The Rushmore Report: Will The Democrat “Damaged Goods” Strategy Backfire?

Christopher G. AdamoAs the 2014 mid-term election cycle goes into full swing, it is worthwhile to recall the many occasions on which Democrats have attempted to derail a Republican candidacy by flagrantly overblowing a single misstep into monstrous proportions. All too often, this underhanded line of attack enjoys unwarranted success because, in the wake of the contrived liberal firestorm, the invertebrate wing of the Republican Party reverts to what it considers politically “safe” ground. This usually involves turning on the beleaguered candidate, especially if that individual happens to be a staunch conservative.

Perhaps the most famous cases involved U.S. Senator George Allen from Virginia, and Missouri’s Todd Akin. Both were thrown to the liberal wolves over errors involving a single word, Allen for invoking the label “macaca” to deride an annoying interloper from the opposition campaign, and Akin for using the word “legitimate” when he should have said “actual,” to differentiate between real rape situations as opposed to phony allegations of such. In Akin’s case, “mainstream” Republicans continue to this day to thrash him as proof that they are not to be included among that extreme right wing “fringe” from the Tea Party.

However, over time a shameless pattern of fraud and manipulation has emerged, by which Democrats concoct strategies of “attack and destroy” against their Republican opposition, based not on any real malfeasance, but on the unrelenting accusations of something, anything, that might be construed as derogatory, which is thereafter inextricably linked to the candidate. Although this may be presumed as merely the typical hardball of high-level politics, it has degenerated in recent years to the point of total fraud and slander, with the American people being victimized by the deception as much as the targeted candidate. And matters are only made worse by the increasingly brazen collaboration of a shameless, partisan liberal media.

The list of Republicans who have been dispatched from the political scene, as a result of an orchestrated liberal Democrat/media mugging is ultimately not representative of a substandard field of candidates, but of a leftist political movement in this country that intends to ruthlessly control the masses, by force and intimidation if necessary. As such it poses a threat to not only those who unabashedly proclaim themselves to be on the right, but to every American who holds any allegiance to the concept of self-government. For if capable aspirants to public office can be chosen or rejected by an unscrupulous opposition, based not on their actual talents and abilities, but on the ferocity of liberal malice directed at them, the political right will continually find itself in a defeated position before a single vote has been cast.

Having enjoyed enormous success at neutralizing potential Republican candidates such as Allen and Akin, the Democrats have reverted to their phony controversy strategy with so much regularity that their inclination to fly into a manufactured rage is becoming wholly predictable. The good news is that owing to this predictability, it has the potential to lose its effectiveness, providing the GOP refuses to play along with it. Admittedly, the current GOP “Establishment” has not exhibited a reliable predisposition towards courageously and strenuously opposing any liberal ruse, no matter how transparent it may be.

The list of those on the right who have been abandoned to twist in the wind by their supposed allies in the Republican Party is shamefully long, and promises to continue growing, particularly as November approaches, and 2016 looms. Democrats are on the ropes over the dismal failure of the rollout of Obamacare, and facing even more voter backlash in the unlikely event that it ever becomes fully operational, at which point its harm to the American medical system will be fully realized. Consequently, their only hope of regaining in the House and Senate is to deflect all attention from their abysmal political track records, and instead devote themselves entirely to defaming their GOP rivals.

Hence, we have been subjected to such politically defining moments as Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s drink of water during his rebuttal to Barack Obama’s 2013 state of the union message. In the wake of Obama’s spectacle of fraud and dissembling, virtually the entire focus of the liberal media was fixated on Rubio’s unforgivable sip from a bottle, for which some commentators pondered the end of his political career. Admittedly, Rubio has since derailed any widespread conservative support on account of his collaboration with the other traitorous “Republican” gang of amnesty advocates. However, it could hardly be asserted with intellectual honesty that he had committed any noteworthy gaffe in his rebuttal speech.

Four years prior, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was similarly declared null, void, and completely beyond resurrection as a GOP rising star for his own response to an Obama State of the Union speech. And the nature of his unpardonable sin? Though the substance of his reply was far more weighty and meaningful than any of the platitudes offered by Obama, its tenor was rather bland.

Nevertheless, in the current political environment, the stars are lining up decisively against the Democrats, and could spell disaster for them (and victory for America) if the Republican Party has the wherewithal to seize the opportunity this circumstance presents to them. Yet if the GOP once again fumbles, the maligned and defamed “Tea Party” is poised to stand in the gap. In either case, Democrats who honestly assess the political landscape are finding themselves increasingly cornered and desperate.

On the other hand, the “community organizer” wing of the Democrat Party has been emboldened by the manner in which it maintained its hold on power in 2012, and is revealing its true colors. The sheer ugliness of Obamacare and the hardship and pain it has already inflicted on America are only compounded by such outrages as the exemption of favored constituencies from it or the unlegislated subsidies which Obama gave to Senate and House staffers in yet another back room deal. And in stark contrast to the mantle of collegiality which the left claims when expedient, the hideous reality of the liberal mindset continues to be revealed by such events as Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo’s assertion that “pro-life Americans are not welcome in New York.”

