Mike Adams - Kids Write Obama on Abortion

I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. As I sat and watched his recent press conference, I finally understood his opposition to the Iraq War. It seems he and the late President Hussein are kindred spirits who share more than just a name. They share a sick penchant for using children as human shields in the middle of war. And make no mistake about it; America is currently at war with itself on many different fronts. As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical:

1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment.
2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as "health care" within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally
3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons.

But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That's normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.

What people do not realize is that the practice of children voluntarily writing the White House is so common that the Obama Administration is having difficulty keeping the content of some of these letters from the press. Fortunately, I have a mole in the White House who has sent me some of these previously hidden letters - all of which were mailed by school children to Obama. In fairness, we are forbidden to assume that any of the following letters were written under duress from right wing parents or school teachers:

Grant writes "Mr. Obama, there should be some changes in the law with abortions. It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be [sic] a limit with killing babies. Please don’t let people own abortion clinics or give money to powerful lobbies like Planned Parenthood. I think there should be a good reason to get an abortion. There should be a limit about [sic] how many abortions a person can have."

Julia writes "Even though I am not scared for my own safety, I am scared for others who are not yet born. My opinion is it should be very hard for people to be aborted in the womb. I beg you to work very hard to make killing children not allowed, not just for me, but for the whole United States."

Taejah writes "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives since 1973. So I thought I would write to you to STOP feminist violence. Thank you, Mr. President."

Right now, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the New York Times should be up in arms about the fact that these letters are just now hitting the press. They should also be outraged that it took a leak for them to get there. Clearly, the press has a right to know what all children - liberal or conservative - are thinking about important matters of public policy. With the help of the media, we could have curtailed the right to abortions - despite the fact that they are clearly written into the language of the constitution (right next to the right to homosexual sodomy and free birth control). After all, the president himself said “if there's even one step that we can take to save another child then surely we have an obligation to try."

If only the president valued the political opinions of all children equally. Then he might realize that every child has an equal right to life. And so many children could be saved

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Crystal Wright - Who Sunk Our Foreign Policy: the Last Face Off Between Obama and Romney

President Obama is so wrapped up in being Obama, he can’t see that not having a plan for the next for years is a problem when you’re running for re-election. During the final debate on foreign policy, Obama oozed with revisionist history of his record and added a theatrical element to his delivery, glaring at hole through Romney. Meant to be intimidating I’m sure, Romney responded to Obama’s stares and interruptions with calm and confidence, leaving Romney looking like the only adult in the room, as someone commented to me.

Romney described the debate and Obama’s re-election campaign well: “Attacking me is not an agenda.” Throughout the 90 minutes, Obama resorted to his worn out, false attacks on Romney: tax cuts for the rich, Bain Capital shipping jobs to China and so on and so on.

When Romney cautioned the Navy is the smallest since 1917, Obama mocked Romney like a bullying teenager. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets, than in 1916 said Obama, so the question isn’t a game of battleship, it’s what are our capabilities.” Uhmm, for the past four years, Obama seems to have been handling foreign policy like it’s a game, without focus. Who sunk America’s foreign policy?

If anyone looked like he had a “reckless” foreign policy that was “all over the map,” it was President Obama. As Romney pointed out time and time during the debate, America isn’t safer under Obama’s presidency. “We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” referring to the killing of Osama bin Laden, which Obama seems to think defines a foreign policy strategy.

One of Romney’s strongest moments was his exchange with Obama over Israel and the threat of a nuclear Iran. Obama declared the relationship between America and Israel has never been stronger and Israel is our greatest ally in the region. I’m sure this was news to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who all but pleaded with Obama to take a stand against Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the threat of military action yet Obama refuses.

In scathing clarity, Romney pointed out not only is Iran four years closer to building a nuclear weapon, Obama has never visited Israel. “You went to middle East, flew to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Iraq and you skipped Israel and they noticed you skipped Israel.” Romney added that the relationship with Israel is so strained that 38 Democrat Senators sent Obama a letter telling him he needs to repair tensions with our greatest ally in the Middle East.

From the beginning of his presidency, Romney noted Obama said “he would meet with the world’s worst actors Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il,” and couldn’t wait to give a speech to the Muslim world in Egypt, apologizing for America.

What would Romney do differently? He would go after the bad guys, as he said, but also show American leadership abroad with a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t abdicate decision making to the United Nations, particularly Russia and China. Among other things, Romney would stand with Israel and tighten sanctions on Iran and demonstrate unequivocally there will be consequences if Iran doesn’t end its nuclear ambitions.

After two years of witnessing President Assad butcher 30,000 Syrians and take no action, Obama declared in the debate “Syria must determine its own future” and said he was “confident Assad’s days are numbered.” Romney, on the other hand, called the crisis “a humanitarian disaster” and said while he doesn’t want to engage America in another war, we have to “take leadership.” If elected president, Romney said he would work with our allies and arm the insurgents to topple Assad because Syria is the only partner Iran has in the region and is arming Assad to gain strategic control in the Middle East.

In the face of his failed record, Obama retreated back to domestic policy and talked about the critical importance of “nation building here at home.” Of course this is code for more spending. I thought the $800 billion stimulus was supposed to build up our nation again. He like Romney pointed out America can’t be strong abroad if it’s fiscal house isn’t in order but in contrast to Romney’s plan to create 12 million jobs, Obama offered no plan.

Instead Obama sang the same tune, declaring America can reduce its deficit by asking the wealthy to pay more to fund more investments at home. Raising taxes and continuing to spend while making no cuts to government won’t reduce our $16 trillion debt.

Obama also said he wants “to hire more teachers in math and science.” Taking this all in like the older, wiser uncle, Romney simply responded, “we have to grow the economy and it’s not going to happen by just hiring teachers.” Or rather creating more union jobs. As he did successfully in the two previous debates, Romney reminded voters again of the obvious, Obama’s plan “hasn’t worked.”

Closing out the ball game, Romney ended with this. “I'm going to make sure that we get people off of food stamps, not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs,” he said. Romney promised to take responsibility as president and “work with” Americans “to get the country back. “

In Contrast, Obama closed with more of the same, government spending and debt but curiously added “I always listen to your voices.” This is ironic thing to say because Obama never listened to the American people. In 2009, Americans wanted jobs but Obama gave us what he wanted Obamacare.

The problem with Obama is his narcissism gets in the way of him doing his job. The “rise of the oceans didn’t slow and our planet didn’t begin to heal,” as Obama arrogantly predicted his election would produce in his victory speech. A fiscally conservative Democrat told me the day after the debate Obama blew a great opportunity being elected the first black President. After so much ego over the past four years, America needs humility of leadership. America needs Mitt Romney.

Crystal Wright

Crystal Wright is a black conservative woman living in Washington, D.C. Some would say she is a triple minority: woman, black and a Republican living in a Democrat dominated city. She’s contemplating moving back to her home state of Virginia, where her vote would count for something. By day, Crystal is a communications consultant and editor and publisher of the new website, conservativeblackchick.com. Crystal earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from Georgetown University and holds a Masters of Fine Arts in Theatre from Virginia Commonwealth University.

Wright is the principal owner of the Baker Wright Group, LLC , a full service public relations firm, specializing in communications counseling, media relations, message development, media training and crisis communications. The firm’s approach is straight forward counseling: an unvarnished approach to public relations.

Visit Crystal's Website by clicking HERE

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Why the Obama Bubble Still Hasn’t Burst

Can there be political bubbles like financial bubbles?

Financial bubbles, inflated by hopes and dreams, burst when reality negates any possibility that those hopes and dreams will be realized. At that point, sky high stock or bond or real estate prices come crashing down to earth.

Can the same thing happen in politics? Can a skilled politician, who has become popular with soaring rhetoric and promises, deflate when it starts becoming clear that he is not going to deliver?

Of course, I am thinking about our president.

Mitt Romney demonstrated in the first presidential debate that the considerable gap between President Obama’s rhetoric and his performance makes him a vulnerable candidate.

Yet, the president’s bubble is far from bursting.

Romney, in the debate, was aggressive but deferential toward Obama. He was deferential because, despite the poor state of the country after almost four years of the Obama administration, Barack Obama is still a popular president.

Recent polling shows his approval remains around 50 percent. At similar stages in the presidencies of the last two presidents voted out after one term, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, their popularity ratings were in the thirties.

What accounts for Barack Obama’s Teflon? How is it that, after almost four years of terrible economic results – high unemployment, sluggish growth, huge deficits and mounting national debt – that Obama’s persona is not more tarnished?

Shouldn’t today’s economic facts on the ground be sufficient to puncture the Obama bubble?

One part of the answer to this puzzle is the changing demographics of the country.

The United States today is a nation that is much less white, much less married, and less traditional than it once was. These are growing trends and each reflects in at least some large part constituencies with values supportive of Obama’s world view - activist government and moral relativism.

