See what gun laws do in Chicago!

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., President Barack Obama has renewed a charge to enact sweeping gun control legislation and Vice President Joe Biden has said using an executive order would be an appropriate way to address the issue.

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to introduce a bill in Congress “to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.”

It’s her direct response to the claim an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon was used in the school shooting in Newtown.

But lost in the debate on gun control is the situation in Chicago, Ill., run by Obama’s friend Rahm Emanuel, where gang violence primarily in the black and Hispanic communities led to the murders of 506 in 2012.

In a city with some of the toughest gun control laws in America, Fox News reported that Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy “acknowledged aiming at assault weapons misses the mark when dealing with Chicago’s gang violence. The weapon used is generally a handgun and rarely is it purchased through legal channels.”

A WND.com review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003-2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the manners in which people were murdered in Chicago.

During that period, 4,251 people were murdered in Chicago; 3,371 died from being shot, with 98 percent of the murder weapons being a handgun. Thirty-seven people were killed with a rifle (caliber of bullet not specified) and 40 were killed with a shotgun.

In 27 of the murders, the type of gun used could not be determined by the Chicago Police Department.

Eight-point-seven percent of people murdered in Chicago were stabbed to death; 7 percent of the people murdered in Chicago between 2003-2011 died from what the Chicago Police Department classifies as “assault”; 92 people were killed by strangulation; 27 people by blunt force; 15 by asphyxiation; and 51 people were categorized in the “other” category by the Chicago Police Department.

Read more here.

Rahm Emanuel Attempts to Revive Gun Control After Failure in Illinois Assembly

After the Illinois General Assembly failed to bring a bill amounting to a near-total statewide gun ban in last week’s lame duck session, Rahm Emanuel said today he isn’t willing to wait any longer for new gun control laws.

Emanuel told reporters he feels confident he can pass expanded gun regulations:

Waiting isn’t a strong suit of mine… First of all, I believe there’s, I know there’s a majority in the state, an overwhelming majority in the city for a ban on assault weapons, clips, and comprehensive background checks on all sales, wherever they take place, wherever the location may be. And there’s also a majority in the legislature.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Emanuel plans to introduce the legislation at next week’s city council meeting but refused to give any details. Last month, the state of Illinois’ ban to conceal and carry firearms in public was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

Read more here.

Mark Steyn fillets authoritarian mayors

While Rush Limbaugh cut right to the chase on Chick-fil-A, calling out the “Stalinist” tactics of several big-city mayors for their “direct assault on Christianity,” the inimitable Mark Steyn was busy with a fine-point pen.

Referring to a Chicago alderman’s opposition to Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant in his ward because the company president, who is a Christian, recently stated his support for traditional marriage and opposition to gay marriage, Steyn writes:

…in a city with an Aurora-sized body count every weekend, his priority was to take the municipal tire-iron to the owners of a chain of fast-food restaurants…

The city’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, agrees with the alderman: Chick-fil-A does not represent “Chicago values” – which is true if by “Chicago values” you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates.

But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama’s chief of staff. Until the president’s recent “evolution,” the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A.

Read more here.

Grand Mufti Emanuel’s Chicago Values

When Rahm Emanuel ascended to the top of Chicago’s political heap last year, it was thought to have been the result of a citywide election that won him the mayorship. I had no idea he was appointed the city’s first Grand Mufti.

But thus it must be, as Emanuel has spoken definitively as to what shall henceforth be considered Chicago values.

This, of course, refers to the Chick-fil-A flap, in which Emanuel expressed support for a city alderman who was going to ban the restaurant from his ward over chain president Dan Cathy’s opposition to faux marriage.

That alderman, Proco Moreno, actually said, “Because of this man’s [Cathy’s] ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.” This prompted Grand Mufti Emanuel to affirm that the restaurant was unwelcome and decree, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.”

Yet who is Emanuel to issue a fatwa on what Chicago values are on faux marriage when approximately half of Chicagoans oppose the idea? Should these residents be expelled from the city or prohibited from making a living?

But if Emanuel speaks for a supernatural source, and I wouldn’t doubt it, it isn’t God. This is because hypocrisy is not a divine value.

It isn’t just that Emanuel worked for Bill Clinton and never made a peep when his boss signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. That was a long time ago, some will say. It isn’t even just that he was a staunch supporter of Barack Obama, who also opposed faux marriage until his “evolution” this year. Grand Mufti Emanuel could have experienced sympathetic evolution, some will say. It’s that Emanuel has also been a supporter of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Farrakhan’s anti-Jewish and anti-white bigotry are well documented, but that gets a pass from the loony left. But what of that which Emanuel has obviously declared intolerable bigotry: defense of virtue and marriage? On this count, if Dan Cathy is a heretic, Farrakhan is an apostate.

Read more here.

Obama and his cronies give his base in Chicago a big favor-free internet and PCs

f this isn’t blatant favoritism I don’t know what is.

As part of the White House’s deal to permit Comcast to buy NBC Universal, the government forced Comcast to promise to provide, according to Abby W. Schacter of the New York Post:

2.5 million low income households: (i) high-speed Internet access service for less than $10 per month; (ii) personal computers, netbooks, or other computer equipment at a purchase price below $150; and (iii) an array of digital-literacy education opportunities.”

Who are the lucky beneficiaries among all the Americans who fit this category? Are you sitting down? Poor blacks in Obama’s hometown in Chicago are the ones getting the sweet deal. Is it also a coincidence that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff, was recently elected mayor and may need to boost his reputation among this same group of people, since he defeated a couple of the black candidates widely supported by them?

Of course, many of the key people in Obama’s White House also hail from the Windy City including the man who replaced Emanuel as the Chief of Staff, Bill Daley (brother of Chicago’s former mayor) and Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s oldest friends and advisers.

This sort of bullying is not uncommon in Cook County, one of the last Democrat-run city machines in the nation (wags call it Crook County for a reason). One hand washes the other there and rules are bent to favor political allies — the seeming modus operandi of Barack Obama on a national scale over the last few years.

Nor is race-based policy-making something that is unknown in the Obama administration. At the Federal Communications Commission Obama created something called the Chief Diversity Officer. The first person to hold this position is Mark Lloyd, who has a long record of advocating that blacks replace whites as executives in the broadcasting industry and as owners of media outlets to achieve racial fairness

Were poor rural white kids in southern towns outside of Illinois even considered for such a sweet deal?

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House Photo: GETTY

By Alex Spillius in Washington

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to “bang heads together” to get policy pushed through.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.

“I would bet he will go after the midterms,” said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. “Nobody thinks it’s working but they can’t get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he’ll go.”

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that “no one will be surprised” if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.

“It might not be his fault, but the perception is there,” said the consultant, who asked not to be named. “Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.

“Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm’s job.”

There were sharp differences over health care reform, with Mr Emanuel arguing that public hostility about cost should have forced them into producing a scaled down package. Mr Obama and advisers including David Axelrod, the chief strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and mentor from Chicago, decided to push through with grander legislation anyway.

Mr Emanuel has reportedly told friends that his role as White House chief of staff was “only an eighteen month job” because of its intensity.

Regarded as the most demanding after president, it involves controlling the president’s agenda, enforcing White House message discipline as well as liaising with Congress.

His departure would regarded as another sign of how Mr Obama’s presidency has been far more troubled than expected.

Mr Emanuel has privately expressed a readiness to run for mayor of Chicago, which is also his home town though he was never part of the Obama set and did not endorse the then senator in the Democratic primary in 2008.

That would however depend on Mayor Richard Daley stepping down when he is up for re-election in 2011.

The chief obstacle to taking the White House job originally was doubts about moving his three children from Chicago. According to another former Clinton official, he has let friends know that he is “very sensitive to the idea that he is not a good father for having done this”.

One of Washington’s more colourful characters, Mr Emanuel is the son of Jewish immigrants and was an accomplished ballet dancer at school. He served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Force in the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The politics of disaster

By: Susan Estrich

When BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward went to Capitol Hill this week, he got beat up on by all sides.

When the president declared “war” from the Oval Office in response to the continuing spill, he, too, got beat up on by all sides.

Welcome to the politics of disaster.

What everyone wants, of course, is the one thing neither man can deliver anytime soon: a stop to the spill.

If they could do it, they would. If they could make it happen, they would. But for all the talk of war and funds and escrow, the reality is very simple: The oil is still spilling out, even more (big surprise) than they said before. The damage will be enormous, even with the secretary of the Navy in charge. The losses will be greater than what anyone forecasts, escrow fund or not.

Whatever they’ve done so far has been too little and too late.

The politics of disaster are difficult. That’s why it’s called a disaster. Not a good thing. Not easily addressed.

And yet, politically speaking, some people emerge from disasters looking better than others. George W. Bush came out of 9/11 a stronger and more popular president than he ever was, before or later. Johnson & Johnson came out of its first Tylenol disaster with a better reputation for quality and integrity than it had before someone tampered with its medicine. Public relations types, not to mention lawyers and politicos, get paid millions of dollars to manage disasters. And every once in a while they get it right.

The secret, as in all such things, is easier said than done. Managing disaster is all about taking responsibility and taking charge — sooner not later. It’s about being perceived as facing it, not downplaying it.

In the first days after the spill, BP did not take responsibility. They ran TV ads, which is altogether different. They downplayed the severity of the spill and became instantly unreliable. They sought to protect shareholder profits and were seen as being slow to put money on the table and as nickel and diming people who were suffering. All bad.

Imagine if they had immediately called up Kenneth Feinberg, who has justifiably earned the reputation as disaster’s go-to guy when it comes to fairly arranging compensation. Say they had put $10 billion in escrow and had given him the authority to start, right then, handing it out. It would have seemed like an amazing gesture. They could have said (to calm their screaming lawyers) that they were very hopeful that costs wouldn’t reach nearly that much, but they wanted people to know they were putting their money where their mouths were.

Instead, they’ve now put twice that on the table, and nobody gives them an ounce of credit. As in relationships, timing is everything.

Imagine if the president, in the first days after the spill, had established a command center in the Gulf, complete with Rahm Emanuel in charge. Like him or hate him, if he’s good enough to run the White House, why not put your top guy in charge of your biggest disaster? Pull out all the big shots. Set up the Gulf White House. Daily briefings by Rahm. The president wouldn’t need to talk about “kicking ass” on television if Rahm were doing it every day.

Would the oil have stopped because Rahm told it to? Of course not. But would people feel like the president really did care, like they were the No. 1 priority, like heads would roll? Yes. You wouldn’t need to talk about a war if you were seen putting everything you had into the fight.

No one wants to face disaster. In only that way, 9/11 was, if not easier, clearer. There was no denying what we were up against, no downplaying the tragedy.

The biggest obstacle to handling disasters is the desire of those facing them to believe it won’t be so bad. When — as usually happens — it is even worse, they are blamed for not facing it sooner.

Had the president and BP stepped up and the oil been stopped, they would have been credited for stopping it. And when the disaster turned out to be a disaster (as disasters usually do), they would have been credited for stepping up and facing it, instead of being blamed for things they could never control.

Blago reveals White House quid-pro-quo deals

By: Michelle Malkin

We’ve had the Summer of Love and the Summer of the Shark. Now, are you ready for the Summer of Corruption? On Thursday, jury selection begins in the federal trial of disgraced former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. The timing couldn’t be worse for Blago’s old Chicago pals in the White House. Just as Team Obama tries to bury one job-trading scandal, another one resurfaces.

It’s a useful reminder that Washington didn’t turn Obama into a business-as-usual politician. He was born and bred among the slimiest in their class.

At the center of the Blago trial is the convergence of the Chicago political machine — the corrupt Democratic Party establishment, Big Labor heavies at the Service Employees International Union and Team Obama.

In December 2008, the political ties that bind them all came under national scrutiny when federal prosecutors publicly released their criminal complaint against Blagojevich. SEIU figured prominently in Blago’s secretly taped musings on how to profit from his power to appoint Obama’s Senate replacement. So did a larger union umbrella federation, Change to Win, led by SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger. Blago hatched a plan to snag a $300,000-a-year job as head of Change to Win in exchange for appointing a union-friendly successor to Obama.

Like Obama, Blago enjoyed massive campaign donations and on-the-ground support from the SEIU’s Purple Army. Like Obama, Blago repaid his Big Labor backers with labor-friendly executive orders and legislative largesse to facilitate union organizing and carve out major portions of the health care industry for them. At the time of his arrest, Blago was preparing another executive order to expand the union power grab over an even larger portion of home health care workers targeted by the SEIU.

Blagojevich did the country an extraordinary unintended favor. As health care analyst David Catron wrote: “He has made it clear to the meanest intelligence that Obama emerged from a hopelessly corrupt political culture. Barack Obama oozed from the same stinking Chicago swamp that produced Blagojevich, and a man whose formative years were spent wallowing in the muck with such creatures isn’t likely to be long in the White House before the stench of pay-to-play politics begins to pervade the place.”

Fast-forward. Nearly two years later, Obama’s legal fixers can’t mask the Chicago-esque odor of Sestak-gate. The president’s legal team, led by chief fixer and legal counsel Bob Bauer, orchestrated a Memorial Day weekend document dump intended to squash mounting public criticism of the administration’s alleged government job offer to Pennsylvania Democratic senatorial candidate Joe Sestak. Bauer’s memo acknowledged that “options for Executive Branch service were raised with him” through former President Bill Clinton, whom White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted to woo Sestak.

Blago knows all about working with Team Obama through intermediaries to explore, ahem, “options.” Blago’s then-Chief of Staff John Harris allegedly mapped out a “three-way deal” to give the White House a “buffer” obscuring the obvious quid pro quo. SEIU would assist Obama with Blago’s appointment of a union-friendly candidate; Blago would get his cushy union job; and SEIU would be rewarded down the road with favors from the White House. Team Blago reached out to the SEIU. An unnamed SEIU official agreed to float their plan and “see where it goes.”

The Senate candidate Blago allegedly approached was top Obama adviser and Chicago political godmother Valerie Jarrett, who removed herself from the running when she took a top White House adviser post instead. Who was the “SEIU official” Team Blago spoke with and met? Internal communications in December 2008 fingered Obama’s longtime Chicago pal and SEIU Local 1 President Tom Balanoff. Balanoff, not coincidentally, had been appointed by Blago to the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

Two days before Christmas 2008, legal counsel Greg Craig released an official self-exonerating report outlining contacts between Team Obama and Team Blago. Balanoff, it turns out, had indeed spoken with Jarrett. The Obama defense? Despite her much-touted political brilliance, the legal team argued, Jarrett “did not understand the conversation to suggest that the Governor wanted the cabinet seat as a quid pro quo for selecting any specific candidate to be the President-Elect’s replacement.” The Blago subpoena of the president filed last month begs to differ — and directly implicates Obama:

“…despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president (presumably SEIU’s Andy Stern) told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on Nov. 3, 2008, who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message, labor union official told labor union president, “I’m the one.” Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick.”

It’s going to be a long, hot summer of Chicago corruption.

Obama’s Definition of Change: More of the Same and Worse

By LIZ SIDOTI (AP)

WASHINGTON — So much for changing how Washington works.

Crimping his carefully crafted outsider image and undercutting a centerpiece of his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama got caught playing the usual politics — dangling a job offer for a political favor in the hunt for power.

His lawyer admitted as much in a Friday report. It detailed how Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, sent former President Bill Clinton on a mission: try to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., to abandon his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., by offering an executive branch post. Sestak said no, stayed in the race and beat the incumbent.

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place,” Obama had told reporters at the White House on Thursday.

True or not, Obama has a political problem.

Because what did take place was backroom bargaining, political maneuvering and stonewalling, all of which run counter to the higher — perhaps impossibly high — bar Obama has set for himself and his White House to do things differently.

The White House’s reluctant acknowledgment of the chain of events shone a light on the unseemly, favor-trading side of politics — and at an inopportune time for Obama and Democrats as they seek to keep control of Congress.

This election year, angry voters have made clear they have little patience for politics generally and Washington politics specifically. And they are choosing candidates who promise to change the system — and ousting incumbents who fail to deliver.

But what may be even more troubling for the president is the question the episode raises: Has Obama become just like every other politician?

The answer could have implications for him ahead of congressional elections this fall and his likely re-election race in two years.

The White House tried to blunt the media maelstrom by releasing the report on the Friday before a long Memorial Day weekend, when fewer people are paying attention to the news.

White House counsel Robert Bauer said what transpired was neither illegal nor unethical.

But he also said: “There have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administrations — both Democratic and Republicans and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office.”

Fair enough.

But Obama has held himself to a different standard. By that measurement, and in this case, he failed to deliver.

As a candidate, Obama cast himself as above partisan sniping and political maneuvering — even as he proved to be a shrewd politician able to broker deals. He promised voters turned off by politics and Washington — and yearning for change that this fresh-faced, political newcomer offered — that he would do things differently from his predecessors.

In Obama’s Washington, lobbyists would be banned from serving in his administration, the Democratic National Committee would be barred from accepting money from political action committees, White House visitor logs would be released and reams of information would be posted online.

As president, Obama has turned that vision into reality, albeit with some exceptions. He has trumpeted his goal of an open and transparent administration. He bristles at the notion that his White House is anything but. And in a frustrated tone, he routinely talks like an outsider doggedly working to change the ways of Washington.

But the Sestak incident undercuts all that — a point not lost on Obama’s GOP critics.

It all began when Specter, a veteran GOP senator facing a difficult Republican primary, chose to become a Democrat last year at the White House’s urging. Obama quickly endorsed him and pledged to campaign for him. The White House tried to clear the Democratic field for him.

But Sestak entered the Democratic primary anyway.

At one point during his campaign, he said that a job was offered but he provided no details. The White House deflected repeated questions about the claim, insisting officials did not behave inappropriately while also declining to elaborate.

It wasn’t until Sestak upset Specter in the Democratic primary May 18 that Republicans renewed their pressure on the administration to disclose what happened. Also, two top Democrats — party chief Tim Kaine and Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party’s second-ranking leader in the Senate — said the White House and Sestak needed to address the questions.

In the end, Bauer’s report said this: Emanuel enlisted Clinton’s help as a go-between with Sestak. Clinton agreed to raise the offer of a seat on a presidential advisory board or another executive board if Sestak remained in the House and dropped his bid, “which would avoid a divisive Senate primary.”

Sestak said Clinton called him last summer and raised the possibility, but “I said no.”

The White House hopes the report puts the matter to rest. Republicans will try to make sure it doesn’t.

EDITOR’S NOTE _ Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.

Obama’s (Axelrod’s) choreographed media blackout

By: David Limbaugh
Examiner Columnist

Our “most open and transparent” president in American history is still playing hide-and-seek with the press, and even the liberal New York Times has begun to notice it, as indicated by this headline: “Obama Turns His Back On the Press.”

If the mainstream media were not so ideologically wedded to President Obama’s big-government agenda, they would be doing more than pointing out his secrecy and hypocrisy with the occasional headline. They’d be skewering him daily for his marked inaccessibility. Not having a genuine news conference since July would be remarkable for the least transparent administration, let alone one that made openness a signature campaign issue.

But not everyone in the leftist press is exercising such restraint about Obama’s media blackout. CBS News’ Chip Reid decided to ask Obama a question following his signing of the Freedom of the Press Act. Doing his best Hugo Chavez, Obama said, “I’m not doing a press conference today, but we’ll be seeing you guys during the course of this week.”

HotAirPundit posted a video of Reid explaining that he asked the question because the irony of Obama’s signing the Freedom of the Press Act while rarely fielding questions “in impromptu situations” was “too rich to resist.” Reid asked, “Mr. President, in the interest of press freedom, might you consider a couple of questions on BP?”

When Reid took Obama up on his noncommittal pledge and tried to ask him a question at the Rose Garden “news conference” with the president of Mexico a few days later, Obama ignored him.

This should surprise no one. A case could be made that Obama’s never had a news conference that he hasn’t largely controlled. He and his handlers, from David Axelrod to Rahm Emanuel, understand the importance of managing the press to control the message in the interest of advancing the leftist agenda.

They know that their statist goal of greatly expanding government depends on Obama’s not revealing any more than necessary how radical to the core he actually is because true transparency about his real agenda would be suicidal.

But his handlers also realize, even if Obama doesn’t, that the less scripted he is the more difficult it is to manage the message. And they understand that he ought not be allowed to venture too far from the teleprompter very often, lest he demonstrate that his manufactured reputation both for eloquence and wisdom are, well, manufactured. Oh, yes, and don’t let me forget those manufactured bipartisan myths, but surely no one is clueless enough to pay any attention to those anymore.

There’s just no telling what he might say off the cuff, whether it’s an awkwardly inappropriate “shout-out” to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow before delivering curiously disconnected remarks on the Fort Hood massacre or telling Joe the Plumber we need to spread the wealth around a little or saying, “At a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”

But Obama’s repeated gaffes tell me that he’s too narcissistic to fully grasp that he often undermines his own cause when off-script because he can’t refrain from playing his hand.

But I would bet that in their inner-circle huddles, Obama’s handlers have somehow persuaded him — because he always must be the boss — to studiously avoid unscripted moments like the plague, leave the message scripting to the choreographers, and deal with any press blowback through damage control. That’s a much lesser evil than getting off-message.

In one of his extemporaneous moments at Hampton University, he unwittingly disclosed the administration’s MO, not that discerning observers didn’t already know it. He openly lamented the advent of the “24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.”

He might as well have just directly said it: “I don’t like the free flow of information in the new media, which tends to impede the advancement of my agenda, which depends on keeping the public in the dark.”

That is exactly the philosophy of his appointed “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd, who idolizes Hugo Chavez and believes freedom of speech must be subordinated to the left’s “greater” societal goals, and of his Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, who complained about the “overabundance” of ideas that might require government action to “un-skew.”

Think about it: Without Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the new media shining the light of truth daily, populist lies, such as that the Arizona law is racist and discriminatory, might go unchallenged.

We are dealing with a totalitarian mindset in this administration, and it might sound more civil to candy coat that fact, but it doesn’t serve the interests of truth or of the nation.

Examiner Columnist David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page.

R

%d bloggers like this: