New Report Undercuts Global Warming Alarmists

Events have failed to fulfill the prophecy. Preachers have suddenly been struck dumb by uncertainty. Believers are understandably nervous and some, under their breath, are abandoning the dogma.

These sentences could have been written at the end of the day on Oct. 22, 1844, about the Millerites, a religious sect started in upstate New York. Preachers had told their followers that Jesus would return to earth that day. He failed to show.

But the subject here is not Millerism, but another kind of religious faith: the faith of the global warming alarmists. And while it’s not likely to have the impact of the Millerites’ Great Disappointment, we could be seeing the beginning of something similar on Sept. 27, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues its fifth assessment report in Stockholm.

A preview is provided by science writer Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, who has “had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document.”

“The big news,” Ridley writes, “is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.”

Ridley admits that the change is small. And he does not deny that increased carbon emissions could increase global temperatures by some significant amount. They would certainly do so if carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate.

But there may be other things. Like variations in sun activity. “The most plausible explanation of the pause,” Ridley writes, “is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback.”

The pause referred to is the fact that global temperatures haven’t increased over the last 15 years. Global warming models predicted they would. The models’ failure is not as stark as the Great Disappointment, but it’s a failure nonetheless.

The religious analogy is appropriate because belief in global warming has taken on the trappings of traditional religion.

Alarmists like to say the science is settled — which is nonsense, since science is a series of theories that can be tested by observations. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity, he showed how it could be tested during astronomical events in the next decade. The theory passed.

Saying the science is settled is like demanding what religions demand — that you have faith.

Religion has ritual. Global warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations.

Some religions persecute heretics. Some global warming alarmists identify “denialists” and liken them to Holocaust deniers.

Religions build grand places of worship. Global warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that produce uneconomic and intermittent electricity.

Global warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.

Some religions ban vulgar pleasures, like the New England Puritan sumptuary laws banning luxuries. Some global warming alarmists want to force most Americans out of big-lawn suburbs and into high-rise apartments clustered around mass transit stations.

This last element seems to be dominant among many global warming alarmists. Stop the vulgar masses from living their tacky lifestyles of driving those horrid SUVs. They must be made to repent, conform and then be saved.

The signs that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated come after publics here and abroad have rejected alarmists’ demands for vast carbon emission reductions.

The European Union’s carbon reduction program is in shambles and the United States has actually reduced emissions more, thanks to cheap natural gas produced by fracking.

Windmills and solar panels are not economic or dependable sources of electricity. China and India are not going to stifle the economic growth that is lifting millions out of poverty with carbon emissions caps.

History teaches that climate can change, and it makes sense to fund research to determine how to mitigate possible harms (and capitalize on possible benefits).

Unfortunately, most government and nonprofit funding has gone to global warming alarmists. But apparently even these priests understand that their prophecies have not been fulfilled.

Redemption is possible. Some Millerites formed the Seventh Day Adventist church, which has built fine medical schools and hospitals. Global warming alarmists might consider their example.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died

Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors. Or rather, we had such a plan. Last week, our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).” The letter informed us that “(t)o meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date.” In short: Obama lied. My health plan died. Remember? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also lied when she pledged: “Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them.” This isn’t just partisan business. It’s personal. Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is “not going to be selling new individual PPO plans.” When we asked whether we could keep our children’s doctors, an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she didn’t know. The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they’ll be offering. We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist. My family is not alone. Across the country, insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market. Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases: Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state: “63 percent jump, old policy of 15 yrs. cancelled.” Karen J. Dugan wrote: “Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business. Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down.” Chris Birk wrote: “Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant. New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage.” Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added: “I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan.” Few among Washington’s protected political class are paying attention, because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare’s destructive consequences. But one of my state’s congressional representatives, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, also lost his individual market plan. Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill, Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program. He told me that he opted to participate in the private market “because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents. And now that boat is sinking!” Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado. “After my current plan is discontinued,” he wrote last week, “the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month.” He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats’ ultimate deception. Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent. The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide. One of the reasons for those rate hikes, of course, is that Obamacare’s mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo. Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices. This includes a whole class of musicians, photographers, artists, writers, actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations. As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard, groups like the College Art Association, Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans. Young, healthy members of these groups “are far more likely to see their rates go up — or to face the individual mandate penalties.” Thanks to Obama, access is down. Premiums and health care spending are up. Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down. Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies, according to Investor’s Business Daily. And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims. Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design, not accident. For hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of self-employed job creators, three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama’s growing nose: 1) You can’t keep it. 2) We’re screwed. 3) The do-gooders don’t care. Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com. COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

24 Principles of Every Healthy Leader

The other day, I was thinking about leaders, in everything from the White House to my own house to countries such as Syria to companies such as Apple.

I was reflecting upon revolutionaries, from Nelson Mandela to Rosa Parks to the single parent of three who inspires her or his children with hard work and tough love.

I was contemplating the power of influence and influencers who make a difference by their command and control to others who demand respect with their silence and servitude.

