a Tuesday press conference in Washington, D.C., human shield Al Sharpton condemned the upcoming House vote on a contempt motion against Holder as "reckless" and "morally reprehensible." Yes, the infamous hate-crimes hoaxer, cop-basher and riot incitement specialist is now the self-appointed sheriff of Capitol Hill morality. A Huffington Post report hyping Sharpton's protection racket decried the contempt citation as an "assault on minority rights." In typical race-baiting style, Sharpton told the leftwing website: "I'm not saying that this is because Holder is black, and I'm not calling (Republicans) racists. I'm saying what they're doing has a racial effect."

A Political Glossary: Part II

Politicians seem to have a special fondness for words that have two very different meanings, so we are likely to hear a lot of these kinds of words this election year. "Access" is one of those words. Politicians seem to be forever coming to the rescue of people who have been denied "access" to credit, college or whatever. But what does that mean, concretely? It could mean that some external force is blocking you from whatever your goal might be. Or it could mean that you just don't have whatever it takes to reach that goal. To take a personal example, Michael Jordan became a basketball star -- and a very rich man. I did neither. Was that because I was denied "access" to professional basketball?

The Mythical Right to Decency

Pity the poor speech regulators at the Federal Communications Commission, who are charged with sifting through complaints about TV and radio programs in a farcical attempt to determine which references to "sexual or excretory organs or activities" are "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Last week, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of this charade, thereby forcing the FCC's butt-coverers and word-bleepers to contemplate a backlog of 1.5 million or so complaints. "The FCC must now enforce our right to decency on the public airwaves," declared Morality in Media President Patrick Trueman. Unpacking that statement reveals the intellectual and constitutional bankruptcy of this whole censorious enterprise. Trueman's "right to decency" is, in essence, a right not to be offended, which sits rather uneasily with the right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment would not amount to much if it extended only to inoffensive utterances.

Voter Apathy Isn't a Crime

It's a sure sign someone is losing when he demands that the rules be changed. That might explain the renewed interest in forcing people to vote against their will. Peter Orszag, President Obama's former budget director and now a vice chairman at Citigroup, recently wrote a column for Bloomberg View arguing for making voting mandatory. He's not alone. Icons of the Beltway establishment Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann also favor the idea. As does William Galston, a former advisor to President Clinton. (Mann and Galston are scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution; Ornstein is a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute.) While I have great respect for Ornstein, Mann and Galston -- I'm undecided about Orszag -- I find the idea absurd, cynical and repugnant. Let's start with the repugnant part.

Too Much College

In President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union address, he said that "higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford." Such talk makes for political points, but there's no evidence that a college education is an economic imperative. A good part of our higher education problem, explaining its spiraling cost, is that a large percentage of students currently attending college are ill-equipped and incapable of doing real college work. They shouldn't be there wasting their own resources and those of their families and taxpayers. Let's look at it. Robert Samuelson, in his Washington Post article "It's time to drop the college-for-all crusade" (5/27/2012), said that "the college-for-all crusade has outlived its usefulness. Time to ditch it. Like the crusade to make all Americans homeowners, it's now doing more harm than good." Richard Vedder -- professor of economics at Ohio University, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of The Center for College Affordability & Productivity, or CCAP -- in his article "Ditch ... the College-for-All Crusade," published on The Chronicle of Higher Education's blog, "Innovations" (6/7/2012), points out that the "U.S. Labor Department says the majority of new American jobs over the next decade do not need a college degree. We have a six-digit number of college-educated janitors in the U.S." Another CCAP essay by Vedder and his colleagues, titled "From Wall Street to Wal-Mart," reports that there are "one-third of a million waiters and waitresses with college degrees." More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, taxi drivers and salesmen. Was college attendance a wise use of these students' time and the resources of their parents and taxpayers?

In Praise of Discrimination

I'm scared. I fear that even if the Supreme Court overrules most of Obamacare (or did already, by the time you read this), Republicans will join Democrats in restoring "good" parts of the law, like the requirement that insurance companies cover kids up to age 26 and every American with a pre-existing condition. Those parts of Obamacare are *popular.* People *like* getting what they think is free stuff. But requiring coverage to age 26 makes policies cost more. Even Bill O'Reilly lectures me that government should ban discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions. Most Americans agree with him. Who likes discrimination? Racial discrimination was one of the ugliest parts of American history. None of us wants to be discriminated against. But discrimination is part of freedom. We discriminate when we choose our friends or our spouse, or when we choose what we do with our time.

Our Evolving Social Thoughts

WASHINGTON -- In the 1790s, a Tennessee man convicted of horse theft got off easy. Instead of being hanged, as horse thieves often were, he was sentenced to "stand in the pillory one hour, receive thirty-nine lashes upon his bareback well laid on, have his ears nailed to the pillory and cut off, and that he should be branded upon one cheek with the letter H and on the other with the letter T, in a plain and visible manner." Tennessee could not do that today because of what the Supreme Court has called "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The Eighth Amendment, ratified in 1791, forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." Originalism holds that the Constitution's language should be construed to mean what the words meant at the time to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. On Monday, a Supreme Court ruling about punishment vexed the four justices (John Roberts, Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito) most sympathetic to originalism, who dissented. The majority held that sentencing laws that mandate life imprisonment without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violate the Eighth Amendment.

A Government of Men, Not Laws

"There is no good government but what is republican," John Adams wrote. "(T)he very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'" Adams meant that a government in which law is applied at the discretion of powerful people is a bad government. The law must be applied in a straightforward, nonarbitrary fashion or the entire governmental system should be called into question. This week, the Supreme Court called the entire governmental system into question. A couple of weeks ago, President Obama unilaterally declared that he would cease to enforce major provisions of federal immigration law. Now he's campaigning on that reckless disregard for the constitutional structure. "You can decide whether it's time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they were brought here as children of undocumented immigrants," he told an audience in Boston. "I know where I stand on this." Actually, we can't decide. That's because President Obama decided for us. And when we try to decide for ourselves via state governments, we are told that we're violating the constitutional order.

Obama Amps Up Illegal Immigration Lawlessness

The administration plans a counter-offensive against Arizona with more executive decrees.

Spending Drives North Las Vegas to Declare State of Emergency

Unaffordable union contract at root.

A Political Glossary

Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words -- and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms. One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is "fairness." It has been used over a vast range of issues, from "fair trade" laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. Some of us may want to see a definition of what is "fair." But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically. If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income -- or any other number -- is the "fair share" of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more -- and "more" is what "fair share" means in practice. Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.

The Politics of Immigration - and Everything Else

Arizona's grasp of constitutional niceties may be imperfect according to U.S. Supreme Court standfasts, but the state's attempt to wrestle with the immigration conundrum deserves more respect than jurists and commentators are willing to assign it. Like, what's a state to do when the national government refuses to act on an urgent question intimately affecting its citizens? Arizona chose to enact a law. Some of the law passed muster with the high court this week. Other portions, less artfully conceived perhaps, lost out. Arizona peace officers can check the immigration status of people they stop for nonimmigration-related offenses. What they can't do, broadly speaking, is prevent illegals from seeking work. There we are, then -- meaning not fully enmeshed in the process of problem solving; rather, figuring out how the situation as a whole bears on prospects for re-election or defeat of the incumbent U. S. president. The immigration question, as laid out before us, really doesn't center on the rights or duties of government at one level or another; it centers on votes. Does it not seem that way with most public questions today?

Middle Fingers at the White House

Grow Up: Life Has Trade-offs

Anne-Marie Slaughter's eye-catching Atlantic article, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All," is being greeted with a certain reverse snobbery. We've been reminded that the choices and challenges of women with advanced degrees are hardly typical and not the sort of thing that should divert us from the problems of the middle class. Perhaps. But there are millions of women in the upper middle class and the culture they create and reflect affects everyone. Besides, Slaughter deserves some credit for honesty. As she recounts in the piece, when she mentioned to a friend that she was considering writing that women can't have it all, the friend was adamant: "You can't write that. You, of all people." Slaughter explains: "... such a statement, coming from a high-profile career woman -- a role model -- would be a terrible signal to younger generations ..." Slaughter, the "first woman director of policy planning at the State Department," had been one of those reliable soldiers in the "mommy wars" who had assured young women that, of course, they could have a satisfying career, a high income, a loving husband and 2.5 ego-gratifying, low-maintenance children whose problems wouldn't intrude when they "sipped champagne" at a "glamorous reception" hosted by President and Mrs. Obama. But she has discovered that the "have-it-all" catechism was a lie. Even with a supportive husband who was willing to "take on the lion's share of parenting ... (while) I was in Washington," she found that she didn't want to be away from her two teenaged sons, particularly when one was having trouble in school.

