Last week, our Fundamental Transformer in Chief said America’s economy is still struggling because Washington hasn’t been cuddling it enough. It seems Washington has been distracted by a string of “phony scandals.”

“Phony scandals”?! At long last, has this con artist no shame? Have the professional watchdogs of the press no pride? How does he pull this nonsense unchallenged? 

Even Nixon's pathetic "I am not a crook!" was more honorable. Nixon sought only to exonerate himself; not to insult America for the obvious questions people were asking.

Hey, all you well-paid hacks at ABC-NBC-CBS-PBS-CNN-NPR-AP-NYT-LAT, may I suggest a few questions real reporters would ask, if they actually had their big boy and girl underpants on?

“Mr. President: You said you’ve been distracted from the economy by phony scandals. But didn’t you have a majority in both chambers for the first two years of your term? What did you do for our economy then, sir?”

“Mr. President: The recent buzz about scandals came up mostly in the first weeks of your second term...your fifth year in office. What was your economic plan before then and why couldn’t you implement, or at least introduce and promote it before now?”

“Mr. President: When news broke the IRS was targeting conservative groups, you said that was unacceptable. You forced the acting IRS Chief and the Chief of Tax Exempt Divisions out of their jobs. Was your concern real or phony, sir? Did you sacrifice the careers of innocent civil servants to shield yourself from criticism for a “phony scandal?”

“Mr. President: The early damage control about the IRS situation said that rogue agents in the Cincinnati office were responsible. That story quickly proved false and fell apart. We learned the policy direction came from Washington and, actually from the office of your appointee, the Chief Counsel of the IRS. What can you say about that? Did you know about the targeting, sir? Did you order it?”

“Mr. President, if there’s no smoke or fire there, then why did Lois Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment against incriminating herself? Why don’t you order her to cooperate with Congress and answer straight questions?”

“Mr. President: When word broke the Justice Department was spying on the AP and tracking its reporters’ calls, you took the curious step of directing AG Eric Holder, the head of the Justice Department, to look into it and get back to you with a report. Sir, can you tell us if Eric Holder has learned why Eric Holder directed Eric Holder’s Justice Department to spy on the news media? And what are you and Eric Holder going to do about it?”

“Mr. President: About Benghazi, sir, you’ve said that you ordered our forces to do what was necessary to make our people safe. But our fighting men say on the night of that awful slaughter, the only order they got was ‘Stand Down.’ Sir, who gave the order to stand down? Aren’t you the only one with that authority? Why did you order the stand down? Why did you then lie to the American people about it and claim you ordered the opposite?”

“Mr. President: After the attack and slaughter in Libya, your administration came out immediately with a false story about the causes. Without any support, and contrary to the conclusions of the CIA, you blamed it on a spontaneous protest against an amateurish video that criticized Islam and Mohammed. You clung to that story and repeated it until the facts made known to the public made your position unsustainable. Why did you, your Secretary of State, your UN Ambassador, and your Press Secretary insist for weeks that the attack was a protest of a crude video? You knew that story was false. What was your reason for misleading the American people?”

“Mr. President, moving beyond the controversy over scandals, I’d like to ask you about your philosophy of government. In your speech on the economy, and especially in your second inaugural address, you argued you’re fulfilling America’s constitutional vision by working to improve people’s lives. But there’s a different view of America’s meaning sir. Your critics argue the Founders proposed to expand liberty and opportunity by creating a limited, divided government. They say you propose, instead, to protect security and equality by expansive, controlling, redistributing government. Isn’t that a different philosophy, Mr. President? Isn’t it actually the ultimate overthrow of the Founders' vision?”

Can any of you microphone jockeys ask hard question?

Don’t you overpaid, effete talkers get it? Real reporters confront ambitious. They call bigwigs out for inconsistencies and contradictions. They might even venture to ask a question or two based on premises different from the assumptions of The Man they are questioning. 

Where did you all go to journalism school? Why did you go to journalism school? To be lapdogs for the state? To be watchdogs for government, that bark and growl and savage citizens who oppose government’s actions?

What good are you?

Recently, Americans learned their government is spying on them.  

Massive amounts of data about every aspect of your life are being collected and stored.

Almost nothing is private anymore.  All data about you from phone calls, emails, internet browsing, social media posts and comments, online photos, utilities, financial transactions, TV viewing, guns purchased, medical records, drug prescriptions, travel records, traffic cameras, satellite images, and more will be stored.

Sound impossible?  Until recently, it was.  But a massive one-million square foot NSA spy facility will be ready to go in Fall 2013.  Located in Utah, it will be the home of the "Titan," a super computer that can store more data than all of the other computers in the world, COMBINED.  It is capable of storing yottabytes (a million billion gigabytes) of data.

Here's more...

Learn More:  NSA Spying Allegations

Education changes lives.  It has always been the key to unlocking potential and achieving dreams.

Education has transformational power and can help us become someone we haven't even imagined yet. 

It can change generations to come.

In this inspiring commencement address, Condoleezza Rice talks about the responsibilities of an educated person: find your passion and act on it, use your reason, cultivate humility, and remain optimistic as you serve others.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DHS was established to help prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S., reduce our overall vulnerability to terrorism, and help us rapidly respond to any attacks that may occur. 

DHS was also tasked with the massive challenge of integrating 22 separate agencies into a single unified department. 

Ten years later, not only has DHS grown larger than many had ever anticipated, but the effectiveness of the department has been called into question.

I am alarmed and disappointed at the failure of DHS, the FBI, and other agencies within the intelligence community to prioritize and share critical information on the Tsarnaev brothers with state and local law enforcement prior to the Boston attacks. Our government has known about these information-sharing challenges for years but has been unable—and, at times, unwilling—to solve them.

At an April hearing before the House Oversight Subcommittee, Cathy Berrick from the Government Accountability Office testified that the coordination and sharing of best practices is critical, but as of March 2013, the federal government had made no substantial progress in developing an overarching system to strengthen the sharing of intelligence, terrorism, and law enforcement information among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private-sector partners.

I’m also concerned with DHS’s failure to properly recognize the threat posed by radical Islamist terrorism. If our government is unwilling to even discuss the threats facing our country, how do we ever hope to combat them? From the classification of the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence to missed signals in the Boston bombings, I’m worried that political correctness has taken the place of common sense within the department.

With DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano set to resign in September, I hope this transition will be a turning point for DHS and for our counterterrorism strategy here at home. I strongly encourage President Obama to nominate a Secretary who will have better discernment in identifying the threats from Iran and Islamist terrorism and in prioritizing communication among DHS and state and local law enforcement partners.

Representative Jeff Duncan (R) represents South Carolina’s third congressional district.

Are the feds spying on American citizens?  

When reports of government spying hit the news, officials were quick to claim that data was being stored, but it was only accessed when there was evidence of a security threat.

Now it looks like Americans have much more cause for concern.  

Wake up!  Once the massive government spy system is fully in place, there will be no turning back.

President Obama can’t stop comparing himself, or the son he never had, to Trayvon Martin. And he can’t stop talking about race. Everything in Obama’s world is black and white. This is not America’s first “post race President.” This is America’s first “all race, all the time President.”

I see the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case very differently. For me it was never about black or white. It was always about life or death- for George Zimmerman. 

You see, thirty-six years ago I was George Zimmerman. Thirty-six years ago I almost died in a life or death struggle eerily similar to George Zimmerman’s confrontation. Let me tell you the story.

In 1977, at the age of 15, I attended Mt Vernon High School in Mt. Vernon, New York, one of the most dangerous and violent urban schools in America. Guns and knives were rampant. Assaults were a daily occurrence. Every walk through the hallway was an opportunity to be beaten or robbed. Lunchtime was an opportunity to have your lunch extorted by someone threatening your life. And worst of all were the bathrooms. Every decent kid at Mt. Vernon High School knew we were taking our lives in our hands if we went to the bathroom- so we didn’t. We learned to hold it in all day until we got home- for fear of being robbed or beaten in the filthy, dangerous bathrooms where hoods, gang members, and drug dealers hung out.

The school was about 85% black. I was white. But being white wasn’t the problem. Being a good kid was the problem.  It’s wasn’t black vs. white. It was good vs. bad. The good black kids were as readily beaten up and intimidated as the good white kids.

Like George Zimmerman I decided I wanted to make a difference- for white and black kids. I was sick of the crime and violence. I spent the summer lifting weights and taking boxing lessons, bulked up, and upon my return to school, volunteered to become a Marshal. That meant I was part of our volunteer school police force. We were unarmed, but carried badges and walkie talkies. Our job was to police the halls and prevent crime, drug dealing, and cutting classes.

Like Zimmerman, we weren’t supposed to engage, only observe and call for help. But, as you might surmise, it doesn’t always work out that way.

In the late Spring of 1977 I faced a “George Zimmerman moment.” As I patrolled an empty hallway in my high school, I spotted a gang-banger smoking and listening to loud music when he was supposed to be in class. I confronted and told him, “You’re coming with me.” The kid wheeled around and pulled a gigantic knife. In court it was classified as a machete (with a blade longer than 8 ½ inches). He lunged at me and I grabbed his wrist. We wrestled to the ground with him on top. A much bigger kid than me, he was soon winning the struggle and about to stick the machete into my head.

If I had had a gun, I certainly would have used it to save my life. That was the choice George Zimmerman faced. What Obama and the race-baiters call murder is self-defense. Those who make the race baiters happy by not fighting back are…dead. After the fact, they’re called “victims.”

I got lucky. As my life was about to be extinguished a principal emerged from his office to check on the commotion.  Like Zimmerman, I’m sure no one knew which of us was screaming in my life or death struggle, but my screams saved my life. The principal shouted, “Hey you, drop that knife.” The kid ran. The principal raced to my side…I told him what happened…together we chased down my assailant in the school courtyard. I lived to tell this story.

Zimmerman’s critics call him “a police wanna-be.” I guess you could say I was a “police wanna-be” too. How rude. You know what that means? Zimmerman and I cared about our community. I cared about my fellow classmates. He cared about his fellow homeowners. We both cared about right and wrong. We wanted to protect and serve. We wanted to make a difference. And we volunteered to put our lives on the line- for no pay.

Should someone like that be punished, vilified, and put in prison, or respected, celebrated, and recognized by society? I believe at the least, that person deserves the benefit of the doubt. I cheer a person who volunteers to protect his school or neighborhood. If only more Americans were willing to police our streets and schools, we’d all be safer. We should be thanking the George Zimmermans of this world.

You know the biggest irony? Obama is the ultimate “community organizer” and fan of volunteerism. Obama thinks if you volunteer to protest in front of banks to force minority loans, or fight for welfare and food stamps, you’re a community hero. But if you lay your life on the line to protect your community from criminals, you deserve prison for defending your life. Interesting interpretation.

God forbid you ever find yourself in a life or death situation, and survive by hurting or killing the bad guy. If the Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s have their way, you’ll end up in jail. Unfortunately our President can now be added to the list of people out to vilify you for trying to clean up your community and help your fellow man, white or black. Always remember that George Zimmerman was protecting a large number of black homeowners in that community.

Obama fantasizes that he could have been Trayvon Martin. But thirty-six years ago, I really was George Zimmerman.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) is an immobilizing illness characterized by flashbacks, nightmares, depression and extreme anxiety.

It can lead to angry and violent outbursts. 

It is brought on by exposure to a terrifying or traumatic event.

500,000 of the 2.5 million soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury.

Those who have given their all for us are not getting all the help they need.

22 soldiers a day - 8000 a year - are killing themselves. 

Another 45 per day - over 16,000 per year - make a failed attempt at suicide.

These men and women deserve better.

Please help get the word out.  Pass this on to your family and friends.

For information on how to help, please go to Wound that Don't Bleed.com.

...Government exists to protect people's life, liberty and property. 

It receives its legitimate powers from individuals who possess, and then delegate, certain authorities to it. 

Just as I cannot force my neighbor to fund my medical care, I cannot justifiably do so through my representatives in government.

Today's government bears little resemblance with its core purpose. This circumstance has resulted from a steady abandonment of personal responsibility, as individuals make poor choices and want bailouts, subsidies and support to avoid the consequences of their own actions. Eager to assume more power, the state has willingly stepped in to help.

At the outset of determining how best to help those in need, we must consider our objective. Should we seek to support, or supplant, personal responsibility? Are we working towards a vibrant, strong community, or are we relying on the state to take care of those around us?

In a true community, individuals fulfill their personal responsibility by voluntarily helping those in need rather than shirking this mandate and allowing the state to forcibly tax everybody in order to do it. By deferring to the government, we lose out on important experiences, relationships, and opportunities that exist in interactions of mutual support and service.

Providing these services through a bureaucratic middleman divorces the giver and recipient, uses force to achieve this goal and destroys any sense of community. On these grounds, many individuals rightly object to the government's intervention in what should be an individual responsibility.

It is easy to object when the government exceeds its proper boundaries. It's not nearly as easy to step in and take over, crowding out the government by taking care of our friends and neighbors ourselves. Apathy and laziness lead many to tolerate taxation as a viable alternative, allowing them to carry on with their lives without being bothered by the demands of others.

In the past few decades, government has grown to astronomical proportions, passing laws that affect every part of our lives. Unable or unwilling to take care of ourselves and voluntarily contribute to strengthen society, we have ended up with a nanny state aiming (and failing) to do it on our behalf. As columnist Walter Williams noted, "Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become."

To counteract this worrisome trend, lawmakers and citizens alike must restore personal responsibility as the foundational benchmark of each proposed policy. Churches, teachers, non-profit groups, and especially parents should coordinate efforts to promote and popularize this public virtue.

Those fighting for limited government have been largely working backwards, as the fight for liberty is best won not by tearing government down, but by building up institutions and individuals that help create a vibrant society and strong community.


Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute and author of "Latter-day Responsibility: Choosing Liberty Through Personal Accountability."

Bill Whittle does a great job of summing up the story of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.  Trayvon was not a sweet child, and George was not a racist vigilante.

In fact, George Zimmerman is one of the most caring people you could meet - no matter what race you happen to be.

It's incomprehensible and unconscionable that politicians and people with an agenda have twisted this story beyond recognition and have thus placed George in grave danger.

Please share.  The more people who know the truth, the more safe George will be.  

...Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. 

But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.

Detroit is a sad reminder that progressive policies don't work.  But it’s much more than that.  

Detroit is a perfect laboratory to see the result of leftist policies in action for nearly half a century.  

When you remove free market principles that have made this country great and create a state-dependent society, this is what it looks like.

And did you know that Barack Obama's promises are nearly identical to the promises made by Detroit politicians for the past fifty years?  This is what America could look like in the not-so-distant future.

More Americans need to understand that over-grown government and heavy-handed unions are a recipe for disaster.

Please take the quick tour of Detroit below and spread the word!  This is a preview of America's future if we don't change course.  

After you've finished your tour of Detroit, you might want to read Thomas Sowell's article, "The Fallacy of Redistribution."  It explains why redistribution causes more problems than it solves.

In a recent video by ReasonTV, Nick Gillespie describes Social Security as a “fiscal and demographic disaster.” 

Heritage research provides further support that the program “desperately needs to be reformed right now—for at least three reasons”:

1.  Social Security pays more in taxes than it receives in benefits. A recent Heritage graph demonstrates Social Security’s yearly cash-flow deficits. Social Security is already adding to federal deficits and will continue to do so to the tune of nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. This trend is unsustainable and will lead to a financial crisis for the program. According to current Social Security trustees’ projections, if no reforms are made by 2033, benefits will automatically be cut by 23 percent.

2. Social Security is a poor investment. Another Heritage graph shows the dismal return on investment for younger Americans paying Social Security’s taxes. While past and current recipients receive much more from the program than they paid in taxes, younger workers will receive much less. In 1960, workers received $6.39 in benefits for every $1 paid in taxes. In 2010, however, workers received only $0.92 for every $1 paid in taxes. In 2030, that number will fall to $0.84.

3. Social Security hurts younger workers. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of those ages 18–29 think it is not likely that there will be enough money to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits at their current levels in the future. Younger workers have no control over their mandatory contributions, even though they are uncertain about what (if any) benefits they will receive. Social Security’s payroll tax today is 12.4 percent, and if reforms are not made, that rate could continue to go up. Younger workers would be faced with the burden of paying back the $2.7 trillion owed to the trust fund and the $9.6 trillion in unfunded obligations over the 75-year horizon.

The Heritage Foundation has a plan to address Social Security’s growing problems without burdening younger generations with higher taxes.

There are three reforms that Congress can phase in right away: (1) replace the current cost-of-living adjustment with the more accurate chained Consumer Price Index; (2) raise the early and full-retirement ages gradually and predictably; and (3) focus Social Security benefits on those who need them most.

Moreover, Congress can help all Americans build additional retirement savings in accounts that they own and control, such as with the Automatic IRA.

Danny Huizinga is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

Benjamin Franklin would have been an excellent blogger. And he would have enjoyed using Twitter. 

He was the sharpest communicator of his time, so profound that many of his sayings are still in use today. 

There’s no doubt he would have thrived using modern communication methods and perhaps even invented new ones.

In the latest edition of Heritage’s Makers of American Political Thought series, Steven Forde calls Franklin the sage of America, a man who had much to say to his compatriots and still has good advice for us today. If we’re willing to listen.

He made his fortune in what then would have been considered “new media”: newspapers and printed pamphlets. Franklin created Poor Richard’s Almanack and published it for a quarter of a century. It was a precursor to modern blogs, and it was filled with practical advice and wisdom. While his fellow Founders aimed their writing at royalty and elite leaders, Franklin spent his life dishing out advice to the common man.

Franklin encouraged Americans to strive for success. But he also knew there was more to life than making money. To guide Americans up the ladder of success, Franklin’s Autobiography offered a list of 13 virtues. Anyone who managed to live by these—which include temperance, frugality, moderation, and humility—would find himself a self-reliant citizen. All of the virtues require effort, but their reward is the creation of a new sort of person: the independent American who doesn’t ask for handouts yet is willing to pitch in to help others when necessary.

Along the way, Franklin dabbled in scientific experiments. He’s remembered for practical inventions such as the lightning rod and the Franklin stove, but he also founded the University of Pennsylvania and the American Philosophical Society. At the end of his life, Franklin was heading up the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.

He modeled citizenship throughout his long life. Franklin’s principle was “I shall never ask, never refuse, nor ever resign an office,” and he served faithfully in a number of ways. He believed in helping his fellow man. “Be not uncharitable to those that at present seem to want it, but comfort and help them,” he wrote in the final edition of his almanac. As Forde puts it, “He saw that the health of a democratic society rests on individuals’ willingness to devote time to the public good.”

Still, he wouldn’t have approved of the modern welfare state. An overgenerous safety net “tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty,” Franklin wrote.

He might have opined on his Twitter feed that “people need a hand up, but a hand-out tends only to keep them down.” His writings are still offering that hand up to us if we’re willing to grasp it.


