The word of the week is “transparency.”  No, this isn’t the vapid hopey-changey wordage that the Obama campaign and administration has been using for the past two years, rather the transparency I’m speaking of here involves the literal process of revealing truths, exposing potentially negative material and providing a fair playground on which lovers of rational thought can explore and determine reality for themselves.  At the end of the day, transparency is all about providing access to information and ideas, while shifting power to the people to subsequently formulate conclusions.  This week, two transparency medals of honor should be given out – one to the Sunlight Foundation and the other to Andrew Breitbart (naturally).

First and foremost, in a bid to once again outdo itself in the categories of “way too cool” and “ultra useful,” The Sunlight Foundation has created a timely democracy tool that offers the American public a first-hand look into the opinions and past work of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  The new project, called “Elena’s Inbox” takes Kagan’s public e-mails from her Clinton administration years and organizes them in an easy-to-view format, thus providing unprecedented access and perspective.  In an e-blast from Sunlight yesterday afternoon, Jake Brewer wrote,

All of the emails sent and received by Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan during her time in the Clinton White House were recently put online… [We] built a site to take Elena Kagan’s emails and make them readable…While we’re in the middle of Kagan’s hearing for the Supreme Court, it’s fascinating to get a sense of her through her public emails.

In the past, I’ve voiced concern over Kagan’s take on the first amendment, so I personally plan to sift through her e-mails to gain a better sense of her worldview and how she’ll function on the Supreme Court. This website couldn’t have come at a better time, as the American public (and Congress) learns about the woman who might very well partially shape American law for decades to come. (more…)

The first amendment to the United States Constitution is so profoundly important that it permeates nearly every sector of our society. Clearly, America’s forefathers deemed the contents of this primary amendment so essential that it was perfectly positioned to precede the other amendments. For this reason, among many others, any American worthy of the name should have reservations, if not concerns, regarding Elena Kagan’s anti-first amendment worldview. Allow us to first explore the amendment in its entirety:

Here, our forefathers very clearly tackle a number of issues – religion, government restraint, the freedom to speak openly, the allowance of a free press, peaceful assembly and the right to formal complaints against perceived government abuses. And this is only the short list. The amount of socio-political power possessed in the amendment’s 45 perfectly assembled words is mind-boggling. How so many on the left can continue to mis-characterize, utilize proof texts and unabashedly slaughter the amendment’s original intent is beyond me. While this continued misunderstanding is horrifying, of greater concern is the notion that American will potentially have another unfit Justice overseeing first amendment rights. Jacob Sullum has more on the potential danger to individual rights Kagan’s nomination may pose:

Together with some of [Kagan’s] academic writings, her arguments in [specific] cases provide grounds to worry that she will be even less inclined than Stevens, who has a mixed First Amendment record, to support freedom of speech.

(more…)

Voter intimidation is a serious threat to our democracy – a parasitic anomaly that many Americans have sacrificed a great deal to prevent.  It is unconscionable that we live in a modern society in which such overt thuggery coexists with rational thought and practice.  Even more perplexing and disturbing is a federal government, led by an incompetent Justice Department, which appears more than willing to tolerate such antics.

If you recall (though you may not, as the media have been less than stellar in covering the story), on election day in 2008, two men stood outside a Philadelphia polling location.  One carried a nightstick in what can only be perceived as an effort to intimidate those entering the facility, as the delinquents spewed racial slurs and attempted to prevent individuals from voting.  Lawyer Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. best describes the scenario in her Washington Times piece:

Bartle Bull, a civil rights movement veteran, was there. He says it was “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” The crimes Mr. Bull witnessed that day were not committed in 1960s Mississippi, however. Those crimes took place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

And how has the Obama administration handled these men, you ask? (more…)

Fred Phelps and the congregants of his hate-infested Westboro Baptist Church have been terrorizing their fellow Americans for more than 50 years.  Through explicit exploitation of Christianity, the group has picketed against, exploited and demeaned any and all of the individuals and/or groups who stand in opposition to its ideological insanity.  Phelps and his family distort the Bible and Christianity and use horrid tactics to force unwilling audiences to listen to their demagoguery.

Before discussing the most recent Westboro drama, it’s important to understand what Westboro believes, how its members operate and what motivates their often off-kilter demoralization of those with whom they disagree.  According to The Anti-Defamation League, “…WBC members say that “God’s hatred is one of His holy attributes” and that their picketing is a form of preaching to a “doomed” country unable to hear their message in any other way.”  Not only is this notion theologically flawed, but it also assumes that people would rather hear their incessant rants than discuss differences calmly and rationally.

Phelps, a Democrat, has spent the majority of his life spewing disgusting and distasteful statements; he is the “spiritual” and political leader who both fuels and serves as the prime catalyst for the group’s work.  His church, dominated by members of his own family, has no official connection with any viable Christian denomination.  In fact, Westboro is more appropriately described as a cult of insanity.  Despite the New Testament’s sole focus on individual forgiveness and love, Westboro claims that God hates homosexuals (who they affectionately refer to as “fags”), Jews, Lady Gaga, and, for its toleration of the aforementioned, the United States of America. (more…)

Without Noah Webster’s knowledge, the definition of a “racist” has been diluted and redefined to mean “a person who disagrees with a liberal,” or in more explicit terms, “any individual who uses logic to divulge evidence of liberal malfeasance.”  For years, the left has used race as a bully tactic to smear and debunk those on the receiving end of the label.  This desperate and exploitative attempt at winning political arguments comes at a great cost to democracy, interpersonal relations and our nation’s internal progress.

The latest James O’Keefe saga exemplifies the left’s common practice of exploiting the issue of race for personal and political gain.  Liberal journalist Max Blumenthal’s devoid-of-logic theoretical construct (that O’Keefe is a racist) exemplifies the desperate measures some will take to avoid the pains of reality.  Blumenthal bases his racism charge on O’Keefe’s alleged disdain for affirmative action, his efforts to expose ACORN and his attendance at an event that featured a “white nationalist.”

The merits of these accusations have already been brilliantly challenged by Larry O’Connor and others, but to quickly provide summary thoughts: Opposition to affirmative action is not inherently racist.  In fact, the majority of Americans oppose affirmative action practices.  Furthermore, even if O’Keefe is a racist (which he’s not), the allegations against ACORN would still be pertinent; the organization is responsible for its behavior regardless of who or what O’Keefe is said to be.  Finally, the “white nationalist” event was essentially a panel discussion on a college campus.  Thousands of universities hold events with controversial speakers and wingnuts (many of these fringe individuals are, themselves, college professors); mere attendance means nothing in itself. (more…)

Last week, Air America announced its official closure and intention to file Chapter 7.  For those who had been following news surrounding the weeping willow of talk radio, this was no surprise.  While making a thin-kid splash with pseudo-celebrities back in 2004, the liberal network had a rocky history, replete with scandal, two bankruptcies and acquisitions.

Last week, Big Journalism’s James Hudnall reminded readers that Air America’s problems are not new.  According to Hudnall, “After a scandal involving misappropriated funds from black school children it promptly filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy two years later. Franken, Rhodes and Garofalo abandoned ship.”  (Come to think of it, perhaps that last part wasn’t so bad after all).

While Air America’s demise is surely a sad day for the precious few  who enjoyed leftist radio programming, there’s no need for liberal lamentations.  The left still dominates Hollywood, the university system and mainstream media, where adherents can find ongoing solace and a sympathetic informational stream – a triangular dominance of sorts.

What is most interesting about Air America’s silence is the clamor coming from angry liberals, particularly those at the painstakingly partisan Media Matters for America.  As can be expected, Media Matters’ Jamison Foser issued a statement that attacks conservative critics entitled, “The Right might want to hold off on gloating over Air America’s demise.” (more…)

The media have an inadequate understanding of religion. This simple fact is corroborated frequently, as mainstream outlets attempt to illustrate stories, explain religious themes and delve deep into faith-based systems.  Unfortunately, most outlets miss the mark entirely, as journalists do not have proper understanding of the constructs through which they are attempting to report.  As a result, the American public suffers a lack of pointed and well-presented information on a subject that stands at the forefront of important global and domestic issues.

Case in point, Christiane Amanpour’s 2007 CNN mini-series entitled, “God’s Warriors.”  The three-part series delved into the world’s three largest religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  As is typical of the secular media, an enhanced level of relativism led the Iranian-bred Amanpour (born in London to a Persian family) to equate “extremism” within and among adherents to the three religions.  While each belief system has had moral failures, equating the deaths as a result of radical Islamic fascism to those of contemporary Christianity and Judaism is absurd.  Furthermore, as is the case when journalists attempt to cover religion, Amanpour left out essential details that would have provided a more fair-minded picture. (more…)