Upon learning that a leaflet had been circulated in the Ukrainian city of Donestk ordering Jews to register their property, Secretary of State John Kerry swiftly condemned the leaflet.
The Spectacle Blog
Feature of the Day: High Tech: How Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are rushing to cash in on cannabis.
- Views Differ of Imam Accused in US Terrorism Case
- Late Sign-Ups Improve Outlook for Obama Health Law
Democrats are fumbling with Obamacare like it’s a hot potato.
The White House’s inflated 7.5 million enrollee number looks good for liberals who suffered conservative taunts back in October. With the website’s abysmal failures behind them, this glimmer of hope has caused some Democrats to call for robust support of the bill:
“Democrats need to start making the case for Obamacare,” [Thomas] Mills [a consultant] said. “They all voted for it, they all own it, so they can't get away from it. So they'd better start defending it.”
This approach seems shortsighted at best. Mills speaks the truth when he says they voted for it, and conservatives will make them own it no matter what, but refusing to recognize the problems associated with the law won’t help them come election time.
There’s a reason both Eric Holder and Lois Lerner have been held in contempt of Congress.
Just a day before the IRS targeting scandal flooded the media, the DOJ contacted Lerner regarding how to criminally prosecute “political” groups that the IRS thought had “lied” on their applications about political activity. Further, Lerner said she couldn’t confirm that any left-wing political groups were the subjects of investigations:
I thank thee Lord that I am not like those other conservatives.
Those xenophobes, nativists, obsessives about border security, drinkers of tea, and other bitter enders.
For I support comprehensive immigration reform.
I sup with the lords of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chiefs of the AFL-CIO, and the titans of Silicon Valley.
I am welcomed at the editorial houses of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.
I receiveith gold from George Soros, Bill Marriott and Mark Zuckerberg, and praise from the mainstream media, the Gang of Eight, and the princes of tourism.
Although my labors would enrich the treasuries of Corporate Mammon at the expense of the “least among us” of my fellow Americans of all races and ethnicities by lowering their wages and increasing their unemployment—I trust in my own righteousness.
For I am the Pharisee conservative.
Thomas Sowell knows why politicians on both sides of the aisle are so upset that the Supreme Court overturned limits on campaign contributions—because such restrictions hurt political challengers and protect incumbents. I think he hit the nail on the head:
The recent Supreme Court decision over-ruling some Federal Election Commission restrictions on political campaign contributions has provoked angry reactions on the left. That is what often happens whenever the High Court rules that the First Amendment means what it says—free speech for everybody.
Opponents say killing these limits will lead to electoral corruption. What exactly do they mean? President Obama cries that removing restrictions “will open the floodgates for special interests.” Sowell explains, “Those unfamiliar with political rhetoric may not know that ‘special interests’ mean people who support your opponents":
Feature of the Day: The Crashes That Changed Plane Designs Forever
Pope Francis’s recent remarks on clerical sexual abuse received plenty of deserved attention in the secular press. Less attention, however, has been paid to other no less emphatic comments he made in that same appearance, perhaps because they were so thoroughly traditional in reaffirming, in his words, “the right of children to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity.”
What’s more, Francis decried all efforts at “educational experimentation with children,” noting that “The horrors of the manipulation of education that we experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the twentieth century have not disappeared.”
Shrouded in the garb of “reproductive freedom” and “equality," President Obama is launching a new eugenics initiative through a program designed to reduce pregnancies and births among teenage black and Hispanic women.
As reported by the Daily Caller, the Centers for Disease Control described the purpose of the program:
to demonstrate the effectiveness of innovative, multicomponent, communitywide initiatives in reducing rates of teen pregnancy and births in communities with the highest rates, with a focus on reaching African American and Latino/Hispanic youth aged 15–19 years.
No doubt America’s teen pregnancy rate is too high, but the wording of this mission statement is clear: stop the pregnancies, but also stop the births. This isn’t a campaign for stronger families or abstinence, but rather for contraceptives and ultimately abortions intended to reduce the black and Hispanic populations.
Michael McGough of the Los Angeles Times offered some clearheaded thinking about so called "hate crimes" in his column yesterday. McGough wrote in the wake of the tragic killings allegedly perpetrated in Kansas City by Frazier Glenn Cross, an elderly Nazi sympathizer and contributor to the macbre mystique around creeps with three names. Cross will likely be prosecuted under hate crime legislation. His victims were not Jewish, but presumably he thought they were, as his targets were Jewish community centers. And so McGough made this provocative and rightheaded statement: "[T]hese killings are a reminder of the perplexities that surround hate-crime laws. No one would suggest that the loss of these lives would be any less horrible if the gunman had chosen his victims at random and without regard to their (assumed) religion."