Proponents of President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet insist they oppose content control. They even style themselves defenders of free speech. But there is a very serious risk that changing the Internet from an unregulated free enterprise into a heavily-regulated public utility will lead over time to content control.
For President Obama and the unlawful immigrants he is determined to reward with work permits, social security numbers, and welfare benefits, last week was triumphant. As the congressional February 27 deadline for funding the Department of Homeland Security draws closer, insiders learn with each passing day that Obama's executive action is much more expansive than originally presented.
Last week President Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against ISIS "and associated persons and forces" anywhere in the world for the next three years. This is a blank check for the president to start as many new wars as he wishes, and it appears Congress will go along with this dangerous and costly scheme.
What would it look like if politics stopped at the water's edge? It wouldn't look like the mess that John Boehner created by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a session of Congress on March 3. By allowing Netanyahu to stage what is effectively a campaign event in the U.S. Capitol, congressional Republicans have not only damaged our relations with Israel but threatened our diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
It's kind of sad being forced to watch the death struggle of these modern-day dinosaurs. Responsible parents should keep their kids from peering over the Plexiglas railing into the tar pits below to see the huge lumbering antediluvian beasts frenziedly dig themselves deeper into the sticky morass that is gay marriage. Not a sight for the queasy or squeamish.
Just guessing here, but I imagine forecasters at the Weather Channel are embarrassed about having to give winter storms names like "Juno," "Kari" and "Linus." Juno is what they called the almost-big one that hit the Northeast in late January. My radar says marketing gurus, not meteorologists, are behind this nonsense.
The full-court press is on from every organ of enlightened liberal opinion: the Supreme Court must not decide this term's big Obamacare case, King v. Burwell, on the actual legal merits, which are a slam-dunk for the plaintiffs. Instead, supporters of the government want the case decided on the consequences of the Court stopping the flow of illegal subsidies. And they want to ignore the fact that stopping the subsidies will actually free millions of people in opt-out states from the individual and employer mandates. They only want to talk about people who would lose subsidies.
If I were still a practicing ob-gyn and one of my patients said she was not going to vaccinate her child, I might try to persuade her to change her mind. But, if I were unsuccessful, I would respect her decision. I certainly would not lobby the government to pass a law mandating that children be vaccinated even if the children's parents object. Sadly, the recent panic over the outbreak of measles has led many Americans, including some self-styled libertarians, to call for giving government new powers to force all children to be vaccinated.