From Jesus to James Dean and prosperity to prowess, leaders and what attracts others to them may vary, but one constant remains the same: Everything rises and falls on leadership, as Dr. John Maxwell has put it.

Leadership has built the biggest empires. It has collapsed the greatest corporations. It can unify diversity or divide unity. It can cast visions, catalyze movements, coalesce people and revolutionize industries and culture. Or it can run an organization and country into the ground by hardly trying or making a few wrong moves.

And you get what you pay for in leadership, not just in monetary terms but in quality of leader replication and organizational development. There is a direct correlation between the health and potential of an organization’s leaders and how far their subordinates and the organization can soar. Fudge on leadership and a company will falter, plain and simple. Morality, magnanimity and mistakes all metastasize under the levels of leaders. For an enterprise cannot grow greater, wider or deeper than the person at the top.

No leader is perfect, and everyone has his or her flaws. But those who have gained my respect are those who have proved themselves through the test of time and results.

One of those is Gen. Colin Powell.

You may not agree with his politics. You may not like all his moral stances. You may assail him for his entanglements in the Middle East. Or you may say Washington’s marginalizing Powell was a big mistake.

But you can’t deny his stellar career as a leader par excellence. After his four decades of military service — beginning at age 17 as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadet — this retired four-star general in the U.S. Army also served in four presidential administrations, including being the first African-American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as secretary of state.

And whether you believe that Powell had a tryst with a female Romanian diplomat or not, you can’t deny the power of his 50-year marriage to his beloved Alma or his fatherhood to their three successful adult children — Michael, the current president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Linda, a professional actress, and Annemarie, a television producer.

One of the things I love about Colin Powell is that he won’t be controlled or pigeonholed in life or leadership. His service spans from his service to his country to speaking this past year through TED about how “kids need structure”; his talk is a must-watch 17-minute video that would serve any patriot, parent or leader of children.

In Powell’s most recent book, “It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership,” Chapter 21, titled “What I Tell My New Aides,” has some excellent leadership tenets any boss or leader would want subordinates to know about himself or herself. It also conveys principles and qualities every follower would want in a healthy leader.

Here are 11 of Powell’s principles for cohesive leadership and staff relations:

—”Don’t ever hesitate to ask me what to do if uncertain.

—”I’m a people/phone junkie. I like to remain enormously accessible.

—”Avoid “The General Wants” syndrome — unless I really do

—”Don’t ever sign my name, or for me.

—”Provide feedback, but be tactful to those who ask — talks between you and me are private and confidential.

—”Never keep anyone waiting on the phone — call back.

—”I like meetings generally uninterrupted. I ask a lot of questions. I like questions and debates.

—”Be punctual; don’t waste my time.

—”I prefer written information to oral. Writing encourages discipline.

—”Make sure correspondence is excellence. No split infinitives.

—”Never, never permit illegal or stupid actions. Any questions?”

And also worth their leadership weight in gold are Powell’s general Thirteen Rules, which he elaborates on in the first section of his book:

—”It ain’t as bad as you think. It will look better in the morning.

—”Get mad, then get over it.

—”Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.

—”It can be done!

—”Be careful what you choose. You may get it.

—”Don’t let adverse facts stand in the way of a good decision.

—”You can’t make someone else’s choices. You shouldn’t let someone else make yours.

—”Check small things.

—”Share credit.

—”Remain calm. Be kind.

—”Have a vision. Be demanding.

—”Don’t take counsel of your fears or naysayers.

—”Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.”

Your role models may not include Powell, but it’s critical for all of us to have them — mentors we look up to for the variety of roles and responsibilities we assume in this life.

They are those who inspire us, as well as take us to task and challenge our most dogged dogma. They may be those we know or those we never have met — those who are living or dead. But they are always those who shape and influence our lives. They are our leaders, though they even may be our subordinates, too. The proof is in the pudding: We are whom we are around.

Don’t ever forget this: Everything rises and falls on leadership. As the leaders go, there goes the household, company or nation.

As Colin Powell once put it, “leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible.”

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook’s “Official Chuck Norris Page.” He blogs at https://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Ugly And Dangerous Realities Of The Counterculture

Anyone who still naively clings to the notion that the homosexual lobby believes in a “live and let live” society should take a look at recent events in Gresham Oregon. The picture is not pretty. But it is indicative of the real intentions and methods of the counterculture. The onslaught is unrelenting, with traditional marriage being but a single casualty along the way. In January, Lauren Bowman attempted to order a wedding cake from Aaron Klein, owner of a bakery in Gresham. Klein refused when he learned that the “marriage” for which she wanted the cake would be a same-sex ceremony. So Bowman filed a “discrimination” complaint against Klein that eventually went to the Oregon Attorney General’s office, where an investigation has since been undertaken. Meanwhile, a coordinated effort to harass and boycott the bakery, as well as its suppliers, eventually forced Aaron Klein, and his wife Melissa out of business. Welcome to the new America, where Brownshirt tactics, including death threats against Klein’s family, can be openly perpetrated, while the state focuses on the possibility that the he and his wife might be guilty of “politically incorrect” thinking. Oregon Labor Bureau Commissioner Brad Avakian has voiced his Orwellian assertion of a need to “rehabilitate” the Kleins in order to coerce them into abandoning their faith and converting to the state orthodoxy. In a classic example of statist doublespeak, Avakian proffered that “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean folks have the right to discriminate.” Yet if the Kleins, or anyone else who remains steadfastly committed to their guiding moral principles, are forced by law to participate in rituals that are diametrically opposed to their recognition of right and wrong, they are in fact not entitled to any beliefs other than those sanctioned by the state. For those who need a basic education in the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment, its intention was solely to prevent the government from compelling the citizenry to hold to certain beliefs. Yet by mandating their participation, the Kleins would be compelled to publicly assent to the new definition of “marriage” that defies not only the basic tenets of Christianity, but all of human history. Clearly, these despotic actions are being imposed on a selective basis. This was a flagrant example of hateful and “intolerant” behavior from Oregon’s homosexual community, fully enabled by the iron-fisted excesses of the state’s government. Had the episode involved Muslim venders who refused to take part in a gathering where bacon was the main entrée, no reprisals from the customer would have ensued, nor would any have been tolerated by the state. And even the slightest hint of coordinated retaliation would have been immediately and vigorously investigated as a “hate crime,” with the full power of the law brought to bear against the perpetrators. Yet nowhere in all of the news accounts of the Kleins or their plight is a single mention of “hate crimes” to be found. Also missing from this entire episode is even a single reference to “bullying” by Bowman and her accomplices. As America descends into the outrages and absurdities of “political correctness,” the public is incessantly deluged with leftist sanctimony about the evils of “bullying.” And while no decent citizen should stand by while any individual is assaulted or abused by a stronger individual, or any band of thugs, over time it has become abundantly clear that all of the diatribe about “bullying” and the need to curb it comes from the counterculture and is intended to be one-way. Those striving to undermine and affront traditional values can resort to any available means, including threats and intimidation. But let an opponent merely speak out against them, and that individual is instantly judged to be the “bully.” The evidence is overwhelming that the Kleins, along with their suppliers, were systematically bullied to the point that they had to close up shop. But from the perspective of the counterculture and the monster state, this was “good” bullying since it accomplished the silencing and punishment of people who, by virtue of their Christianity, did not acquiesce to the tenets of Oregon’s state religion. Just as it was with Attorney General Eric Holder’s reprehensible sanctioning of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers, certain episodes of bullying receive a tacit stamp of government approval. In the process, the rights of every citizen are trampled. With monotonous predictability, countercultural leftists claiming to be on the moral “high ground sanctimoniously denounce “bullying” while applying the label to anyone who represents even the mildest opposition to them. Of course their demeanor and their professed respect for the rights and dignity of others instantly vanishes the moment the tables are turned and they realize that as the most virulent of bullies, they can further their agenda. Anyone who has ever sat across from them at a legislative committee hearing or otherwise participated in a legal effort to preserve the institution of marriage, knows full well how virulent and consumed with hatred the counterculture actually is. This is the essence of the “community organizers” who have wrought so much harm to the fabric of this nation and who now employ their sordid tactics at the highest levels of the U.S. Government. As to Commissioner Avakian, it is no overstatement to warn that his proposal to “rehabilitate” the Kleins bears a sinister resemblance to the “reeducation camps” of the Soviet Union and Communist China. For those who would dismiss such a comparison as severe, similar affronts to the American ideal are already being committed under the auspices of “Sensitivity Training.” In glaring contrast to its euphemistic title, the real purpose of “Sensitivity Training” is to completely de-sensitize Americans who uphold traditional morality to the ensuing disintegration of the nation’s culture, or at least to intimidate them into silent compliance. This is the role of the “Thought police,” a fundamental element of every police state. However, those applauding the craven advocacy of their cause by Commissioner Avakian and their seeming victory over the Kleins had better beware. Their jubilation is likely to be short lived. Historically, once government acquires this degree of power, it is invariably wielded against the entire populace, including those who helped create the monster. For Americans who recognize the importance of the values and morality on which the nation was founded, but had hoped to quietly sit out the culture war, this situation offers convincing proof that no such option exists. The onslaught of the counterculture will continue until it is opposed with sufficient resistance to stop its advance. Consequently, the people of this nation who recognize the critical importance of morality to the preservation of their freedom and their country will either commit to standing resolutely against the looming threat of the counterculture, or they will accept its mark on their society and their individual lives. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, a membership advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Obamacare: The Ruling Class Versus Real America

