As limited government advocates fight to preserve individual liberties amid the onrush of President Barack Obama’s “Era of Obscenely Big Government,” one fundamental American freedom that we must be increasingly vigilant in protecting is the freedom of speech.
After the shooting deaths of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller last month and security guard Stephen T. Johns at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum last week, I knew it was only a matter of time before I would receive an e-mail like one sent from Ann Pinkerton of Oakland:
Am I concerned, friends ask me quietly, after we all publicly praise President Obama's monumental Cairo speech. The friends are usually, but not always, Jewish. They are all, like me, strong supporters of the state of Israel. The answer is that of course I'm concerned. I'm very concerned. But since when has a supporter of the state of Israel not been concerned?
While walking recently on a crowded Manhattan sidewalk, I suddenly saw a wall of water crash down from somewhere over our heads. The source was a truck from which a fat hose was pouring water on the flower baskets hanging from posts. The baskets were intended to add some charm to the urban streetscape. Nice try.
Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election represented one of the most dramatic shifts in political power in American history. In terms of both style and substance, the contrast between Obama and George W. Bush is perhaps as great as that between any incoming and outgoing presidents in the modern era. Yet the historic nature of this election should not blind us to the high degree of consistency between the results of the 2008 election and previous elections. New evidence on the results of the 2008 presidential election at the congressional district level reinforces this point.
It's increasingly looking like President Obama may be sunk by his own deficit.
Last week, White House chief economist Christina Romer told reporters that there are "billion-dollar bills lying on the sidewalk" in America's health care system -- apparently there for the taking if only Washington would show the will to pick them up.
Barack Obama has said he wants to pass a national health care bill this year, with a government insurance policy option. Democratic congressional leaders have called for passage of such a bill before the beginning of the August congressional recess.
Within the coming weeks, Americans will begin to consider critical issues concerning the future of health care for themselves and their children, including universal coverage, taxation of benefits, computerized records and the controlling of costs. But before the debate commences in Congress and the media, big insurance and pharmaceutical companies are lobbying frantically (and spending millions of dollars) to foreclose the possibility of the most promising aspect of health care reform: a public insurance option.
At last there is convincing evidence that Obama’s poll numbers may be descending to earth. While his approval remains high – and his personal favorability is even higher – the underlying numbers suggest that a decline may be in the offing.
Last weekend's European Parliament and British local county council elections were not only a victory for the center-right over the center-left but also, more significantly, an indication of the growing rejection of the past 60 years of denationalized and consolidating European history.
McAllen, Texas, spends more per person on health care than any other metropolitan area in America, except for Miami. Why would this poor border town spend $15,000 a year per Medicare enrollee?
For a man of his impressive educational credentials, Barack Obama has sometimes shown a surprising ignorance of history.
When the San Francisco school board voted last month to restore the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, it seemed that sanity had prevailed -- three years after the board voted to kill the popular program. Finally, the board had put students' welfare ahead of its ruthless political correctness.
I have hated graduations for most of my life. High school was my best, and it wasn't great: I lost out as valedictorian by one-tenth of a point, and the guys who finished third and fourth behind me both got into Harvard and I didn't. I was heading off to my last choice college, the one that had given me the big scholarship. Still, I was healthy, and my parents were both alive and there. I didn't know yet that right there, that was enough, more than I would ever have again.
Testifying before the House Budget Committee this week, Ben Bernanke said that when the time comes, the Fed will raise interest rates in order to stop inflation from building in the next recovery. He also asked for "fiscal balance" to sustain financial stability. On the surface -- in terms of keeping prices stable and restoring value to the softening U.S. dollar -- this is positive. Surely Bernanke wants to do right for America, and he's giving it his best shot.
The U.S. Constitution is utterly silent on qualifications for members of the federal judiciary. Theoretically, a justice does not even have to be a lawyer, but, in practice, all 110 justices in the Supreme Court's 220-year history have been attorneys. With no constitutionally mandated selection criteria, presidents have been free to determine the standards by which they choose nominees. Professor Henry Abraham, the nation's leading Supreme Court expert, has identified four primary selection criteria that presidents have used in the appointment process: 1) merit, 2) ideology, 3) friendship, and 4) representation.
Nobody in America believes the judicial confirmation system works. Not the senators who eat up precious questioning time with windy speeches about pet projects back home; not the interest groups who scour every sordid instant of a nominee's background for evidence that they are unfit for the bench; and not the American public, whose experiences of constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy are reduced in a few days on C-SPAN to bumper-sticker claims and counter claims.
Two cases likely to be decided this month by the Supreme Court -- one of them an appeal in a Connecticut case decided by a panel including Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- could result in significant changes in our civil rights laws.
If you see the federal government as a benign force that seeks only to make your life better, then the questions in the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey may not bother you. But if you have a smidgen of doubt, or if you value your privacy, you probably aren't going to like some of Uncle Sam's invasive queries.
