Ironically, these morons on the Left are the best advertisement for Citizens United and the alleged assault on campaign finance laws. To illustrate how ridiculous the IRS was in their hunt for those truly deserving of tax exempt status, several of the groups targeted had raised the lowly sums of $2,000 while the big fish on both sides received no scrutiny whatsoever. Why? Because they happened to have certain words in their titles. This whole episode also illustrates the hypocrisy of the Left on so many levels.

In effect, this effort by the IRS was nothing more than ” political ideological profiling.” It is no better and no worse than the policeman who pulls over a motorist because they are black and since blacks tend to statistically have a higher crime rate, the chances of catching a criminal are statistically higher if the policeman engages in such conduct. Likewise, if the organization uses the word “Tea Party” in their title, the statistical chances they are engaged in political activity is increased and they would most likely be denied tax-exempt status. The police officer asks the motorist a series of questions to determine why they are driving through this predominantly white neighborhood at such a late hour, where they have been, where they are going, have they been drinking, etc. The IRS likewise queries the group to determine their motives- who are your donors, what is your membership, how much money have you raised, what books do you read, we need to see your communications, etc.

Yet, the liberal will rail against the racial profiling of the stopped black or Hispanic motorist arguing that their civil rights have been violated. Then they turn a blind eye and make excuses when the same actions are taken against a group with which they disagree with politically. In that case, the IRS was only doing its job and what should one expect given the number of these groups filing for tax exempt status at the time? After all, they brought on the scrutiny themselves. If that is the case, then the black or Hispanic motorist brought on the scrutiny themselves also. Either profiling is wrong in all instances or it is effective in achieving its goals in most instances. They cannot have it both ways and they do not get to pick and choose when profiling is all fine and dandy and when it violates someone’s civil rights. If pulling over a person in a traffic stop because they are black or Hispanic is a violation of civil rights, then targeting any group because they have “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their name is an even more egregious violation of one’s civil rights.

The liberal response falls into six main categories as best this writer can tell after surveying some 50+ liberal websites. Some are not surprisingly silent on the issue, like MoveOn.org. The first tactic is to simply downplay the entire scandal. This comes in a variety of forms from the outright denial that anything done by the IRS was simply not wrong to the assertions that Americans are growing tired of the “fake GOP” outrage at these scandals. Downplaying is further illustrated by focusing attention on what they have determined to be the true “scandal” this past week- the snooping on AP reporters because, in their minds, the press serves an important function in a democracy. Indeed, they do as our Founders noted in the First Amendment, but that argument only holds water provided the press is doing its job instead of becoming a de facto apologist for the Obama administration. Thus when it comes to the IRS scandal, they assert that it is only Republicans who care about the scandal and that the rest of the country wants to move on. The final leg of this group is that, once again, it is the right wing blogosphere and Fox News who are pushing the issue and it would be non-news if not for these outlets. As proof, they offer up a letter from the Inspector General to Darrel Issa (R-CA) in 2012 indicating that they were investigating this practice. To the Left, why all the controversy now if the GOP knew about the investigation a year ago? Could it be because the mainstream media ignored all those stories TWO or THREE years ago about the possible targeting of Tea Party groups?

The second category is the blame game. Here, liberals offer a plethora of excuses for the IRS behavior which includes the narrative that it was the actions of a local office in Cincinnati. Some have argued that it is a grand conspiracy by Republican and right wing operatives to eventually scuttle all campaign finance laws. One theory states that the entire scandal is manufactured by Karl Rove in order to prove that campaign finance laws are a farce and should just be eliminated. If so, then they are ignorant of the fact that Karl Rove’s organizations have a woeful record in getting people elected. To me, that illustrates that voters actually think rather than react to advertisements. When Rove is not being blamed, then the Left’s next-best bogeymen are trotted out- the Koch brothers.

Related to the blame game is the “It Is All O.K.” gang. These guys assert that flagging certain groups is all well and good because it is a valuable tool to determine tax exempt status. They generally blame the Citizens United decision for opening the floodgates of groups seeking tax exempt status, that the IRS was over-burdened, and that they had to do “something.” In effect, they are saying that the IRS was simply doing its job. They will even trot out the rare liberal group that was denied tax exempt status to somehow intimate that the IRS was even-handed in their treatment of groups. Of course, there is no shred of evidence to show that the IRS flagged groups with the word “progress” or “progressive” in it. But, that isn’t really the point. It is truly chilling that perhaps the most dreaded federal agency would target any group based on their political ideology.

Then there is the fourth line of reasoning- political projection. This chorus puts forth the notion that the Tea Party and conservative groups brought on the scrutiny themselves. In this view, the IRS was simply again doing its job. Furthermore, this notion extends from the idea best described by former NAACP head Julian Bond that the Tea Party is nothing more than a racist hate group. After all, the Left claims, applying for tax exempt status is a voluntary act. Why would the Tea Party even apply for tax exempt status and then expect the IRS to rubber stamp the application without an investigation? To these people, the Tea Party is responsible for the heightened scrutiny of their applications because they are opposed to things like government spending gone awry, phony capitalism and advocate the view that Congress should stick to their constitutional duties. Color me silly, but that hardly sounds like a group “asking for it.” They also use, for illustrative purposes, rare examples of groups that, as one article puts it, “Tea Party groups left in its wake a series of tax-related problems.” In other words, it is only conservative groups out to game the system because only a liberal group wishes to “pay its fair share” of taxes.

The fifth line of reasoning attempts to be esoteric and academic. These views and articles try to dissect previous government scandals and illustrate that the IRS scandal is, at the end of the day, no scandal at all- just a blip on the radar screen that will be forgotten by time 2014 rolls around. It is interesting to note that they come to these conclusions after analyzing and cataloging past scandals involving Republicans- Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Bush and just about anything he did. Of course, lying on a deposition about alleged sexual harassment is downplayed as a witch hunt against Clinton. Nor is there any analysis of Bert Lance and Jimmy Carter. These articles invariably come to the conclusion that Obama is no Nixon. In fact, he isn’t- Obama is just plain either inept or out of the loop, but playing the “stupid game” only goes so far. And like some of the other lines of thinking, this one often draws a line back to the Citizens United decision as being the impetus for this entire episode. If only that conservative Supreme Court had not ruled as they did, there would be no IRS scandal today!

The final line appears to recognize that there is a scandal, or at least the appearance of improprieties, but then they downplay it all and look to solutions- the “What can we do to avoid this in the future?” crowd. Perhaps they realize that somewhere down the line it will be liberal groups targeted by the IRS. Again, their only solution comes down to one conclusion- either rescind Citizens United, or pass the Democratic-backed DISCLOSE Act. Again, if only those Republican right wingers in Congress had seen the light of day three years ago when it was first proposed, then there would be no “scandal” today. They assume that if an organization disclosed donors of $10,000 or more, then there would be no need for IRS actions. Of course, this would only have a chilling effect on political donations since many people, for many good reasons, prefer to remain anonymous. Hence, whether through forced disclosure through a DISCLOSE Act mechanism or targeting of certain groups by the IRS, political discourse is restricted and it has a chilling effect. In other words, either way the Left gets its way.

All of these excuses and deflections have one thing in common: ignorance. Part of that ignorance is attributable to the mainstream media’s seven year love affair with everything Barack Obama. There are many who still hold the belief that any opposition to him is racially motivated. Some commentators- generally those with minimal brain circuitry- actually occasionally blurt out this belief- people like Julian Bond, Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton. They are the flame throwers of the Left who say what most on the Left believe and those beliefs affect what passes for “reporting.” Had not the revelations come out against the Justice Department spying on AP reporter phone logs, there likely would be a greater downplaying of the IRS controversy. Only when they felt threatened did actions by this administration become questioned. The fact is that the mainstream media played into the narrative that the Tea Party and conservative groups were a fringe element of society- “astroturfed” if you will. They were denigrated in the press and somehow equated with the John Birch Society at best or the KKK at worst. They poke fun at conservatives for conspiracy theories, but they see right wing conspiracies whenever anything Obama does or proposes is questioned. It is always the big banks, or the oil companies, or the Tea Party conspiring to bring down Obama. Because you are the first half-black president to sit in the Oval Office does not give you carte blanch to run roughshod over the Constitution because you make great speeches. Nor does it allow your supporters to cry “race” every time someone disagrees with you. And it certainly does not allow the IRS to use its power to chill political speech.

Called a “farm bill,” it is allegedly a government agricultural policy. But in the last farm bill passed in 2008, greater than 80% of the spending in the bill was dedicated to the federal food stamp program. Additionally, there is funding for other programs that have nothing to do directly with farms. For example, there are sections dedicated to forestry, energy and rural development. All these areas can be handled by departments other than the Department of Agriculture. When originally conceived in 1933, there is no doubt that the average American farm was seriously affected by the Great Depression. The solution was to increase commodity prices by restricting production of the affected crops- things like wheat, corn, soy beans, and even tobacco. This increased the price of these commodities with the increased profits- obtained through government stealth price controls- passed on to farmers. However, they were further paid by the government to restrict production and those payments were funded by a tax on food processors which the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional. The taxpayers have been on the hook ever since.

The 2008 bill was some 1,800 pages of pay-outs to special interests- agricultural and green energy interests- which was projected to spend almost $1 trillion over 10 years. In 2012, Congress failed to rewrite the law as they have done every five years since 1933. The reason was the usual fight over spending. However, as part of the budget deal, they granted a one-year extension of the current law through the 2013 crop year and that is where we are today. In essence, the farm bill in effect today is a one-year extension of the current law set to expire at the end of September. The biggest “event” of that extension had nothing to do with agricultural policy but a relaxing of the eligibility requirements for food stamps. This may help explain why the number of Americans on food stamps are at an all-time high.

So, how did a social welfare program like food stamps make its way into an agricultural bill? The reasons are simple and an example of the dynamics between rural state legislators and legislators with large cities where recipients of the food stamp program tend to live. Basically, neither bloc would likely get what they wanted in stand alone legislation. Large states with urban centers would likely block spending on agricultural subsidies, price supports, and crop insurance because these things are of little interest to their constituents. Likewise, these programs are very important to the constituents of rural, agricultural states like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, but they have, relatively speaking, few constituents who care about food stamps. By marrying the two in legislation, both sides basically get what they want- the urban legislator agrees to the agricultural subsidies if the rural legislator agrees to the food stamp program. Hence, the farm bill since food stamps came along is nothing more than a huge forced means of political compromise among the two voting blocs in Congress.