Once again this week, the Beltway Insider class has exhibited its consuming arrogance and total contempt for the people of the American Heartland. As if rational citizens still needed to be convinced, they have ample proof in the flagrant efforts of those in government to impose Obamacare’s onerous regulations on the peasantry (you and me) while exempting themselves from the inevitable and dire consequences that will surely result. America is in a full fledged war, not against bands of crazed turban clad foreigners, but smooth talking suited elitists who believe it is their rightful function to direct and control the lowly masses, while riding in opulence above the mess they have created. Americans have rightfully been outraged ever since the onset of Obamacare, on account its enormous costs, diminished services, and eradication of freedom through overarching governmental command and control of peoples’ individual lives. But they are further infuriated by the manner in which the “Ruling Class” has since sought to avoid those hardships and pamper itself. Realizing that Obama’s “affordable” and mandated healthcare would be extremely expensive, Congressional staffers and office holders demanded and received a subsidy from the Obama Administration, despite having no legislative authority (and certainly no public support) to do so. Few members of either political party possess the courage and principle to oppose their self-serving cohorts by rejecting this elevation to a status of privilege. And those who attempt to officially resist the effort have become targets of entrenched politicians who consider themselves and their interests superior to those little people on Main Street. The ensuing attacks on Senator David Vitter (R.-LA), who opposes such elitism, represent something far more menacing than typical hard-ball politics. They constitute inescapable evidence that Washington has gone completely out of control, and that this condition will relentlessly escalate and devour our formerly great country until such time as “We the People” decide that its malicious encroachment cannot advance any further upon us. Efforts to deflect the statist onslaught through seemingly reasonable means have ceased to work, as is evidenced by Senator Vitter’s plight. Vitter’s crime against the political establishment is to assert that the Congress, along with the rest of the Federal Government, should abide by the laws and regulations it imposes on the rabble out in flyover country. In a measure he co-sponsored with Senator Mike Enzi (R.-WY), Vitter seeks to ensure that the effects of Obamacare are experienced equally by those who crafted the odious law and ram-rodded it through the legislative process, and not merely imposed on a helpless citizenry that is then obliged to comply and suffer its effects with no recourse. Fortunately Senator Enzi’s, past personal life is virtually spotless. This renders him immune to the disgraceful manner of attack which is being directed at Vitter. Back in 2007, Vitter was involved in a scandal involving a prostitute. And while he arguably should have resigned from public office at the time the news of his tawdry behavior broke, the matter is hardly relevant to the present discussion. Nevertheless, in a clearly vindictive response to his attempt to keep the Congress from getting a free ride while the nation is crushed under the weight of Obamacare’s impending costs, Democrats are planning an amendment to Vitter’s bill that would prohibit subsidies for members who have solicited prostitutes. In essence, the Democrat effort is to craft legislation directly targeting a single individual whom they intend to punish, in order to secure his surrender, while sending a warning to anyone else who might ponder similar action. Put aside for the moment, any consideration of the shameless hypocrisy that is evident in such a ploy from the party of Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, whose abhorrent behavior vastly eclipses Senator Vitter’s former improprieties. Hypocrisy is, and has always been endemic to liberalism. It is indeed inarguable that the fraud and disingenuousness of those Democrats, who would deride Vitter while turning a blind eye to the unspeakable sleaze and corruption of their own colleagues, must be addressed and corrected if the nation is ever to be redeemed from its current plunge into the moral abyss. However, while condescending sanctimony from Democrats is certainly consistent with past practice, engaging in such intimidation for the purpose affecting the legislative process reflects a new and extremely dangerous low on the part of Washington politicians. This latest episode exposes the virulent and even criminal intention to circumvent every vestige of a representative government, and supplant it with an uncontested and unaccountable oligarchy that is shielded, by force, from any public backlash. In short, the Congress and Obama himself hold no illusions that the American people are furious over the corrosive effects of Obamacare, and that their outrage will only increase as components of the measure are implemented. More profoundly, the D.C. politicians are unwittingly proving that they know precisely why the American people despise Obamacare, since they collaborated with Obama to institute measures that will protect themselves from its dire effects. Yet they shamelessly maintain that they are only continuing its implementation for the good of the lowly people, while just as steadfastly making certain that they are not harmed by it. In light of this sorry episode, every political figure who asserts that Obamacare will be good for America knowingly commits perjury with each such pronouncement. But more importantly, those who engage in these underhanded efforts to insulate themselves and their staffs from it are in direct violation of their oaths of office. The use of the institution of the Senate as a means of coercion, for the purpose of targeting and bludgeoning elected officials into compliance with the “new order,” is clearly outside the boundaries of the Constitution and the rule of law. If it is allowed to go unchecked, the nation will have made a major step towards rule by violence in the streets. While such a prognosis may sound overly alarmist, it is where America is inexorably headed if the stench of the current political machine is not expunged from the halls of Congress. Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, a membership advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Student Indoctrination

The new college academic year has begun, and unfortunately, so has student indoctrination. Let’s look at some of it.