What was once the exception to the rule in America – not being white, not being married, not having traditional views on family, sex, and abortion – is now becoming the rule. And these constituencies are becoming sufficiently large to elect a president.

National Journal released a poll right before the debate showing Obama and Romney dead even nationwide – 47 percent each – among likely voters.

The poll shows Obama’s white support at just 38 percent.

Obama was elected in 2008 with 43 percent of the white vote. It appears that he could be re-elected with even less.

In Gallup’s polling of last week, Obama’s approval among white voters stood at 39 percent.

He gets 38 percent approval among those who attend church weekly compared to 55 percent among those who attend church seldom or never.

And his approval among married voters is 40 percent compared to 57 percent among those not married.

According to data compiled by the Tax Foundation, the large majority of those now filing tax returns in the U.S. are single. In 1960, 65 percent of all tax filers were married and 35 percent single. In 2010 it’s reversed - 61 percent of filers were single and 39 percent married.

When Barack Obama pushes for taxing the rich, he’s not just pitting those with the highest incomes against everyone else. He’s pitting married against singles. Eight of ten tax filers in the top twenty percent of earners are married. The majority of middle income and below filers are single.

It’s really a cultural divide, one you can be sure that Barack Obama is very aware of, that is keeping his bubble inflated.

The fact that Obama’s support is still this strong despite his terrible record sends a clear warning to those looking for a new birth of American freedom.

Romney and Ryan should consider taking these constituencies on directly – blacks, Hispanics, singles – explaining why America’s future hinges on shutting down the government plantation.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Economy Stalls As Obama Targets Businesses

The economic experts are worried.

From the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, to the central bankers of China, the U.K. and France, to the specialists on Wall Street, some of the presumed “best and brightest” among us are expressing concerns over a global economic slowdown. And the fussing got a little louder after last Friday’s employment report here in the U.S.

These presumed geniuses, including the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, in particular, need to understand something. Their friend President Barack Obama has become nothing short of an enemy to one of the world’s greatest economic engines – American small businesses.

It’s insufficient to say that President Obama isn’t helping small businesses, or that the President isn’t “trying hard enough.” The Obama Administration is proactively attacking small businesses, as though they were domestic terrorist cells – while at the same time they seem genuinely surprised that “job creation” is so weak.

Small businesses and their respective advocacy groups have no idea how to cope with the mandates placed upon them by Obamacare, nor how vicious the President’s army of 50,000 new I.R.S. agents will be in auditing and penalizing them. And since 2010’s “banking reform” laws came to pass, banking and lending institutions have been in a state of shell-shock trying to figure out how to continue doing what they do – lending – without getting penalized for allegedly violating the all-important reforms.

What isn’t so widely known, however, is the increased frequency with which individual businesses are being confronted and threatened by governmental agencies other than the I.R.S. For example, U.S. Congressman David Schweikert (R-Arizona) tells a horrifying story about a small business owner and his government- and it’s a story that helps explain why the economy isn’t growing.

While visiting a local coffee house in his hometown of Scottdale, Schweikert is confronted by another patron who asks “can you please help me?” Turns out this other patron is the owner of Zoe Inidustries, Inc., a small, local company that designs and sells custom plumbing fittings and supplies (see their website at ShowerBuddy.Com).

As Congressman Schweikert sits down to listen to the man’s story, the sickening details emerge. This small, private business has been employing people in Scottsdale since 2000, and has earned itself an “A+” rating from the Better Business Bureau, but is now being told that it must pay $447,000 to President Obama’s Department of Energy.

Why would the D.O.E. know anything at all about Zoe Industries? The Department of Energy regularly, and randomly tests new plumbing fixtures that are bought and sold in the U.S., and a particular shower head product that Zoe Industries designs allegedly didn’t measure up to federal standards.

The U.S. federal government requires all new shower heads to possess what is known as an “O-ring” flow restrictor mechanism within the shower head that - as its’ name implies – reduces the flow of water and presumably reduces water consumption. And while all of Zoe Industries’ shower heads have the proper O-ring mechanisms in them, the Department of Energy believed that, in one particular case, the O-ring was “too easy to remove” during a test.

Schweikert got to work, investigating the D.O.E.’s case against Zoe Industries. Fortunately, Zoe Industries was able to recently “settle” the complaint against them by their government, by paying a much smaller fine – just slightly under $30,000.00. But this happened after the company had engaged in over a year’s worth of “discussions” and “negotiations” with the D.O.E., and after the company had accrued over a year’s worth of legal bills to defend themselves against the D.O.E.