As mentioned earlier, giving proponents the benefit of the doubt, there likely was a need for these bills when first enacted in the 1930s. In fact, because Congress sets a five-year limit on them, they recognized the reality that these measures were intended to be temporary and in response to the Great Depression. But like any welfare program- and this was agricultural welfare- once given an entitlement, it is almost impossible to end that entitlement. Today’s farmer in no way faces the problems of the average farm in 1935.

Over the years, the average yield per acre of farm land has risen dramatically. Improvements in conservation, crop rotation, genetic engineering of plants and seeds, pesticide and herbicide use and overall technology has created this increase. Today, yield per acre stands at an all-time high. In 2013, net farm income- income after expenses- is projected to be a whopping $128.2 billion, its highest total since 1973 in constant dollars. Due to a weak dollar and high global demand for food, commodity prices are also high. Current farm debt totals are less than 10% of all assets- again its best figure since 1973. In the period from 1986 through 2007, the number of farms assuming any debt has decreased a huge 60%. All of this points to incredible efficiency in the production of food in the United States. In 1935, there were some 6.8 million farms whereas today, there are 2.2 million, yet the amount of land dedicated to farming has decreased only 13% over that time span. There are fewer, but larger and more efficient farms. To the government, a “large” farm is any one with income over $250,000 a year. About 12% of all farms are in that category, yet they produce 84% of all output. Although there are many small farms, their contribution to the American food chain amounts to a mere 16%. Larger farms are generally stronger and can afford more sophisticated machinery and seeds and plants. Yet, despite previous efforts at reforms, the bulk of payments under the farm bill still go to these large farms. Thus, the myth of the dying breed of the family farmer needing government help is exactly that- a myth. Family farms are simply a thing of the past. Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp and Neil Young can trot the few examples on stage and Congress can parade grandma before the cameras, but they are the rare exception to the rule when it comes to agriculture in the United States in 2013.

There are several parts of the agricultural aspect of the bill. Direct payments to farmers of certain crops like wheat, corn and even peanuts are guaranteed whether they plant a single seed or not. Then there are the “counter cyclical payments” which occur when the price of a commodity drops below a level set by the law. Even if the farmer receives payments at or above this price, they are eligible for the subsidy. For example, Farmer John plants corn and the subsidy target is $1.00 a bushel. Nationally, the price on the commodity exchanges is 89 cents per bushel. Farmer John is now eligible for a payment at 11 cents per bushel up to a maximum, even if Farmer John has sold his corn for $1.10 per bushel. But, if Farmer John happens to live in a rural county designated by the Secretary of Agriculture, he is entitled to a subsidy under the ACRE program (I just love government acronyms). Then there is the government subsidization of crop insurance which taxpayers fund. This only increases farmer risk-taking because they have little to fear from that risk- they are covered by the taxpayers if the crop goes south. The agricultural loan program often serves to prop up inefficient farms. Finally, if all else fails, there is disaster assistance programs where if a farmer’s production falls to 50% or less due to a weather-related event, the government pays that entity up to $100,000 per event. The perversity of this was illustrated a few years back when farmers in Texas claimed and received help from the space shuttle tragedy. Farmers in Washington state received aid for a drought that occurred five years previous while other farms received disaster aid from a ten-year old earthquake event in California.

These programs alone cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. Throw in food stamps and we are up to the 10-year $1 trillion level of spending. And while there are complaints against alleged insider trading by legislators in the stock market, members of Congress are eligible for farm subsidies, as are their families. By law, recipients and amounts are private, so there is no transparency on where these payments go. Many members of both the House and Senate Agricultural committees are farmers. Hence, you connect the dots yourselves.

These subsidies, like most, are often portrayed as a “safety net,” but they actually create gross distortions in the agricultural market and are a breeding ground for fraud. There is the case of the Georgia farmer who simply subdivided his farm so that some of the income diverted to the portion that they then put in the name of their 5-year-old child. In effect, he collected two checks from the government for the same plot of land. And the larger farms run by large firms also engage in this practice known as “insurance farming.” Left holding the ticket are the taxpayers who pay not only in their tax bill, but in the grocery store. It is estimated that the cost to the average American family is about $400 a year in their grocery bill from costs artificially inflated by government policies.

Given the fact that commodity prices are high due to global demand and a weak dollar, it would appear that the time is now ripe for a massive reform of agricultural policy in this country. One of the biggest impediments to American foodstuffs being exported to Europe is American farm subsidies which the EU views, probably correctly, as an unfair trade practice. There are huge markets waiting for American exports with Africa being one of the biggest yet to be exploited. It is estimated that if subsidies were cut to the cotton farming industry in the United States, cheaper cotton from Africa could be imported thus lowering the cost of textiles and costs to consumers. While the American cotton farmer may “suffer” in the short term, through crop diversification, those losses could be mitigated or even rendered null. It is estimated that a $1 billion increase in African cotton imports would feed every child in Africa for a year. The American consumer benefits, the US farmer benefits, the African farmer benefits, the African child benefits, and the US budget benefits because less is spent on a costly crop subsidy and in food assistance to Africa through the State Department’s programs.

There is a real world example of what happens when a country goes cold turkey when it comes to agricultural subsidies and that will be the subject of part 2 of this series- the solutions. The point now is that everyone realizes the problem. If this country is ever to get serious about budget cuts and debt reduction, then this is one area that cries out not for reform, but for abolition. Past attempts at reforms were not reforms at all but became a new means by which to game the system. It is as if the agricultural industry was one step ahead of Congress and that is not surprising given the intense and effective lobbying efforts of that industry. Throw in a few tear-inducing pictures of “grandma on the front porch with a Bible in her hand-” (thank you, John Mellencamp, for that visual and line)- and you have the makings for the status quo.

I also became increasingly aware that Obama was the product of a cabal of Chicago North Shore liberals ridden with white guilt- people like Penny Pritzker. In a way, through ther connections with the liberal/socialist intelligentsia in Chicago (a/k/a Bill Ayers), they created the myth that Obama was the black political messiah who would lead the American collective atonement for the sin of slavery and its aftermath- racial prejudice and discrimination- that, despite whatever gains were made by blacks up to and including being president, would never be enough. Obama, without saying such since that would hurt his political aspirations, nevertheless tacitly agreed through his associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Derrick Bell. To illustrate how race pervades his thoughts to this day, one need only look at the 2008 primary campaign where simple words and observations by the Clinton machine were twisted into veiled racial animus. Obama himself left it to his proxies to make the claims while he himself stayed above that fray high on his pedestal. Yet, as the beneficiary of the vitriol hurled by his underlings against anything anti-Obama, he was nevertheless playing the race card. It is called plausible deniability.

The third observation of the research was that despite his self-characterization as a new kind of politician- a “Washington outsider,” “bipartisan legislator,” post-racial president” (whatever that means)- Obama was, at his core, a ruthless Chicago politician. By the time the general election rolled around, the Obama machine was a well-oiled, race-baiting steamroller led by his chief proxy, David Axelrod. If they could dispatch a political force like the equally brutal Clinton machine so easily, what chance did a “maverick” like John McCain have? Again, all the while this machine wreaked their havoc, Obama stayed above the fray.

Additionally, he was insulated by a fawning press that fed into the liberal white-guilt garbage. If someone did not believe that $800 billion in stimulus spending was prudent, then it was because the president was black. If they disagreed with cap and trade or the auto bailout, then that opposition was racially motivated. And on it goes through health care, budget battles, etc. Naturally, when a group emerges that appears somewhat united in their opposition to Obama’s policies, then that group must also be racist. Thus, the liberal disdain and demonization of the Tea Party.

It should, therefore, not come as a major surprise that when the Tea Party flexed its political muscle in the 2010 midterm elections that Obama’s new cabal of supporters, enablers and insulators- his administration- would view them as a threat. I doubt very much that Obama directly gave an order to anyone to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny with the IRS when it came to tax-exempt status. But, he certainly is responsible for the administrative culture that set the process into motion. The mainstream press, for its part, continued to support Obama and be his cheerleader by initially pooh-poohing the reports from Tea Party groups that they were being singled out by the IRS as early as 2010. This phenomena is not new as a recently surfaced letter from Max Baucus, a Democrat, points out when he directly questioned the IRS whether they were singling out certain groups based on their political ideology.

Now, with each passing day and new revelation, the Obama administration is increasingly besieged and they dig themselves deeper with each explanation. Originally, this was supposed to be a local affair out of the Cincinnati office. If true, then southwestern Ohio must be one hell of a hotbed of Tea Party activism. But we now know it was not limited to Cincinnati and that some IRS officials in Washington were aware of the practice and either condoned it or illustrated ignorance towards it. Did this reach the level of the Oval Office? It is doubtful that the president receives a briefing on the criteria used to determine IRS tax-exempt status, but he certainly benefitted from it. One of the most interesting liberal takes on this scandal comes from the “New Republic” which asserts that the Tea Party groups targeted brought the additional scrutiny upon themselves because they felt persecuted at the time. Actually, they weren’t yet persecuted; they were being vilified daily by the liberal media and Obama administration officials. That vilification laid the groundwork for the later actual persecution by the IRS. Simply look at the knee-jerk reaction after the Giffords shooting which some, like that moron Paul Krugman, to this day still insist is somehow tangentially Tea Party instigated despite the fact the shooter was a mental case with no political ideology. Today, Obama feigns outrage…well not exactly “outrage.” That he reserves for his detractors over Benghazi.

With that developing scandal, there is the issue of the talking points which the administration apparently changed 12 times before Susan Rice made the rounds of talk shows. Personally, I view Rice as the sacrificial lamb relying on what amounts to a politically motivated explanation of the events. It is obvious that the facts of what happened in Benghazi and who was responsible were glossed over for political purposes since a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including an ambassador, would not exactly fit the Obama story line of being tough on terrorists and a safer America now that bin Laden was dead, especially two months before an election. What is more disturbing, but more in keeping with the whole Obama dynamic of plausible deniability is why no help was sent to Benghazi when the attack occurred. Pelosi and Reid can blame Republican budget cuts to the State Department all they want, but we know that there were at least five specific requests for increased security in Libya before the attack. Are Reid and Pelosi suggesting that these budget cuts prevented the State Department from moving security from the “rough-and-tumble” embassy in Amsterdam or Rome to Libya? Instead of owning up to the fact that they (1) screwed up prior to the attack, (2) during the attack and (3) after the attack, they now circle the wagons and accuse Republicans of a witchhunt. Unfortunately, there are four dead Americans which means there are four American families who deserve the truth and answers.

