the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning, “Congress’s hot August recess has begun with rhetoric to match, with Democrats pummeling Republicans for wanting to trim Social Security, and Republicans hammering Democrats for favoring tax increases.”Likewise, CNN notes, “Democrats pledged Friday to not only keep Social Security in place, but use the historic program against Republicans ahead of the midterm election.”Moderate Republicans in Congress will probably quake about those crazy guys like Ken Buck who want to save social security instead of let it go bankrupt. But conservatives need not run away from the issue.For starters, most Americans know that social security is going to go bankrupt unless something is done. Likewise, most younger Americans don’t expect the program to survive until they get to retirement. Republicans willing to discuss this issue, and articulately explain, as Sharron Angle is doing, that the Democrats are using the social security trust fund to expand big government will have no problem.But this isn’t the only reason the GOP need not worry. If we go back to 1994, we will find the Democrats doing the exact same thing. That didn’t work so well, did it? Let’s take a look.Please click here for the rest of the post.
The Ground Zero Mosque debate may be the first time in all of American history that the left has decided to respect property rights.Barack Obama came out forcefully in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque. He said he believed our nation’s founding principles demanded it.Really?Which of those founding principles? This man was a law professor. Surely he understands that our founding principles do not compel the President of the United States to support the specific act of an individual based on our founding principles. Otherwise, he no doubt supports revolution because that is the principle on which our republic began, see e.g. the Declaration of Independence.There is, in fact, a difference between the exertion of a legal right and supporting the use of a legal right that is offensive.Under Barack Obama’s logic, the President of the United States now supports jihad apparently. After all, jihad is an Islamic teaching and our founding principles of freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof must compel Obama’s support for jihad.Likewise, all those religious sects still practicing polygamy can go to town. After all, there is a more solid historic foundation for polygamy than gay marriage and if we can have one, surely our founding principles now compel we have the other.Oh — what about the Greater First Church of Satan wanting to do human sacrifice of a willing victim? I guess our founding principles demand the President support that too. After all, it is a religious belief and only willing participants.No doubt Barack Obama will now also forcefully come out in favor of protesting abortion clinics. After all, our founding principles support freedom of speech.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Last night, as part of a Ramadan celebration, President Obama waded into the controversy over the Cordoba Initiative mosque within sight of Ground Zero. In so doing, he unambiguously chose sides with those who see this deliberate provocation as a positive good.It is unsurprising, given what we already know about him, that President Obama would decline to support using government power to block the mosque project, and would decline to support withholding the various government favors needed to build it (although he carefully avoided mention of the State Department’s employment of the mosque’s Malaysian imam) - but he could have at a minimum used the opportunity to denounce in no uncertain terms what broad majorities of the public in and out of New York recognize: the fact that whatever the law says, the project itself is deeply and intentionally offensive. Especially when the president feels a matter is beyond his formal power, this is what the presidential bully pulpit is for. He has certainly not been shy in the past about speaking forcefully to denounce matters as provincial as a dispute between a professor and local cops in Cambridge. Instead, Obama offered only a tepid nod that failed to suggest he personally saw anything wrong with the selection of the Ground Zero location for a mosque.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Friends, it is time to understand Barack Obama By Proxy Syndrome.ProgressNow Colorado says Ken Buck is too fringe for Colorado.This is a group that thinks supporting life is fringe and partial birth abortion is mainstream.This is a group that thinks saving social security is fringe and bankrupting America is mainstream.This is a group that thinks allowing you and me to make our own way in life is fringe and having government dictate our destiny is mainstream.If Munchausen by proxy is inflicting pain on the people under the nutjob’s care to prolong the symptoms of illness, ProgressNow working for Barack Obama by proxy is committed to perpetuating high unemployment, high deficits, and out of control spending on the American people.Please click here for the rest of the post.
On one hand, Mr. Obama’s “Worst Oil Spill in History” theme serves as pretext for eviscerating the offshore petroleum industry, an industry that, until this spring, was relatively healthy despite the recession. By doing so, he may suck the economic life out of four very red Gulf States.On the other hand, Energy Czar Carol Browner has joined the “Where has the oil gone?” chorus, maintaining that 75% of the 4.9 million or so barrels spilled (per government estimate) either evaporated, degraded naturally, was recovered, or was burned at sea.So which one is it, Chief?Please click here for the rest of the post.
Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy. They’re trying to recruit Victoria Kennedy (Ted Kennedy’s widow) for the seat for 2012. They actually tried to get her to run in 2010, but she refused - and she’s supposedly refusing now, but apparently the possible challengers to Scott Brown have already been collectively weighed by the state party, and found wanting. So there seems to be no better options for Massachusetts Democrats right now, which is as funny as it is unsurprising.Please click here for the rest of the post.
Red Dog Report, Weasel Zippers, and the Washington Times all - gleefully, as well they should - report that Harry Reid introduced legislation that would have ended birthright citizenship in 1993. This makes Reid’s recent declaration that he couldn’t understand why any Hispanic could be a Republican seem a bit… what’s the word? Nuanced? Contradictory? I’ve got it: “hypocritical.”Seriously, there’s no wiggle room in the language that he introduced.Please click here for the rest of the post.