Out of Control College Political Correctness Gets a Surprising New Critic: President Obama


The last few years have been rough for truth-tellers, especially on college campuses. The new fad of “trigger warnings” before hearing speech that might offend our precious snowflakes has reached farcical levels. Colleges have had to create “safe spaces” outside of speaking events for students that are so traumatized that they have to physically flee ideas with which they disagree.

But this week such insane political correctness found a surprising new critic - in the White House.

“I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative, or they don’t want to read a book if it had language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” Obama said Monday while speaking at a town hall meeting at North High School in Des Moines. “I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either — that you when you become students at colleges, you have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them, but you shouldn’t silence them by saying you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.

By the Numbers: America’s Unfortunate Fiscal Evolution from Madisonian Constitutionalism to Wilsonian Statism


I’m a big fan of fiscal data.

In part this is because I’m a policy wonk, but I also like budget numbers because they generally provide strong evidence for my philosophical belief in small government and spending restraint.

For instance, I enjoy sharing my table showing nations that have experienced great success with multi-year limits on spending growth, particularly since I enjoy putting my leftist friends in an uncomfortable position by asking them for a similar list of countries that have made progress by raising taxes (hint: that’s called the null set).

Given my affinity for budget data, I was excited to learn that the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) just released “An Economic History of Federal Spending and Debt.”

This new publication is filled with fiscal information starting in the late 1700s.

To give you an indication, check out this chart which, in one fell swoop, provides more than 200 years of data on spending, revenue, and debt, along with information on major wars and economic dislocations.

Recalling 9/11 While Legitimizing Iran


While they in New York, and Arlington, and Pennsylvania do the important work of remembering and honoring the lives extinguished 14 years ago when the Trade Center towers fell, and the Pentagon burned, and the brave men and women of flight 93 displayed courage so profound that it brings me to tears to think of it, allow me a moment of disrespect to discuss what has happened since and what we can expect from this long war against men and ideologies of terror. I’ll be brief.

The fight has expanded. ISIS has formed, even as al-Qaeda has lost its place at the top of that heirarchy of hate. And ISIS is on the move, across the Middle East, into Europe, and, arguably, here in our country. While refugees should be our concern, it begs the question whether taking in thousands of refugees — a reported majority of whom are men — is the wisest course of action.

Then there’s our recent deal with Iran, the standard line being that it keeps Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But that’s just the sexy stuff that gets clicks. As Dr. Krauthammer so eloquently writes, this deal is really about so, so much more:

Justice Kennedy Supports Davis’ Refusal to Issue Marriage Licenses


Well, not quite, but he did in principle.

On August 9th, 2003, speaking to a meeting of the American Bar Association, Justice Kennedy lashed out at mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, saying he could “accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.” In expressing his disdain, he openly advocated for judges refusing to rule based on the explicit statutory requirements, encouraging them to violate the law in issuing more lenient sentences.

Speaking before the House Appropriations Committee, Kennedy went on to praise such contempt for the law, stating “I do think federal judges who depart downward [issue more lenient sentences for drug offenders, in violation of the mandatory sentencing requirements] are courageous…[and judges should not] follow, blindly, these unjust guidelines”.

Yet Kennedy joined his SCOTUS colleagues in denying a hearing for Rowan County (KY) Clerk of Court Kim Davis, who appealed for an exemption to the Court’s opinion legalizing same-sex marriage across the country in the Obergfell case. With that denial, Davis was declared in contempt of court for her continued refusal to issue licenses, and went to jail for it.

So where is Kennedy now? Why is he not coming to her defense?

The Baffling EB-5 Immigration Controversy

EB Five


In most cases, I can understand why immigration is a controversial issue.

Take amnesty, for instance. Opponents make reasonable points about the downside of rewarding folks who cut in line while supporters make reasonable points about deportation being harsh and impractical.

There’s also a fight relating to welfare, with critics (and not just in America) saying that immigrants are more likely to be poor and a burden on taxpayers and advocates pointing out that it makes more sense to wall off the welfare state rather than walling off the country.

The “anchor baby” issue is another emotional topic, with people on both sides of the issue making both legal and practical arguments about whether children born in the United States should automatically become citizens.

And then there’s the biggest question of all, which is deciding on the “right” number of immigrants, with answers ranging from none to completely open borders.

I get why these topics don’t have answers that are satisfactory to all sides.

But there is one immigration controversy that leaves me most puzzled. Why are some people opposed to the “EB-5” program designed to attract rich investors to America?

Fiorina Trumps Trump



Some of this you can read about in a briefing book, but there’s one level of understanding that you get when you read something. There’s another level of understanding that you get when you’re sitting in the back of a car and a driver gives you a map and Israel is literally wiped off the face of the map. That’s a whole different level of understanding, and I think that’s the kind of leadership we need in the White House, honestly.” ~ Carly Fiorina

The above came from an interview conducted with Fiorina by radio host Hugh Hewitt in an attempt to discern if the questions he asks his guests — and this matters as he’s set to co-moderate the GOP debate this month — are “gotcha” questions as previous guest Donald Trump alleged.