Nor do things look any better for the next presidential election cycle. Despite coordinated and shameless efforts to sweep the Benghazi scandal under the rug, the abject abandonment of Americans under siege at the consulate, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is not being forgotten. Just this past week a Senate committee chaired by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein (hardly a Tea Party Conservative by any standards) conceded that U.S. officials at the highest levels knew immediately that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were indeed the coordinated work of terrorists. In short, though Feinstein tried to sugarcoat the deceit, she ultimately admits that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flagrantly lied to the American people about the true nature of that horrific event.

Meanwhile in the great state of Texas, ultra-liberal pro-abort icon Wendy Davis, who gained national attention for her filibuster of pro-life legislation, has been revealed as a liar of Clintonian proportions. Her flamboyant accounts of her past, complete with assertions of heroics and triumphs over personal hardship worthy of an epic Hollywood production, turned out to be a complete fabrication.

This is who liberal Democrats are. But they should not be allowed to engage in such tactics from their glass houses, while remaining unscathed. If Democrats really want to distract America from current issues by focusing on the baggage weighing down their Republican opponents, perhaps it is time to accommodate them. Let the games begin.

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, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

A message from our Chariman & CEO

Chris’ article “Will The Democrat “Damaged Goods” Strategy Backfire?” drives home three things we should focus on in the months ahead.

  • The left wing democrats will stoop to any depth to win an election
  • We must never waiver from our basic principals – God, Family, Country, Personal Responsibility, and Helping Others™
  • To secure a future of freedom for our kids and grand kids it is imperative we get the vote out in November and take back the Senate.

Thank you Chris for you insightful article.

Jerrell G. Clay, CLU
Chairman & CEO
The Proud Americans

A Physician’s View on the Sanctity of Life

Several years ago, I was consulted by a young woman who was 33 weeks pregnant and was on her way to Kansas to get an abortion. I informed her of the multiple options available to her outside of abortion, and she decided to go through with the pregnancy even though the child had hydrocephalus and would require neurosurgical intervention a few weeks after birth. She kept the baby and loves the beautiful child that has resulted.

A couple of decades ago, I came into the pediatric intensive care unit on morning rounds and was told about a 4-year-old girl who had been hit by an ice-cream truck and was comatose and exhibiting little neurological function other than reactive pupils. I tested her pupillary reflexes, and both pupils were fixed and dilated. The staff indicated to me that this was something that must have just occurred. I grabbed the bed and, with some help, transported her quickly to the operating room for an emergency craniotomy. I was met along the way by a senior neurosurgeon who told me I was wasting my time and that, at best, we would end up with someone in a vegetative state.

Nevertheless, we completed the operation, and a few days later, her pupils became reactive, and she eventually left the hospital. I saw her a few years ago walking through the hospital with her own 4-year-old little girl. She was neurologically fully intact and told me she had become somewhat of a celebrity because of the experience I just related.

What do these two stories have in common? They both involve precious lives that easily could have been discarded.

My entire professional life has been devoted to saving and enhancing lives. Thus, the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me. I personally have met several people who told me their mothers had considered abortion but happily decided against it.

Most of us instinctively want to protect helpless creatures and sometimes go to great lengths to do so. The television commercials about abused animals are poignant, and as a society, we sometimes delay or cancel large construction projects to protect an “endangered” insect, amphibian or fish. Yet many of us turn a blind eye to the wanton slaughter of millions of helpless human babies, who are much more sophisticated than some of the other creatures, when nothing is at stake other than the convenience of one or both parents. I am not saying we should abandon our efforts to save baby seals and a host of other animals. I am saying: Shouldn’t we consider adding human fetuses and babies to the list?

Watching the human fetus develop is awe-inspiring. In less than three months from conception, the little hands and feet are quite recognizable, and distinct facial features characterize cute but very tiny human beings. From Day One, neurons of the brain are proliferating at a rate that will yield a staggering 100 billion neurons by birth. In a matter of nine months from conception, we have a living, breathing, eating, vocal human being who just two months later is socially interactive.

Some people oppose having pregnant women view ultrasonic pictures of their developing babies because they do not want an emotional bond to develop. Careful, unbiased contemplation, however, might yield the conclusion that such bonding is essential to the survival of mankind. Successful farmers nourish and protect their growing crops, and if conditions threaten their crops, they do what is necessary to protect them. Rather than attack the analogy, think about how much more precious a human life is than a stalk of corn.

It is important to try to understand the emotional state of young women seeking an abortion. Instead of judging and condemning them, we need to provide compassion and support. They need to be provided with easy access to adoption services and information about assistance available to them if they decide to keep the baby. I have visited many warm, inviting facilities around the country that exist solely for the purpose of helping these young women.

It is equally, if not more, important to reach these young women before they become pregnant. Forget about those politically correct people who say all lifestyles are equal, and inform those young women about the true consequences of out-of-wedlock birth for those who are not financially independent. We need to make sure they understand that they can provide a much better life for themselves and their children when they plan ahead and value themselves appropriately.