Yet, when they- the media- become the targets of Obama’s apparent lack of transparency and paranoia, the tune changes. In reality, the growing AP phone record scandal is likely the least interesting of the three. All the facts are not out, but it is hard to believe that a FISA warrant was not first obtained. Secondly, this search of phone records was in response to an AP story about a secret CIA operation which thwarted a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner. Personally, given the fact that the war on terror is first and foremost an intelligence operation, publication of our methods and means places every American at risk and the Obama administration would be derelict in their duties if they had not investigated these leaks to the press. Like most Americans, I am all for a free press, but when they run details of secretive and sensitive operations against terrorists, then they relinquish some of that freedom to preserve the protection of all.

However, some of this can be laid at the feet of the Obama administration itself with their self-congratulatory press releases and leaks over thwarted terrorist attacks. Never one to waste a crisis, they are also never ones to waste a public relations opportunity. Most interestingly, though, is this silly notion they put forward in 2008 and beyond that their administration would be open and transparent. This is strange coming from a Justice Department that has more leak prosecution cases than all previous presidents combined. In fact, the Obama administration is at least as secretive as any prior administration if not more secretive.

Combine that secrecy and lack of transparency with their penchant for Orwellian stretching of the truth and bending of words (which is probably why that talking points memo is so troublesome today) and that general belief that they are a White House under siege with the Tea Party/right wing activist barbarians at the gates and it is no wonder at least one scandal would evolve. To put it in Chicago terms- or at least terms Obama should well understand considering his background and mentoring- “the chickens are coming home to roost.” And best part of it all is watching that smarmy Jay Carney squirm. It also proves that Obama may good with the teleprompter speeches and cutesy catch phrases that hypnotized the press and voters, but when it comes to damage control, he has a lot to learn. He can start with the truth.

What these studies indicate- and the results are rather consistent whether conducted by the federal or state government, an educational institution, or a private company- is two things. The first is that while you are a 3- or 4-year-old and if you are in Head Start, your academic and social skills are no better than those in a private or state-run Pre-K program (provided SES are held constant). More importantly, these studies indicate that by time a student completes third grade, there is absolutely no difference between a Head Start student and one who had no Pre-K whatsoever. In fact, any “advantage” gained from Head Start is pretty much lost by the end of kindergarten in the academic area. Perhaps equally important, teacher reports of student in-class behavior indicate that “graduates” of Head Start lag behind those of their non-Head Start peers and that extends to social interactions with their classmates. The only net positive reports come from the parents of the Head Start students who report that their children appear more well-behaved and act better with other children.

There is one obvious reason that comes to mind for this state of affairs. Head Start is a Federal program- fully funded and mandated by the educational bureaucrats in Washington. There is an obvious disconnect between what Washington feels is necessary in Pre-K education as it applies to future elementary school performance, and what local or state education officials feel is important. For example, in Pre-K programs run at the local level by the school district, some studies have shown that the children in those programs perform better than their peers in kindergarten than those who did not attend Pre-K. Furthermore, they perform better than their peers who went through the Head Start program.

From personal experience teaching in an elementary school, one can usually tell those students in kindergarten who have attended the optional Pre-K classes offered by the district and those who are entering kindergarten cold with no Pre-K experience. I have also observed and dealt with Head Start children and those who attended a private Pre-K. There definitely is a pecking order that goes something like this: At the top is those who attended the district-run Pre-K, followed by those with no Pre-K experience, followed by private Pre-K experience, and with Head Start kids at the bottom. However, the main difference is not academic, but in their behaviors. Those that attended the district-run Pre-K simply seem more behaved, attentive and respectful of teachers and their classmates. This is likely because their is continuity between the Pre-K educational philosophy and expectations and the regular elementary school kindergarten. Mind you, they are not necessarily “smarter,” just better behaved. Perhaps the only area where I have personally seen where Head Start has provided some assistance to children is with learning English language skills. Working in a school district with a large proportion of its students (in the school I am at) of foreign ethnicity- Hispanic, Bengali, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese- many of the Spanish-speaking students who attended Head Start seem to have a slight advantage over those who did not attend Head Start. That being said, the ESL teachers in the public school do a tremendous job with both groups so that by the fourth grade, one sees absolutely no difference in their English language abilities. In fact, older students who are recent arrivals to this country with minimal English language skills, given the ESL training, show a remarkable ability to learn English quickly. Just a personal note: I have seen many an ESL teacher work with these children for an hour. When they return to the full class, they tend to speak Spanish to friends. To a person, the ESL teacher will reprimand that child for talking in their native language with this admonition: “You are in America now and we speak English. Stop speaking Spanish in class and speak English!” And this is a public school.

What all this translates into is the fact that the federal government, besides being a terrible administrator, is also a terrible educator. It is quite obvious that Obama either did not read or simply ignored the findings of the HHS report on Head Start. If he had, then the man surely has balls to propose a federally-mandated universal Pre-K program in his budget given the apparent abject failure Head Start has proven to be over the years. This is a program that siphons over $8 billion annually now from the US Treasury for obviously dubious results. It is obvious that if there is to be “universal Pre-K” education, that these programs are best formulated at the local level so that whatever is taught there easily translates into the normal elementary school requirements of kindergarten and beyond with respect to that school district. That is, the transition from Pre-K to kindergarten to older grades should be seamless. Instead, with Head Start, you apparently have curriculum or goals working at odds with the local district, or uncoordinated at the best. Hence, IF there is to be any kind of universal pre-K program, then it should simply be administered in the form of block grants to states. However, given the track record of pre-K education in general, its merits are questionable at best.

Perhaps a lot of this has to simply do with the cognitive abilities of pre-school children regardless of socioeconomic status. And as far as social skills go, prior to pre_k programs be they through public schools, privately, or Head Start, that was achieved through simple play in the neighborhood with these things called “friends.” Naturally, parents with their kids in Head Start sing the program’s praises because they have, in effect, free day care for the bulk of their day. Replacing parents and siblings in the upbringing of children with Head Start is not a worthy educational or social goal. Personally, this writer believes that Head Start should be declared a failure and moving forward, the program scrapped and the $8 billion annual expenditure saved.

As for the free school breakfast program available in certain districts, this concept was the impetus for this entry. Dennis Prager recently wrote an article on the school breakfast program for Investors Business Daily using the program in Los Angeles as a backdrop to decry the efficacy of such programs. Unlike the school lunch program which started in the 1950s as a means to use up excess agricultural output after World War II, the school breakfast program is more recent in origin having started in the 1990s. Unlike Head Start, there are many studies on the efficacy of the programs where they exist as regards childhood nutrition, hunger issues and, most importantly, academic achievement. His analysis leads him to the strange conclusion that school breakfast programs are some bizarre means of government control over children and inoculation into a liberal, entitlement mindset.

His first argument is that the program is premised upon faulty assumptions that the family’s of low income children are unable to adequately feed their children breakfast. For example, he cites a website where a child can be fed an adequate breakfast for $1 a day at home. While this may be true, school breakfasts are relatively cheaper coming in at about 75 cents per day (although there are regional variations). His second argument is that they enable and encourage irresponsible parental behavior by relying on the school, not the home, to provide a breakfast to the child. Therefore, his third point is that the parental-child bond is broken or weakened because breakfast is not served at home and this would be the time for early morning family communication. Fourth, and most troubling to Prager, is the fact that relying on school breakfast programs weakens a child’s character because they come to expect food at school as an entitlement. Supposedly, if one expects an entitlement at age 5 or 12, then the groundwork is laid for an entitlement mentality later in life.

Now for the reality, I have observed no such thing in the district where I work regardless of a child’s SES and there are many a low income family. Kindergarten and first grade eat in the cafeteria. Prager argues further that school breakfast takes away from valuable classroom time. First, not every child gets a breakfast at school. Secondly, the breakfasts are pre-packaged and contain cereal, a small cookie, and a fruit juice. They also receive milk. The entire process from getting breakfast, eating it and cleaning up lasts about 20 minutes at the beginning of the school day- a time normally devoid of any learning anyway, especially in the younger grades. For the older children (grades 2-8), they eat their breakfast in their room. During that time, every teacher assigns morning work that is to be completed WHILE eating breakfast. You will not see too many students exclusively eating breakfast and if you pass by any classroom, you will hear quiet and see eating and pencils moving. Those that decline the breakfast because they ate at home or whatever, do their work and read. Hence, very little valuable class time is lost because of this.

Most importantly- and there are tons of studies from a variety of sources with a variety of political agendas- having breakfast whether at home or at school is conducive to learning and academic achievement. Most studies indicate that those who have breakfast at school perform better on academic measurements when compared against identically situated children who do not have a breakfast. If the bottom line purpose of education is academic achievement and a program like this consistently is demonstrated to increase academic achievement, then it makes perfect sense to have the program. Whether they get breakfast at home or the token breakfast at school (there are no cooks serving up omelets), then all the better.

As for the other charges in the article, there are no longitudinal studies on school breakfast programs to see if later in life the student is more dependent on government services, or if there is a weak family bond, or any other thing Prager alleges. But from my personal experiences, most of the kids who participate come from broken homes- which is not their fault- or one parent families where that parent works one or two jobs, or sometimes both parents working jobs with irregular hours. Unfortunately, not everyone has the benefit of working 9-5, like a columnist for the Investors Business Daily. Providing for a child by working two jobs, even if that means less time together as a family in the morning, is certainly not an indication of “irresponsible parenting.” And if it is, then how school breakfasts enhance that irresponsibility requires a huge leap of logic. And having now seen children over the years from kindergarten to the older grades, school breakfast has had no effect on their character in the later grades. If they lacked “character” in kindergarten, chances are they lack character in fifth grade. If they had character early, they have character later. In other words, breakfast at school has very little to do with a child’s character.

Unfortunately, the Prager article does not match the reality, at least as this writer has experienced it. Near the end of the article, he argues that school breakfasts served in cafeterias strengthens the public school unions by providing more food service jobs. As I have noted, however, food service people are not even involved in any instance I know of regarding the breakfast program. They do not deliver it to the classrooms nor are they present in the cafeteria for the younger kids. Hence, there are no extra unionized food service employees. He claims that it replaces government authority for parental authority when it comes to breakfast. Well, unless Prager and his ilk can somehow wave his magic wand and change economic reality where all families are stable with two parents with only one of them working and the other staying at home and getting breakfast together for their kids, then the reality of better learning on a full stomach trumps his imaginary magic wand. His third final assertion is that the program simply serves to make liberals feel good about themselves. It should make everyone- liberal and conservative alike- feel good to find something that is proven to enhance academic achievement in education despite whether that idea was “liberal” or “conservative” in origin.

Considering the amount of food wasted or thrown away daily in this country, diversion of part of that “waste” to a school breakfast program makes perfectly good logical sense. This is not some liberal thought control exercise and one would think that Prager and others would concentrate more on the real thought control efforts in schools (God knows, there are many, many examples) rather than on a small carton of milk, a cookie and a small container of cereal.

