President Obama’s June 15 decree freeing at least 800,000 young illegal immigrants from possible deportation should be debated far more on executive overreach than on problems resulting from years of poor policing of the nation’s borders. The fact that Obama did by executive order what Congress refused to legislate should raise a fundamental question: Where does a President derive power to make law?
Many people may have voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because of his charisma. But anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should have run for the hills when they encountered a politician with charisma.
Many unthinkingly subscribe to the notion that polling-place quantity means political quality at election time. But low turnout isn’t to be lamented; it’s to be applauded. After all, if someone doesn’t have the get-up-and-go to get out and vote without being prodded, it’s a given that he doesn’t possess the greater initiative necessary to inform himself on the issues. In this case, he shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Thus should we never encourage the apathetic to cast ballots, for disinterest correlates with incompetence.
With the help of 14 writers and seven contributors and researchers, Glenn Beck has burst forth with another book that expresses his unique style: fulminating, ranting, exploding, rollicking, sardonic, eclectic, and intemperate. Beck and friends have written 11 best sellers and seven of them have reached the #1 position on the New York Times best seller list. Cowards will no doubt be number eight.
President Obama's latest political ploy — granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children — is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems.
A lot of ink has been spilled in the past several days over Sunday's 40th anniversary of the famous break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. For nearly a year the major media appeared to accept then-Attorney General and future prison inmate John Mitchell's description of the event as a "third-rate burglary" by some pro-Nixon knight-errants in a vain effort to get some "dirt" on the opposition. Little more was heard of the break-in for the rest of 1972, and it surely did no harm to Nixon's political fortunes as the President that November carried 49 states, 10 years to the day after losing an election for Governor in California and his announcement to reporters that they would not "have Nixon to kick around anymore." It was the completion of one of the greatest comebacks in American political history.
In a very real sense, however, the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from the White House, did not start — or end — with Nixon.
The question is, should the computer be used to replace the teacher in educating students, or should the student merely learn how to use a computer? Has the computer become merely another edu-fad that neither teachers nor students know quite what to do with? Many believe that, with or without computers, the teacher is still the most important person in the classroom.
His brooding countenance stares out at us from a prominent place on the newsstand. Chances are you will not recognize the face. At first glance you might think it's the return of Alan Greenspan, the man who's sober stewardship of the Federal Reserve System included a memorable description of the stock market's "irrational exuberance." The large print on the cover of Time magazine calls him "THE DECIDER." Well, that could be Mr. Greenspan, who decided interest rates and money supply for many years. But no, the cover tells us that title goes to Justice Anthony Kennedy, most often the "swing vote" in an evenly and ideologically divided court that resolves many disputes in 5-4 decisions. Since the four liberals and four conservatives vote in generally predictable patterns, Kennedy's unpredictable vote is the lever of power, potentially deciding everything, as the cover tells us with anxious anticipation, "from gay marriage to ObamaCare."
Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a "war on women" conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November.