As a society, we cannot be afraid to discuss important social and moral issues. Our heritage as a nation is built on compassion, forgiveness and understanding. Courage is also vitally important, because those who stand on godly principles and values will be attacked. Attempting to characterize love and compassion for human life as a “war on women” is deceitful and pathetic. We the people must stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by those with agendas that do not include regard for the sanctity of life.

Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. To find out more about Ben Carson and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit COPYRIGHT 2014 THE WASHINGTON TIMES


OK to Feel Sorry

At one time in our nation’s history, blacks feeling sorry for whites was verboten. That was portrayed in Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird." This is a novel published in 1960 — and later made into a movie — about Depression-era racial relations in the Deep South. The novel’s character Tom Robinson, a black man, portrayed in the movie by Brock Peters, is on trial, falsely accused of raping a white woman. The prosecuting attorney, while grilling Robinson, asks him why he spent so much time doing chores for the alleged rape victim when he had so much of his own work to do. After persistent prosecutorial haranguing, Robinson timidly admits that he felt sorry for her. That response elicits shock and dismay from the prosecutor and the courtroom: How dare a black man feel sorry for a white woman?!

As a result of the achievements of the civil rights movement, which gave black Americans full constitutional guarantees, I am free to feel sorry for guilty or timid white people. But there may be less of a need because of white people’s response to former NBA player Dennis Rodman’s bizarre interview from North Korea in which he claimed that North Korea’s evil tyrant, Kim Jong Un, is his best friend. Rodman has since apologized for some of his remarks. But he’s been a bit of catharsis. White liberals, both in and out of the media, made criticizing him nearly a national pastime. Even Sen. John McCain, who couldn’t summon up the courage — nor would he allow his presidential campaign staff — to speak ill of Barack Obama’s minister, Jeremiah Wright, told CNN’s Piers Morgan in reference to Rodman: "I think he’s an idiot. I think he’s a person of not great intellect who doesn’t understand that he really does provide propaganda for this very brutal, ruthless young man."

The widespread and open criticism of Rodman shows that there’s been considerable progress and that I don’t have to feel as sorry for white people. But what about the weak media response to Rep. Henry C. Johnson, D-Ga., who, during a 2010 House Armed Services Committee hearing concerning U.S. military buildup on Guam, told Adm. Robert F. Willard, the then commander of U.S. Pacific Command, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize"? Adm. Willard replied, with all sincerity, "We don’t anticipate that." I’d pay serious money to know what the admiral and his white staff said about Johnson after they left the hearing room.

Then there’s Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, who asked NASA scientists whether they could drive the Mars rover to where Neil Armstrong placed the American flag. Actually, Armstrong planted the flag on the moon in 1969. In 2010, Jackson Lee pointed out: "Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace." The fact of business is that as a result of North Vietnam’s conquest, today it’s only one nation, Vietnam. Another Jackson Lee geographical observation was her reference to "countries like Europe." But we shouldn’t be that critical of her, because President Obama also has referred to people from "countries like Europe." Referring to "countries like Europe" is just as ill-informed as saying countries like Africa or countries like South America. Of course, they are continents.

Some might recall the field day the media and social commentators had with Vice President Dan Quayle and his misspelling of potato, some of which was quite ruthless. Esquire named Quayle among "The Dumbest Vice Presidential Picks of All Time." That kind of field day wasn’t seen in mainstream media in the cases of Johnson, Jackson Lee and Obama. To have done so might have been deemed racist.

The bottom line is I’m glad the day has come when I can freely feel sorry for whites, who have to bite their tongue when it comes to criticism of blacks.

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


Sharon, Israel and Jewish Wry

When Ariel Sharon died on Saturday, the obituaries emphasized his strength as a military commander and political leader, recalling his brilliant counterattack across Suez to surround the Egyptian armies when Israel’s very existence hung in the balance in the Yom Kippur War the Arabs almost won.

He was the "new Jew" after the Holocaust, a strong man who stood up to those who wanted to destroy the likes of him and his country. He knew the first war the Israelis lost would be Israel’s last. He had his faults, but weakness wasn’t one of them.

His story was that of his country, of perseverance and intrepidity in the face of his enemy. When he surprised the world in 2005 by withdrawing settlers and troops in Gaza, he was compared to Nixon going to China. He had a plan to create a strong state that would survive by compromising with Israel’s enemy, removing settlers who had been his most loyal followers. He completed a long and crucial part of the 450-mile barrier that ran along and through the West Bank, dramatically reducing terrorist crossings. The wall also suggested a border for a Palestinian state.

Ariel had great hopes for a lasting peace with defensible borders, a way for the Jews to flourish in their historic homeland. He saw himself as an architect who would fulfill the dream of the Jews.

In the eight years since he lapsed into a coma, the world has become a more dangerous place for Israel. A militant Hamas has strengthened Palestinian power, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon has grown more dangerous, Iran moves closer to building a nuclear bomb. An American president has not warmed to Israel, as a succession of his predecessors did.

Mr. Sharon’s approach to peace required respect and forging relationships with peoples who do not want Israel to exist at all. He died before he could retrieve the dream.

Jews in the Diaspora, with different problems, lost a different kind of star last week. Judy Protas, born in Brooklyn, who died at the age of 91, was an American Jew who wanted to see Jews prosper in America and overcome a persistent low-grade anti-Semitism.

Her name was never a household word, but she got more than 20 minutes of behind-the-scenes fame in many households with a popular advertisement for a Jewish rye bread that won a multi-cultural audience before anyone had ever heard the word. In the age of "Mad Men," when advertisements inevitably featured the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant and the bread was always white and sliced, she created an iconic advertising slogan: "You Don’t Have to Be Jewish to Love Levy’s Real Jewish Rye." Anyone riding a Manhattan subway in the 1960s looked for the ads with portraits of New Yorkers who were not Jews: an American Indian in braids, a robed choirboy, a black child, a Japanese boy, an Irish cop, an Italian grandmother and Buster Keaton, an aging star from the silent movies. Malcolm X, an unrepentant anti-Semite, liked the poster with the black child so much he had himself photographed with it. Jewish rye became endearingly wry.

"What we wanted to do was enlarge its public acceptance," the copywriter told The New York Times in 1979. She enlarged the acceptance of Jews, too. As the columnist Walter Winchell told his audience of radio listeners and newspaper readers, it was a commercial with a "sensayuma" (say it loud quickly).

The deaths of Arial Sharon in Israel and Judy Protas in New York call attention to the polarities of experience for Jews, those who live in the Promised Land and those who have scattered across the globe. The largest number lives in North America. Israelis have always worried about the assimilation of Jews who live outside their country, and now the government plans to invest billions of dollars over the next two decades to bolster the Jewish identity of Diaspora Jews.

They’re considering a Jewish peace corps, Hebrew language courses in cities with a large Jewish population. They want to encourage Jews to marry Jews. "If you get more Jewish young people together, and they marry each other and marry earlier, we begin to address a problem," says Steven Cohen, a sociologist who studies the effects of the Diaspora, tells The Jerusalem Post. The outreach would encourage Jewish engagement with Israeli issues on college campuses.

Jews in America are concerned that naive professors are becoming more aggressive in their hostility to Israel, singling out the Israelis as an easy target, when China, Cuba and Russia, among others, are the greater offenders of the civil rights of others. Those offenses are largely ignored. They want them to love a Jewish rye made in Israel, too.

Write to Suzanne Fields at: Suzanne Fields is currently working on a book that will revisit John Milton’s "Paradise Lost." To find out more about Suzanne Fields and read her past columns, visit the Creators webpage at