Despite where the idea comes from, if the program is found to have beneficial effects on education, despite one’s political ideology, those programs should be embraced and enhanced. In the area of school breakfasts, the beneficial effects are well studied and documented. Therefore, this is a good program. Conversely, if a program is found to be ineffective and costly with no long-term benefits, then it should be terminated. Head Start fits that description precisely. Most importantly, the Federal government needs to get their noses out of K-12 education and not attempt to double down on ineffective Pre-K education programs. NO, president Obama: universal pre-K will NOT solve this nation’s educational problems and will not have us catch up to our foreign counterparts in terms of math, science, and literacy. He has the study from his own cabinet department. It is time to read it and stop ignoring reality.

Supposedly, he is the heir apparent to Al “Where Did My Weight Go?” Sharpton and Jesse “Rhymin’ Simon” Jackson as the new voice of black America. He made it to MSNBC by way of “Rolling Stone” magazine and, I understand, some other publications like “Essense” and on ESPN. He was also on MTV for a bit which is why he is also apparently MSNBC’s resident expert on all things cultural. I am not sure whether he was on MTV when they actually played music Incidentally (as an aside), has anyone seen music on MTV lately other than the obligatory hip-hop or rap artist?

It appears that Toure, or Toure Neblett, was born and raised in an integrated neighborhood outside Boston and that his family must have been well off since they could afford a private education for this poor downtrodden modern black man being kept down by the man. In fact, it wasn’t just any private education but one at the prestigious Milton Academy which has produced Governors and Nobel laureates. It costs about $37,500 a year to send your kid to this school. Thus, to start off, Toure is not your average run of the mill African-American. He then attended Emory University in Georgia, an almost all white school also, like Milton Academy. There, one is not sure of his major but we do know that after reading the autobiography of Malcolm X, he changed his major to African-American Studies, one of those majors that really prepares you for future employment at MSNBC and, well…MSNBC. While there, there are stories that he got along quite well with his white dorm mates- so well that he insisted that he was French, not really a privileged black kid from the Boston suburbs. He founded a black nationalist newspaper- “Fire This Time (real revolutionary). This publication was known for three things: anti-Semitism, black supremacy (a/k/a reverse racism) and conspiracy theories a la “the man is keeping us down by putting crack in our neighborhoods.” One of his heroes was Frances Cress Welsing, best known for her black supremacist theory known as “the melanin theory.” Then while at Emory, he used a hoaxed hate crime allegation in order to extract some demands from the university. Luckily for Emory, Toure then dropped out and took up an internship at the increasingly inconsequential magazine, “Rolling Stone.” There, he became a music journalist until he was let go only to be rehired later.

Somewhere along the line, Toure became a de facto spokesman for all things cultural and all things black. And boy, is he an exclusively black spokesman. In fact, he is so black that he sees race in everything and by everything, I mean everything. It is quite possible that he even takes offense to the blackberry tree especially since the berry may appear purple to many. I believe, besides his 9/11 truther beliefs which are well-documented, that it would be wise to now recount some of Toure’s greatest insights into blackness and American culture. And this list is by no means exhaustive of the stupidity of Toure.

In September 2011, as the US remembered the tenth anniversary of a terrorist attack, Toure decried these trips down memory lane and said they were indicative of an anti-Islam mindset in the country. Let us not forget his great ability to take advantage of the Trayvonn Martin incident and his demonization of George Zimmerman. Somewhere along the line, he came to view Skittles as a demon also. The theory went that poor Trayvonn was just passing through the neighborhood after getting some Skittles and a Coke. Sales of Skittles increased after this event. To Toure, therefore, the makers of Skittles were making a profit off the death of an “innocent black kid” and, by extension, they too were racist. Having settled that mystery, there were bigger fish to fry since his hero, Barack Obama, was running for reelection against Mitt Romney. Toure accused Romney of “niggerizing” the campaign and suggesting that Romney wanted to get booed while addressing the NAACP in order to drum up support and sympathy from the white, racist Republicans. Not to be outdone, he then characterized Herman Cain as a “minstrel.” He claimed that if you put a bunch of white conservatives together in the same room, the only result is some alternate reality. Oh…it is also racist to interrupt Obama during a press conference to ask a question. Of course, it goes without saying that Toure is constantly on the lookout for racial code words from whites, conservatives, and Republicans.

In other areas, he claims that if black kids were killed in Newtown, Connecticut that it would be somewhat less of a tragedy and we would not be talking about guns at all. Voting laws, of course, are racist as is Dr. Ben Carson because he is a black man who does not talk or act like the black man that Toure has in his mind. He was even thankful for abortions since apparently one of his former flames had become pregnant and had an abortion with his blessing. His point is that without abortion as an option of convenience, then Toure’s career would have likely taken another path and God forbid, he may never have had the chance to be on MSNBC. He also claims that the demise of disco in the 1970s and early 1980s was both homophobic and racist and he could not understand why white Americans at the time had grown tired of the endless coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. To Toure, this had to have been racially motivated since Jackson was a sort of white/sort of black artist. And to let Toure in on a secret, disco died because it sucked.

Toure represents the worst kind of liberal in two respects. First, he upholds a liberal ideology of the most extreme kind and one that in no way can be gleaned from his past. He was not the object of racial or ethnic discrimination and, in fact, seems to have enjoyed a rather easy go of it. There were no food stamps growing up, no “humble beginnings”, no one-room school houses, etc. He went to a private school that cost $35 thousand a year and churned out Nobel laureates and Governors…and unfortunately, a Toure. He went to an well-respected university where, truth be told, his private education did not translate into collegiate success. Hence, other than reading a book about the life of Malcolm X, one has to question where his liberal ideology comes from. It must have been one hell of a book!

Secondly, he sees race in everything. This is a person, who like a certain president we all know, wrote a book on what it is like to be black at a relatively young age before they have clearly enjoyed or suffered all life has to offer. Granted, Obama actually graduated college before the University of Chicago offered him his ghost job as constitutional law professor as a means to write his book whereas Toure dropped out of college to become an intern and then occasional writer for “Rolling Stone.”

Blacks may have suffered discrimination, prejudice and racism of the most extreme kind and many ma possibility suffer the same, but certainly not Toure. Perhaps the best characterization of Toure comes from a black man himself. Bryce Watkins is a professor at Syracuse University and is known for his sometimes racial incendiary remarks and views. He had a well-publicized running feud with Bill O’Reilly at Fox at one time. But, Watkins had this to say about Toure: “Toure of MSNBC is the man who has every intelligent blak person wondering why he’s on TV, myself included. There are no credetials in his background which lead you to believe that he should be defining the direction of national thought on serious political issues.” In short, “shut up and go back to Boston.” Thankfully, no one of any intelligence really watches MSNBC.

But this entry is about two other nominees that should be opposed for different reasons- Anthony Foxx at the Department of Transportation and Melvin Watt at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Generally under normal conditions, neither of these departments would necessarily raise any eyebrows. However, with Obama’s commitment to green energy and stimulus spending for the increasingly and realistically non-existent shovel-ready transportation projects, the DOT takes on greater significance especially since Foxx would preside over an agency that receives vast amount of funds. In Watt’s case at the FHFA, Obama and some law makers (Watt included) have started making grumblings about the fact that subprime borrowers are being shut out of the resurgent housing market. In short, Obama and his minions are, in effect, arguing for the very same set of conditions that was clearly a contributing cause to the housing market collapse and resulting great recession of 2009. The FHFA is responsible for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who together basically backstop 90% of all mortgages in the United States.

What makes Foxx’s nomination somewhat questionable is based on ethics concerns while with Watt, it is more policy-driven and politically ideological. First, Anthony Foxx. Foxx, some readers may remember, is the former African-American mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina which hosted the Democratic National Convention in 2012. As the mayor of the host city, he was on television constantly being a cheerleader for Obama and his policies. In fact, he counts himself as a close friend of Obama. When announcing his nomination, Obama touted his accomplishments as mayor of Charlotte, particularly in the transportation area. If one was to look at his accomplishments from far away, then you may come away impressed. For example, despite being the nation’s 23rd largest city, Charlotte has become the number 6 airline hub in the United States. That is because it costs, on average, about 96 cents per passenger to “enplane” them. The national average is about $10 a passenger with some rates, like those in the New York City area reaching $45 per passenger.

However, if one goes more local, one finds that Foxx is not the transportation messiah Obama makes him to be. When a member of City Council in Charlotte, for example, he came under criticism when his wife, Samara, was given a $100,000 job with the Department of Social Services during a hiring freeze. Her tenure there did not last long under continuing accusations of nepotism in hiring. But hey- the Foxx family DID get $100,000 in salary towards their income for over a year. A 2011 trip to China by Foxx came under scrutiny also. Local reporters discovered that the trip was paid for by a non-profit group called the Charlotte International Cabinet. This group serves to present Charlotte as an international city and to draw business. They also receive money from the city to do this. In 2011, they paid $1,350 for an economy class seat for Foxx’s trip to China which apparently Foxx disagreed with and wanted an upgrade to business class which the Cabinet said was not possible. Foxx ended up upgrading the ticket himself- about another $1,000 out of his pocket. So far, so good until one of his staffers- Tray Montross- sent an threatening e-mail to the Cabinet saying that if they did not reimburse Foxx the $1,000, there would be consequences for the group in the next round of budget deliberations.

While the charge-per-passenger is exceedingly low- the main reason Charlotte is the #6 hub in the US- Foxx is trying to kill the goose that laid the city’s golden egg. Recently, he replaced airport police with the more expensive Charlotte Police Force (union, of course) and used the recent runway addition as justification to hire more firefighters at the airport (union, of course) than what the airport’s own manager deemed necessary. Both these actions only serve to run up the costs of airport administration while providing union jobs and increasing union coffers. The whole scenario is so out of hand that the state legislature wants to remove the airport from city control and give it to a regional authority. Finally, there is the case of DesignLine Corp. where Foxx is an in-house lawyer since the Mayor of Charlotte is a part-time position. That company, which delivers energy efficient buses using alternative fuels or hybrid technology, has a woeful record in delivering on their contracts, especially while Foxx was their lawyer. For example, the City of Los Angeles cancelled a contract after they failed to deliver. To make matters worse, the company received a $2 million down payment under the 2009 porkulus package and had they delivered, would have received $14.4 million. Thus far, most law makers in Congress have not questioned this aspect of his alleged “stellar” career. Most likely, Foxx will gain confirmation although one would have to question his business acumen and considering that the DOT oversees 55,000 employees with a $75 billion annual budget, Congress would remiss in their duties if they did not raise these ethical concerns.

