Recent Commentary

In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”.  But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.

In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court).  So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.

If eighteen months ago someone asked you to write a political plan more likely to rile up the American people and throw them into the arms of the Republican Party, it’s hard to imagine anything that would be more successful than what the Democrats have done over the past year and a half.  Not to mention what they plan to do.

Between ObamaCare, the stimulus, civil rights for terrorists and suing Arizona for trying to control its illegal immigration problem, they have been pushing voters to the GOP with both hands.  But in just a few months comes the coup de grace: a massive tax increase – right in the middle of a recession.

As the final vote in the Senate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court draws near, there’s little doubt that she will be confirmed, given the Democrats large majority.  But it will be a missed opportunity if Senate Republicans don’t use the debate to make some larger points about the judiciary and the size and scope of our government.

The problem is that when it comes to the American judiciary, what once was extreme has become mainstream, and the views of government held by those who wrote and ratified our Constitution are today considered extreme and out of date.

As the current election season begins to take shape, Obama and his political team are laying the groundwork for the next campaign.  Not the midterms, but his 2012 re-election.

Given that increasing numbers of Americans don’t seem as fond of “hope and change” as they did two years ago, they’re crafting a new strategy.  Change is out.  Reform is in.

When Obama was running for President he was a blank slate.  Potential supporters were able to see in him what they wished.  But over the past year and half the public has received a pretty stark education in what “hope and change” really meant; hence Obama’s need for a new strategy.

The reformers are at it again with yet another attempt to criminalize political speech and campaign activity.

From the government’s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the “DISCLOSE Act”, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”.  How clever.  And how disingenuous.

It’s being championed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in an attempt to get around this year’s Supreme Court decision which threw out restrictions on freedom of speech for unions and corporations in political campaigns.

Margaret Thatcher once said that, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.  One could easily add that another problem is that the other people eventually want to get paid back.

It’s a problem that is becoming more real with each passing day.  As the interest on that borrowed money consumes more of our nation’s economy, our options and our future will be increasingly limited.  The result is a threat to our individual freedoms and economic liberty, and eventually even our national security.

In the wake of Arizona’s passage of its new immigration enforcement law, the inflamed, uninformed and irresponsible rhetoric coming from the open-borders crowd and supposedly respectable politicians who should know better seems to have grown by the day.

From the NY Times to the Washington Post to Barack Obama himself, there has been an avalanche of gross mischaracterizations of the law, inferring that it would allow police to simply stop anyone who “looks different” on the street and demand to “see their papers”.

Now that Justice Stevens has made it official that he will be resigning at the end of the current term, Barack Obama gets his second opportunity to make a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court.  As usual, the speculation is as rampant as the implications are huge.

The bulk of the speculation centers on what direction Obama will take.  Does he try to capture some of the political middle ground he’s lost in the eyes of the public over the past year, or does he go with his heart and pick someone as liberal as he is?

In case you didn’t notice the barrage of taxpayer funded radio, TV, newspaper and internet ads, it’s census time again.

Yes, census time, that time that comes once every ten years when the government spends hundreds of millions of dollars telling us how important it is that we return that all important, overly nosey questionnaire.

In fact, it’s so important that the government sent me a letter telling me it was going to send me the census form a full week before it actually sent the form.  Then it sent a post card a few days after the form arrived reminding me that it had sent the form – which makes one wonder whether this was actually some sort of stimulus plan for the Postal Service.

The current debate over health care reminds me of that scene in the movie Outlaw Josey Wales where the snake oil peddling carpetbagger tries to sell a bottle of his tonic to an Indian, only to be asked about what was in it.  After saying he didn’t know, the Indian said, “You drink it”.

Obama and the Democrats are selling snake oil.  And the American people aren’t buying.

But after a full year of debate, speeches, emails and town halls promoting his health care agenda it has come down to this: an all out, last ditch effort to ram a bill through Congress that a majority of Americans don’t want.  Public opinion be damned.  “Change” is coming.