Countering The Ruling Class Amnesty Betrayal

It is high time to reassert those quaint notions of “compelling U.S. interests.” From the nature of America’s economic relations with the rest of the world to the definition of its sovereignty and the integrity of its borders, this people of this country are continually being told that they must accept a lowered standard of living and general degradation of their nation as the inescapable reality of the new order. This is simply the future of the country, according to the power mongers. And the hapless chattel on “Main Street” has no other option than to accept it. A major factor contributing to the ongoing success of the Obama/Democrat onslaught is the barrage of new outrages continually hitting the people of this nation, ensuing at such a pace that it is difficult to keep abreast of the latest affront. Though still reeling in stunned disbelief from the magnitude of the Obamacare debacle, Americans are about to be hit again over the issue of amnesty for more than twenty million illegal aliens presently living within the American borders. And if the liberals are successful with this effort, the nation may well be pushed past the tipping point. In truth, that is the plan. What makes the amnesty debacle most appalling is that the “Ruling Class” effort to get it implemented is clearly bipartisan. Those same “Republicans” who could not muster the backbone to vigorously oppose Obamacare, or the Obama/Democrat budget, or raising the debt ceiling, or the repeal of the meager provisions of the “Sequester” that began modestly slowing the rate of governmental spending, are now working insidiously behind closed doors, in league with the Democrats, to bypass the voice of the people and pass an amnesty bill. Of course their effort is never cited as being “amnesty.” Rather, it is moved stealthily forward behind the more appealing veneer of “Immigration Reform.” The name is a lie. The effort is a lie. The constant lament of America’s immigration system being “broken” is a lie. From the beginning, the incontrovertible truth is that the only dysfunctional aspect of American immigration is the government’s criminal refusal to uphold its constitutionally mandated responsibility to secure the borders of the nation, and to do so under the premise that it is indeed a sovereign nation. Clearly, far too many of those in public office who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution no longer see America in that light. It is a sad indication of the corrupted state of the GOP that, between the two major political parties, it is the Democrats who are being more straightforward about their intentions. Meanwhile the Republican “Establishment” is carefully but diligently working (and exercising more care and more diligence than it ever has against the heinous assaults of Obama/Reid/Pelosi) to contrive a scheme whereby it can get amnesty established as law, without rousing the grassroots against it. The ideological sellout is already a done deal. If these “Republicans” can contrive an avenue to fundamentally and irreversibly change the cultural landscape of America, while avoiding accountability for it, they will do so. House Speaker John Boehner, who does not hesitate to stridently attack the Tea Party movement for the inconvenience it frequently causes him, has lately formulated a treacherous means of accomplishing this. Boehner’s insidious plan is to avoid any talk of amnesty until after the filing date for congressional contests. By this he hopes to put “Republicans” who would collaborate in his sellout of America out of reach of primary challengers. And if this plan looks abhorrently similar in motive and principle to Obama’s edict to delay the employer mandates of Obamacare until after the November elections, it is. Both Obama and Boehner are merely manipulating the system to accommodate their agendas and their well financed special interests, while swatting aside the concern of those lowly peasants out in the hinterlands as if they are little more than annoying gnats. The most painful and profound lesson of the ongoing amnesty debate is that it delineates not between different factions across the nation or between the major political parties claiming to represent them, but between Americans who love the country they were bequeathed, and the “Ruling Class” that would sell it all out to the highest bidder for its own gain. Democrats in Washington will eagerly do so for the boon of new voters on their rolls, and Beltway Republicans will gladly follow, in compliance with their big donors who want cheap labor. Lost in the entire mix is any concern for the future generations of Americans whose country is being wrested from under them and their posterity. Concern expressed by these elitists over possible “hardships” to illegal alien families is paramount. Meanwhile, the plight of American families and the negative repercussions they will surely suffer are irrelevant. In typical fashion, Republicans have over the years allowed the amnesty debate to be completely framed by the Democrats. Securing the border (which is the only logical and sane solution to the nation’s illegal immigrant dilemma) is no longer even a consideration. Governing officials who are supposed to put American interests first have instead scoffed at any suggestion of doing so, from a “Justice Department” that has abdicated its duty to uphold the law and instead sued the state of Arizona when it attempted to do so, to those in Congress who openly mock the concept of a secure national border by characterizing it as “extremism.” Of course, some oblique reference to “tightening border security” is invariably attached to every amnesty ploy, though no federal authority has any intention of following up on this empty platitude. Consequently, as was the case with the last effort to eradicate American sovereignty when the Congress took up amnesty in 2007, it will once again be up to “We the People” to convince the elitists in Washington that their seditious scheme will not be tolerated. Loud and inescapable warnings from the citizenry must light up the capitol switchboards at any mention of another amnesty ploy. But more significantly, the Boehner “bait and switch” ruse of remaining silent until after filing day cannot be allowed to go uncontested. Otherwise, it will ultimately succeed. One highly effective counter-strategy would be for a conservative primary challenger to file in every congressional district across the nation where a pro-amnesty Republican holds a seat. Then, the moment the incumbent shows that his true loyalties lie inside the Beltway and not with the American people, the challenger must be ready to go into full campaign mode, in order to oust the disloyal office holder. Concurrently, grassroots conservatives must secure unequivocal promises from every Republican candidate that they will not condone or participate in such betrayal. It is deplorable that, at a time when a principled GOP could be rallying the American people against the statist malignancy of the Obama Administration, it is instead working overtime to consign them to this plight and to the very real possibility of losing their country. A principled GOP could be enjoying a focused and enthusiastic grassroots ready to carry it to an easy victory over the Democrats in November. Yet while certain individual Republicans have remained loyal to their conservative ideals, as a party the GOP is anything but “principled.” 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, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

Tamera Mowry Is Not Alone

This made my heart ache and my blood pressure spike: Actress Tamera Mowry, who is black, wept in an interview with Oprah Winfrey over the vile bigotry she has encountered because of her marriage to Fox News reporter Adam Housley, who is white. Misogynist haters called Mowry a sellout and a "white man’s whore." International news outlets labeled the Internet epithets she endured "horrific" and "shocking."

Horrific? Yes. Shocking? Not at all. What Mowry experienced is just a small taste of what the intolerance mob dishes out against people "of color" who love, think and live the "wrong" way. I’ve grown so used to it that I often forget how hurtful it can be. Mowry’s candor was moving and admirable. It’s also a valuable teachable moment about how dehumanizing it can be to work in the public eye. Have we really sunk to this?

Young actresses in the 21st century forced to defend their love lives because their marital choices are politically incorrect? We’re leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change.

Let’s face it: Mowry’s sin, in the view of her feckless detractors, is not merely that she married outside her race. It’s also that she is so open about her love for a white man who — gasp! — works for reviled Fox News. Neither of them is political, but the mere association with Bad Things (Fox, conservatives, capitalism, the tea party, Christian activism, traditional values) is an invitation for unabashed hate.

The dirty open secret is that a certain category of public figures has been routinely mocked, savaged and reviled for being partners in interracial marriages or part of loving interracial families (for a refresher, see the video clip of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and friends cackling at the holiday photo of Mitt Romney holding his black adopted grandson in his lap).

And the dirty double standard is that selectively compassionate journalists and pundits have routinely looked the other way — or participate directly in heaping on the hate.

Have you forgotten? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was excoriated by black liberals for being married to wife Virginia, who happens to be white. The critics weren’t anonymous trolls on the Internet. They worked for major media outlets and institutions of higher learning. USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds slammed Thomas and his wife for their colorblind union: "It may sound bigoted; well, this is a bigoted world and why can’t black people be allowed a little Archie Bunker mentality? … Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman."

Howard University’s Afro-American Studies Chair Russell Adams accused Thomas of racism against all blacks for falling in love with someone outside his race. "His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community," Adams told The Washington Post. "Great justices have had community roots that served as a basis for understanding the Constitution. Clarence’s lack of a sense of community makes his nomination troubling."