Over at the FHFA, North Carolina congressman Melvin Watt has been nominated to lead that agency. This former head of the Congressional Black caucus- a depository of left wing ideology and race-baiting politics if there ever was one- is not without controversy on the ideological level. Watt meets the two apparent quota criteria for Obama’s second term administration- more racial diversity (an area where he has been criticized by his supporters) and more liberal appointees (an area where he has been criticized by his supporters also). In short, Watt has never met a government expenditure he does not support. He is yet another poster boy for the ultimate tax-and-spend liberal, but what makes him worse is that he tends to see race in everything. Take, for example, this accusation from Ralph Nader in 2004 where he alleges that Watt referred to Nader, who was addressing the Congressional Black Caucus, as “…just another arrogant white man- telling us what we can do-…” There were also some expletives thrown in there for good measure.

Melvin Watt is a liberal’s liberal and was most likely a person that Alan West had in mind when he referred to some members of Congress as being Communist, although he probably should have said “openly socialist.” When you join the likes of Bobby Rush and Barbara Lee on a trip to Cuba to meet and then laud Raul Castro, this writer believes that perhaps West was more correct than not. The most troubling aspect of this nomination is that at a time when, at least statistically, the housing market is showing a rebound, someone like Melvin Watt will intervene and rock the boat that is righting itself. As mentioned earlier, there are already rumblings from liberals in Congress that those objectively unworthy of a home loan are “being shut out” of home ownership. It was a series of events that led to the housing collapse and morons like Paul Krugman and company can lay 100% of the blame at the feet of “greedy Wall Street types” all they want, but the fact is that had the government not insisted on banks relaxing mortgage underwriting guidelines, the effect would have at least been mitigated. Watt, as head of the agency that will oversee the agencies that have a hand in 90% of the mortgages in America, will wield enormous power in a stealth manner.

And here is the funniest part about Melvin Watt- he represents perhaps the most racially gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. That is, without the blessing of the liberal redistricting to produce an area conducive to the election of a black representative and only a black representative, Melvin Watt would likely be just another black lawyer and local politician in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Considering the fact that head of the FHFA requires highly technical skills and the fact that other than Congress, Watt lacks any experience in the banking, mortgage or finance sectors, one reason for his nomination becomes obvious- Obama responding to criticisms regarding the lack of racial diversity in his administration picks. In effect, Watt is yet again the recipient of racial gerrymandering. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) recently said, this nomination is an example of “the fox guarding the hen house.” And in his roll out of the nomination, note how Obama touted his humble beginnings and championing of “the little guy.” Nowhere, other than consumer protection of the utmost liberal kind, does Watt hold the qualifications to hold this job. This is nothing but a naked appeasement of Obama’s liberal base who feel that the administration’s ethnic make up should somehow mirror the population at large. This is nomination affirmative action gone seriously awry.

In conclusion, no one should object to nominating the most qualified person available and if they happen to be black, Hispanic or a woman, then all the more power to them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if they were objectively equal in qualifications, perhaps the scales should tip to the black, Hispanic or woman. However, that is not, objectively speaking, always the case. And in the case of perhaps Anthony Foxx and definitely Melvin Watt, that is clearly not the case. The Senate must aggressively review these nominations not only for ethical concerns (Watt has some in his past also), but also for qualifications. In Watt’s case, the most pressing concern is how the government intends to unwind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and relieve the American taxpayer of their burden. My guess is that Watt will somehow tout consumer protection without really offering up a plan. Geez- even Timothy Geitner had a plan. In Foxx’s case, besides the ethical concerns, he must articulate how the DOT will handle sequestration cuts going forward and how he will administer a $75 billion budget. Given his record in this area in Charlotte (really? Empty trolleys?) this rising star in the Democratic Party deserves some tough questions.

But, having said all this, there is one area where, thus far, I think Obama and his administration should receive recognition and that involves the International Criminal Court (ICC). Formed in 1998 out of what is known as the Rome Statute, Bill Clinton signed the treaty with reservations that had to be resolved before implemented. If enacted, this court would be empowered to try war criminals and those who practiced genocide… the really bad guys out there. They were also tasked with prosecuting crimes of international aggression, although the definition was never really defined. Most ominous, at least to those in the Clinton administration, was that actions by this court could have serious implications on the execution of American foreign policy. Our recent intervention in Bosnia at the time, for example, could have been considered an act of aggression (since this was a NATO, not UN-sanctioned action) and our military leaders “prosecuted.” There are other scenarios that Clinton envisioned where American nationals could be singled out for prosecution before this Court for actions they took on behalf of and with the blessings of the US government. For these and other reasons, Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Treaty ratification is one of those few items that requires a two-thirds majority vote for approval. This is reserved for the big, important things like over-riding a Presidential veto or even removing the President from office. The reason was simple: before a treaty became law, they wanted to make sure the “i’s” were dotted and the “T’s” crossed. They also had an aversion to becoming entangled in foreign wars and disputes. Clinton realized that (1) there were flaws with the treaty, and (2) he could never get it ratified in the Senate in the last two years of his administration without those flaws being corrected. There was also the constitutional question of whether the government could turn over an American national for prosecution to a foreign, international court. Additionally, the right to a trial by jury of one’s peers is enshrined not only in the Bill of Rights, but also in the text of the Constitution. An international panel of eight judges in the Hague is not a jury and it certainly contains no “peers.”

There is historical precedent for this line of thought. In the early 1800s, England sought to enlist the aid of the young United States in an international effort to end the slave trade. The US had ceased the importation of slaves in 1807. John Quincey Adams, a staunch abolitionist, held to constitutional principle and refused to go along with England in this international tribunal effort. In other words, although ending the slave trade was certainly a worthy goal (much like prosecuting genocide today), Constitutional principles had to prevail. Instead, the US and England made greater strides in ceasing the slave trade on a bilateral basis. Additionally, our Founders were all too aware of the travesty of international tribunals and handing over American citizens to be tried in foreign lands. Although taxation without representation is the reason taught in schools as the main reason for the Revolution, equally important was the practice of trying colonists in Admiralty Courts in England or Nova Scotia. While it is true that the US has since participated in and actually convened tribunals to try crimes against humanity, these were all in response to specific atrocities and they were certainly not open-ended, permanent ventures operating under vague guidelines were the tribunal itself was to fill in around those vagaries.

When Bush became President, his State Department became what some describe as openly hostile to the ICC. One of his administration members- Josh Bolton- notified the UN that the US had no intentions of honoring the treaty although he clearly left that option open for future consideration. Since the ICC’s signatories failed to address the concerns first expressed by Clinton, Bush went further and even cut off funding. Fearing that a foreign country would hand over an American to the ICC, he forged what were called Bilateral Immunity Agreements with about 100 countries. These BIA stated that the other country would not hand over an American to the ICC unless the US specifically agreed. To add teeth to the measure, if anyone violated the BIA, they could lose foreign aid or military assistance. In fact, the Bush administration made good on those threats. In his second term, he did soften his stance somewhat and waivers were granted as far as the sanctions went regarding the BIA and Bush did sanction, through their vote in the UN Security Council, an ICC action regarding atrocities in Rwanda.

Most of the Bush initiatives were not designed to undermine the ICC, but to PROTECT American citizens especially in light of the conduct of the war against terrorism. Of course, according to the Obama administration, there is no war on terrorism since they are “overseas contingency operations.” Bush’s policies were codified in the American Serviceman Protection Act (ASPA). Some of the provisions in the original act were “weakened” in the 2008 reauthorization of that bill, but they were designed to give the Executive branch greater leeway.

Along comes Obama who attempts to “reset” foreign relations by (1) the great apology tour, (2) cow-towing to Islam in his Cairo speech, (3) playing footsies with tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin, (4) elevating the importance of international organizations like the UN which serve to criticize and chide the United States while taking our money, and (5) equating the objective exceptionalism of the United States using some culturally relativistic paradigm. That policy has led to a chilling of relations with long-time ally Israel, the establishment of an Islamic regime in Egypt, a void in Libya (and the death of an ambassador), Iranian and North Korean naked nuclear aspirations if not aggression, Russian incursions into Georgia, the Chinese basically laughing at us behind our backs, etc. In other words, there is much to dislike about Obama’s foreign policy which at times appears nothing short of ad hoc and reactionary instead of proactive. That is hope in action- let us hope nothing bad happens and all the bad people out there behave.

The Obama administration additionally has tried to re-engage the ICC under the leadership of Hillary Clinton at the State Department. The first inkling of this policy was the fact the Department sent a representative to Kampala, Uganda in 2010 for a conference on the ICC. One of the biggest problems left unresolved from Rome was the definition of “aggression.” Under some proposed definitions, although their authority would not be retroactive, American responses to international problems like Somali piracy, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Serbia, cyber attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities, or removing a tyrant like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Assad in Syria could potentially be branded “aggression” under these formulations. In short, aggression would be in the eyes of the beholder and the “beholder” would be the ICC itself.

Despite US attendance at this conference, the United States under Obama is no closer to joining or funding the ICC than they were under Bush, or even Clinton. The only thing that has changed is that the rhetoric against the ICC has “softened” under Obama. From the more important practical standpoint, however, there is obvious evidence that the Obama administration is, like in other areas, following the Bush policy. For example, the ASPA which was reauthorized in 2008 under Bush remains in effect and there are no indications that anyone is actively seeking to repeal or weaken it. Most importantly, the original Bolton letter to Kofi Anan at the UN indicating American lack of recognition for the ICC left plenty of leeway for subsequent administrations to rescind its effect. However, despite the cozying up to the ICC rhetorically, that letter remains in effect today and it has not been disavowed. Many of the BIA negotiated during the Bush administration- there are about 100 of them- also remain in effect under Obama and, again, there are no inclinations to negate or renegotiate these agreements. Despite our attendance at the Kampala conference, we still do not “belong” to the ICC nor contribute to it. Our only relation to it is through referral of cases vis. our membership on the UN Security Council (but Bush used that tactic in the case of Rwanda). Furthermore, as Hillary Clinton accurately pointed out, our presence at the Kampala conference thwarted a broad definition of “aggression” which could have been “prosecuted” before the ICC that may have implicated American actions worldwide and seriously affected our foreign policy. Finally, the Obama administration has demonstrated absolutely no tendency to seek ratification of the Rome treaty in the Senate despite Democratic control of that body. In fact, they do not even list it as a priority among the treaties to be ratified.

Also, putting the ICC itself in perspective, it efficacy must be questioned. Since 2002, they have tried only two cases with one resulting in acquittal. They have also clearly avoided many cases that may have raised the ire of the United States (especially under Bush) in an effort to goad the US into membership. The fact remains that without the world’s only superpower as an active participant, the overall effect of the ICC is tarnished. Most of the original support for the ICC arose in developing countries of Asia and Africa but of the ten or so cases before the ICC, eight involve African countries. Hence, African support for the ICC has waned. And as has been seen in other areas, the ad hoc method of prosecuting war crimes and acts of genocide or “crimes against humanity” is clearly more efficient than a standing international tribunal.

Hopefully, the Obama administration will continue their current policy track regarding the ICC especially in light of some recent suggested cases for referral that actually came up in Kampala. One would single out American military personnel and commanders for actions in Afghanistan, including other NATO forces. Since the European Union was a great backer of the ICC in 1998 and since many member nations are also NATO members, one would like to see their acceptance now. Environmentalists have found their way to this venue seeking “prosecutions” for what they describe as “eco-terrorism,” or crimes against the environment. One could imagine the United States being “indicted” for carbon emissions. One of the weirdest suggested prosecutions was against the Pope for failing to act quickly against the sex abuse charges in the Catholic Church and the alleged cover up. Can one imagine the Pope being tried before the ICC, even in absentia?

Admittedly, much of the rhetoric of Obama’s foreign policy does not match the reality. A perfect recent example is “the line being crossed” regarding chemical weapon use in Syria. But, they abound elsewhere from actions taken against terrorist groups, use of the PATRIOT Act, and Guantonamo, Cuba. Campaign rhetoric and the “hold hands and sing a chorus of Kumbaya” vision of Obama’s foreign policy has clearly met the reality that there are many nefarious actors out there on the international stage who care less of Obama’s vision of himself as the Messiah. Most of this can be written off as his obvious naivete when it comes to foreign relations. That can be further be written off as what happens when we elect a President short on principle and a realistic vision and long on rhetoric, hope and change.

The state secret privilege is a relatively recent constitutional “invention,” but has antecedents going back almost to our founding. The first inkling involved the trial of Aaron Burr for treason. Then, the government objected to the introduction of a letter from General Wilkinson to Thomas Jefferson arguing that the letter would divulge state secrets that may endanger national security. The court never ruled on whether the letter was permitted, but later stated that if the letter did contain such information and if the government objected, then the letter could be suppressed. And the privilege remained dormant until 1953. In 1953, in the case of Reynolds vs. United States, the Supreme Court first enunciated a “state secrets” privilege with respect to the Executive branch. Three widows had sued the government over the crash of a B-29 in Georgia. Their husbands were private contractors on the flight testing sensitive electronic military equipment. The Court ruled that documents sought in discovery would reveal state secrets and that the government had the right to deny those documents in a civil case. Incidentally, it was later revealed that the crash of the plane was due to lax maintenance of the B-29 fleet and, essentially, there was nothing to compromise national security in the documents requested by the widows. Although remanded, the government later settled out of court with the widows.

It is difficult to determine the number of times the government has invoked the privilege as many times it is not made public. However, some analysis indicates that from 1954 to 2001, it was invoked 55 times, or about 1 time every year. To illustrate the difficulty of analysis, one website noted that from 2001 to 2005, the Bush Administration invoked the privilege 23 times but later analysis indicated it was invoked only seven times in that time span. In Obama’s case, despite his pledge to reign in the use of it, he has not only invoked it in cases on his watch, but perpetuated its use in cases that originated in the Bush administration. That is, Holder’s refined policy could have led to the conclusion that insisting in this line of argument violated that very policy, but the Justice Department simply continued the Bush policy under Obama’s watch and then, despite this policy, has used it since.

One case in particular stands out to illustrate the hypocrisy of Obama’s position- Mohammed vs. Jeppesen Dataplan. This case started under Bush and involves the practice of rendition whereby the CIA would transfer suspected terorists to foreign detention centers to interrogate them. Mohammed sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, since they provided the flights for these suspected terrorists. At the time, rendition was just coming to light and the Bush administration did not deny the practice. Regardless, Bush invoked the state secret privilege and the District Court dismissed the case on those grounds. However, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and ordered the government to hand over the requested evidence. Then along comes 2008 and Obama is now President. Instead of respecting the decision of the Ninth Circuit, which based upon his campaign rhetoric one would expect Obama to do, Holder appealed to the full Circuit to have the case reconsidered and again invoked the state secrets privilege. In fact, in open court the Justice Department announced that despite the new Holder policy in place, a change in administration did not mean a change in policy regarding the use of the privilege. The full Ninth Circuit then decided 6-5 to over-rule the three-judge panel and state secrets privilege prevailed and the case was dismissed. One needs to mindful of the fact that by 2010, the world was well-aware that the CIA was running this rendition program and that the subsidiary of Boeing was one among others providing the flights to foreign countries.

After the Reynolds decision in 1953, four basic rules emerged: (1) it is an Executive branch prerogative and must be invoked by it, (2) there is a formal procedure where a department or agency head must actually assert it in writing to a court, (3) judicial review of the assertion is critical, and (4) if invoked, the entire case need not be dismissed. What most upset liberals and libertarian conservatives with regards to Bush was that his Justice Department was using the privilege to dismiss entire cases. In other words, their use was broad while previous uses were specific. Admittedly, some of the cases were borderline and like Obama, some originated in the previous administration of Clinton. For example, there was one case involving the alleged CIA bugging of a DEA agent in Burma while another involved a racial discrimination in hiring lawsuit against the CIA. Thus, at least two of the alleged Bush transgressions were holdovers from the Clinton administration leaving Bush on the hook for a verifiable five instances.

Liberals particularly decry the use of this legal tool claiming that it places the Executive branch above the law simply by making a national security claim. Generally, probably because it was seldom used and then only with respect to specifics, courts deferred to the government. In effect, Bush took advantage of this reality. However, eliminating the two cases cited above held over from Clinton, four of the five remaining cases involved the war on terrorism and the means to combat it. The fifth case is tangentially related and involves a wrongful discharge suit against the FBI where the plaintiff argues she was fired because of whistle-blowing activity and that the government had previous knowledge of an impending attack on the World Trade Center. These cases involve rendition, domestic wiretaps of suspected terrorists or their allies, and alleged torture of suspected terrorists. The Obama invocation of the privilege involve the use of drone attacks, the targeting of American citizens suspected of terrorist activity, domestic eavesdropping and the alleged FBI infiltration of the Islamic community in Southern California.

But, just recently in 2012, Obama went one step further than Bush when he invoked the privilege in response to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding negotiations for a Western Hemisphere free trade agreement. Specifically, the request was for documents regarding the alleged favorability of certain foreign investors over other investors. The Obama administration determined that release of the document could potentially compromise national security (a trade agreement?) and that it hinders the Executive branch’s ability to carry out foreign policy and international relations. What makes this case even more interesting is the fact that the trade agreement in question never even made it off the ground. In a case like this had Bush been the President, one can see him invoking executive privilege, but certainly not state secret privilege.

In fact, Obama has gone even further. Another thing that Obama decried during the 2008 campaign was the use of signing statements by Bush. Yet, as it relates to this discussion, Obama is no stranger to the signing statement. In the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2012 signed in January of this year, Obama released a signing statement to the effect that certain provisions regarding Congressional oversight of programs and policies would be reviewed by his administration to determine if testimony by an executive branch official before Congress would compromise any state secrets. Put any other way, Obama is now invoking the state secrets privilege not only in the courts, but also with respect to Congress.

Liberals and Democrats were quick to criticize George W. Bush for the policy of a unitary executive. That idea, taken to its extreme, holds that neither Congress nor the courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, especially in matters of national security. Although Bush probably came the closest to open adoption of the idea, it has been expressed as far back as the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. What is apparent is that Obama is trying to take this to a new level by talking out both sides of his mouth. Granted, Bush had 157 signing statements over two terms while Obama has had 21 slightly into his second term and would be on a pace considerably below the Bush levels. Quantity is one thing, but quality another. Some of Bush’s statements are rhetorical in nature and do not challenge enforcement or interpretation of the statute. And regarding interpretation, if Congress was to actually write a law that was clear and specific rather than pushing responsibility off on Executive branch agencies, then perhaps there would be less need for these signing statements.

The problem is the hypocrisy and naivete of Obama. Obama rode into office in 2008 on two white horses named “Hope” and “change” and soon entered the real world which, despite bowing to foreign leaders, apology tours, denial of American exceptionalism through some relativistic terminology, and gift giving consisting of Ipods pre-loaded with your speeches, was a rather dangerous and scary place. Despite all his rhetoric of resetting relations with the Arab world or Russia or China, he found that there are still people out there who want to see nothing short of the humiliation if not destruction of the American ideal. He also found out that many of the policies and programs which George W. Bush instituted had kept America safe from future terrorist attacks. This writer does not wish to litigate rendition, drone attacks, domestic wiretaps of suspected terrorists, intercepted e-mails, the PATRIOT Act, alleged torture by CIA interrogators, or Guantanomo, Cuba. What I wish to make painfully clear is that campaign rhetoric is one thing, but Obama is not the principled president he and his acolytes think he is.

Regarding the use of signing statements and invocation of the state secrets privilege, on a certain level, this writer has no problem with either per se. Obviously, the President, as head of the Executive branch is tasked with first upholding the Constitution and secondly faithfully executing the laws. If after careful legal deliberation they believe the law is constitutionally flawed, then they can certainly state so in a signing statement. Likewise, if revelation of a secretive program would compromise national security, state secret privilege should be used. The problem as concerns this Administration is that it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. While criticizing Bush, this administration had several opportunities to walk back what they criticized and railed against in the 2008 campaign and what they touted in 2012. The actions certainly do not match the words and that is the definition of hypocrisy. As I stated, maybe Obama learned that the ideal he described while campaigning did not match the reality of today’s world and its problems and that is certainly born of his naivete in the area of foreign policy especially, and the war on terrorism specifically. Yet, he hides behind a veil of alleged openness whereas his administration is certainly no more “open” than that of Bush. In fact, statistics show that the number of documents classified as “secret” has increased under Obama and that the volume of material declassified has decreased under Obama. Whether it is the hypocrisy illustrated here or the lack of openness during the health care debacle, Barack Obama is certainly no better or worse than his predecessor when it comes to openness in the government’s Executive branch.

Ironically, this increased media attention outside the immediate Philadelphia area thanks to the right wing press occurred around the same time that an internal debate seemed to break out in the pro-choice regarding the efficacy of infanticide. It would appear that the slippery slope that the pro-life camp worries about just got a little more slippery…until Planned Parenthood did some damage control and walked back their original comments.

