Dakota Beacon

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- You may have heard the late Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) was initially alerted to the Democrat/media complex when that collaboration smeared Clarence Thomas as it fought to block the latter's Supreme Court confirmation in 1991. There is, of course, more to Breitbart's venture into battle against those who would trash his country.

Though l'affaire Thomas was the spark that awakened Breitbart from the leftist environment in which he had been raised, his instinct then was to learn how the slash and burn alliance had gained so powerful an influence in our society. Some larger force - perhaps historical - was behind this. His "sixth sense" prompted him to start digging for the machine's roots or "back story." He just knew the Orwellian scenario (where dark is light and light is dark) could not have emerged overnight.

Breitbart's scholarly research on that very question emerges right in the middle of his memoirs. The inquiring mind from the Hollywood Hills discovered a gold mine of background as to how America's enemies had taken dead aim at his country and had worked for decades to destroy it.

Breitbart's bestselling book  

In his 2011 best-seller Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World (http://amzn.to/gReEFT), Andrew Breitbart (who recently met his untimely death at age 43) traces the story of how Communism came to America. Rivers of ink have been dispensed to document the many facets and subplots in the drama of the concerted 24/7 campaign to bring Western Civilization to its knees. Those essential investigations of the forces who intend to do us in continue even now in the early 21st century. Meanwhile, Breitbart has offered an abbreviated explanation that is about as concise as one can find with regard to the attack on America.

Beyond brute force

The conspiracy - in its metaphoric dimensions - represents nothing so much as a giant mowing machine, never deviating from its decades-old goal of smashing America's constitutional, cultural, economic, and political infrastructure.

The take-down of America from within has been sought through more than one avenue, but arguably none so pivotal as the Frankfurt School. Breitbart focuses on that phenomenon in his 21-page chapter Breakthrough.

The author/activist discovered the long-term Marxist crusade to tear-down the United States did not end (as many Americans assumed) when the Berlin Wall came down.

Aside from the Soviet empire and the 100 million people killed at the hands of Communist brutality, Marxism has always had its cultural warriors. Nothing impedes their advance so much as the United States of America.

Our enemies long ago concluded that bringing the U.S. to its knees would involve control of the culture - the everyday lives, and the everyday thoughts, of the citizens.

Breitbart saw those forces at work as a student at Tulane University - what he calls a cultural fascisti. What he saw was campus thought control: elites who decided "what was okay to think and what to write, what words meant, and who was allowed to say them. There were (and are) tribunals without oversight, as kids have been thrown out of college for uttering the wrong sentiments."

But Tulane was a mere microcosm. Cultural Marxism was (and is) pervasive in the mainstream media, Hollywood, education (K-higher ed), and straight on into the government.

America did not simply wake up in the mid-sixties and suddenly embrace the rebellious counter-culture that would define the era. No, those seeds had been planted decades earlier. 

"Progressives"

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, according to Breitbart, were early U.S. progenitors of the Hegelian theory that drove the early 20th century's so-called "progressive movement." George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel was a German philosopher who provided the dialectic argumentation for Karl Marx's utopianism - i.e., that human nature could be changed only by destroying the surrounding society.

Of the people no more

As Breitbart informs us, Wilson "frowned on democracy," and "rejected the idea of government by the people," which he believed should be "replaced by elites who knew better than the masses." Or, as he intoned, "Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."

The Frankfurt school

Fortunately for America at the time, Wilson and progressivism in general were exceedingly unpopular by the time the former Princeton professor mercifully ended his White House tenure.

But for the Marxists - not to worry. Some European Marxist imports would ultimately make their way into our society. The Brown socialists (Nazis) and the Red socialists (Communists) had battled each other on the streets of Germany during the twenties. When one of these two strains of socialism gained power, the other would have to flee. But that gets us ahead of our story:

Changing society

Prior to the Nazi takeover, Felix Weil, a young radical Marxist from Frankfurt, Germany, organized the Institute for Social Research, quickly dubbed the Frankfurt School. (Breitbart defines the group as "really a precursor to [Obama ally] John Podesta's Center for American Progress.")

The central theme of the "school" was that tearing down society was a pre-condition for the eventual victory of global Marxism; that capitalism had rendered man "weak," which in turn explained why socialism had not come into existence already. (Remember, this was late twenties Europe and North America).

Further the Frankfurt School taught that Judeo-Christian morality must be rejected; that "a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of the solid values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries"; and that "critical theory" reflected the school's curriculum.

Breitbart says Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer coined the term "critical theory." Its meaning would "embody the whole corrupt philosophy whose mission was to destroy society and culture...."

In fact, Breitbart says "critical theory," as he was taught at Tulane, was "quite literally, a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere."

We might add here that "critical theory" was also taught at Mercer Island High School in Washington State when President Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham attended it. Instapundit informs us the curriculum included 1 - "rejection of societal norms; 2 - attacks on Christianity, the traditional family; and 3 - [assigning the] readings of Karl Marx." That Washington State high school also was "a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers," and had been cited in testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Frankfurt school moves to U.S.

After the Brown socialists took over Germany, the Red socialists at the Frankfurt School had to get out of there. And they had nowhere to go except the United States.

Breitbart goes on:

"We welcomed the Frankfurt School. We accepted them with open arms. They took full advantage. They walked right into our cultural institutions, and as they started to put in place their leadership, their language and their lexicon, too many chose to ignore them. And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist clique is to ignore it."

The tentacles spread

Upon arriving on our shores, Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and other Frankfurt School icons initially took up new quarters in Southern California, where they "were disturbed by consumer culture and the Gospel of relentless cheeriness."

As Breitbart opines, "These Marxists were here trying to destroy the best lifestyle man has ever created. If I could go back in a time machine...I would kick these malcontents in their shins."

Ultimately in New York, Columbia University's Sociology Department was dying and only too willing to take in new blood. "They liked what they saw in the Frankfurt School." In fact, "It was a marriage made in hell" (also BTW, a marriage arranged in part by commentator Edward R. Murrow).

Again, quoting Breitbart: "With their tentacles affixed to the institutions of American higher education, the Frankfurt School philosophy began eking its way into every crevice of American culture. Horkheimer's 'critical theory' became a staple of Philosophy, History, and English courses across the country."

Herbert Marcuse

Andrew Breitbart identifies Herbert Marcuse as the most significant of what he defined as these "deranged soul[s]" striving to deconstruct the good life."

Marcuse, a "major contributor to the Frankfurt School," was the founder of what came to be known in the sixties as the "New Left."

Herbert Marcuse, a former student of future Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, "longed for the moment 'when the spiritual strength of the West fails and its joints crack, when the moribund semblance of culture caves in and drags all forces into confusion and lets them suffocate in madness."

After becoming a U.S. citizen, Marcuse's employment record included a stint for FDR in the Office of War Information (OWI) - a government-backed effort that also included Owen Lattimore, a key figure in steering U.S. policy toward aiding the Communists' takeover of China, a regime whose leaders today threaten us with military might, steal our weapons secrets through industrial and government espionage, and hold a massive debt over our heads in case we get any bright ideas about sassing them back.

Marcuse served in the pre-CIA OSS (a hotbed of communist infiltrators), and in the State Department where he worked to prevent the U.S. from pushing post-war Germany away from socialism. He taught at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis, and finally the University of California, San Diego.

Today's buzzwords no accident

Much of the intellectual poison in our society is traceable to Herbert Marcuse's mission to dismantle American society by using "diversity," and "multiculturalism," as "crowbars to pry the structure apart piece by piece." He saw a part of his mission as to encourage black opposition to whites (way beyond the civil rights agenda, with its theme equality for all).

In fact, Marcuse whipped up all "victim groups" in opposition to society in general. If you were a happy American who loved his country, you were part of the problem. One of his rallying cries was "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse."

In his Breakthrough chapter, Breitbart goes on to trace the Frankfurt School influence to Saul Alinsky, the "community organizer so influential with Barack Obama." We will deal with that next.

This column has in the past cited the literal hotbed of subversion that is the Frankfurt School. See "The plot against America exposed" (Nov. 27, 2006, http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/061127), where we discuss the book Cry Havoc! The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened (http://amzn.to/GYncms) written (practically on his death bed) by the late Ralph de Toledano, a true giant in the annals of Washington journalism.

###

The Big Picture Elucidator is copyright © 2012 by

Wes Vernon and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. A version of this column appeared at RenewAmerica.com. It may be forwarded or re-posted if credit is given to Wes Vernon and fgfBooks.com.

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm are involved in the ACA litigation.

This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution when it enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which contains an "individual mandate" requiring virtually every American to purchase health insurance. Based on the Constitution's text and structure, and judicial interpretations of the relevant provisions, the mandate should be struck down.

Pennsylvania is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA's constitutionality. They seek to uphold the Constitution's basic division of power between the national government and state governments.

The framers and those who ratified the Constitution withheld from Congress a plenary police power to enact any law that it deems desirable. Instead, the powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution are limited and enumerated. The 10th Amendment emphasizes this structure by affirming that all powers not given to Congress "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Given that background, the states' argument against ACA is simple: Even under the broadest interpretation, Congress' enumerated powers do not authorize a federal law that forces individuals to purchase health insurance.

ACA's defenders argue that Congress' authority to impose the mandate is granted by any of three constitutional provisions: the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Taxing Clause. However, under the original understanding of those provisions and the more expansive interpretation given to them by the Supreme Court in recent decades, the mandate is an unprecedented assertion of federal control that violates the framers' constitutional design.

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce. As originally understood, "interstate commerce" meant cross-border trade or exchange, as distinguished from other types of business activity such as manufacturing and agriculture. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have expanded the term to include instances of intrastate "economic activity" if that activity, "viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects" interstate commerce.

ACA's defenders argue that the law regulates economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, namely the manner in which individuals insure against their future purchase of healthcare services. But the individual mandate does not regulate anyone's ongoing activity—those who are subject to it are strangers to the insurance market. Rather, the law compels inactive, nonparticipants in the health insurance market to purchase insurance so they can then be regulated.

As Congress itself said in the ACA, the mandate purports to regulate each individual's "economic and financial decision" whether to purchase health insurance. But if that is a valid exercise of Commerce Clause power, then there is literally no end to Congress' power over individuals.

Congress could require people to buy a car because refraining from doing so is an "economic decision" substantially affecting the automobile industry. Congress could require us to purchase a television or a computer because engaging in quiet reflection rather than watching TV or surfing the Internet is an "economic decision" that substantially affects national markets for entertainment and communication.

The possibilities are endless, and these examples are not mere hyperbole. In the case on appeal to the Supreme Court, the federal government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service that would be unconstitutional under this elastic interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

ACA's defenders also argue that the mandate is supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress wide latitude to determine what laws are necessary for the implementation of Congress' enumerated powers. Specifically, the mandate is allegedly necessary to allow for other regulations and price controls (such as a ban on considering pre-existing conditions) that otherwise render the law unworkable and threaten to destroy the health insurance market.

The problem with this argument is that the individual mandate is neither "necessary" nor "proper." A law is not "proper" if it depends on a constitutional theory that gives Congress unbounded discretion to legislate in areas traditionally reserved to the states. And a law is not "necessary" unless it carries into execution another enumerated power, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The ACA flunks both of these tests. Rather than enabling the exercise of an enumerated power, the mandate compels individuals to buy insurance in an attempt to suppress the ruinous effects of ACA's other provisions. Don't expect the Supreme Court to ignore constitutional limitations just because Congress claims an unenumerated power to offset regulatory burdens created by its own statute.

Finally, ACA's defenders argue that even if the individual mandate is not supported by the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is nevertheless constitutional because it is a tax. For example, the penalty for noncompliance is calculated as a percentage of household income for income tax purposes, and it is self-declared on the taxpayer's income tax return.

Congress foreclosed this argument by separating the individual mandate from the penalty. The mandate itself offends the constitutional separation of powers; it cannot be saved by pointing to a penalty for noncompliance.

In any event, the monetary fine was deliberately structured as a "penalty" and not as a "tax." Congress could have provided health insurance for all Americans by invoking its Article I power "[t]o lay and collect Taxes," but following President Barack Obama's lead, it refused to do so for political reasons.

The federal government's Taxing Clause argument has been rejected by every court that has reviewed the ACA, and the Supreme Court is not likely to adopt it, either. Nor should it.

— David J. Porter, J.D., is an attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, a trustee of Grove City College, and a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values. The opinions expressed by the author are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Grove City College, its Board of Trustees, or his firm.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

To no one’s surprise, last week President Obama was caught on a hot mic again.  This time he was leaning over to apprise Russian President Medvedev of his sticky situation as far as his need to keep up appearances until after his next and last election – “I’ll have more flexibility”.  The implication, of course, is that whatever the Russians don’t already have by then he’ll be in a better position to deliver after he’s re-elected. 

Obama obviously thinks his re-election is a foregone conclusion.  It is up to Republicans to see that he is wrong on this.  But has anyone mentioned that he will hold office either way until at least late January of 2013?  He will either be a re-elected incumbent or a lame-duck.  What is to prevent him from delivering whatever he wants to the Russians before he leaves office and the new guy is sworn in?  We’ve seen these eleventh-hour moves before, most recently in Mississippi, where out-going Haley Barbour for reasons all his own, apparently, pardoned a slew of felons, who have since spread across the nation for whatever mischief they can muster.  Why not Obama? 

