The press can always be counted upon not just to speak up for itself, but to lavish attention on itself. And that’s fine. What’s not fine is the way so many in the press talk about the First Amendment as if it’s their trade’s private license.
Talk about India always begins with recognition that it’s one of Asia’s rising powers, a state with a fast-growing economy and burgeoning political influence on the world stage. But a closer look shows a dark underbelly that portends a sad time ahead. Put simply, the state is so badly neglecting its young that India is threatening its very future.
The Common Core standards are actually an attempt by governors — including many conservative Republican governors — to set some coherent standards on what children should know about math and English by various grade levels.
President Barack Obama’s scandals are interlocking and overlapping in ways that drain his authority. Everything he advocates requires Americans to lavish on government something his administration, and big government generally, undermines — trust.
When I graduated from college, I would not have believed that in my lifetime women would gain rights over their own bodies, including the legal right to have an abortion. Or that women would become chief executives of major corporations, secretaries of state, contenders for the presidency. Or that they’d outnumber men in college.
Overhyping Benghazi will only diminish the importance of the scandal if it doesn’t meet presidency-breaking standards. Third, focusing on the political effects simply plays into the hands of Democrats desperately claiming that this is nothing but partisan politics.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott has on his desk awaiting his signature — or, dare we hope, his veto — a piece of legislation called the Timely Justice Act, passed by his state legislature in the apparent belief that Florida is not killing people fast enough.
Americans accustomed to hating the media — a popular pastime of self-proclaimed “new media,” often meaning someone with an iPhone and a laptop — should stop hitting “snooze” on their wakeup call right about now.
Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has set a very clear tone. He’s made it clear that people who disagree with him are fevered, illegitimate, weird, creepy, dangerous, stupid, confused, ignorant or some other adjective you might assign to a new version of the seven dwarves.
A great deal has been written about the miserable failure of the Iraq war. Much lost — 4,500 American lives and $2.2 trillion, 13 percent of the national debt — and little if anything gained. We traded one despot for another, and right now the nation is on the verge of civil war.
We need a federal government that is limited, respected and effective within its proper bounds. And none can call this the Obama legacy.
Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS’ behavior “inappropriate.” No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the IRS for political purposes is a criminal offense.
Many of our representatives in Washington profess to believe in “family values.” But their indifference and inaction in the face of what has happened to working families poses a clear and present danger to the American family.
President Barack Obama has backed himself into a corner: Be forced into a war he is firmly resolved to avoid, or lose credibility, which for a superpower on whose word relies the safety of a dozen allies is not just embarrassing but dangerous.
It is now theoretically possible for a mental patient to manufacture his own gun in the comfort of his aluminum foil-lined basement. That’s a sobering development with far-reaching implications barely considered, much less addressed, by lawmakers though this technology has existed for over a decade.
It is easy to believe that real-time mistakes in Benghazi were honestly made. No one thinks that any president or secretary of state would do less than everything possible to save American lives. But the mistakes made afterward, whether out of embarrassment or political survival, are less easily rationalized.
In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming an anti-Islam video — as if the First Amendment was the problem.
Most Chinese simply aren’t happy with the status quo. Even rich people no longer trust the government. They’re sending their money out of the state — billions of dollars each year. So the question arises: How long can the Communist government survive in this atmosphere of withering public discontent?
Christianity is not just a matter of personal morality; it involves a view of social justice. That phrase, “social justice” — largely defined by the left — has taken on negative connotations in conservative circles. Rightly understood, it shouldn’t.
Suppose a federal executive department flagrantly abused its regulatory powers for the unmistakable purpose of suppressing truthful speech that annoys the government. If you assume the Supreme Court would rectify this assault on the First Amendment’s core protection, you would be mistaken.
The Republican strategy in general has been to repeal laws indirectly by hollowing them out — denying funds to fully implement them, and reducing funds to enforce them.
If immigration reform passes, Obama will be hailed as the comeback kid, and a new “Obama rising” narrative proclaimed. This will overlook the fact that immigration reform has little to do with Obama and everything to do with GOP panic about the Hispanic vote
In Texas, they have this rule: a jury contemplating the death penalty must evaluate the likelihood a defendant poses a future danger to the community. Jurors in Duane Buck’s trial were told he poses said danger because he is a black man.
Science fiction is supposed to raise ambitions for what humans can accomplish. And in that, Hollywood is failing.
The dominant question is legitimate: Even if we would prefer that girls not be sexually active so early in life, wouldn’t we rather they block a pregnancy before it happens than wait and face the worse prospect of abortion?