And then to the chagrin of the lamestream media, North Dakota passed perhaps the strictest abortion law in the country that has the pro-choice community absolutely apoplectic. Admittedly, this law may not stand before a court, but you can’t fault the state for trying and it will be interesting to see how far North Dakota intends to take this in the court system.

The Supreme Court has not had an abortion case since 2007 when they ruled that a federal ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion was constitutional. To read the left wing blogs, websites and editorials, one gets a sense of their hypocrisy on this issue. For example, they hold up Roe v. Wade as sacrosanct, but within that decision’s faulty trimester framework which established viability (the age at which the fetus can survive outside the womb) as the primary criteria, the Court in 1973 clearly and plainly announced that a state’s interest in fetal life increased as one proceeded through pregnancy. By definition, partial-birth abortions are performed most likely in the late second or the third trimester, that very area where Roe states that the state has a greater interest in that human life. Even by the definitions held near and dear by the pro-choice community established in Roe, the government (state or federal) can regulate and even ban partial birth abortions, unless the mother’s life is in danger or there exists a high risk to maternal health.

Ironically, by equally divisive 5-4 vote a few short years previous, the Court struck down a similar Nebraska ban on partial birth abortion. In the intervening years, Alito and Roberts joined the Court and, most importantly, O’Connor had left. The Rehnquist Court had plenty of opportunity to revisit Roe and over-rule it but failed to do so. That is because a somewhat “happy compromise” had been adopted by the Court where the constitutional test attributed to gauge abortion laws would be the “undue burden” test. If the regulation placed an undue burden on a woman’s “right” to obtain an abortion, then it would run afoul of the law. For example, parental notification laws are acceptable provided there is a judicial bypass while spousal notification laws are generally unacceptable.

Realizing that overturning Roe would be an almost impossible task, the pro-life movement changed tactics while still advocating that the decision be reversed and started to advocate for changes in state laws. And that is where we are today and where possible litigation before the Supreme Court will originate. Today, these regulations fall into four broad categories: directives that affect the would-be patient, clinic regulation, viability or “personhood” regulations/definitions, and funding issues.

Looking at these state laws in turn, we start with those directives that affect women seeking abortions. As stated before, provided there is a judicial bypass mechanism, most parental notification laws would likely survive scrutiny and not be considered an undue burden. Nor would waiting periods provided they are not excessive. For example, many states- red and blue- have waiting periods. Among the 26 states that have them, the average wait period is 24 hours which sounds reasonable. Only South Dakota and Utah have 72 hour waiting periods. Ten states require in-person counseling which requires two trips to an abortion provider while ten states also require the patient receive written information about abortions. All but a few states require the provider to give a description of the procedure while most also mandate that fetal development be part of the counseling. Twelve states require that the patient be told the fetus can feel pain while 5 require that the patient be informed that life begins at conception. Several states require that the patient be informed of future fertility risks, possible connections to breast cancer or mental health effects of abortion. Conversely, more than half the states, including many of these so-called strict states, require that the patient be informed of the risks of carrying the pregnancy to term.

Regarding these regulations, it may be interpreted that they are designed to discourage a woman from having an abortion. That is one way of looking at it. However, the better way of looking at it is they represent an enhancement of informed consent requirements and codify them in some way. Liberal groups decry the “long” waiting periods of 72 hours yet there are no reliable statistics to prove that a 72 hour waiting period discourages any woman from having an abortion. Further, they are legal in some states but enjoined against enforcement in others by the courts. Provided the information presented is accurate regarding the other factors, it would be a stretch of the imagination to consider them “undue burdens.” Where they may possibly get into trouble is the requirement that patients be told human life begins at conception. In fact, this is a philosophical question that has eluded many for eons. Technically and from a purely biological perspective, of course the fertilized egg is human life in its most rudimentary form (i.e., it will not develop into a tree or a frog). It should be noted that in most of these instances, no state outright bans abortion. Although the regulations may appear cumbersome to the patient, whether they can be classified as an undue burden is another story. Of course they are a stealth means by the state to encourage life over abortion, but whether they are unduly coercive is also another story. Statistics do indicate that the states with the most restrictive abortion laws have abortion rates well below the national average.

The second set of regulations involve those of the abortion clinics themselves. One of the biggest talking points of the pro-choice movement is that without legal abortions vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade, women would be forced to obtain abortions illegally under non-sterile, unsanitary conditions- the old wire hangar in the back alley argument. Yet, when a state passes a law that attempts to provide the most sanitary and sterile conditions for the performance of abortions, it is perceived as a hindrance to abortion. Unfortunately, complications can occur with an abortion just like any other surgical procedure. Still, the overall rate is 0.6 per 100,000 abortions which is about equivalent to the risk of complications from receiving an antibiotic injection. Only 0.3% of patients undergoing an abortion suffer complications requiring hospitalization. Naturally, the risk of complications increases the further along in the pregnancy. Hence, certain regulations like those proposed in Virginia mandating hallway width and such would appear to a court to have an anti-abortion animus rather than a public health goal in mind. In Mississippi, doctors at thir lone abortion clinic in Jackson are required to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. However, no hospital will grant admitting privileges. There was currently an injunction against enactment of this law pending the ability of the doctors to get those privileges, but the court was again asked to grant an injunction on constitutional grounds which they did. This case is still pending. It is difficult to imagine the Supreme Court breaking out the tape measures and calling for briefs from contractors as to the cost of these mandated changes in Virginia abortion clinics and it is likely the lower courts will fail to see the nexus between hallway width and health safety. As for the Mississippi case, the outcome is trickier since even though rare, there still exists the possibility of complications. Here, it would be a fine line between an undue burden and a commonsense public health requirement.

The third area concerns viability. States have passed laws defining a “person” for legal purposes as beginning at conception (the rare instance), or when the fetus can feel pain, when a heartbeat can be detected, or when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Increasingly, this has pushed the interest of the states earlier into the gestational period. Idaho prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks and although the law was upheld by the District Court, the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction and will hear an appeal. Arkansas passed a law over the governor’s veto banning most abortions after 12 weeks while the North Dakota law pushes the envelope at 6 weeks. Decisions in this area may well bring into play the role of state’s rights since these are political decisions decided after considered debate and and reviews of scientific research. For example, the notion of fetal pain was nowhere to be found in Roe in 1973 as the technology did not exist then. This is one of the main problems with the Roe decision’s criteria which was arbitrary. As technology advanced, the age of viability was pushed earlier and earlier into the gestational period. In 1973, premature deaths, for example, were certainly higher than they are now. Ultrasounds were in their formative stages. Hence, is it any wonder that today states are grappling with the political and legal refuse from Roe? Is the Supreme Court to sweep in yet again and play Solomon and announce a broad template for determining “personhood?” What the Left currently decries as a stealth method to ban abortions is nothing but the stupidity left in the wake of the trimester and viability framework inherent in Blackmun’s Roe decision.

The fourth and final area involves funding for abortion services, or as the Left likes to portray it, female reproductive services. Here, the only thing that can describe the Left is pure chutzpah! While they decry the fact that pro-life organizations are trying to foist a religiously based agenda on the entire public, they likewise turn around and demand that this same public fund abortion services. Several states have now blocked funding to Planned Parenthood which represents ground zero in the debate. While it may be true that Planned Parenthood may not use federal funds to provide abortions, by using federal money for non-abortion activity they then have additional funds from other sources to perform abortions. Hence, there is an indirect nexus between federal funding and abortion. Put another way, should all federal funding be blocked to Planned Parenthood, they would then have to budget the remaining dollars. Assuming they do serve the community with family planning in the form of female health screenings and contraception, they likely would have to decrease the amount dedicated to abortion services. In fact, there are a few cases working their way through the lower courts regarding the state blockage of Medicaid funds towards non-medically necessary abortions. Incidentally, somewhere between 85% and 90% of all abortions performed in the US are not medically necessary and are performed simply for “social convenience.” Last year, restrictive funding laws have been challenged in Nebraska, Arizona and Indiana.

In December 2012, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the federal government over their funding of the Catholic Conference of Bishops. The Department of HHS annually funds a program of the USCCB to help combat the human trafficking of women in the sex trade. Apparently, they do a very good job at outreach and intervention which is why they receive the funding. The ACLU, however, objects to their excellent work in this area (which, personally, I believe is a greater degradation of women rather than any view on abortion) because the Catholic Church stands opposed to abortion. The ACLU contends that the federal government is “endorsing” a religious viewpoint through their funding. In fact, they are endorsing a religious viewpoint, just not the one the ACLU contends- the dignity of women in general and freedom from sex trafficking. This case illustrates the hypocrisy of the Left unless they believe that participation in forced prostitution is somehow a means to the empowerment of women in general. I venture most sane people would reject that argument.

Some prognostication: In the area of regulations allegedly designed to place roadblocks in the way of women and their obtaining an abortion, it is likely the states will present a defense under some form of informed consent argument. Most likely, absent specific requirements in other surgical areas, the courts must then ask what makes the surgical abortion procedure worthy of such detailed informed consent requirements. From a personal standpoint, if you truly want to “empower” someone, you do that through information and the more information, the more empowered one is. But the information provided cannot be coercive and must be neutral. Provided it is- and this is for the lower trial courts to determine- it is hard to see how these laws cannot stand.

Regarding the regulation of clinics, the motive behind the regulations would likely be examined. For example, if the regulations are written to effectively target only abortion clinics, then they would likely fail. Secondly, the state would have to justify why a hallway of a certain width would enhance the safety of the clinic and the same goes for the other regulations. What, for example, makes it important that an abortion clinic have X amount of square footage versus a dental clinic? Secondly, requirements of hospital admitting privileges may not even survive under this analysis since a mere 0.6 of every 100,000 abortions result in complications leading to pregnancy. Of course, any surgical procedure may lead to complications. Having a tooth removed may later require hospitalization (I do not wish to equate abortion with a tooth extraction in the moral sense). But, if the risk of complication equals the almost non-existent risk of receiving a penicillin injection, the state would be hard-pressed to prove their point. Conversely, if 42 million abortions are performed annually, using the pro-choice’s own statistics, about 126,000 women are hospitalized yearly for complications.

In the viability/”personhood” area, we may actually see the Supreme Court eventually intervening if for no other reason there may exist a split among circuits as to whether these laws and determinations are approved by the appeals courts. The ramifications beyond abortion are likewise numerous. For example, assuming a state passes a law recognizing a fetus as a “person,” do the parents then have a right to declare that fetus as a dependent for tax purposes? Drinking while pregnant is known to cause complications during pregnancy or problems with fetal development. Should bars, to avoid possible legal liability, check the pregnancy status of patrons? Unfortunately, these somewhat ridiculous possible scenarios are brought to you courtesy of Justice Harry Blackmun.