William Penn, Michigan State University professor of creative writing, greeted his first day of class with an anti-Republican rant. Campus Reform, a project of the Arlington, Va.-based Leadership Institute, has a video featuring the professor telling his students that Republicans want to prevent “black people” from voting. He added that “this country still is full of closet racists” and described Republicans as “a bunch of dead white people — or dying white people” (https://tinyurl.com/lve4te7). To a student who had apparently displayed displeasure with those comments, Professor Penn barked, “You can frown if you want.” He gesticulated toward the student and added, “You look like you’re frowning. Are you frowning?” When the professor’s conduct was brought to the attention of campus authorities, MSU spokesman Kent Cassella said, “At MSU it is important the classroom environment is conducive to a free exchange of ideas and is respectful of the opinions of others.”

That mealy-mouthed response is typical of university administrators. Professor Penn was using his classroom to proselytize students. That is academic dishonesty and warrants serious disciplinary or dismissal proceedings. But that’s not likely. Professor Penn’s vision is probably shared by his colleagues, seeing as he was the recipient of MSU’s Distinguished Faculty Award in 2003. University of Southern California professor Darry Sragow shares Penn’s opinion. Last fall, he went on a rant telling his students that Republicans are “stupid and racist” and “the last vestige of angry old white people” (https://tinyurl.com/185khtk).

UCLA’s new academic year saw its undergraduate student government fighting for constitutional rights by unanimously passing a resolution calling for the end of the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant.” The resolution states, “The racially derogatory I-word endangers basic human rights including the presumption of innocence and the right to due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.” No doubt some UCLA administrators and professors bereft of thinking skills helped them craft the resolution.

The New York Post (8/25/11) carried a story about a student in training to become dorm supervisor at DePauw University in Indiana. She said: “We were told that ‘human’ was not a suitable identity, but that instead we were first ‘black,’ ‘white,’ or ‘Asian’; ‘male’ or ‘female’; … ‘heterosexual’ or ‘queer.’ We were forced to act like bigots and spout off stereotypes while being told that that was what we were really thinking deep down.” At many universities, part of the freshman orientation includes what’s called the “tunnel of oppression.” They are taught the evils of “white privilege” and how they are part of a “rape culture.” Sometimes they are forced to discuss their sexual identities with complete strangers. The New York Post story said: “DePauw is no rare case. At least 96 colleges across the country have run similar ‘tunnel of oppression’ programs in the last few years.”

University officials are aware of this kind of academic dishonesty and indoctrination; university trustees are not. For the most part, trustees are yes men for the president. Legislators and charitable foundations that pour billions into colleges are unaware, as well. Most tragically, parents who pay tens of thousands of dollars for tuition and pile up large debt to send their youngsters off to be educated are unaware of the academic rot, as well.

You ask, “Williams, what can be done?” Students should record classroom professorial propaganda and give it wide distribution over the Internet. I’ve taught for more than 45 years and routinely invited students to record my lectures so they don’t have to be stenographers during class. I have no idea of where those recordings have wound up, but if you find them, you’ll hear zero proselytization or discussion of my political and personal preferences. To use a classroom to propagate one’s personal beliefs is academic dishonesty.

Vladimir Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” That’s the goal of the leftist teaching agenda.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Obamacare: The Ruling Class Versus Real America

Once again this week, the Beltway Insider class has exhibited its consuming arrogance and total contempt for the people of the American Heartland.  As if rational citizens still needed to be convinced, they have ample proof in the flagrant efforts of those in government to impose Obamacare’s onerous regulations on the peasantry (you and me) while exempting themselves from the inevitable and dire consequences that will surely result. America is in a full fledged war, not against bands of crazed turban clad foreigners, but smooth talking suited elitists who believe it is their rightful function to direct and control the lowly masses, while riding in opulence above the mess they have created.

 Americans have rightfully been outraged ever since the onset of Obamacare, on account its enormous costs, diminished services, and eradication of freedom through overarching governmental command and control of peoples’ individual lives. But they are further infuriated by the manner in which the “Ruling Class” has since sought to avoid those hardships and pamper itself. Realizing that Obama’s “affordable” and mandated healthcare would be extremely expensive, Congressional staffers and office holders demanded and received a subsidy from the Obama Administration, despite having no legislative authority (and certainly no public support) to do so.

 Few members of either political party possess the courage and principle to oppose their self-serving cohorts by rejecting this elevation to a status of privilege. And those who attempt to officially resist the effort have become targets of entrenched politicians who consider themselves and their interests superior to those little people on Main Street. The ensuing attacks on Senator David Vitter (R.-LA), who opposes such elitism, represent something far more menacing than typical hard-ball politics. They constitute inescapable evidence that Washington has gone completely out of control, and that this condition will relentlessly escalate and devour our formerly great country until such time as “We the People” decide that its malicious encroachment cannot advance any further upon us. Efforts to deflect the statist onslaught through seemingly reasonable means have ceased to work, as is evidenced by Senator Vitter’s plight.

