On Using Parents of Murdered Children

By Dennis Prager

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The president appeared at many rallies on behalf of additional gun control laws with parents of children murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

I have a question for those who agree with the president's use of these suffering souls.

How would you react if a pro-death penalty president travelled across the country with parents of murdered children -- on behalf of capital punishment? After all, outside of strongly liberal locales, the great majority of parents whose children have been murdered support the death penalty for murder. And more than a few of these parents who do live in liberal areas feel similarly.

I recall a phone call to my radio show from a woman who told me that she had always been against capital punishment and therefore always disagreed with me on this issue.

But she was calling to tell me that she had changed her mind.

"And why have you changed your mind?" I asked.

"Because my brother was recently murdered," she responded.

Needless to say, I offered the woman my most heartfelt condolences. To have a loved one murdered adds intense anger to already intense grief. So I truly commiserated with her.

But I didn't end there. I told her (gently) that it was sad that it took the murder of her brother to come to realize the cosmic injustice of allowing all murderers to live and that capital punishment is a moral imperative. Why, I asked her, hadn't the tens of thousands of other people's brothers who were murdered not moved to her to support capital punishment?

She sorrowfully agreed.

So then, what if President George W. Bush had toured the country on behalf of capital punishment with this woman and with dozens of others whose loved ones had been murdered? How would those who support President Obama's appearances with Sandy Hook parents have reacted to that?

We all know the answer. The news media and the Democratic politicians that enthusiastically approved of President Obama's multiple appearances with Sandy Hook parents (including flying with the president on Air Force One) would have vehemently protested against President Bush's appearing with parents of murdered children in support of capital punishment.

Nevertheless, I am not arguing that President Obama necessarily did something wrong or irresponsible in appearing with Sandy Hook parents.

I am arguing two other things.

One is that the media and the Democratic Party are intellectually and morally dishonest when they approve of, and feature, Sandy Hook parents. The press and the Democrats would have relentlessly yelled "foul," "beyond the pale," "demagoguery" and "using human props" had George W. Bush done the same thing on behalf of the death penalty. And one can only imagine the vitriol if a Republican president were to travel with parents of murdered children who opposed further gun control.

Democrats and Republicans should always ask themselves how they would speak and act if the shoe were on the other foot.

My second argument is that there is nothing to be learned from the Sandy Hook parents' support of more gun control. That support is neither morally nor intellectually persuasive. Its appeal is entirely emotional. It may be understandable, but it is still sad that these parents have used the emotional pull that their horrific pain exerts on all of us and expended it entirely on expanding gun control measures that would have in no way prevented Adam Lanza, a sick and evil man, from taking their children's lives.

Had their child's murderer been committed to a psychiatric hospital, or (as absurd as it sounds to many Connecticut voters and to the editors of the New York Times) had he been an active member of a church community -- some of us believe that either or both of these would have had a considerably better chance than more gun control in preventing those murders.

Assuming, then, that neither the media nor the Democrats would complain if a Republican leader were to do on behalf of capital punishment what President Obama did on behalf of more gun control, one cannot argue that the president's use of Sandy Hook parents was inherently irresponsible.

Where the president indisputably crossed over into demagoguery was in his repeated implication that those Americans who oppose his gun control proposals care less than he does about these parents' pain and about the murder of children in general. That, to put it mildly, compromised the dignity of his office.

Ironically -- at least in the eyes of the president and his supporters -- those of us who want as many good people as possible to own guns (and therefore more likely able to stop those who are about to, or in the midst of committing, murder), and those of us who want to execute most murderers, hold these positions precisely because we do weep for the parents of murdered children.

Wimps Versus Barbarians

By Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

An all too familiar scene was enacted on the campus of Swarthmore College during a meeting on May 4th to discuss demands by student activists for the college to divest itself of its investments in companies that dealt in fossil fuels.

As a speaker was beginning a presentation to show how many millions of dollars such a disinvestment would cost the college, student activists invaded the meeting, seized the microphone and shouted down a student who rose in the audience to object.

Although there were professors and administrators in the room -- including the college president -- apparently nobody had the guts to put a stop to these storm trooper tactics. Nor is it likely that there will be any punishment of those who put their own desires above the rights of others.

On the contrary, these students went on to demand mandatory campus "teach-ins," and the administration caved on that demand. Among their other demands are that courses on ethnic studies, and on gender and sexuality, be made a requirement for graduation.