California state Senate Democrat Diane Watson taunted former University of California regent Ward Connerly after a public hearing, spitting: "He’s married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black."

Mowry is not alone. The Thomases and the Connerlys are not alone. Poisonous attempts to shame are an old, endless schoolyard game played by bullies who never grow up and can’t stand other people’s happiness or success.

Time doesn’t lessen the vitriol or hostility. Take it from someone who knows. "Oriental Auntie-Tom," "yellow woman doing the white man’s job," "white man’s puppet," "Manila whore" and "Subic Bay bar girl" are just a few of the printable slurs I’ve amassed over the past quarter-century. You wouldn’t believe how many Neanderthals still think they can break you by sneering "me love you long time" or "holla for a dolla." My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, maiden name and integrity have all been ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman happily married to a white man and the mother of two interracial children who see Mom and Dad — not Brown Mom and White Dad.

Mowry’s got the right attitude. She wiped away her tears and told Oprah that haters wouldn’t drag her down. Brava. Live, laugh, think and love without regrets. It’s the best revenge and the most effective antidote to crab-in-the-bucket syndrome.

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


Liberal Economic Mythology on Unemployment Benefits

How can we ever expect America’s younger generations to preserve America’s greatness when the president of this nation keeps preaching damaging economic myths and misguided moral lessons?

It’s one thing for our elected representatives to express compassion for those facing difficult financial circumstances. It’s another for them to elevate the receipt of unemployment benefits and other forms of government dependency programs to a virtue. And it’s yet another for them to justify these wrongheaded policies with false claims that they actually improve conditions when they make them worse.

President Obama’s policies of expanding the government and his practice of punishing work and rewarding non-work are creating a permanent drag on the economy and jobs and harming people in the long run far more than helping them.

But Obama persists in his propaganda. Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made the similarly ludicrous claim in December 2011 that extending unemployment benefits would add "600,000 jobs to our economy." Oh, ho, ho, it’s magic!

Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong?

Economists long ago concocted elaborate theories to enable their socialist inclination toward expansive government, such as that increasing government spending would trigger a multiplier effect on the economy and stimulate economic growth and jobs. Sadly, their currency is chalkboard calculations and predictions, not empirical data.

Obama trotted out these theories to promote his colossally wasteful stimulus package, his various infrastructure plans and his green energy boondoggles. Despite undeniable evidence that they have all failed and that his economy continues to tank, he acts as though his failures vindicate him and we are too stupid to know the difference.

As much power as Obama has unconstitutionally arrogated to himself, he still isn’t powerful enough to create something out of nothing. When he increases deficit spending, he has to get those phantom greenbacks from somewhere, and usually it’s from the private sector, which he is smothering. For every dollar he injects into the economy, he drains at least a dollar out of it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if these magical economic elixirs worked, we would be in the middle of the greatest economic boom in our history. Case closed.

Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute addresses the claim that extending unemployment benefits "produces and sustains jobs." What he found is that academics cite one another to bolster their case but that they are in fact citing theories and estimates about "fiscal multipliers" rather than examining their actual effect on the economy. For example, one sociologist who supports extending unemployment benefits cited estimates from Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics that "every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits produces $1.61 in economic activity."

Reynolds says there are two problems with the theory. The first, which Obama can’t very well deny because it comes from economists in his own administration, is that "extended unemployment benefits raise the duration and rate of unemployment."

The second is that the assumptions about "fiscal multipliers" used in Zandi’s model are based on theory rather than evidence.

Reynolds points to contemporary research showing that increases in deficit spending can actually have a negative impact on growth. The so-called multiplier for deficit spending ranged from 0.4 to 0.6, "meaning a dollar of added federal debt added far less than a dollar to (gross domestic product)."

James Sherk of The Heritage Foundation agrees that "extending either the amount or the duration of (unemployment insurance) benefits increases the length of time that workers remain unemployed." It encourages unemployed workers to stay out of work longer to collect benefits; it encourages employers to wait longer to rehire laid-off workers; and it does little to increase consumption. In short, it creates no economic stimulus.

Simple logic also confirms that when you pay someone not to work, you disincentivize him to work. In my own personal experience, I have talked with one person who told me he wasn’t looking for work because his unemployment benefits made looking for work unattractive.

The real problem facing Americans is not insufficient benefits but a persistently weak economy caused by Obama’s oppressive policies. Gallup polling shows that the labor participation rate, which has been abysmal for most of Obama’s tenure in office, is declining to a two-year low.

Obama brags about how much he cares, but if that were true, he’d abandon his selfish, stubborn attachment to his failed ideas and quit doing everything in his power to keep people out of work.

As Milton Friedman observed, "the repeated failure of well-intentioned programs is not an accident. It is not simply the result of mistakes of execution. The failure is deeply rooted in the use of bad means to achieve good objectives."

In Obama’s case, I wouldn’t even concede that he always has good objectives, as witnessed by his endless class warfare. That aside, if he really cared about the plight of the unemployed, he’d release his stranglehold on the private sector and let it do its "magic."

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 To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


The Rushmore Report: GOP: Compromise on Jobless Benefits

Dick Morris - The Rushmore Report

President Obama’s mission as 2014 starts is simple: He has to distract attention from the health care debacle. Health care reform isn’t working and won’t work. So he needs to create a diversion.

With his poll numbers lagging around 40 percent, he is naturally concerned to stop the erosion of his base, so he is resorting to hot button class warfare issues to build his support back up.

None has more of a potential political edge than the extension of unemployment benefits.

The Republican Party should not let Obama depict it as a heartless caricature of capitalism by giving him a free ride on the issue of extension of unemployment benefits. Yes, the Republicans advocate an extension as long as it is paid for in the budget. Yes, the Democrats are resisting a deal to pay for the extension just to make a political issue. But, in any case, the Republicans cannot afford to be the party of no when it comes to aiding those out of work.

One can only sympathize with the GOP concerns that extending benefits in the face of a dropping jobless rate is tantamount to creating a new entitlement, a federal welfare system, to subsidize unemployment.

But the answer is to compromise.

Republicans should look for the answer by treating different states differently depending on their levels of unemployment. While national joblessness averages 7.1 percent, the range among states is enormous. At the low end, North Dakota is blessed with a paltry 2.6 percent unemployment rate while Rhode Island and Nevada suffer with a 9.0 percent rate.

There are 28 states, containing one-third of the nation’s population, with jobless rates of 6.5 percent or below. With unemployment this low, they cannot make a compelling case for extended benefits. But that should not stop the Republicans from extending benefits to states with higher unemployment rates. The state with rates at or below the 6.5 percent threshold are:

North Dakota: 2.6

South Dakota: 3.6

Nebraska: 3.7

Utah: 4.3

Hawaii: 4.4

Iowa: 4.4

Vermont: 4.4

Wyoming: 4.4

Minnesota: 4.6

Kansas: 5.1

New Hampshire: 5.1

Montana: 5.2

Oklahoma: 5.4

Virginia: 5.4

Idaho: 6.1

Missouri: 6.1

Texas: 6.1

West Virginia: 6.1

Alabama: 6.2

Louisiana: 6.3

Wisconsin: 6.3

Florida: 6.4

Maine: 6.4

Maryland: 6.4

New Mexico: 6.4

Alaska: 6.5

Colorado: 6.5

Delaware: 6.5

The legislation extending the benefits should include a trigger terminating the extension for any state whose jobless rate drops below 6.5 percent so as the nation recovers from the recession, the 99 week or 52 week unemployment benefit fades into history.

Politically, most of the politically potent Democratic states are above the 6.5 percent level. These include New York, Massachusetts, California, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Washington State, Oregon, New Jersey and, of course, Nevada.

If Republicans offer benefit extensions to these states, the Senate Democrats can hardly refuse and kill the bill because it won’t extend benefits in Texas or Florida or other red states. The Democrats will huff and puff but they will have to bow to the will of the House. Their own constituents will demand it. Let the Republican-tilting states fend for themselves, they will insist, get us the extension we need.

And Republicans will have legislatively reinforced the principle that jobless benefits are primarily for high unemployment periods where one arguably cannot find work. Once work becomes available, jobless benefits deter employment and drive up wage rates to unaffordable levels. The positive national tend in jobless data will give the Congressional Budget Office a basis for a favorable scoring of the future cost of the compromise.

After all, unemployment insurance is basically a state, not a federal program. So why should Washington set its terms on a one-size-fits-all basis. Economic conditions vary and so should jobless benefit time periods.

So give the Democrats half a loaf — their half. It will be an offer they can’t refuse.



The Rushmore Report: To Reform Health Care, Give Power to the People

Scott Rasmussen - The Rushmore Report

Before President Barack Obama’s health care law was passed, Americans were frustrated that insurance companies had too much control over the medical care they received. Now, Americans are frustrated that the government has too much control.

The vast majority of Americans don’t want insurance companies and government making health-related decisions for them; they want to make such decisions for themselves. Three straightforward but significant modifications to the health care law could make that possible.

First, relax the individual mandate so that everyone who buys major medical insurance coverage is exempt. Obama has already allowed this for those who lost their insurance because of his law, but the exemption should be available to all.

Second, provide transparency in pricing. When people are selecting their insurance, they should be able to see how much a major medical plan would cost, as well as each additional bit of coverage. It is impossible to have a serious discussion about the cost of care without letting people know what these costs are.

Third, put workers in charge of their own insurance decisions. If an employer offers a comprehensive plan to its employees, workers should be able to drop the coverage they don’t want and keep the change. This should be structured so there is no tax penalty for those who take fewer benefits. With the transparency of knowing what various levels of coverage cost, workers could make informed choices about the appropriate trade-offs between medical insurance and take-home pay.

That’s it. These three changes would empower mainstream Americans, because we have more power when acting as consumers than we do as voters. It would force insurance companies to compete for our business and offer options that make sense. Such competition would reduce the cost of care. At the end of the day, it would mean less money going to insurance companies, and more money being available for the basic necessities of life.

It would also reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that makes the medical care industry so unfriendly to consumers. Service would become friendlier and more convenient. Doctors could focus on serving patients rather than insurance companies and government regulators.

These three steps would be popular with voters and give them control over their own medical care decisions. But it won’t end the ongoing effort to improve the health and medical care of the American people. For example, the question of what subsidies are appropriate for lower-income Americans, and how to pay for them, will remain a topic of debate. But with the overall costs of care going down, it would be an easier problem to solve.

Additionally, some states might put their own minimum coverage requirements into effect. California, for example, might stick to the current requirements, while Texas might not add any additional hurdles for consumers. States might also take different approaches to buying insurance across state lines.

As long as consumers are in charge, it’s OK. The experimentation and differing state laws would help us see what types of reforms really make sense. States whose regulations are too heavy or too light will lose businesses and residents. Those with the best policies will benefit.

When it comes to medical care, it’s wrong to put the insurance companies in charge. It’s wrong to put the federal government in charge. True reform means giving power to the people.

To find out more about Scott Rasmussen, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit



The Rushmore Report: Always With Us

Tomb of The Unknown Soldier - The Rushmore Report

Moments after Karen Eggleston learned that her husband had been killed in Afghanistan, the couple’s oldest daughter, Molly, returned from a fun day at preschool.

"She said ‘Mommy, what’s wrong with you?’" Karen told The Unknown Soldiers. "You look like you’re going to cry."

Karen’s casualty assistance officer knelt down and told Molly, 4, that her father, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Brandon Eggleston, wouldn’t be coming home from Afghanistan. The terrible news was too much for Karen’s little girl to process.

"I said that Daddy was in a car accident, he hit his head, and he’s in heaven," Karen painfully recounted. "And she said, ‘but that means I’ll never see him again.’"

Years before military messengers arrived at her Raeford, N.C., doorstep on April 26, 2012, Karen was drawn to Brandon’s outgoing, unwavering personality.

"He was a person that was very determined," she said. "He was always seeking a challenge."

When the young couple began discussing marriage, Brandon told Karen that he was thinking about joining the military. Fearing for his safety, she was "totally against" the idea until Brandon explained his rationale.

"If I’m not willing to fight for this country, I’m not worthy of enjoying its freedoms," he said.

The couple married in 2007. Two years later, Brandon was heading to Afghanistan as a member of the U.S. Army’s elite 4th Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), based out of North Carolina’s Fort Bragg. While she called the first deployment "very, very difficult," Karen credited fellow Army wives for helping her young family weather the storm.

"Molly wasn’t even one year old when he deployed, so I felt like he was just missing out," she said. "(But) we had very good communication."

Brandon’s second overseas combat tour was even more challenging.

"I was pregnant with our second child during that deployment, so I was extra emotional," said Karen, noting that the deployment ended happily with the birth of their youngest daughter, Avery. "He came back early in time for our child to be born."

Just before midnight on Jan. 4, 2012, with their two little girls asleep in the back seat, Karen dropped Brandon off at Fort Bragg for his third combat tour, which the couple knew would be the riskiest deployment of all.

"Everyone knew it was going to be a very, very dangerous place where they were going," she said. "He never really got upset too much before he deployed, but this time, he had a hard time going in."

After hugging his precious daughters and beloved wife, Brandon vanished into the darkness. For months, he would be running perilous combat missions to find high-value targets.

"Daddy’s got to go over there and get the bad guys so they don’t come over here and hurt you," the soldier told his daughters before he left.

Karen talked to Brandon as often as possible during what tragically wound up being the last four months of his life. After one particularly difficult phone call, during which the soldier said how much he missed home, Karen sat down and wrote him a two-page letter.

"It was just telling him exactly how I felt — how proud I was of him — about how the girls were proud of him," she said.

On April 26, 2012, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Brandon Eggleston, 29, was killed in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province alongside Navy LT Chris Mosko, 28, Army Staff Sgt. Dick Lee Jr., 31, and a military working dog, Fibi. The Pentagon said their vehicle struck an enemy improvised explosive device.

Speaking two years after Brandon left for his final deployment, Karen recalled several poignant moments during the difficult days following his death.

"I met so many people telling me stories," Karen, 30, said. "He just touched so many peoples’ lives, and I had no idea."

The day after her father’s death, young Molly sat alone in her family’s front yard. As relatives tended to her youngest daughter, Karen went outside and asked the 4-year-old how she was coping.

"Mommy, I’m happy," the little girl said, prompting her surprised mother to ask why.

"I’m happy because daddy is in heaven," Molly continued. "He can see everything that we do, and he’ll always be with us."

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Brandon Eggleston spends time with his wife, Karen, and two daughters, Molly and Avery before leaving for his third combat deployment. Staff Sgt. Eggleston, 29, was killed in Afghanistan on Apr. 26, 2012. Photo courtesy of Karen Eggleston.

Tom Sileo is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "BROTHERS FOREVER: The Enduring Bond Between a Marine and a Navy SEAL that Transcended Their Ultimate Sacrifice." Written with Col. Tom Manion (Ret.) and published by Da Capo Press, "BROTHERS FOREVER" will be released in spring 2014. To find out more about Tom Sileo or to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at