 Vitter’s crime against the political establishment is to assert that the Congress, along with the rest of the Federal Government, should abide by the laws and regulations it imposes on the rabble out in flyover country. In a measure he co-sponsored with Senator Mike Enzi (R.-WY), Vitter seeks to ensure that the effects of Obamacare are experienced equally by those who crafted the odious law and ram-rodded it through the legislative process, and not merely imposed on a helpless citizenry that is then obliged to comply and suffer its effects with no recourse.

 Fortunately Senator Enzi’s, past personal life is virtually spotless. This renders him immune to the disgraceful manner of attack which is being directed at Vitter. Back in 2007, Vitter was involved in a scandal involving a prostitute. And while he arguably should have resigned from public office at the time the news of his tawdry behavior broke, the matter is hardly relevant to the present discussion.

 Nevertheless, in a clearly vindictive response to his attempt to keep the Congress from getting a free ride while the nation is crushed under the weight of Obamacare’s impending costs, Democrats are planning an amendment to Vitter’s bill that would prohibit subsidies for members who have solicited prostitutes. In essence, the Democrat effort is to craft legislation directly targeting a single individual whom they intend to punish, in order to secure his surrender, while sending a warning to anyone else who might ponder similar action.

 Put aside for the moment, any consideration of the shameless hypocrisy that is evident in such a ploy from the party of Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, whose abhorrent behavior vastly eclipses Senator Vitter’s former improprieties. Hypocrisy is, and has always been endemic to liberalism.  It is indeed inarguable that the fraud and disingenuousness of those Democrats, who would deride Vitter while turning a blind eye to the unspeakable sleaze and corruption of their own colleagues, must be addressed and corrected if the nation is ever to be redeemed from its current plunge into the moral abyss.  

 However, while condescending sanctimony from Democrats is certainly consistent with past practice, engaging in such intimidation for the purpose affecting the legislative process reflects a new and extremely dangerous low on the part of Washington politicians. This latest episode exposes the virulent and even criminal intention to circumvent every vestige of a representative government, and supplant it with an uncontested and unaccountable oligarchy that is shielded, by force, from any public backlash.

 In short, the Congress and Obama himself hold no illusions that the American people are furious over the corrosive effects of Obamacare, and that their outrage will only increase as components of the measure are implemented. More profoundly, the D.C. politicians are unwittingly proving that they know precisely why the American people despise Obamacare, since they collaborated with Obama to institute measures that will protect themselves from its dire effects. Yet they shamelessly maintain that they are only continuing its implementation for the good of the lowly people, while just as steadfastly making certain that they are not harmed by it.

 In light of this sorry episode, every political figure who asserts that Obamacare will be good for America knowingly commits perjury with each such pronouncement. But more importantly, those who engage in these underhanded efforts to insulate themselves and their staffs from it are in direct violation of their oaths of office. The use of the institution of the Senate as a means of coercion, for the purpose of targeting and bludgeoning elected officials into compliance with the “new order,” is clearly outside the boundaries of the Constitution and the rule of law. If it is allowed to go unchecked, the nation will have made a major step towards rule by violence in the streets. While such a prognosis may sound overly alarmist, it is where America is inexorably headed if the stench of the current political machine is not expunged from the halls of Congress.

 Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, a membership advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Obama, Spiked for His Own Good?

President Obama barely noticed, but there was a horrific mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday. In what has become a signature of this administration, a tone-deaf Obama pressed ahead with his plans to attack the tea party Republicans at an event marking five years since the financial crisis erupted.

After some perfunctory remarks of condolence, Obama commenced with what the Associated Press described as a “blistering warning to congressional Republicans.”

“I cannot remember a time when one faction of one party promises economic chaos if it can’t get 100 percent of what it wants,” Obama said, according to AP’s Jim Kuehnenn. This was straight out of the Obama playbook. He was referring to those who want to defund the Obamacare monstrosity. Their plan would fund everything in the government, except Obamacare.

And that is “economic chaos,” says this “reporter.”

This dispatch made no mention of the attack’s timing next to a mass shooting. It was noticed on Fox News. White House Correspondent Ed Henry reported on the timing for “Special Report with Bret Baier” and offered this Obama clip: “Are some of these folks really so beholden to one extreme wing of their party that they’re willing to tank the entire economy just because they can’t get their way on this issue?”

Henry noted Obama even managed some trash talk about Obamacare and defeating Romney:

“It was an issue in last year’s election and the candidate who called for repeal lost.” Henry added: “Asked today about the tone of those remarks in the middle of an active manhunt, spokesman Jay Carney said the White House did not consider calling off the speech, and he said it was appropriate to keep the pressure on Republicans over the looming budget crisis.”

It was tasteless, inappropriate and diminishing of the presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC skipped over Obama’s refusal to let breaking news of a gun massacre deter conservative-bashing remarks. These were the same networks that went absolutely bonkers when Romney made what they saw as inappropriate political comments on the heels of the Benghazi attacks.