Finally with the funding issues, these laws and challenges to them by either side illustrate the problems encountered when the government gets involved in areas they have no right legislating in in the first place. Planned Parenthood is a private organization that should receive all its funding from private sources no matter its mission. Likewise, the Catholic Conference of Bishops should also receive their funding from private sources and the Catholic Church no matter how noble its mission and successful its programs. Looking at abortion as an alleged “right,” the government does not directly fund enhancement of any other more constitutionally grounded right other than possibly the public defender’s office. We do not fund free speech or a free press. We allow it, even strive towards it, but we do not or should not fund it. With the Second Amendment, we do not fund purchases of firearms. Even when certain rights are violated, we shield the government from financial liability through the concept of sovereign immunity. Hence, one would be hard-pressed to see how forced funding of any entity that provides abortion or any other service is constitutionally required of any government. Clearly, that is a political decision whether to fund or not to fund.

The last case to be even tangentially considered by the Court involving abortion was not, in fact, an abortion case at all. That case was The Real Truth About Abortion vs. FEC which involved political advocacy communications in light of the Citizens United decision. This case came from the Fourth Circuit in Virginia and the petition was dismissed and the lower court’s support of the FEC’s decision upheld. The other case more closely related to abortion involved the Texas law that touched on First Amendment arguments which the 5th Circuit allowed to proceed after the District Court issued an injunction against enforcement. An appeal to the Supreme Court, specifically Justice Scalia, met with rejection to issue another injunction pending appeal. Thus, Texas became free to enforce the new law last year. Thus, it would appear that unless something dramatically happens, the Supreme Court is not prepared or willing to entertain another abortion case in the near future and the battle will remain rightfully at the state level where, quite frankly, it belonged all along.

In fact, if we wanted to have gun control efforts that could lead to a decrease in violent criminal behavior, perhaps the best way to go about it is not to poll your average American, but to poll the criminals themselves. Fortunately,these studies do exist. For example, we know that greater than 80% of criminals who use a gun in their crime obtained that gun through straw purchases or from a friend/relative on the street. Obviously, universal background checks would do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal. Likewise, we know that automatic or assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of crimes with the primary weapon being a hand gun, the very firearm that is the choice used for self defense. We also know that a majority of criminals have responded that they would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place if they knew their victim had a gun. We know that in cities that have decreased the incidence of violent gun crime, they achieved their success not by strengthening their social service network or by strengthening their gun laws; they did so by increasing their police presence in high crime areas.

Regarding the straw purchases, this is where someone who could legally purchase a gun through a licensed dealer does so then sells the gun to someone who would not pass a background check. In short, they purchase a gun for a criminal. However, straw purchases have been illegal for years with hefty sentences handed out. Strengthening the sentences may help deter a certain percentage of these purchases, but not likely end them. And obviously if a licensed gun dealer is an active participant in the scheme, they should receive a hefty sentence and lose their license to sell guns. The problem is in the details. Basically, all a dealer has to say is they performed the background check, it came back fine and I sold the firearm to the purchaser. The only deterrent to straw purchases would be an idea that worries gun owners- a national firearm registry.

A registry would track the sale of guns and purchasers which is one thing, but there would have to be follow up. That is, once the purchase is made by a law-abiding citizen who would pass the background check, some authority would have to make sure that they still were in possession of that firearm as time passed and they would have to explain if they did not possess the firearm- Did they sell it? To whom? Was it stolen? When, and was it reported?, etc. Again, the worry is threefold: first, it would make potential criminals out of law-abiding citizens. The same basically happens with gun dealers. Over 70% of firearm dealer infractions are attributable to inaccuracies on their 4447 form. These can be as innocuous as entering an incorrect date on the form. Second, many gun owners believe that a national registry would be the first step in a government effort to seize firearms. There is a third worry- privacy. As the totally inexcusable action by certain newspapers in New York demonstrated, keeping a firearm registry private is almost impossible. With respect to a national registry of firearms, the potential negatives outweigh the potential positives and would likely not decrease the incidence of gun crimes in the country in either case.

As we are all aware, the information in the NICS background check system is only as good as the information entered. Many states do not even fully comply. Perhaps mandatory compliance using the carrot and stick of federal assistance in law enforcement expenditures could goad some of the more reluctant states towards compliance. Even then, criminals who committed certain crimes and were found guilty are entered into the system. First of all, these people, should they decide to return to their life of crime, are not very likely to attempt to purchase a gun through a licensed firearm dealer. Secondly, the time from arrest to conviction could be lengthy. We have a system that assumes innocence until proven guilty and thankfully so. However, as concerns this discussion, entering a person arrested into the system, but not yet adjudicated guilty could place them on a probationary denial through a background check.

There are certain proposals, mainly at the state level, to require gun owners to purchase “gun insurance” using the totally illegitimate comparison that states require car insurance in order to drive. There is one major problem with this proposal and line of thinking- driving is a privilege while firearm ownership is a right. And let’s not make any false pretense over this: the reasoning is to make gun ownership expensive and the expense would act as a deterrent to gun ownership. Really? Does anyone really believe that a criminal would concern themselves with purchasing insurance for their illegally obtained firearm? This, again, only penalizes the law-abiding citizen.

Another effort and proposal in the same vein is to use the power of government taxation to deter firearm sales and use. Even if we use this idea with respect to ammunition purchases, there are some serious problems. The first is the reality that it would create a serious black market for ammunition much as there is a black market for guns…and cigarettes…and a booming illegal gambling infrastructure even in states with legalized gambling. Secondly, again, this would simply penalize the hunter or the person who keeps a gun for self defense. As for its constitutionality, the closest analogy would be the requirement for someone to obtain a permit in order to have a demonstration- another constitutional right. Here, the courts have had some cases. They have ruled that such permits are fine provided they serve a legitimate state interest (with gun control, public safety is one), it is content neutral (doubtful since it targets gun owners only) and there are alternatives (perhaps refunds for “good gun behavior”). There is already an 11% federal excise tax on ammunition which is passed on to consumers now. While it may be perfectly constitutional to increase that tax several-fold under Congress’ Taxing Clause authority, it is highly unlikely politically and practically.

With regards to the recent spate of “mass shootings,” there tends to be one common theme- these perpetrators were some seriously mentally ill people. Clearly, dots were not connected prior to the act. To show the idiocy of these reactionary gun control efforts, all the perpetrators obtained their weapons and ammunition legally. There was no reason to suspect at the time that these people were going to use their weapons in a crime. Today, people adjudicated insane by a court are entered into the NICS system. But, none of these recent perpetrators were “adjudicated insane.”

Here is the problem as I see it with regard to the mentally ill and background checks. Obviously, those adjudicated SHOULD be restricted from purchasing firearms. But, if everyone who sought psychiatric or psychological counseling was entered into the system, it would crash. If someone is seriously harboring thoughts of a mass shooting, it is highly doubtful they would even seek help. Instead, it would depend on the professional community to become a de facto psychological police force. This is really Orwellian! Most professionals, in order to avoid legal liability, would simply enter a person into the system. Can you imagine the poor soul who seeks psychological counseling because he is going through a divorce suddenly finding himself restricted from purchasing guns? Secondly, we would be abdicating our duties as a sane government to the professional community that often fights against itself over the definition of psychological ailments.

By this, I mean look at the recent headlines regarding autism or attention deficit disorder. We are told that 11% of students today suffer for ADDH, or that the incidence of autism is increasing. What is changing is the psychological definitions of these disorders which then captures a larger proportion of the population at large. At one time, we called many of the kids today diagnosed with some form of autism as “shy” while we at one time called many of those kids today diagnosed with ADDH as “a-holes.” Can one imagine someone being labeled or misdiagnosed by some professional being denied a constitutional right? For example, Adam Loughner was diagnosed with a form of autism- Asperberger’s Syndrome. Because he killed teachers and children in Newtown are we to assume that sufferers of this syndrome should be banned from gun ownership? Are we to adopt the “be careful of those quiet people” mentality when it comes to gun control? Of course, the obvious mentally ill should not be permitted to purchase a gun. But, I can assure you that David Berkowitz did not walk into a gun store and tell the owner that his dog, who was really Satan, told him to purchase the gun. And Berkowitz, like most mass killers, led a “normal” life prior to their act only that “normalcy” was later questioned after the fact and the body count.

Regarding this idea- entering the potentially mentally ill into a database- then there must be safeguards regarding privacy issues and a change to the HPPA laws. Secondly, in order to make sure that professionals are not entering people willy-nilly to avoid potential future legal liability, the professionals need some guarantee of immunity from lawsuits. Here, the government would be on firm legal ground as there are other government grants of immunity, most notably the manufacturers of vaccinations. Third, just because a person seeks psychological help should not be the only reason for entry into the database. Naturally, if the professional honestly believes the person is a danger to themselves or others, that is a given. The schizophrenic is an obvious case; the sufferer of situational depression is not.

Even still, assuming we had airtight background checks with every potential threat and we increase fines and make gun ownership financially and bureaucratically onerous- in short, if we abandon the Second Amendment or skirt the edges of acceptability- there will still likely be mass shootings and gun crime. Is the solution to arm every citizen of the country so that no one knows who is “packing” at any given moment? Criminals responded on a survey they were less likely to target a victim if they knew they had a firearm, so the idea is not as preposterous as it may sound. In fact, it likely makes more sense than assault rifle bans, magazine size restrictions and a host of other ideas being bandied about in Congress these days.

Not to pontificate, but there will most likely be another Newtown, Connecticut or Auruora, Colorado and these issues will be debated and argued yet again. I began this series by stating that the Second Amendment and firearm ownership was not a major problem in this country for a large part of its history. It is only over the last 30-40 years that the issue of gun control has grown, yet firearm ownership was generally universal throughout our history. Something in society, however, changed over the past 30-40 years. Personally, I believe it was a relaxation of a moral code that held this country together; a “we are all in this together” mentality that had one looking out for one’s neighbor rather than looking for a way to kill one’s neighbor. Maybe it was the social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, the “me generation” mentality, the graphic depiction of violence in movies and now video games where people become desensitized to these heinous acts. Unfortunately, we cannot enter a time machine and see what would happen if we could change the “then.” Today, we are more apt to avoid personal responsibility for our actions and apt to blame them on society, or our station in life, or some psychological disorder. Likewise, with gun control, we are more apt to have knee jerk reactions to every high profile use of firearms. At the end of the day, the problem is not the number of firearms in America or the size of magazines or any of that. The problem is a pervasive moral decay in society which Liberals only egg on.