For his part, Congressman Schweikert also shot-back legislatively, authoring and passing an Amendment to a Department of Energy funding bill that would forbid the D.O.E. from spending any of its funds on testing shower heads. This restriction on how the D.O.E. spends its’ money likely won’t hold up in the Democrat-controlled Senate, but it nonetheless got the D.O.E’s attention-after its’ passage the D.O.E. was on the telephone to Congressman Schweikert expressing “concern” that there had been a “misunderstanding.”

So did the D.O.E. extort Zoe Industries? Clearly, an agency of our federal government used its own brute force to extrapolate money out of the pockets of a private citizen. And the growing fear among business owners is that instances like this are only a “sneak preview” of things to come, when the I.R.S. begins policing individuals and companies for alleged Obamacare compliance violations.

And the word “alleged” is very important here. One need not have violated the law at all – but if your government alleges that you have, you either must pay the fine that your government is demanding, or be prepared to run-up potentially massive bills paying Attorneys to represent you and fight on your behalf.

This is why our economy is stagnant right now. The President who claims he is saving us from oppressive healthcare bills, is the same President whose Administration is comfortable fining a small plumbing supply shop owner nearly half a million dollars. American businesses are living in fear of American government, and businesses owners are not in a position (financially or otherwise) to take more risks and try to grow and expand – they are “tapped out” just trying to survive.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - Friends of Obama Allowed to Opt Out

Emigrant Bank was recently identified to receive a waiver that would allow the bank to opt out of rigorous Dodd-Frank requirements. These of course are the same new rules and regulations that Barack deems essential to the nation. Yet when the bank’s owner, Howard Milstein, who is a close friend and was a bundler for President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, protested that the new rules would seriously crimp operations of his bank, the Obama Administration worked with members of congress to grant him a waiver from the new rules.

Other financial institutions and banks have consistently and vehemently argued that the Dodd-Frank Legislation that Obama championed is seriously flawed and will bring a raft of unintended consequence--but they were not friends of Barack Obama. These many other banks and institutions are not deemed worthy of a waiver.

Sadly, the case of Emigrant Bank is not the only example of the Obama Administration’s mercurial application of our nation’s laws. There is the obvious case, now being decided by the Supreme Court, of Obamacare, in which some (Nebraska´s Cornhusker’s Kickback or Louisiana’s Purchase) are allowed full exemption from the law’s requirements. What those who are exempted have in common is that, once again, friends of Obama can expect special exemptions from the rules and laws that others must follow.

There seem to be two sets of rules. The special, privileged class of people and businesses (Friends of Obama -FOO) can expect to be granted unique waivers, carve outs and shameful side deals designed to escape, to dodge, and to be exempted from much of the overreaching, poorly conceived legislation and administrative orders that Obama’s White House pushes with utter conviction on the rest of the nation.

On the other hand, if an organization, such as the Catholic Church, that is not a FOO, seeks a principled exemption to an emerging national policy, the organization is ridiculed, dismissed, and ignored.

This disgraceful double standard is becoming a standard practice in the Obama Administration.

Want more examples? Arne Duncan has recently allowed some 10 states to have exemptions from No Child Left Behind. No doubt the Teachers’ Unions in these states, critical to Obama’s reelection, were keen to ditch the pesky requirements for improved accountability. How much easier to call up friend in the White House and demand an exemption from rules and regulations that are not popular with Union members!

Consider too, the case of government-backed loans to Solyndra. Typically, in a government-backed loan, the government’s is the first debt that must be settled. But if one is a FOO, the rules are different. In that kind of situation, the debt to the federal government (read American taxpayer) is subrogated to that of a friend of Obama—not only friend, but, one of his largest campaign contributors. Other organizations and companies cannot expect similar sweetheart deals--they are not FOO.

Consider also, the case of the revolving door. The law for the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, is very clear. The statute mandates a two year ban on any kind of direct involvement with a previous employer, client or co-worker. Unless, it seems, if one is a FOO. In that case, the rules are different, which seems to have exempted Craig Becker, former counsel for the Service employees International Union (SEIU) who, through an Obama Administration recess appointment, served as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and who moved directly from there to his current position serving as general counsel to the AFL-CIO.

No time off or recusal needed for FOOs.

What does it mean for the country that the Obama Administration spends so much time exempting certain privileged individuals and businesses from the law?

Under Obama, will the United States devolve into a nation where laws are negotiable and will be applied differently for different people, as long as they belong to a special interest group that wants to opt out of the law and that also happens to be a friend of the president?