Time for the Administration to Stop Exploiting Race

One advantage of defeating Barack Obama in November, apart from saving the country from financial ruin and the rest, is that conservatives will presumably be able to criticize liberal policies again without automatically being accused of racism. These charges aren't just emanating from the fringe groups; they're not just being uttered by radical leftist bloggers or Occupy Wall Street zealots. They are no longer the exclusive province of race hustlers whose professional careers depend on stirring up animosity among racial groups. In August 2011, the level of polarization seemed to reach a fever pitch, when Congressional Black Caucus Whip Andre Carson said, "Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree." Just a week or so ago, no less a mainstream media figure than former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson wrote, "Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there -- they oppose him not for his policies and political view but for who he is, an African American!"

The NHS: A Guide for Americans Under Obamacare

BELFAST, Northern Ireland -- Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (this was written before the decision), the Obama administration has indicated it will move forward with those parts of the unpopular law it can impose on the country. Guidebooks are helpful when going on vacation. The U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) is the best guidebook for Americans concerned where a nationalized health system might take us. For years throughout the U.K. there have been horror stories about declining health-care services. Last week, NHS doctors threatened a strike over a plan to raise their retirement age and pension contributions. A majority of doctors decided at the last minute not to strike after negative public reaction. Rationing has arrived, with more than 90 percent of English health trusts restricting "non-urgent" surgeries, which include hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery. It took a freedom of information request by the media to pry this fact from the NHS.

Preparing for SCOTUS

The long-awaited decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (which we here, in Your Nation's Capital, refer to as SCOTUS) on Obamacare is due to be handed down this week. Some say Monday. Some say Thursday. Chief Justice, a couple of clerks and the guy who converts the decisions into PDF files probably know which day, but they're not talking. Every organization in Washington -- public, private, business association, union, Left Wing, Right Wing ... you name the type of group, and I guarantee they spent last week and most of this weekend getting ready for the decision. Problem is: You don't know how the Justices will have ruled on the total bill or portions of the bill, so you have to be ready for as many permutations and combinations as possible. The basic unit of currency in these matters is *The Statement* -- the official position of organization is publishing it.

What Brown Lost in the Debate Over the Debate

When Senator Scott Brown turned down an invitation to debate Elizabeth Warren at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston, did he shrewdly avoid a trap? Or did he foolishly blow an opportunity? The invitation had been extended on June 8 by Vicki Kennedy, widow of the late senator and president of the institute's board. Last week Brown agreed to take part in the debate -- but only if Kennedy promised to personally uphold "the spirit of neutrality" by not endorsing any candidate or otherwise getting involved in the race. When Kennedy wouldn't go along with that condition, Brown said no to the debate. "The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor," Brown's campaign manager insisted, "while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates." To hear some Republicans tell it, Brown's refusal was perfectly justified: Had he accepted Vicki Kennedy's proposal, he would have been walking into an ambush. State GOP chairman Bob Maginn applauded Brown for spurning "this charade of a debate" and exposing the Kennedy Institute's "invitation for what it was: a setup." At the popular conservative blog Red Mass Group, Republican activist Rob Eno imagined a counter-scenario: Suppose Nancy Reagan invited President Obama to debate Mitt Romney at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Would anyone fault Obama for declining such an offer?

Obama Backers Use Race as Alibi for Ebbing Support

As Barack Obama's lead over Mitt Romney in the polls narrows, and his presumed fundraising advantage seems about to become a disadvantage, it's alibi time for some of his backers. His problem, they say, is that some voters don't like him because he's black. Or they don't like his policies because they don't like having a black president. So, you see, if you don't like Obamacare, it's not because it threatens to take away your health insurance, or to deny coverage for some treatments. It's because you don't like black people. This sort of thing seems to be getting more frequent, or at least more open. As White House Dossier writer Keith Koffler notes, HBO host Bill Maher accused Internet tyro Matt Drudge of being animated by racism because he highlights anti-Obama stories. MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown if House Chairman Darrell Issa's treatment of Attorney General Eric Holder was "ethnic." Brown agreed, and Matthews said some Republicans "talk down to the president and his friends."