In a survey conducted in early June, Rasmussen found that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of eleven top issues.

It’s no surprise that Republicans lead on national security: after
9/11, when Bush implemented policies to fight terrorism, Republicans’
trust ratings skyrocketed, because Americans saw the problem at hand
and liked the way Republicans were dealing with it.  Years later, Obama
and other Democratic presidential candidates boasted how much more
effective they would be on national security—a fraud they were able to
perpetrate because Bush had kept us safe since 9/11 and the threat of
attack seemed remote.  Even if Americans actually came to believe that
the way to defeat terrorists is to love them, Obama soon co-opted
Bush’s entire war policy, thus validating Republicans’ arguments for
the past eight years.

So we know national security isn’t Democrats’ strong suit.  Perhaps
to distract from their unpopular war agenda, Obama and the newly
engorged Democratic Congressional majorities started talking about “a
new era of transparency.”  After 384 Obama appointees turned out to be
tax cheats, liars, campaign underwriters, and lobbyists, Republicans
now lead on government ethics, the second-most important issue to
voters.

When ethics didn’t prove to be Democrats’ trump card, Obama started
traveling around the country handing out stimulus goodies and talking
about projects and jobs funded by the Recovery Act.  Then ABC’s Jake
Tapper started uncovering all of Obama’s lies about the nonexistent effects of stimulus spending, and economists deconstructed the lunacy of his “saved or created” jobs argument.  Now a plurality of Americans wants the unspent portion of the stimulus recalled.  read more »

How did the Republican Party’s approach to dealing with
objectionable Supreme Court nominees come to resemble the Democrats’
strategy for the war on terror: scorn anyone who says anything critical
of the opposition and settle for second-class citizen status,
dhimmitude-style?  Are Republicans trying to balance Obama’s cooption
of Bush’s war policy to restore some kind of harmony in the universe?

Over the past week, we’ve been treated by Republicans to a range of
subtle and nuanced political stratagems for dealing with the nomination
of Sonia Sotomayor, including: shut your mouth, don’t speak, zip your
lip, don’t make waves, and while you’re at it, don’t say anything. 
This, from the party of “hawks” who bravely fought and won the Civil
War, the Cold War, and the Battle of Chad.

Let’s examine the reasons offered by Republican turncoats why we should not tender a whisper against the Sotomayor nomination:

It’s mean-spirited. Well, Democrats successfully mobilized
before Reagan’s fourth Supreme Court nomination, Robert Bork, savagely
vowing to form a “phalanx of opposition” against anyone at all Reagan
deigned to choose.  Democrats tried to destroy George W. Bush
appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito but failed only because they
lacked the votes (at least they managed to invade Roberts’ family’s
privacy and make Samuel Alito’s wife cry!).  The Republicans have not
opposed a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president since 1968. 
I think that at least qualifies as “sporting.”  read more »

Two ineluctable facts stand out when scrutinizing politicians’
actions on gay issues over the past 30 years: (1) Republicans are not
anti-gay and (2) Democrats are not pro-gay. By 2009, there are few
differences between Republican and Democratic politicians on gay
issues, except that Democrats are more likely to jerk gay voters around
and Republicans are more likely to quietly favor pro-liberty stances.
There may have been a difference between the two parties once, but that
hasn’t been the case for a long time.

In 1978, California governor Ronald Reagan opposed the Briggs
Initiative, which would have barred gays from teaching in public
schools. In an op-ed penned as he was beginning his presidential
campaign, Reagan wrote, “Prevailing scientific opinion is that an
individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a
child’s teachers do not really influence this.” This, in the late 70s,
while Jimmy Carter was publicly refusing to meet with gay groups. The
initiative was overwhelmingly defeated, mostly due to Reagan’s efforts,
and this momentum was instrumental in forming the Log Cabin Republicans.

Reagan was the first president to invite two openly gay men—interior
decorator Ted Graber and his partner—to spend the night at the White
House. Washington Post reporter Robert Kaiser called Reagan a “closet
tolerant.” If Reagan was closeted, it was because no one asked him his
views, not because he was hiding anything.

The number of gays discharged from the military dropped every year under Reagan. In contrast, the number of gays discharged increased every full year under Bill Clinton except one, doubling from 617 in 1994 to 1,231 in 2000. The number of gays discharged decreased
again every full year under George W. Bush except one, halved from
1,273 in 2001 to 612 in 2006. Gay rights groups report the number of
gays discharged over decades, but they never break it down by
administration, because the numbers make Democrats look bad and
Republicans look good.  read more »

Paul Krugman’s recent column, “An Affordable Salvation,”
gushes about how, now that the “junk science”-loving (and Nazi-hugging)
former occupant of the White House is gone, we can finally start saving
the planet.  And it won’t cost much, either!  That is, if only we can
get cap-and-trade skeptics to stop practicing “junk economics.”

“The best available estimates,” according to Krugman, suggest that
turning industrial civilization green will basically be painless, and
in the end will actually be good for us.  Perhaps his “best available
estimates” include the recent, breathless press release
from the Environmental Defense Fund: “For about a dime a day we can
solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save
billions in imported oil.”  New EDF slogan: Saving the planet and 90
cents will get you a cup of coffee!

In the Rube Goldberg scheme of alternative energy sources, permits,
taxes, carbon credit swapping, and rebates known as “cap-and-trade,” I
count at least six additional charges consumers will directly or
indirectly face.  First, there is the cost of less efficient
“green” energy production, which will be passed on to consumers. 
Second, there is the charge for emissions permits, which will also be
passed on to consumers.  read more »

The New York Times recently published an editorial titled “In the Spirit of Openness.”
It begins, “When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged
the public’s right to know anything. Now, suddenly, he has the full
disclosure bug.”

How did Cheney catch this “full disclosure bug”? Could it in fact be
an allergic reaction to some recent event or another—I don’t know, say,
the Obama administration’s censorious partial disclosure of the
enhanced interrogation memos with all of the spoilers blacked out?

The Times mocks Cheney’s statement that the decision to release the
memos “inspired” him to ask the CIA to release full transcripts of the
interrogations. Might “inspired” be a euphemism for “forced”?

The Times continues: “Mr. Cheney was not being entirely honest… and
his logic is confounding. If releasing the memos leaves this country
open to a devastating terrorist attack… imagine the potential harm from
revealing all of the secrets gleaned from the three most ‘high value’
terrorists captured since Sept. 11, 2001.”

Let’s examine Cheney’s supposed breakdown in logic. Releasing the
memos, which detail the nature and limits of the U.S.’s enhanced
interrogation techniques, inarguably makes our country more vulnerable
to attack, because it increases terrorists’ understanding of our
methods and what is needed to resist them.  read more »

What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo “stress tests” by the federal government which would determine that they were “insufficiently capitalized” so they must be supervised by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big Three automakers – Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined not by a Board of Directors but by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 “Czars”, without congressional approval, accountable only to him – not to the voters – who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions? That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?  read more »

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.  read more »

Some traditions should be so hallowed that they should not be sullied by political controversies or used as a vehicle to manipulate the participants into embracing perspectives and policies they might not otherwise be exposed to or willing to accept. As a celebration of profound cultural significance at one of America's most solemn and historic venues, the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House ought to be just such an occasion.  read more »

The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them.  read more »