Our nation could once proudly boast of our national adherence to the Rule of Law. Every American should expect and demand equal treatment under the law, and special friends of the president should not expect or apply a different set of laws for themselves.

But, Barack Obama doesn’t seem to understand this basic principle that governs our nation, and , instead, seems to think that laws are flexible and the rules apply to others. (“Others” means anyone who is not a Friend of Obama-FOO).

Somewhere inside the White House, it is likely that yet another czar is employed to process the many requests for special treatment and waivers from the many new rules and regulations that Barack Obama has inflicted on the rest of the nation.

FOO have learned to expect special exemptions. The unlucky others are not only expected to follow those same rules, but to do so knowing full well that other, more connected FOO are escaping the burdensome new costs, and can avoid the intrusive requirements.

What a deal.

Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Against The Grain: President Obama Out Of Step With American Sensibilities

Sensibility – the capacity for sensation or feeling; keen consciousness or awareness.

Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. So let me suggest that the word “sensibility” might also be described as one’s “gut instincts” about their experiences.

And it may also be the case that President Obama’s recent decline in the polls is not merely because unemployment is high, or because the cost of living is rising higher. It may be that some of President Obama’s own recently stated positions are violating the “gut instincts” that many Americans have about their own country.

Let’s start with the insurance industry mandates for abortion coverage, and the alleged “war on women.” When President Obama mandated in February that medical insurance companies provide coverage for abortion, sterilization and contraception, reaction was swift and visceral. Many religious organizations – most notably the Catholic Church – responded very negatively, and characterized the decision as a threat to religious freedom.

As presidential politics go, Mr. Obama’s mandate probably achieved its intended short-term goal: it successfully re-directed the national conversation away from issues surrounding the economy, the national debt, and a faltering foreign policy, and toward a discussion of abortion and religion. But the ways in which the conversation has devolved since its initial re-direction may not be playing to the President’s favor, and may now be contradicting Americans’ sensibilities about personal responsibility.

Most Americans do not share President Obama’s enthusiasm for abortion. But, fortunately, a majority of Americans still do not share the President’s support for economic entitlements either, nor are most of us as excited about government control over private businesses as he seems to be.

Yet the abortion enthusiasts who have run to the President’s defense in the last several weeks – most notably Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke, who we now know has a direct connection to former Obama Advisor Anita Dunn – have pushed a message of support for both abortion, and entitlements. “If somebody else doesn’t pay for my abortion and birth control,” Ms. Fluke is essentially telling us, then she is being “denied access” to healthcare – and this amounts to a “war on women.”

Americans are tiring of the “somebody else should pay for my stuff” attitude. In fact, there is a growing perception that the Obama entitlement culture is damaging our economy and our future, and the reality that President Obama would intertwine abortion and economic redistribution contradicts our gut instincts about how America should operate.

Another problem for the President may be his recent handling of the military. In the aftermath of the horrific news that a U.S. Marine allegedly massacred several civilians in Afghanistan, the American people have been treated to a barrage of conflicting information. The Marine had a “brain injury;” the Marine was “suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;” he may have been “drunk,” and he was angry about another deployment. We’ve seen all these explanations emerge, with no clear comments from the President or his Administration.

Yet what we have seen and heard from the Administration has been worse than mere message mismanagement. The President and his Administration have exhibited a sense that they neither enthusiastically appreciate the men and women in uniform, nor do they trust them.

It started last Monday March 12th, while President Obama was being interviewed by a Denver television anchor. When asked about the massacre allegations, the President noted the horrific nature of the killings, but then went on to say of our troops that “you can’t help but be proud of them, generally..”

To be fair, the President is in an awful position. He commands the military, yet one that he commands now stands accused of heinous crimes.

Yet the sensibilities of most Americans regarding the military are such that we aren’t just “generally” proud of our troops. Our trust and respect for the men and women in uniform is a near-constant, and it is a rare instance when an individual solider fails to meet our expectations.

To make matters worse, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta paid a visit to Afghanistan days after the offense to address the troops and the Afghani government. But before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside.

The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.

Again, the Obama Administration appeared to be out of step with American gut instincts. While Americans trust the men and women of the military and regard them as superior to any other fighting force, the Obama Administration appears distrusting of the troops, and uncertain of the mission in Afghanistan.

Americans disagree vehemently on ideology and public policy. But, for better or worse, we still haven’t given up on the idea that collectively we are still a good country, and we try to live with a sense of personal responsibility.

President Obama has reminded us that his policies undermine personal responsibility, while advancing the cause of entitlement. His handling of the Afghanistan fiasco suggests that the nation which many of us believe is great, is perhaps for him, not so great after all.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - Team Obama Continues Regulatory Juggernaut

While Republicans focus on skewering GOP presidential candidates in primaries, Team Obama’s regulatory juggernaut continues to destroy the American way of life. Small businesses, entrepreneurs, and job creators are already groaning from the weight of the many and new regulations Obama has initiated in the past three years.

Even more regulations are on the way. However, many of the regulations are masked as "initiatives", where the actual regulation is buried in various appropriations bills sent to congress in the President's 2013 budget.

One of the most recent examples is the recently announced Education Department "Together For Tomorrow" initiative that shifts accountability for student education achievement outcomes away from teachers.

Like so many other Obama inspired regulations, this one, too, starts with a wonderful title, “Together For Tomorrow”. It certainly sounds like a good idea—increase national community volunteer service corps (Americorps) involvement in the education of American children. The "initiative" is connected to a "regulation" that is buried in a Department of Education budget request, which eliminates accountability.

Anyone willing to take a harder look and get passed the winning title can see that the "Together for Tomorrow" plan is just another, blatant political strategy to reward loyalists, such as the teachers unions. The only “togetherness” that Team Obama is interested in, is in building a collation for his 2012 bid for re-election.

The two-page, Department of Education takes vagueness to new levels and outlines few of the initiative’s strategies, though the Department of Education’s budget, in particular, the CNCS’ budget outlines the need for increases, in order to support the program. Of course, more spending on education, with little or no accountability has been the perennial goal of teachers unions for years.

So, the Teachers Unions, who consistently and almost exclusively vote and donate to Democrats, are to be given even more resources with little or no accountability. Nowhere in the Department of Education announcement does Team Obama address Americans’ concern regarding teacher incompetence in the classroom. Nor does the initiative allow for evaluation of teacher outcomes versus student outcomes.

Under the current Team Obama plan, all responsibility for student accountability and student outcomes lies with some vague entity termed the “community”, despite the growing trend in the country to question what exactly is going on in classrooms across the nation.

Startling and sad statistics confront Americans about our nation’s education system. Over 30% of all students in the United States do not graduate from high school. Within minority communities, another startling and dangerous statistic emerges—over 50% of minorities do not graduate from high school.

Yet, 90% of all high-paying jobs require a high school education, and some post-secondary education. How, as a nation, can we possibly hope to “Win the Future” when our next generation cannot even earn a high school diploma?

That is why, across the nation, even Democrats are finally joining Republicans in confronting the iron grip of the teachers’ unions on education. Even Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the Mayor of Chicago is finally confronting the intransigence and incompetence of the teachers’ unions and demanding more accountability for outcomes.

But not Team Obama.

Even more shamefully, buried on page 11 of the CNCS’ Budget Authorization document is the request to delete a rule that requires both accountability and public notice of “significant changes to program requirements, service delivery or policy only through public notice and comment rulemaking.”

The Department of Education claims that requiring public notice and a public comment period “infringes on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch in carrying out programs consistent with the authorizing statute.” Put another way, what Team Obama seems to be telling us is that they are going to reward teacher union loyalists, and there is nothing citizens can do about it.”

Most troubling of all is that Team Obama has decided to buck the trend for increased accountability in our schools. Obama makes the task of education reform all the more difficult and delays again the urgent necessity to honestly deal with the many schools that are failing our children.

Team Obama, once again, slides regulatory over-reach up to new levels, all while avoiding congressional mandates and congressional debates.

Congress is fighting against Team Obama's tendency to avoid accountability, but Team Obama continues to circumvent the constitution and congressional authority by continuing to issue a plethora of Executive Orders creating "initiatives" that increase regulations on all Americans, stifle economic and individual growth, without full congressional approval or budget authority to do so.

‘Together For Tomorrow” is just another Obama sham. Our President hopes to masquerade his policy to reward loyalists, like the Teachers Unions at the expense of the future of the nation. Obama lacks the courage to join the honest reform of an education system that is failing millions of American children. Instead, he is completely focused on his own re-election. And so, yet another terrible Obama executive order goes out that advances a trend that will put another generation of American children at risk.

Barack Obama needs the votes, and the teachers' unions need the money; so, America is stuck with the latest in a long string of Team Obama initiatives, a sham called “Together for Tomorrow”.

Lurita Doan

---

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---