Other outlets were also staying in sync with the White House. On the “PBS NewsHour,” there was no conservative-bashing Obama clip, but government-subsidized anchor Judy Woodruff was clucking at former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson about the negotiating plans of “prominent members of your party” and whether the debt-ceiling vote was an “appropriate tool” to launch a debate on limiting government spending.

On “All Things Considered,” NPR’s Ari Shapiro offered one of his normal press-release stories on the economic event, complete with six Obama sound bites and no mention of the Navy Yard shooting. At the end, GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin offered a bit of criticism: “It really was a bare-knuckles political speech. It wasn’t an economic speech, and it certainly wasn’t the opening of a negotiation.”

In the morning papers? The Washington Post reported the Nationals cancelled their evening baseball game, but offered nothing on Obama’s “blistering warning” in the midst of the attack coverage. The Wall Street Journal had nothing. The New York Times story by Jackie Calmes and Michael Shear (placed at the bottom of page A-16) just recounted Obama’s attacks without any mention of the Navy Yard. The story began: “President Obama on Monday seized on the fifth anniversary of the 2008 financial collapse to warn that House Republicans would reverse the gains made,” and cause “economic chaos,” and so on.

On MSNBC on Tuesday morning, Joe Scarborough called out his own network and the rest of the media. If President Bush had done this on the day of a mass shooting? “Mika would be killing George W., everybody here on this network would be killing George W., everybody at the New York Times would be killing George W. Every journalist in Washington, D.C. would be killing George W. It’s unbelievable.”

The Politico website was milder, with the headline “In tragedy’s wake, President Obama finds tone a challenge.” But Jonathan Allen and Jennifer Epstein expressed surprise that “he asked whether the GOP was willing ‘to hurt people just to score political points,’ even as victims were still being treated for actual wounds sustained in Monday’s attack. Obama even knocked Washington — the city under siege as he spoke — for failing to find ‘common purpose.'”

Politico reported the White House did get the message. Mrs. Obama predicted earlier in the day that the president would “shake his groove thing” at a Latin music event in the East Room on Monday night (for later airing on PBS), but that was postponed — “out of respect for the victims and their families,” the White House website announced.

How thoughtful.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Celebrity Silence on Syria

In the era of “warmonger” Republicans in the White House, the Toronto International Film Festival would have been fertile ground for bold, outspoken “dissent” from actors against war in the Middle East. Now with Obama on the brink of missile attacks in Syria, you would expect the same agitation, but this time coupled with a dash of betrayal.

Instead, the Hollywood Reporter found nothing there but an icy pile of “no comments” from more than a dozen celebs, including Susan Sarandon, Josh Brolin, Penn Jillette and Tim Robbins.

For divorced Sarandon and Robbins, left-wing rabble-rousing against the Pentagon was too reminiscent of “The Way We Were.” It’s the Obama era; the government now can do no wrong.

Meryl Streep skipped the Toronto swirl, so what might she have said? Push the replay button on her remarks about Bush and Iraq at a 2004 Kerry-Edwards fundraiser: “I wondered to myself during ‘Shock and Awe,’ I wondered which of the megaton bombs Jesus, our president’s personal savior, would have personally dropped on the sleeping families of Baghdad?”

Not in your wildest dreams would this lady say that about this president. Since Obama’s version of Christianity came from a preacher who thought we deserved 9/11 and yelled “God damn America,” he’s spared this kind of movie-star character assassination.

Ed Asner didn’t mince words when he told the Hollywood Reporter that celebrities won’t be mobilizing against any Obama wars: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” People in Tinseltown watch a little too much MSNBC.

Asner sounded very cynical. “It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.” He doesn’t even think clogging the town square in protest accomplishes anything any more: “We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?”

The Left used to want the president and his national-security minions frog-marched to court and tried as war criminals. But with the Hope and Change President running the wars, even the “idealistic” folks in Hollywood are running for the tall grass.

Where is Sean Penn? Crickets. Where is the Sean Penn movie where he stars as the idealistic lefty like Joe Wilson who exposes the corruption of a war-mongering president? Silence.

The Valerie Plame Wilson scandal even caused “socially conscious” comedian Al Franken to joke to David Letterman in 2005 that as a result, “(Scooter) Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” and then joke that the country was close to executing a sitting president. Now the Minneapolis press reports, “Al Franken is way more hawkish on Syria than Michele Bachmann.”

Some are still pretending Obama is the state senator opposing the “dumb wars”. Barbra Streisand tried to support both Obama and “peace” by reprinting leftist Katrina Vanden Heuvel on her website: “President Obama has sensibly pushed to bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end.” Earth to Barbra and friend: Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, and 73 percent of the American deaths there have occurred during his presidency.

But the desperation continued: Obama “has resisted those who wanted earlier intervention in the Syrian civil war. And now he may just need the American people and Congress to keep him from getting more deeply involved in a war that he knows will only further weaken the nation and hurt our interests and our values.”