To back up: Hewitt took the opportunity in an interview that aired almost literally right before the Fiorina segment, to quiz current GOP favorite Donald Trump on his knowledge of the Middle East. Specifically, Hewitt asked Trump about names, terrorist group affiliations, which country might be sponsoring those activities, etc. Trump, as you may imagine, bumbled his way through it, fell short on facts (but shone brightly when it came to covering his butt by saying, essentially, “Oh I have a plan, but I can’t tell you about it because that kind of unpredictability is part of my charm!” Sigh.), and then did what he does best: threw a tantrum and insulted Hewitt.

Poll: Blame Mental Issues Not Guns


The left’s standing policy of never letting a tragedy go to waste when it comes to pushing gun control in the wake of gun violence is falling flat yet again with the public. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Americans are unwilling to blame guns for the recent shooting of two journalists in Roanoke, Va.

No matter how much Obama and his supporters may wish it otherwise, the simple fact is that the public is not buying the idea of passing more gun laws in order to stop the problem of shootings by the mentally disturbed. They aren’t even interested in laws that would be aimed at preventing those with mental health problems from acquiring weapons, presumably because the public realizes that the government would be in charge of deciding who is (and isn’t) sane enough to have a weapon.

The recent survey found that only 29% of the public think that stricter gun laws would have prevented the shooting in Virginia, while 60% believe that more gun laws wouldn’t have prevented it at all. Those results are consistent with previous ones in the wake of the shooting of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords. Add to that the fact that 68% of those surveyed believe that the real problem is mental health issues, and the case against more gun control is even more solid. That result is also consistent with previous surveys after the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut.

Kanye for President? At this point, why not?


At Sunday’s Video Music Awards on MTV, rapper Kanye West accepted the Video Vanguard Award, the attention span-limited network’s version of a lifetime achievement award. Deserved or not, West took the opportunity, as he often does at award shows, to make more news for himself. This time he decided to announce his intention to run for president in 2020. Unclear if the Federal Election Commission will now begin monitoring his finances.

Most took the opportunity to laugh at the clown. Kanye is notoriously divisive when he engages politically. He’s also a gaffe-prone loose cannon unsuited to winning hearts and minds in our carefully choreographed campaign climate. And while a certain amount of narcissism is necessary to think you are capable of presiding over the world’s preeminent superpower, West’s level of self-worship may leave him overqualified.

Then again, I’m judging him on a normal election cycle. Given the Twilight Zone-like events of the 2016 cycle so far, Yeezy, as the kids call him, may well be the perfect presidential candidate for 2020.

Great Moments in Socialism

Socialism is an economic failure. International socialism didn’t work in the Soviet Union. National socialism didn’t work in Germany. And democratic socialism, while avoiding the horrors of its communist and Nazi cousins, also has been a flop.

Socialism fails because it attempts to replace market-determined prices with various forms of central planning based on government-dictated prices.

Moreover, socialism channels self interest in a destructive direction. In a free market, people get income and improve their lot in life by satisfying and fulfilling the needs of other people. In a socialist system, by contrast, people squabble over the re-slicing of a shrinking pie.

There’s a famous Winston Churchill quote that basically says that the ostensible problem with capitalism is that people aren’t equally rich, whereas the supposed attractiveness of socialism is that people get to be equally poor.

The Princess of the Levant sent me a visual version of Churchill’s quote, and it’s definitely worth sharing.

Liberals Balk At Paying Cost of “Living” Wage

labor living wage

As it turns out, liberals refuse to put their money where their mouths are…literally.

Earlier this year, labor unions in Los Angeles whipped up low-wage workers into a frenzy with demands for a minimum “living” wage of $15 per hour. They achieved their goal and the $15/hour wage bill was signed into law. This was supposed to be a huge victory for the workers (though, it should be noted, within days of the law going into effect, the same labor unions that lobbied for the $15/hour minimum wage were lobbying government for an exemption for union companies, so that union companies could pay well below the new minimum wage).

Even so, some California business owners decided to show solidarity with the cause of low-wage workers, significantly increasing their starting wage of their own volition.

Vic Gumper, owner of Lanesplitter Pizza (with stores in Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and Emeryville, California), voluntarily raised wages for his employees to between $15 to $25 per hour. In order to cover the cost of the higher “living” wage, Gumper began advertising $30 “living wage pizzas” to his customers, which include patrons from the Pixar Animation Studios and biotech companies located near his shops. In doing so he declared these pizzas “sustainably served, really…no tips necessary”.

The result? Sales have dropped by 25% as liberals in these communities have balked at having to pony up more money for the pizzas. The hit has been so significant that Gumper has had to close during lunch hour at several locations (think about that…a restaurant that has to close during LUNCH because it can’t afford to stay open!).


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.