We’ve moved past the bowing to Saudi kings, the seeking of child-rearing advice from Turkey’s current pasha  and the apologizing all over the place for some singed books while our troops are being murdered by their Afghan “hosts” in a scenario which has eclipsed the Massacre of Glencoe for treachery.

There are a couple of obvious questions here.  Number One:  Why does anyone support term limits?  Just wondering, because lame-ducks are all potentially dangerous and we institutionalize lame-duckism through term limits.  The application is universal.  Number Two:  Does it occur to anyone that the greatest safeguard of our nation’s security might rest with Sheriff Joe Arpaio?  Think of it this way: If Obama were to be quickly impeached and tried and found guilty he would not have time to be a practicing lame-duck, would he? 

Truly, America’s national security interest could rest with that investigation Sheriff Joe has been pursuing so intently and thoroughly.  We would do well to heed the warning that was sent us via that hot mic; we would do very well to do what we can to accelerate the work of Sheriff Arpaio and quit running interference for this traitor.  And shame on the media and those career climbing or fearful men such as Ben Shapiro who are deliberately or de facto shielding our nation’s most dangerous enemy.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website (vtpcc.com) she regularly blogs.

Measure 2 is, without question, one of the most consequential policy questions that has been presented before the state...

How many times have you heard that implication as a dooms day to our local governments if Measure 2 passes. Or that Measure 2 is reckless and not thought out. Copernicus had similar alarmists contradicting him when he pronounced that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

I feel that Measure 2 is as consequential in liberating our thinking about our taxes and local governments today as Copernicus declaration that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

Why are people so adamant in thinking that property tax is the center of all issues related to our local government functions? We need to be liberated from such dogmatic thinking. We need to be enlightened that local governments will function much better with alternative taxing methods. And that the relationship between the local governments and the taxpayers will not be adversarial as it is under the present property tax concept and the assessor.

We need to understand that Measure 2 will relieve all the taxpayers from the property tax baggage that the assessor piles on us without any consideration if the taxpayer can carry it. We also must understand that Measure 2 makes provisions to exercise our responsibility, if needed, to support our local governments with equitable taxes rather than with the property tax. As the proverbial saying goes, with Measure 2 you will have the cake and eat to.

If you vote YES on Measure 2, it will be one of the most positive tax consequences, not only for ND, but for the whole USA.

Juris Curiskis ( Former New England ND resident)

GLEN COVE, NY -- Progressives held three closely related superstitions between the two world wars: eugenics, scientific racism, and contraception.

Eugenics was the theory that humanity could be improved by breeding more superior people (understood as northern Europeans) and fewer inferior people, especially by involuntary sterilization.

Scientific racism was the theory that the races of the world could be ranked from the best to the worst, with whites at the top.

Contraception was viewed as a means of accomplishing eugenics by limiting the births of those deemed to be racially inferior or unfit.

Although eugenics and scientific racism today provoke only shame and outrage, contraception flourishes.

The three progressive superstitions were and are opposed by sound (especially Catholic) moral teaching. Somehow, however, a contraceptive mentality survived. This is partly due to the fact that the view has evolved. It no longer only a selfish means for curbing the birth of the racially inferior and the unfit. It is now also a selfish means for families to afford a second luxury car instead of supporting another baby.

Above all, it is a means for 30-year-old female law students to plan their lives around frequent premeditated sexual relations without consequences or, apparently, without shame. It has reached the point that a student can enroll in a Catholic university for the express purpose of trying to force it to provide her with contraceptives.

While selfishness explains a lot, contraception has not joined eugenics and racism in the dustbin of history for two additional reasons: a failure of evangelization and a failure of catechetics.

Opposition to contraception has been considered to be an eccentricity of Catholics for well over a half century. This is in large part because the opponents of contraception have not evangelized effectively. They have not proclaimed in the public square that contraception is contrary to God's plan for families. They have not told people that the old Episcopalian marriage ceremony was literally correct in explaining why God blessed the institution. They have not spoken about the multiple layers of harm that contraception engenders: harm to the spiritual and emotional lives of those who practice it, harm to the society of so many irresponsible single women and men, and harm to the country from a falling birth rate.

Catholics, in particular, should be telling everyone that contraception is wrong, just as they tell everyone that racism is wrong.

The failure of catechetics has been twofold. First is the failure to effectively articulate the dogmatic value of the Church's teaching on the question. There is, in fact, a failure to proclaim that the teaching has any dogmatic value at all.

While the Church's teaching on contraception has never been defined solemnly, several successive Popes approved this teaching, as has the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in documents approved by these Popes. All have made it clear that the prohibition of the use of artificial contraceptives is infallible and of Divine origin. Yet this recurrent teaching is not adequately understood by the faithful.

Many Catholics have never been taught the distinction between natural law and positive law, or between doctrine and discipline. They have never been taught that there is a fundamental difference between a command to attend Mass on a certain day or to abstain from meat on another day, and a command not to murder or commit adultery or bear false witness.

At best, too many think any distinction is merely a one of seriousness. They think the prohibition of contraception is something the Church invented, like Lent.

Second is the failure to communicate the immutability of the teaching. The First Vatican Council solemnly declared that the meaning of the doctrine of the faith never changes because of the progress of knowledge (scientia). Despite the changes that occurred, some quite rapidly, in the Catholic Church after Vatican II, none of them was at the level of dogma.

Proponents of contraception frequently bring up the Galileo case to prove that the Church changes its mind to keep up with science. It is important to remember, however, that Galileo was wrong on the specific point on which he was condemned, namely, his teaching that the sun is the center of the universe, .and the Inquisition tribunal was right on this specific point, even if the tribunal was ignorant in some of its comments. The Pope disagreed with the ignorant part of the tribunal's findings. Finally, tribunals do not define dogma. ("Was Galileo Guilty?": http://www.fgfbooks.com/Mills-Charles/2009/Mills090820.html). Catholics need to be taught that contraception will never be considered morally acceptable.

We have a lot of work to do before contraception joins racism and eugenics in the dustbin of discredited ideas.

###

The Confederate Lawyer archives

###

The Confederate Lawyer column is copyright © 2012 by

Charles G. Mills and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved. This column may be reposted, published, or quoted from if credit is given to Charles Mills and fgfBooks.com.

The elephant in the living room at the moment is this question:  who should the Republicans nominate to run against Obama?  It is understood that we cannot afford one more term of misgovernment and abuse of the Constitution.  One more such term could well mean the end of the Republic and the ushering in of a dictatorship along the lines of Mussolini’s Italy.  It wasn’t good for Italy and it most assuredly would be bad for us.  So here we are at the crossroads and a choice to make.  Who can defeat this monster?

At  this moment we have two choices.  I say two because despite the nominal candidacy of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they are not viable.  While Ron Paul actually had a powerful message and a strong and very loyal following, he chose to go soft on the one man – significantly the one the press likes – who most strikingly contrasts with his own message and espoused beliefs, Mitt Romney.  The charge has been made that he is in cahoots with Romney and at the risk of really irritating his fierce remaining troops, he has done zilch to dispel that notion.  His son, Rand, who had been highly visible in his campaign, and whose own career has been outstanding in the Senate, further tarnished the image with his inappropriate comment that it “would be an honor” to serve as Romney’s vice presidential choice.  Since that day neither of the Pauls has repudiated the obvious charge of collusion.  And, significantly, there has been no real verbal attack on Romney despite the irreconcilable nature of their positions.  Romney, for his part, has, like the press, largely ignored Paul’s campaign.

Gingrich has run a really odd campaign, highly negative against first one and then another of his rivals.  It would remind one of Roller Derby.  He has no cohesive following and can’t possibly win nomination at this point.  His viability evaporated several months ago with poll numbers dropping so far as to preclude any margin of error saving him.  He is intelligent and pragmatic.  He's no Don Quixote.  So why does he persist?  His own ego might have accounted for this for a while, but it has long since passed the point where he is doing anything other than embarrassing himself.  Or is he?  We’ve begun to notice an interesting phenomenon.  After the first round of dropouts – Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman, McCotter, we have a field of four.  The common labels are “Romney” and “non-Romney” due to the total unacceptability of Romney to Conservatives and the upsurge of Conservatives becoming involved in the political process through Tea Party activity and general participation in party politics.  President Obama is a huge motivator.

So, look at the “non-Romneys”.  Ron Paul (bought), Newt Gingrich (why?) and Rick Santorum.  We know that Paul and Gingrich will not be nominated.  Paul is probably – or was – the best man to preserve the Constitutional Republic because he has the most accurate and complete understanding of it.  Our problems are directly traceable to failure to follow our laws, our Constitution.  But he is apparently in the Romney camp, overtly or covertly, depending on your perception.  That makes three.  Newt Gingrich has vowed to stay in the race, despite single-digit poll numbers and consistently losing primaries.  This has to be costly and would seem pointless.  All he can do is prevent Santorum from winning clear majorities  . . . hmmm.  What happens when Rick Santorum fails to win a clear majority – even if he wins the most votes?  Romney is declared the winner regardless. 

Romney has not won anything of consequence.  Where he has done better is where Democrats will without any doubt take the state in November.  Where he loses big is where Republican strength will be found in November.  Is Newt Gingrich still running this expensive campaign by special request and arrangement with someone?  Hey, I’m just asking the question here.  The question really asks itself, it’s so obvious.

At the moment when Gingrich really lost this he was sailing in the Greek Isles and shopping at Tiffany’s.  That seemed out of focus to many of us.  His staff walked out.  He lost many supporters. He lost much of his credibility.  His campaign was lost that week.  Really, folks, couldn’t he have bought his wife some Tiffany’s trinkets  or treated her to a special cruise AFTER he won election?  Obama did, after all. Of course, to most of us a cruise in the Adriatic or a box from Tiffany’s would be a bigger deal.  Then he came out like a pitbull on Bain Capital.  Which gave him a little “street cred” temporarily, and yet he is not hurting Romney by remaining in the race – in fact he is Romney’s biggest asset.   His own chances for winning do not exist.  And yet he will not drop out.  Seriously, do we have a tag team effect here?  When Santorum wins less than 50% he loses big in delegates.  Gingrich’s presence can only help Romney, whom he purportedly hates.   Calista might have far more to do with the Republican endorsement process than anyone thought. 

The Players:

Mitt Romney – not doing well with Conservatives anywhere, anointed by the press as the “lead”

Ron Paul – apparent sellout to Romney camp whose followers now believe he’s in it for the “message”

Newt Gingrich – seemingly there only to deny votes to Santorum

Rick Santorum – struggling but viable opponent of Romney

Think about it.  It adds up.  Maybe there is only one non-Romney.  

And why should all this concern us so much?  Because it is IMPERATIVE if we are to save the United States of America that Obama be defeated before he invokes martial law or any more of our fragile rights are taken from us.  Romney cannot be the man to do this.  The most poisonous items on Obama’s agenda have been Obamacare and his death-to-the-economy “environmental” policies.  If there is one man in America who would be unable to speak with conviction and fight back on these it would be Mitt Romney.  He pioneered Obamacare.  He is an environmentalist cap-and-trader.  He is, in fact, a Democrat.  His wife quipped that until 2008 they did not know any Republicans.  Why would any legitimate Republican support this man?  The only case to be made for him is the one manufactured by the press – “inevitability” – whatever that is.  And guess what?  On the day he sealed up the nomination the press would begin trumpeting the “inevitability” of another Obama term.  Are we going to buy into that as well?  If we buy the one we’ve bought the other.  They come as a set. 

If we are to stop the rapid and “inevitable” decline and descent into the hell of totalitarianism – a hell from which we who are alive today will never see America emerge again – we must be very careful that we nominate a candidate who will 1. Rally the anti-Obama forces (and they are legion) and 2. Be a Conservative once elected (not “run as a Conservative”) .

The big flap as this week begins is the “hot mic” moment where we hear Obama, in a moment of unvarnished duplicity, convey to the Russians that he can be “more flexible after the election”.  But we heard Romney say the same thing last week:  “I’ll run as a conservative”.  What is that supposed to mean?  He’ll RUN as a conservative.  What would he govern as?  And voters will not be so dumb – most of them – as to fall for it.  This is the time to step back, take a good look at the field of those willing to run on their OWN candidacy – and unite behind the only genuine, honest, legitimate non-Romney in the room.  That would be Rick Santorum.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition for whose website (vtpcc.com) she blogs.

The opposition to Measure 2 is ignoring the taxpayers of North Dakota. They say that the elimination of property tax is a bad idea because the consequences have not been thought out. Has anybody really stopped to think what consequences they are concerned about. They certainly are not concerned about the taxpayer consequences. If they were concerned with the welfare of the taxpayers, they would suggest an alternative tax to fund our local governments. But they are not doing that. They are adamant that the property tax concept must remain for the sake of local government control.

Where is the logic in the argument that property tax is the only way to maintain local government control? That is not even an argument because we all know that there are alternative taxing methods to property taxes. We all know that we sustain our State Government with our income taxes. How come the opposition can’t fathom that our local governments can be sustained in a similar way?

In a recent appearance, on the Jay Thomas Radio Show in Fargo, a state representative was suggesting a property tax relief in place of Measure 2. His suggestion certainly implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with the property tax concept. Has anybody heard of an income tax relief program by the State? Of course not, there is no need for that because everybody can afford it.

The inherit qualities of the property tax are irreparable. No amount of relief will ever fix the fact that it denies our freedom to own our homes or be secure in our homes. It is extremely troublesome that the opposition and the politicians can’t see the aggrieving taxpayer situation.

Now that we hear the international news about Syria, we can draw a thought parallel with our property tax concept. Any property tax retention and relief is as stupid as saying that relief to the Syrian people will stop the regime from killing them.

There is absolutely no rational reason to retain a predatory tax when we have alternatives to do otherwise. The property tax does not belong in our society when we have a civilized alternatives to support our local governments. I wish the citizens of North Dakota success on June 12, 2012 and a great thank you for leading the way to regain our constitutional rights of homeownership.

On March 19, speaking at a Morris Township, New Jersey Democratic Party fundraiser, Vice President Joe Biden provided what may be the mother of all election year bumper stickers when he asserted, “Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. Think about it.” To help wrap our minds around these two facts, referring to the May 1, 2011 raid that killed Bin Laden, the Veep boasted, “You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan.”

Indeed the raid succeeded. No Americans were killed. On the down side, the United States left behind a stealth helicopter for the Chinese and Russians to reverse engineer. Nevertheless, President Obama made the right call. Seal Team Six performed magnificently.

But the most audacious plan in 500 years? No way. Just keeping it to raids, the November 20, 1970 Son Tay Raid conducted by U.S. Army Special Forces in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service was far more audacious in concept, planning, and execution. The Son Tay Raid involved two C-130E assault transports, an HH-3E Jolly Green Giant, and five larger HH-53 Super Jolly Green Giant rescue helicopters flying at night, at altitudes below 500 feet for 200 miles across northern Laos into North Vietnam to a prison camp located 28 miles north of Hanoi. The objective: free American prisoners of war thought to be held in the camp.

Planning for the raid started in June 1970 with practice conducted at night on a collapsible replica of the Son Tay prison located deep inside the swamplands that are part of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Every morning, the “prison compound" was dismantled to prevent Soviet reconnaissance satellites from discovering it. Dubbed “Operation Ivory Coast” to divert speculation from Southeast Asia to Africa, the raiders were not told of their objective until hours before the raid, which departed Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand just after dark.

The raiding party arrived intact. Enemy radio intercepts indicated a major invasion was under way and, perhaps, the United States had used a nuclear weapon. I know. I was one of two intelligence watch-officers on duty at Udorn when the raid took place. Unfortunately, the prisoners had been moved out of Son Tay months before the raid, leaving behind a small contingent of guards who died that night. The raiders also killed up to 200 enemy sappers undergoing training at a school located a quarter mile from Son Tay. The only losses were the HH-3E, which was purposefully crashed into the compound so that Special Forces troops inside could neutralize the defenders before they had a chance to kill the prisoners, and an F-105F Wild Weasel badly damaged while attacking a surface-to-air missile site. Before departing Son Tay, the raiders destroyed the chopper, and a returning Jolly Green Giant picked up the two-man crew of the F-105. A North Vietnamese MiG-21 was lost after a rescue chopper it was pursuing at tree-top level hopped over a mountain ridge into which the pursuing MiG plowed.

The raid showed Hanoi’s leadership how vulnerable it was to attack and focused the world’s attention on the plight of American POWs held in North Vietnam. It also increased the morale of prisoners who knew they had not been abandoned. Finally, fearing the United States might attempt another raid; the North Vietnamese moved all POWs from outlying camps into two or three central complexes in Hanoi. This afforded the prisoners more contact with each other and helped establish who remained alive.

Just as audacious was the 1976 Entebbe Raid, Operation Thunderbolt / Operation Yoni, conducted by the Israelis to rescue Jewish passengers being held captive in Uganda by Palestinian and German terrorists. Operations Ivory Coast and Thunderbolt/Yoni are just two recent raids conducted within the past few decades. The action in Pakistan last May did not begin to approach in audacity the larger—and far more complex—operations like the Inchon landing in September 1950 or D-Day landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944, in planning or execution.

What is audacious is Biden’s indefensible claim. But, then, what else can the administration point to with pride? Doubling the national debt in three years? Half-a-billion dollars wasted on Solyndra? The Chevy Volt subsidized at $240,000 a copy? The administration might brag about the withdrawal from Iraq if the country weren’t edging toward anarchy. There’s no lauding the strategic ineptitude of declaring a withdrawal date from Afghanistan, an act giving the Taliban every reason not to negotiate. Can the administration brag about the unpopular healthcare reform that Biden dubbed such a “big [expletive] deal?”

For an administration with lots of failures and few successes, bumper-sticker history may be all they’ve got.

— Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

MOSCOW, March 24, 2012 – My last piece – which called into question Richard Dawkins' self-description as an African ape – drew extensive response, a great deal of which was hostile and angry.

One reader wrote that the article was an “embarrassment to humanity.” Apparently, he was quite unaware of the paradox in his statement. What talk of humanity can there really be if we indeed are all apes? Perhaps ape-manity would be a more fitting term to use.

The hostility came as something of a surprise given that all I tried to do was to affirm the humanity of Professor Dawkins and human beings in general. One would think that such an effort would earn the approbation of most people, but this evidently is not the case. Judging by the response many even find such an effort outright offensive.

One cannot but wonder about this, since in the past calling someone an ape was considered a serious insult. It would seem that today for some it is almost a badge of honor.

Richard Dawkins himself said he was proud to be an African ape. But what is there to be proud of in being an animal? Do not most of us try to fight and suppress ape-like tendencies when they arise in us? And aren't we at our very best when we try to raise above, leaving behind the animal element within?

It is indeed a strange commentary on our culture when a person gets attacked by those whose higher nature he strives to affirm. How ironic that today religious people seek to uphold the humanness of man while secularists – those who like to call themselves humanists – try to place man on the same plane as animals.

In a way, however, this is not so surprising. If we deny that there is a God, then man can indeed be nothing else than a highly evolved animal. But those who hold this view should not call themselves humanists but rather animalists. An animalist, then, would be someone who insists on the animal nature of human beings and resists any evidence or suggestions that points to the transcendent in his nature.

Be that as it may, I can only say this to the critics: Claim what you will, but in my eyes you will never be animals or apes. When I look at people I see beings made in the image of God who exhibit wondrous capabilities whose existence cannot be explained by means of evolutionary or materialistic theories.

Every year tens of thousands of people from all over the world flock to St. Peter's in Rome to gaze at an astounding creation by Michelangelo known as The Pieta. Anyone who takes some time to contemplate this sculpture cannot but marvel at the incredible skill of the hand which transformed a piece of cold, shapeless marble into the shining wonder it now is. If a trip to Rome is not practicable, we can easily listen to one of Bach's cantatas, read Tolstoy's War and Peace or consider the mind-staggering reflections of Immanuel Kant. What ape has ever produced something even remotely so sophisticated or beautiful? What ape has ever produced anything beautiful or sophisticated at all?

To say that Michelangelo, Bach, Tolstoy or Kant were apes just doesn't make sense. Occasionally people so talented are dubbed divine and in a certain sense this is true: Their skills are indeed from above. They could have not arisen out of the matter of which their bodies and brains are composed. Neither Richard Dawkins nor any other scientist in the world can show how such a thing could ever happen. Matter in itself cannot think or possess intelligence. Matter in itself is dead – it has no will and no abilities. Nor could dead, will-less matter bootstrap itself to produce a Shakespeare, or an ape for that matter. Something more was obviously involved.

In the final analysis, the whole discussion comes down to the materialism espoused – whether consciously or not – by most evolutionists. They believe that the whole realm of existence can be ultimately reduced to the physical. They confuse perceptual reality – that which can be observed, measured and quantified – with ultimate reality. To put it another way, they think that the changing world of measurable phenomena is all there is.

This form of reductionism, however, eventually becomes entangled in insolvable conundrums and contradictions. It cannot, for example, explain the existence of consciousness, since the human mind cannot be accounted for by electromagnetic impulses of the brain. It is simply impossible for materialism to explain how electromagnetic currents translate into mental phenomena.

Physical and mental are two wholly different and separate realms which materialistic dialectic cannot bridge. The only way out is to realize that the mind is not the product of the brain, but rather it is the user of the brain.

C.S. Lewis once famously remarked, “You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” This, however, is something evolutionists cannot come to terms with, because it implies the primacy of mental, and this idea goes against the foundational presupposition of their worldview.

Nevertheless, this is the only possible solution to this and other difficult problems which resist materialistic attempts at explanation. Everything is ultimately the expression of Mind, an infinite, disembodied Mind which is usually referred to as God. “All things were created by him and for him,” a wise book tells us. God is the ultimate reality that undergirds the phenomenal world in which our physical bodies reside. But our real existence is elsewhere. It is in the sustainer of all who holds “all things together by the word of his power.

.

Born and raised under communism, Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen. He has lived in several countries under various forms of government, but he still marvels at the goodness of God and the wonder of life.

He has written for a number of newspapers, magazines and internet journals. Vasko currently lives in Europe with his long-suffering wife and two beautiful daughters. He is the founder of The Christian Writers Foundation.

It’s fun to watch the mainstream media and academia airbrush history for Democrats whenever it’s convenient. After some airbrushing of history, the Democratic Party is no longer the party that was pro-slavery, instituted segregation, filibustered the civil rights act and was the home of the KKK. It’s the home of civil rights. After some airbrushing of history Adolph Hitler is no longer a socialist and totalitarian who was elected by promising generous welfare benefits or who was loved by Democrats prior to WWII. He’s a “right-winger” and a free market capitalist like our nation’s founders. Now they are telling us that the Democratic Party is the party of woman’s rights.

Democrats and their media relentlessly attack Republican women like Sarah Palin. She is everything a “feminist” is supposed to be except she is not a Democrat. Democrat Bill Maher called her the c-word. Democrat David Letterman joked about her minor teen daughter getting raped. Candidate Obama called her a pig. Unlike President Obama, the mainstream media vetted her. They even slandered her. Where is the outrage from Democrats?

Kennedys have walked away from rapes and women drowning in the back seats of their cars. The lives of female interns were ruined because JFK used them to sexually gratify himself and his staff. These are icons of the Democratic Party.

Democrats don’t even care about the horrific human rights violations against women in Islamic Countries.

North Dakota Democrats brought in the serial abuser of women, Bill Clinton to their state convention. He is no advocate of woman’s right to those who accuse him of sexual harassment, adultery and rape. He ruined Monica Lewinski’s life. It was high fives all around from ND Democrats.

Hillary Clinton stood by her man through humiliation after humiliation for the good of the Democratic Party only to be given the hook when it was her turn to run for president. She shared Obama’s radical Marxist views. She was qualified. She earned it. That job went to the unqualified man with no experience.

Conservatives fight for the rights for everyone. We don’t need to airbrush our history. 

It’s fun to watch the mainstream media and academia airbrush history for Democrats whenever it’s convenient. After some airbrushing of history, the Democratic Party is no longer the party that was pro-slavery, instituted segregation, filibustered the civil rights act and was the home of the KKK. It’s the home of civil rights. After some airbrushing of history Adolph Hitler is no longer a socialist and totalitarian who was elected by promising generous welfare benefits or who was loved by Democrats prior to WWII. He’s a “right-winger” and a free market capitalist like our nation’s founders. Now they are telling us that the Democratic Party is the party of woman’s rights.

Democrats and their media relentlessly attack Republican women like Sarah Palin. She is everything a “feminist” is supposed to be except she is not a Democrat. Democrat Bill Maher called her the c-word. Democrat David Letterman joked about her minor teen daughter getting raped. Candidate Obama called her a pig. Unlike President Obama, the mainstream media vetted her. They even slandered her. Where is the outrage from Democrats?

Kennedys have walked away from rapes and women drowning in the back seats of their cars. The lives of female interns were ruined because JFK used them to sexually gratify himself and his staff. These are icons of the Democratic Party.

Democrats don’t even care about the horrific human rights violations against women in Islamic Countries.

North Dakota Democrats brought in the serial abuser of women, Bill Clinton to their state convention. He is no advocate of woman’s right to those who accuse him of sexual harassment, adultery and rape. He ruined Monica Lewinski’s life. It was high fives all around from ND Democrats.

Hillary Clinton stood by her man through humiliation after humiliation for the good of the Democratic Party only to be given the hook when it was her turn to run for president. She shared Obama’s radical Marxist views. She was qualified. She earned it. That job went to the unqualified man with no experience.

Conservatives fight for the rights for everyone. We don’t need to airbrush our history.

Many Pennsylvanians who follow politics want the Keystone State’s presidential primary to matter. They observe the candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere holding rallies, visiting local diners, and kissing babies. They want some of that attention by candidates and the media. They feel like the kid in high school, neglected by the popular kids and never being invited to the parties or named to the Homecoming Court. Sorry, but Pennsylvania’s Republican presidential primary—held on April 24—won’t be very meaningful this year either, and it will most likely remain meaningless until the primary rules are changed so that delegates are actually apportioned by the popular vote.

You might be thinking that the Republican presidential primary is a fractured race where the frontrunners will be fighting for every delegate from now until the convention or until securing the necessary 1,144 delegates to clinch the nomination. Why then, won’t Romney and Santorum (and possibly Gingrich) be fighting for delegates in Pennsylvania’s primary? The answer is simple: it’s the rules of the Republican primary. Republicans in Pennsylvania will indeed vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul, but those votes won’t legally determine how the delegates in the state are distributed. That’s why it’s sometimes called a “beauty contest,” although a beauty contest might be more meaningful since the votes of the judges actually count.

Pennsylvania will send 72 delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa this year, and 59 of those delegates will be selected in the primary election. The other 13 include three state party officials—which is the case for Republicans in all states—and 10 at-large delegates appointed by the state GOP chair. Those 59 delegates will be elected from Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional districts (three or four per district) and those delegates are unpledged. (To the contrary, the rules for the Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania requires that delegate candidates list their preferred candidate beside their name on the ballot.) The Republican delegates can vote for whomever they wish at the convention. The vast majority of voters will not recognize the names of delegate candidates on the ballot, and they almost certainly won’t know whether a delegate will vote for Romney or Santorum or potentially someone else at the convention. It’s possible that some delegate candidates will seek to publicize their candidate preference, but that would be costly for delegate candidates and difficult for voters to remember.

Now, if Pennsylvania’s presidential primary were the only contest held that day, the popular vote outcome might be meaningful in shaping perception of the race. A Romney or Santorum victory might say something about the strength of either of the campaigns. What contributes to the meaninglessness of the Pennsylvania’s primary is that four other states will also hold contests that day: New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware. It’s like a “Super Tuesday” for the Northeast. In those four other states holding primaries that day, the vote is meaningful when it comes to delegate distribution. New York is the big prize as it will award 95 delegates; 34 of those are awarded based on statewide voting results, while 58 are distributed based on results within Congressional districts. In Connecticut, 10 delegates are based on statewide results and 15 are based on results in the Nutmeg State’s five congressional districts. In Rhode Island, 16 delegates are based on statewide results. In Delaware, it’s winner take all for 14 delegates.

Given these others races, where votes are meaningful and delegates are needed, it’s rather obvious that candidates will allocate the scarce resources of time and money to those states. Certainly the candidates will spend some time in Pennsylvania so they don’t do too badly in the beauty contest. But if Romney, for example, is close getting 50 percent in Connecticut, which would give him all 10 of its at-large delegates, is he going to make another trip to Connecticut or Pennsylvania? Is he going to spend more on commercials in Pennsylvania or Connecticut?

Many people might say that rules for delegate distribution only concern the insiders, but there are consequences to these rules. If individuals don’t believe that their vote is meaningful, there will be less desire to turn out to vote. If candidates don’t believe it’s worthwhile to invest time and money in a state campaign, voters won’t get information and may not be mobilized by campaigns. For the future, if Republicans want to have a meaningful primary, its party leaders—who determine the rules—are going to have to make votes count when it comes to delegate selection.

— Dr. Michael Coulter is a professor of humanities and political science at Grove City College and a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values.

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

A few weeks ago I wrote some mild criticisms of the Beatles and the sky fell. Angry readers called me "ignorant," "vicious," and various other things displaying blindness to my finer qualities. I hadn't realized there was a militant Beatle Taliban, and I was an infidel. I was lucky to escape a fatwa.

Some of the Beatles' fans did make civil and reasonable arguments; they defended George Harrison as a guitarist and reminded me that such musical luminaries as Leonard Bernstein and Frank Sinatra had praised them.

But Bernstein was surely over the top when he called Lennon and McCartney the greatest composers of the twentieth century. What about - sticking to pop music - Johnny Mercer, Harold Arlen, Harry Warren, Richard Rodgers, and Frank Loesser? And when Sinatra called Harrison's "Something" one of the greatest songs of its era, I think it did more credit to his generosity than to his judgment. (Sinatra went to unfortunate lengths to prove he wasn't an old fogey, as witness his excruciating recording of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown.")

It's not that I hate the Beatles; I've always liked them well enough. I used to play their tapes on long drives with my kids, and we all enjoyed them.

What I did hate from the beginning was Beatlemania. It made me uneasy for reasons I didn't quite understand at the time. The main reason was that the enthusiasm was so synthetic. My generation didn't discover the Beatles in the normal way; the Beatles were imposed on us by publicists and marketers.

Once upon a time, fame was slowly acquired. A man's reputation spread gradually, and his good name was so hard-won that he might fight a duel over an insult or a libel. Abraham Lincoln nearly had to cross swords (literally) with a man he had ridiculed in a newspaper.

Even in the world of pop music, a singer used to have to perform for years, making contact with small audiences from town to town, before he "hit the big time." He had to earn appreciation. It was hard work, but local fame necessarily preceded national fame.

With the Beatles something new was happening. National fame (at least on this side of the Atlantic) was created instantly. It wasn't due to their music; it was due to their promoters. Millions of kids allowed themselves to be manipulated into an enthusiasm few of them would have arrived at on their own. Pop music was no longer really "pop" - the result of interaction between music and listener.

As soon as they got off the plane, the Beatles were mobbed. This was not a phenomenon of musical taste. Their screaming fans wouldn't even allow them to be heard, weren't interested in listening.

It was weird. I felt a pang of sympathy for the boys, because they obviously wanted to perform; they wanted to be musicians, and their own fans were making it hard. Could they be enjoying that kind of attention, which ruled out any real connection with the audience?

To me it all smacked of the "two- minute hate" in Nineteen Eighty-Four - far more benign, but equally mindless. It wasn't the Beatles' fault. Their fans neither knew nor cared who was engineering the mass emotions that swamped the music. Even as a kid, I didn't want to be part of that, the submergence of the self in the mass.

Since then, what we call "pop" culture has become uncomfortably close to totalitarian politics. Even our aesthetic tastes are increasingly formed by forces of which we know little. It can't be good for the soul to be subject to so much calculating hype and promotion.

Democracy too has come to mean mass manipulation, with lots of focus groups, demographic studies, and advertising techniques replacing rational persuasion. The individual who prefers to make up his own mind knows he counts for nothing in today's "democratic process" (eerie phrase!). You have a choice of which mass to join, that's all. Either way, you'll make no difference to the outcome.

On the other hand, some people find it thrilling to be part of a stampeding herd, without asking what started the commotion. They should feel right at home in these times.

We live in a world in which the passive and malleable mass has become prior to the individual and the community. Beatlemania didn't originate this condition, but in its own way it was an intimation.

###

[This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on December 27, 2001.]

###

The Reactionary Utopian by Joe Sobran is copyright (c) 2012 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation http://www.fgfbooks.com.

All rights reserved. It may be forwarded if attribution is given to the author and fgfBooks.com.

Realizing that his popularity may decline as the price of gasoline rises, President Obama is barnstorming the country, emphatically insisting that drilling for more oil isn’t the cure for high gas prices and that wind and solar energy represent our energy future.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently challenged Obama, claiming that gas prices would fall to $2.50 per gallon or lower if he were president. Many Americans believe Gingrich when he says that repealing Obama’s anti-drilling policies would increase the supply of oil and push gas prices lower. In his weekly address on March 10, Obama disputed Gingrich’s assertion, arguing, “With only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.”

One wonders how the president can make such a claim, given that natural gas companies are currently hurting because, in fact, they have drilled their way to lower natural gas prices. Surely this president does not believe that the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply to oil, too.

To the contrary, Obama concedes just that when he considers dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for no other reason than to lower gas prices in an election year.

When you think about President Obama’s antipathy for oil companies’ profits, you would think that he would be one of the most vocal supporters of more drilling. After all, increased production of oil would drive down prices and shrink profits. How deliciously ironic that Obama’s own anti-drilling policies are handing windfall profits to the very oil companies he rails against.

The president’s statement about America having only 2 percent of oil reserves is misleading. The size of our reserve is actually quite vast, but the percent of the world’s oil we have is far less important than the amount we produce. The United States accounts for at least 6 percent of global production of petroleum—a figure that would be significantly higher had President Obama’s party not been impeding and restricting domestic petroleum production for years.

On March 14, the president ramped up his anti-drilling argument. He employed hyperbole, asserting, “If we drilled every square inch of this country ... we would still have only two percent of the world’s known oil reserves.” To assert that a massive increase in drilling would result in no increase of oil defies logic and experience. The reality is that reserves have grown year after year, decade after decade, precisely because the more we drill, the more oil we find.

The president resorted to a “straw man” subterfuge to disparage Republicans who aren’t on the "green" energy bandwagon, snidely proclaiming that they “probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who said, ‘Television won’t last,’ or the Henry Ford associate who argued that ‘the automobile is only a fad.’” First, the comparison is inapt. Neither radio nor the Ford automobile needed government subsidies, whereas "renewable energies" have received them for years, even decades, and they still aren’t cost-effective. Second, I don’t know anyone—Republican, Democrat, or Martian—who would oppose a clean, renewable, cost-effective energy. Nobody is against “green” energy per se. The objection is to costly, taxpayer-financed government subsidies to the politically connected and to mandates that compel Americans to purchase uneconomical forms of energy.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Democrat-controlled Senate defeated Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) budget amendment to eliminate every federal subsidy and tax credit to all energy companies, whether they produce fossil fuels, renewables, batteries, or nuclear power. By voting with all Democrat senators (yes, every single one) to defeat DeMint’s amendment, 19 Republicans showed that the GOP is not yet a free-market party. What chutzpah Vice President Biden showed by denouncing Republicans as the party of privilege during the very week when his own party voted unanimously to retain expensive taxpayer-subsidized privileges to corporate America.

The Obama/Biden tandem’s overstated rhetoric may backfire on them. When people don’t have the facts on their side, their attempts to ridicule others can end up making themselves look ridiculous. Apparently, the president and vice-president are betting that enough voters believe so fervently in hope, change, and other good things that facts, basic economic knowledge, and common sense won’t burst their bubble.

— Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Editor’s note: A longer version of this article first appeared at American Spectator.

The question for Republicans right now seems obvious: Would you prefer Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney to run against Barack Obama?

Well, it depends on whether you prefer to engage President Obama on cultural grounds or on terms of class warfare. Obama and his chief political strategist, David Axelrod, are going to give us one or the other. Thus, maybe the better question is: Can Santorum articulate and defend social conservatism better than Romney can defend free markets? Which of the two is a more forceful, eloquent spokesperson for the area that Obama and Axelrod will use to define and malign him?

Not only has President Obama been employing class rhetoric unceasingly for three years now, but David Axelrod has been planning precisely such an assault against Mitt Romney. “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession—a sort of political Gordon Gekko,” reported an August 2011 Politico piece titled, “Obama plan: Destroy Romney.” The piece quoted Axelrod: “He [Romney] was very, very good at making a profit for himself and his partners but not nearly as good [at] saving jobs for communities. He is very much the profile of what we’ve seen in the last decade on Wall Street.”

This was the plan even before the Occupy Wall Stree movement exploded. Axelrod and Obama view Mitt Romney as red meat for the Occupy movement the poster-boy for Wall Street greed.

“[Romney] says he represents business,” Axelrod told MSNBC in October, “but he really represents the Wall Street side of business.”

Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos that Romney is “not a job creator” but a “corporate raider” who outsourced “tens of thousands of jobs,” “closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices,” and joined “his partners” in making “hundreds of millions of dollars” at the expense of the poor. Axelrod calls this the “Bain mentality.”

This caustic, class-warfare rhetoric is just a taste of what will come if Romney gets the GOP nomination. The class envy will get far worse. And no one will do it better than a smiling Obama.

Perhaps the only thing that might energize the president and his team more is a battle with the Catholic Church over his HHS mandate on “contraception.” And that’s where Rick Santorum comes in.

I’m increasingly convinced that President Obama wants this fight with the Catholic Church. I think this is a fight not only close to Obama’s ideological heart, but one he perversely feels can help him politically. If he can frame this debate as not about taxpayer support of abortion drugs, or about religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, or the First Amendment and Constitution—all of which it is—but about “women’s rights” vs. the stodgy old men who run the Catholic Church, he will make headway with certain voters. Don’t underestimate Obama’s ability to do just that

If Rick Santorum becomes the 2012 GOP nominee, he’ll be an automatic spokesman for the Catholic Church’s position. He's a living, breathing testimony to the Church's teaching, from his own personal life to his well-informed intellect on Church teachings. Rick Santorum is the rarest candidate who has actually read Church encyclicals like Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

That’s just fine for President Obama and David Axelrod. They’ll take that guy any day. Hey, buddy, you want a culture war based on Catholic Church teachings? You got it!

Never mind, of course, that President Obama started this fight with his heavy-handed decree to the Catholic Church. The president’s protective media will behave as if Rick Santorum is the intrusive one, rudely and righteously thrusting his faith into the "public square". The media will not portray Santorum as simply reacting to Obama’s totally unnecessary decree and intrusion—which is what really happened—but as a sexist Neanderthal who just can’t pull his nose out of your bedroom.

So, that brings us back to my original question for Republicans: Which of the two—Romney or Santorum—is a more forceful, eloquent spokesperson for the issues that Obama and Axelrod will use to define and malign him? I think the answer is Santorum, which is less a vote for Santorum than a vote of no confidence in Romney’s persuasive abilities. Or does that bring us back to Newt, assuming Newt remains politically viable?

One thing is certain: Neither of these Obama-Axelrod tactics will unify Americans; it will divide them, pitting them against each other by class or religion, by income or faith, by money or conscience. And that isn’t a good thing, especially from a president who promised to be a unifier and symbol of “hope.”

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily,