Former Democrat and current Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory recently took to the airwaves to explain his change of political allegiance from the left to the right. Watch it here.
“I don’t think it is a bold decision at all,” he begins. “It is the right decision, not only for me, but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.”
Since the beginning of the Great Recession, government has printed massive amounts of new dollars through a procedure known as quantitative easing (QE). Debate has since raged surrounding its consequences. “Keynesian” economists support it, and have ceaselessly pushed for more. Other economists have warned that printing such quantities of money portends inflation. The failure thus far of the latter to materialize has been seized upon by Keynesians as evidence that inflation is an unsubstantiated concern. Yet the threat remains real.
Jason Collins’s ‘coming out’ deemed more newsworthy than late-term abortion
Which is more important, the fact that an abortion clinic told a woman to flush her baby down the toilet after a botched abortion or that an NBA player has come out as gay?
As of 2:45 PM CT, the top headlines at CNN and MSNBC were about the NBA player.
Paul Krugman’s recent column misleads its readers on Great Depression history. He writes:
When the Great Depression struck, many influential people argued that the government shouldn’t even try to limit the damage. According to Herbert Hoover, Andrew Mellon, his Treasury secretary, urged him to “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers. … It will purge the rottenness out of the system.”
Conservatives and libertarians have traditionally shared many common beliefs (though disagreement on some issues has always existed), stemming from their concern for liberty. Yet, the question arises–especially in recent times–what fundamentally separates conservatism from libertarianism? Why, for instance, when both schools of thought espouse a preoccupation with liberty, do conservatives cringe when modern elements of the libertarian movement embrace discussions of secession and nullification? The answer is also what separates conservatives from liberals: our respective understanding of human nature.
As conservatives have argued, redefining state-sponsored marriage represents part of a larger agenda to eliminate male-female distinction in society. The latest example of this agenda is the eradication of separate public bathrooms for transgender students in Massachusetts.
“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” a directive from the Massachusetts Department of Education stipulates.
As the Supreme Court gears up to hear a same-sex marriage case this Tuesday, politicians, the media, cultural icons and leading advocates insist that the issue is about guaranteeing equal “rights” to all, trumpeting the claim that homosexuals are “banned” from marriage. This begs the questions: How do we define “rights?” Is marriage a “right,” and are gays prohibited from it?
Should politicians reach public policy positions because of their personal experience? While all of us have feelings at the micro level, making arguments for national policy based on personal emotion, which is a becoming increasingly common, erodes standards and ultimately damages society.
We hear ad nauseam that the right is out of touch with reality. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, for instance, castigate the GOP for being “ideologically extreme,” and “unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science.” Yet the left’s latest embrace of Hugo Chavez’s authoritarian legacy demonstrates the very disregard of facts, evidence and real world results the left allegedly decries.
Is opposition to government-endorsed same-sex marriage comparable to once-held opposition to interracial marriage? If one believes gender is as irrelevant as race, the comparison may make sense. However, if one believes gender distinction is worth preserving in a way race is not, the comparison dissolves.
First, however, it is important to note that mixed race marriages were once outlawed. Today, however, same-sex marriage is nowhere outlawed. Rather, the federal government simply does not recognize it. As I pointed out previously: