Like the camel that gets its nose under the tent, once the federal government butts into people’s business it’s very hard to get it out. But in a per curiam decision in Zubik v. Burwell on May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court may have indicated that even in the age of the nanny state, even Supreme Court Justices can abide only so much.
Author: David Applegate
“The Revolution devours its children,” wrote French royalist Jacques Mallet du Pan in 1793, but in the case of the American left, the children are now devouring their masters, both literally and figuratively. For the progressive war on free speech is nowhere more evident than on campus, where it has taken on sinister aspects completely apart from Title IX, about which we wrote in Part Two of this series.
It’s generally taken as a given that the American left is in favor of individual freedoms, but when it comes to the First Amendment that seems hardly any longer to be the case. A few examples should suffice. Let’s start with one: what can only be described as the Left’s irrational obsession with attempting to overturn the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which by now has become a virtual plank in the official Democratic Presidential Platform.
In the early glory days of University Oklahoma football – just after the school had won its first mythical national championship – then-University President Dr. George L. Cross found himself defending a budget request to the State Legislature’s appropriations committee.
As I‘ve noted before, picking on The New York Times is so easy that I really should stop doing it, but sometimes it just has to be done. Especially when the author is Paul Krugman, the man whose so-called Nobel Prize in Economics apparently makes him an expert on all things political, in particular the Republican Party. Take Krugman’s Friday, August 7, 2015, column (please!).
Downtown Chicago, where I spend most of my time, has beggars on nearly every corner. Many of them have regular perches, like fishermen with favorite spots. Others, more creative – and usually more crafty – seem to wander around instead. But except for the licensed sellers of Streetwise and a truly unfortunate few, most of them are hustlers.
Quite remarkably, for the second time in a week, The New York Times has shown some economic sense. Let me repeat that, with some emphasis added: For the second time in a week, The New York Times has shown some economic sense.
The proposed wage New York State wage increase, limited to fast food restaurants with thirty or more locations, “doesn’t do much to raise incomes for workers who don’t work at fast-food chains,” the Times helpfully points out, “[a]nd it imposes higher costs on some businesses than others; in this case, much higher, because fast-food chains will be required to pay about $6 an hour more than their nonchain competitors.” Good points, both.
Entitled “Democrats Wage a National Fight Over Voter Rules,” the Times column was subtitled “G.O.P. Sees Lawsuits on IDs and Access as a Campaign Ploy” and featured, above the fold, a gleefully-smiling Hillary Clinton looking her best in a blue suit with her hands clasped in front of her almost in prayer.
If you’ve seen any discussions of patents and copyrights lately, you’ve probably heard a good deal of name-calling, including terms such as “patent trolls” and “crony capitalism.” Whenever there’s money at stake, passions run high, and there’s a huge amount of money in the patent and copyright industry.
Dr. Emanuel’s real reason for discouraging annual physicals seems to be his expert-driven insistence on making Obamacare work despite the odds. In essence, the Affordable Care Act is yet another wealth transfer scheme, from the healthy to the sickly, from the middle class to the lower class.
Apart from his halting, staccato, eight-to-ten-word phrase delivery when not reading off a TelePrompTer, President Barack Obama has two noticeable and telling verbal tics. The first is “folks”; the second is “just some guy.” The first is just an annoying and apparently insincere way of trying to show that, despite being President, he’s really, you know, just one of us. But the second is a tell-tale sign that he’s throwing somebody under the bus.
For as Blow then recounts, Obama’s 2013 response to Republicans was: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election.” Which Republicans, of course, promptly did, in both 2010 and 2014.
Writing in The New York Times on Monday, November 3, 2014, from Durham, North Carolina, Professor David Schanzer and his student Jay Sullivan suggest that, by U.S. Constitutional amendment, the country should eliminate midterm elections. Instead, they suggest, Congressional representatives and Senators alike should hold four- or eight-year terms coincident with the President’s and be elected only when American voters also elect a U. S. President.
The United States is now manifestly seen as a weak horse even by its allies, a nation in military retreat throughout the world against its three most dangerous adversaries: Russia, China, and militant Islamic fascism.
Among its 645 pages of new red tape for power plants, the EPA states that its proposal “would result in significant reductions of GHG [Green House Gas] emissions that cause harmful climate change, while providing states with ample opportunity to design plans that use innovative, cost-effective strategies that take advantage of investments already being made in programs and measures that lower the carbon intensity of the power sector and reduce GHG emissions.”