                                             Learn More:  Benjamin Franklin: American Hero

For over a year, the family of George Zimmerman has lived with a horrendous torrent of hate and death threats.  And they will likely face danger and ignorant animosity the rest of their lives.  

Many believe the vitriol and desire for vengeance the Zimmermans have faced are a product of the actions (either ignorant or evil) of politicians, an irresponsible prosecuting attorney, and the mainstream media.  

Yet, Robert Zimmerman, George's brother, is able to address Piers Morgan with respect and eloquence.  What a wonderful brother!  What an inspiring family!  This is a must-watch interview!

 

Photo:  March 2012 rally for Trayvon Martin in Manhattan.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

In America we are either moving more toward liberty or more toward tyranny.  

Which way do YOU think we are moving?

Have you asked yourself  what tyranny would look like in the United States of America?

Congressman Jim Bridenstine has.  In less than one minute, he lists a few important milestones that make it clear we are moving quickly in the wrong direction.

Nothing is really routine.  Our everyday work and play can be the powerful catalyst that unites us as a family.  

One of the most important things we do as Patriotic Moms is to create loving memories as we go about the work and play of every day.  

Our children may not remember the words we say, but they will remember the way we make them feel.  

Learn More:  Seeing the Everyday

Most liberals who rail against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case probably don’t realize they’re useful pawns for a sinister cause. These earnest chanters of slogans and sporters of bumper stickers say they want to overturn the case or amend the Constitution to “get big money out of politics.” They think they’re just fighting for clean government. In reality, they’re cheerleading for the Obama administration to wage a broader battle in the long war to intimidate and silence conservative America.

Like  a horror movie’s teasing scenes, where campers laugh, oblivious to the monster in the shadows, this report is more about what would have happened without Citizens United.  But the danger is easy to see and the monster’s not dead, as activists and liberal journalists fan a simmering movement to keep the issue alive, even passing a number of state initiatives and referenda, calling to amend and limit the First Amendment.

The initiatives are broadly popular among a public that believes fighting Citizens United is just common sense. But almost everything the public has heard and believes about the case is wrong. As the Left and its media amplifiers describe it: “The Supreme Court said corporations are people with constitutional rights. So, nothing can stop big business from spending billions of dollars to buy elections and control politics. And that’s wrong. People have constitutional rights; corporations don’t.”

Space doesn’t permit explaining all the factual and legal confusion in that simplistic blurb. But even the briefest thought should destroy the childishly appealing arguments. Of course companies enjoy constitutional protections. They should. The alternative sounds like Ted Kennedy’s deceitful hallucination about Robert Bork’s America: Police could kick down doors and seize materials without warrants or cause; Officials could deny permits or shut businesses down without reason or due process. Governments could confiscate equipment, property, or land without just compensation. Companies could be charged and convicted of crimes without juries or even trials. 

That all sounds outrageous because we understand that Constitutional protections like the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments prohibit such abuses. Critics of Citizens United have to explain why they believe the First Amendment, unlike other Constitutional rights, applies only to people, not organizations.

If they’re handicapped by a law school education, they’ll probably have little difficulty constructing a serpentine argument weaving through the rights to do just that. But then, they’ll discover the serpent has looped around to sink its fangs in their rear. They just argued the entire media out from under First Amendment protections: media companies are corporations, too. By their flawed logic, George Will or Paul Krugman may have a right to free speech as individuals, but Congress is free to slap whatever restrictions or gags it wants on the output of ABC, the New York Times, and all those other big, bad corporations. That’s the nonsensical result of arguing speech rights can only be personal.

Important too is that Citizens United didn’t just affirm the rights of  for-profit corporations, but of all corporate forms, all of whom were barred by law from political speech during elections. That includes nonprofits, labor unions, and advocacy organizations, from the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association. Further, the case hasn’t unleashed the predicted torrent of election speech by for-profit corporations. Unlike interest groups, who speak for particular causes, big business generally seeks profits and market share. Corporations are quite image conscious and sensitive to things that drive off lots of customers.

In all, Citizens United provokes opposition and intensity out of all proportion to its real world impact, except for one consequence you won’t find in the talking points or bumper stickers: It denied the administration a weapon just as the Chicago goon squad--after the 2010 shellacking--was looking for every weapon it could find. The president himself was an early and furious detractor, famously breaching decorum to insult the ceremonially hostage Supreme Court at his State of the Union address.

In the harsh light of the IRS scandal, and news other agencies targeted conservatives, it’s impossible to doubt the administration saw an even more useful tool in FEC prosecutions aimed to silence inconvenient companies. The IRS had to wait like a web-bound spider for self-selected organizing groups to seek non-profit status. In contrast, enforcing a ban on political speech, however that term might be creatively construed, against corporate America, offered the FEC a wide and happy hunting ground. No need to wait for a rag tag bunch to present itself seeking your blessing. Instead, Obama enforcers in the mold of Lois Lerner could scan the landscape for scalps, or, for the occasional “crucifixion” as the loose-lipped EPA administrator was caught boasting.

Targeted prosecutions could have spread quite a pall and chill across business big and small as word spread: “Stay away from politics. Who needs the brain damage?”

In 2010 and 11, the political landscape was a hostile place for team Obama. Americans had just repudiated his entire case for governing and Congress was running scared. Shrewd minds like Axelrod and Jarrett looked for new and potent ways to bleed force from the massing movement. They found them. But Citizens United denied them a formidable switchblade indeed, and may have saved untold blood.

Rafael Cruz's inspiring remarks at a recent FreedomWorks event were greeted with an enthusiastic standing ovation.  

Speaking from his heart, the father of Senator Ted Cruz told of fleeing from Cuba to build a new life here in America.

Mr. Cruz warns that Fidel Castro, like Obama, promised his people hope and change in order to gain power.  

But Castro, like Obama, used his power to grow the government, not help the people.  

Castro, like Obama, devastated his country's economy in the name of redistributing the wealth.  

Castro's dictatorial regime is responsible for untold suffering and oppression in Cuba.  

Every American family needs to listen to this 12 minute speech, wake up, and help restore constitutional principles of government before it's too late.

Independence Day is right around the corner.  This is a wonderful time of year to teach our children some of the patriotic songs of America.  

"Happy Birthday America" is a fun song created especially to celebrate the 4th of July.

   Happy Birthday America

For Independence Day 1981, Parade Magazine asked President Ronald Reagan to write an article which he entitled, "What July Fourth Means to Me."  

He wrote it in his own words, with his own hand.  

Here is an excerpt from the article President Reagan wrote:

"There is a legend about the day of our nation's birth in the little hall in Philadelphia , a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words 'treason, the gallows, the headsman's axe,' and the issue remained in doubt."

"The legend says that at that point a man rose and spoke. He is described as not a young man, but one who had to summon all his energy for an impassioned plea. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment and finally, his voice falling, he said, 'They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever.'"

"He fell back exhausted. The 56 delegates, swept up by his eloquence, rushed forward and signed that document destined to be as immortal as a work of man can be. When they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he was not to be found, nor could any be found who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors. 

"Well, that is the legend. But we do know for certain that 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor."  (Parade Magazine, June 1981)

I love this “legend” because countless, nameless people over the years have had to summon “all their energy” to make an “impassioned plea” for freedom.  Each of us has an important part to play.  And if we do our best, freedom will prevail!

This is a wonderful time of year to read this article with our children, discuss with them what July 4th means to us, and write down what we think -- just like President Reagan! 


Here is a link to the whole article:  “What July Fourth Means to Me”  It's awesome!


And here's a video of President Reagan's 1986 Independence Day speech.