Just what is it that academics have to fear if they stand up for common decency, instead of letting campus barbarians run amok? At a prestigious college like Swarthmore, every student who trampled on other people's rights could be expelled and there would be plenty of replacement students available to take their places. Although colleges and universities across the country have been giving in to storm trooper tactics ever since the nationwide campus disruptions of the 1960s, not all have. Back in the 1960s, the University of Chicago was a rare exception.

As Professor George J. Stigler, a Nobel Prize winning economist, put it in his memoirs, "our faculty united behind the expulsion of a large number of young barbarians."

The sky did not fall. There was no bloodbath. The University of Chicago was in fact spared some of the worst nonsense that more compliant institutions were permanently saddled with in the years that followed, as a result of their failure of nerve in the 1960s.

When the nationwide campus disruptions and violence of the 1960s gave way to quieter times in the 1970s, many academics congratulated themselves on having restored peace. But it was the peace of surrender.

Creating whole departments of ethnic, gender and other "studies" were among the price of academic peace. All too often, these "studies" are about propaganda rather than serious education. Academic campuses have become among the least free places in America. "Speech codes," vaguely worded but zealously applied to those who dare to say anything that is not politically correct, have become the norm.

Few professors would dare to publish research or teach a course debunking the claims made in various ethnic, gender or other "studies" courses.

Why did all this happen? Partly it happened because of the lure of the path of least resistance, especially to academic administrators and faculty. But there was no such widespread surrender to every noisy and belligerent group of student activists prior to the 1960s. Moreover, the example of the University of Chicago showed that surrender was not inevitable.

The cost of resistance to the campus barbarians may not have been the only factor. Resistance requires a sense that there is something worth defending. But decades of dumbed-down education have produced people with no sense of the importance of a moral framework within which freedom and civil discourse can flourish.

Without a moral framework, there is nothing left but immediate self-indulgence by some and the path of least resistance by others. Neither can sustain a free society. Disruptive activists indulge their egos in the name of idealism and others cave rather than fight.

It's not just academics who won't defend decency. Trustees could fire college presidents who cave in to storm trooper tactics. Donors could stop donating to institutions that have sold out their principles to appease the campus barbarians. But when nobody is willing to defend civilized standards, the barbarians win.

Whether on college campuses or among nations on the world stage, if the battle comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are bound to win.

Tyranny is no Longer 'Lurking'

By Cal Thomas

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Given last week's revelation that the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, it's worth recalling President Obama's Ohio State University commencement address. The president decried "voices" warning "that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner."

It's no longer lurking. It's here.

Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by the outgoing acting IRS commissioner, Steve Miller, as well as numerous statements by individuals claiming they have been harassed and intimidated by IRS agents, reveal a government agency out of control, or more precisely, under the control of political hacks. It's doubtful this was a freelance operation. J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified he knew as early as June 2012 that the IRS was targeting conservatives, but did nothing to stop it during the presidential campaign. Who else knew?

The delay in tax exemption approval prevented some conservative groups from donating money to the Romney campaign or to groups supporting his candidacy. The IRS even asked one tea party group in Richmond to identify all of their financial donors and volunteers.

There is a simple way to restrain the IRS so this type of intrusion doesn't happen again: get rid of it. That's what Steve Forbes proposed in his run for president in 1996 and 2000. So did former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Forbes proposed a flat tax of 17 percent and a simple tax code. Individuals could file their tax returns on a post card.

"In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical," Paul wrote in 2001. "Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens." And tax it did. And waste it did.

Paul contends the income tax amounts to only about one-third of federal revenue. I'm willing to wager that if nonessential government agencies and programs were eliminated and those remaining were reformed, or privatized, the savings would more than make up for the revenue loss.

Congressional Democrats -- and some Republicans -- will be reluctant to propose such a "radical" solution, because too many focus on revenue and not enough on misspending and dysfunctional agencies and programs.

The testimony that came out of the recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing is just a part of what constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead writes about in his new book, "A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State." It sounds alarmist, but reading it should sound an alarm for every American.

The summary on the book jacket says Whitehead "paints a chilling portrait of a nation in the final stages of transformation into a police state." Examples include the growing number of "surveillance cameras, drug-sniffing dogs, SWAT raids, roadside strip searches, blood draws at DUI checkpoints, drones, GPS tracking devices, zero tolerance policies, over-criminalization, and free speech zones."

In his introduction to the book, writer and First Amendment authority Nat Hentoff says: "...I believe we are in a worse state now than ever before in this country. With the surveillance state closing in on us, we are fighting to keep our country free from our own government."

Like most tyrannies, this one is being ushered in with a smile. The public is told it is for our "security" and that it's good for us. With taxation, we are told the government "needs" our money and if we complain they are taking too much and wasting it, we're thought to be "greedy" and "unfair."

Thomas Jefferson foresaw what can happen when power corrupts: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Jefferson would see the IRS scandal and Whitehead's warnings as prime examples. Repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminate the IRS, put the government back within its constitutional boundaries and tyranny will be defeated.

The IRS Scandal is Nothing More Than Liberalism

By Michael Schaus

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

For the benefit of anyone who has been living under a rock - or too deeply involved in an audit to pay attention to national news - the IRS has flexed its authoritarian muscle in an effort to stifle political free speech. After all, what is a government bureaucracy without a flare of despotism? The IRS has recognized, and apologized for a series of incidents where conservative groups were singled out for extra scrutiny. Of course, I was unaware that apologies were acceptable currency in resolving tax related impropriety.

But, just as details are emerging regarding who knew what, and when they knew it, we are slowly hearing about the impropriety of political discrimination. According to one of Illinois’ few Republicans, Representative Aaron Schock (yes, Illinois has a hand full of Republicans), a pro life group was asked by the IRS about the content of their prayers.

Imagine that. A government tax collection agency asking a bunch of citizens about their conversations with God. I guess we can chalk this up to the IRS’s complete disregard for Constitutional limitations. Does it strike anyone else as mildly anti-American to question religious (or political) beliefs in a review for tax-exempt status?

As we learn more about the IRS scandal, it becomes more and more clear that there is a larger problem at play. While the IRS’s unusual interest in private conversations between non-profit coalitions and God is troubling, it is merely a symptom of something larger. It might be that David Axelrod was right when he insinuated Obama could not be held accountable for any of the hat-trick scandals that are circulating through DC.

Sure, the Department of Justice seized the phone records of AP reporters and launched a criminal investigation against a FOX news reporter in a fashion that would make Richard Nixon blush. Sure the UN ambassador was sent out on a number of political talk shows to repeat what we now know to be a blatant lie about the death of a US ambassador in Benghazi. And, sure. . . The IRS intentionally used their very un-American style of intimidation, thuggery, and authoritarianism to scrutinize political non-profits that are unfriendly to Obama. But that doesn’t mean he should be held accountable, does it?

The bottom line is that this is what happens in big government. This is not purely a consequence of President Obama’s Chicago style politics. Nor is this a consequence, purely, of our current government’s leftist persuasion. This is the consequence of liberalism. This is what happens when a government is so large it involves itself in every aspect of a citizen’s life.

Could this have happened with a flat tax? Maybe just a fair tax? If our tax code was slightly less than 74,000 pages, would such intentional discrimination have been remotely possible? Had government been relegated to only a few minor tasks, and limited by even more mild funds, how difficult would it really have been to identify abuse?

When Government is so vast that the simple questions of “who knew what?” and “when did they know it?” are impossible to pin down, it might be time to start trimming the size of our bureaucracies. The concept of our democratic-republic is that of accountability. With no accountability, what good does our justice department, congressional investigations, or political elections do for we the people?

Many Conservative pundits have been quick to point out the danger such a massive government could pose to Liberals. “What if a Republican had been in charge?” Such an argument, however, will not win over many hearts. What is more at issue, is the very core of liberalism.

Liberalism thrives off of this sort of government over reach. Liberalism seeks to define “acceptable health insurance.” Liberalism deems punitive taxation on certain individuals to be “fair.” Liberalism is well entrenched in the fortress of government intimidation and manipulation. Only one year ago Democratic Senators Chuck Schummer from New York, Michael Bennet from New-New York (Colorado), and at least three others signed a letter asking the IRS to “probe” and investigate conservative non-profits. It would seem that they got their wish. . .

The IRS might have caused a scandal, but this is nothing more than big-government bureaucrats doing exactly what big government liberals wanted them to do.

The IRS Fiasco Shows the Incompetence of Liberalism

By Armstrong Williams

Sunday, May 20, 2013

Scandals are nothing new in Washington. Just about every president has faced an accusation of misconduct, whether moral or criminal. It should be no surprise that the Obama Administration would find itself in the midst of one, well actually 3 at present.

Many Republicans have been quick to declare this the end of Obama, even calling for impeachment. However, these scandals are not the personal failings of the President himself, rather they are the failings of the liberal philosophy which he and his entire administration espouse.

In case you were out camping without a cell phone for the past week, here is a brief recap in order of appearance:

Benghazi: the White House has been accused of failure to act and misleading the public about the events surrounding the 9/11/12 attack on the US consulate resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens.

IRS: Conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for extra scrutiny, beginning shortly after Scott Brown special election victory in 2010 through the 2012 presidential campaign. Also, confidential tax documents of prominent conservatives were leaked to the media.

Associated Press (AP) wiretapping: the Department of Justice tapped the phones of AP reporters and offices for two months in an effort to locate an administration leak.

APgate is troubling, but the problem for Republicans is that it’s legal and part of the Patriot Act. Any attempts to role this particular part of the legislation back has been convincingly voted down by both parties. Suddenly, the Republicans realize that an overreaching Patriot Act may not have been a good thing, but it feels politically rather than ideologically driven.

The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that 2-4 field workers took it upon themselves to single-handedly institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. It rises higher, but I seriously doubt the President directed such actions.

Finally, we have Benghazi. It was a tragedy; of that there is no doubt. Was there negligence involved? Yes. Was there a poor attempt at PR misdirection? Most definitely. Were different department figure pointing at each other? AS sure as the sun shines. Is anything that happened impeachable? No. More than anything Benghazi is another example of an administration getting caught flat footed and stumbling to fudge the facts for fear that the American people could not handle the truth, especially so close to the elections.

And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that believe the solution to every problem is more government.

This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology.

Logistics alone make it impossible for a government to solve every citizen’s problem. Yet, a bigger government is expected to do just that.

Big government is inflexible; it cannot respond to priorities because, over time, there are too many competing priorities. The greater the bureaucracy grows the more it becomes impersonal, wasteful, over-stretched, and difficult to reign in.

Furthermore, big government does not trust you to know how best to run your life, yet other imperfect beings are somehow capable of properly directing your life as soon as they are employed by the government. People are fallible, and so is the state.

If liberals are right about the role of government, then how did these scandals happen? Do we truly need more government to stop these things from happening?

In Benghazi, should even more officials debated whether to send troops to save our people? Should there have been more security?

Perhaps there should not have been a consulate in a hot zone in the first place, especially one so ill protected. How effective can an isolated diplomatic post on lock down really be? It seems more prudent to have a smaller footprint in the middle extreme conflict areas (esp. when our military is not in the field), which would save more lives and treasure.

Regarding the IRS, do auditors need more laws and supervisors to prevent such abuse? What happened is already illegal.

Then again, maybe a simpler tax code would solve the issue. If the law is so simple even a caveman can do it, then less IRS agents are needed, or conversely, it would free up existing agents to more quickly process paperwork.

And finally, regarding the DOJ wiretapping the AP--do we need more Patriot Act provisions to protect the US by suspecting every citizen and stopping potential whistle blowers? Does the government need more power to track everyone’s movements and communications now that modern technology gives them the ability to do so?

I think we need to take a serious look at the Patriot Act and begin rolling it back. Our government was founded on the belief that we are all “innocent until proven guilty” and should be afforded due process. In order for our Republic to function, we must be able to trust the government to faithfully protect our rights and privacy. However, treating everyone like a suspected criminal only weakens our confidence in the government’s willingness to safeguard our liberties. A government dedicated to civil rights is more trusting and less invasive, which compels it to be smaller.

Sometimes, no matter how sound an idea is, both rationally and emotionally, no amount of debate will convince an opponent of the inherent fallacy of his position. In such cases, it is sometimes better to let our adversaries have their way so they can inadvertently hang themselves with their own errant ideas. This week is a perfect example of that. More government would never have solved these issues, nor many others faced by administrations past and present.

This is not the end of the Obama Presidency (unless a bombshell drops), and cries of impeachment by certain Republicans only hurt conservatives who are focused on winning the wars of ideas, not scoring short term political points against a man that will not be on the ballot in 3 years.

As Americans, we all want our country to be the shining city on the hill, but once again events prove that big government liberal ideology is not the right path.