In other words, Obama was against it before he was for it. He just needs a nudge from the people to get back in touch with the American people’s liberal values.

Hollywood still has a few serious radicals, the ones who think all wars are cynical profiteering opportunities and Obama and Bush are both willing tools of the military-industrial complex. There’s John Cusack, and Danny Glover, who’s circulating a no-war petition. Michael Moore is attacking John Kerry on Twitter. But they are the outliers. The “mainstream” in the entertainment world sound like Robert DeNiro on CNN, “I know he’ll make a decision and whatever decision he makes, I go with it.” It sounds like that wonderful Second City comedy skit gone viral, with a group raising money for World War III called, “The Americans for Whatever Barack Obama Wants.”

What Obama wants right now from his leftist base is support or at least silence on Syria — and his friends in Hollywood have sycophantically obliged.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

On Syria, Obama Is All Over the Map

When it comes to President Obama’s prowess as commander in chief, “leading from behind,” at this point, would be a step up.

Some believe that the United States should engage in military action in foreign countries when America’s national interests or those of our allies are at stake. Some believe we should rarely do so, perhaps only when we are under attack. Some think we should actively export democracy to other nations, whether or not our national security interests are currently on the line. And some, like President Obama, are literally all over the map, a quagmire of incoherency.

Since President George W. Bush intervened in Iraq in 2003 with overwhelming approval from both parties in Congress, Democrats have been on their high horse, accusing Bush and Republicans of all kinds of abominable behavior on Iraq and in the war on terror.

In withdrawing their support for the war, wholly for political reasons, Democrats made the preposterous claim that Bush, a man whose intellect they accorded the respect of a medieval serf, had deceived them into supporting the Iraq War resolution by false or hyped claims about weapons of mass destruction.

It didn’t matter to them that investigations showed that Bush clearly hadn’t manufactured, doctored or misrepresented the intelligence about WMD in Iraq or that most of the world’s important intelligence agencies came to the same conclusions as ours had. Nor did it matter that they had reviewed virtually the same intelligence reports that Bush had when they decided to support the war resolution and that we mustered the support of much of the international community.

When it was in their perceived political interests to support the war effort and apparently too much time hadn’t passed since Sept. 11 to give them the required cover, they supported it. But when they needed to undermine Bush’s clout as a war president, they shamelessly changed their tune.

They started clamoring about the indispensability of an international consensus before going to war. They were impervious to claims that Saddam Hussein had brutalized his own people, including with the use of chemical weapons. They went out of their way to deny any link between Saddam and the war on terror and our enemies in that war. They were unmoved by Saddam’s violation of countless United Nations resolutions.

Democrats trampled one another on the way to the podium to assert that President Bush was a militaristic ogre who lied to get us into war. They manufactured and broadcast wildly exaggerated and spuriously deceitful claims about the deaths and damage America had inflicted in Iraq.

When he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama strongly emphasized these same criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. Under their leadership, the world had lost its respect for us. Obama promised to change all this and make America beloved in the world.

Based on their statements, we must conclude that Obama and his Democrats abhor doublespeak from America’s commanders in chief and military interventions that are not supported by the international community and are based on dubious intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Yet after Obama’s disgraceful double talk concerning a “red line,” the Democrats almost unanimously support Obama’s apparent decision to strike Syria with or without congressional approval — despite there being a conspicuous absence of any understandable foreign policy objective, no discernable national interest at stake, unequivocal disapproval from the American people, little support from the international community, questionable intelligence about the chemical weapons, and a substantial risk that the intervention could ignite major disruption in the region, empower Islamic radicals hostile to the United States, which seems to be the common denominator driving all his interventions, and otherwise jeopardize America’s interests and those of our ally Israel.

The only reason anyone can figure for Obama’s deciding to bomb Syria is that he believes he must do so to save face and credibility for having drawn a “red line” against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, a line he now says he didn’t draw — as if he’ll enhance his credibility by denying he made a claim we witnessed him making in no uncertain terms. He is now demeaning the very international community he libelously accused Bush of alienating for not joining us in this ill-considered action.

The left is all about opposing military interventions — when Republicans are in power and our proposed intervention is truly in our national security interests. Leftists are all about enlisting the support of the international community when it suits their interests — and ignoring it when it doesn’t. They’re adamant about the necessity of being 100 percent certain about our intelligence data before acting militarily, except when they’re in charge. And they’re all about plain-spoken words from the commander in chief, unless they hold the presidency.

I could have sworn that President Obama and his party decried so-called unilateralism when they falsely claimed Bush had engaged in it. But now they enthusiastically embrace it when Obama is preparing to actually do it — acting unilaterally with respect to both the legislative branch and the international community.

Whether or not the entire international community loved President George W. Bush, they respected him — to the extent that world leaders knew he meant what he said. Obama has neither their love nor their respect.

It’s obvious he hasn’t a clue what he’s doing, but it’s just as obvious he’s hellbent on doing it. What a pathetic mess.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “The Great Destroyer,” reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM