Warner Todd Huston's blog

Roll Call is reporting that during the typical Friday afternoon document dump -- a practice used to hide actions that might prove somewhat embarrassing to the White House -- the administration quietly announced that some of the former restrictions on lobbying ballyhooed about during the late campaign have been lifted.

Let special interests ring!

Roll Call (see here, but subscription is required) says that the administration lifted bans on lobbyists that have some part of spending "stimulus" funds. So now getting hooks into bloated federal spending is open season for the very lobbyists that Obama pretended to disdain only months ago.

So much for hopinchange.

The ban on oral communication now applies only to competitively bid applications on the stimulus package and it applies equally to lobbyists as well as non-lobbyists, according to a White House blog post written by ethics official Norm Eisen.

Additionally, the administration is still also pretending at "transparency" because one of the new rules is that there be "immediate internet disclosure" of this renewed contact that lobbyists are to have with federal agencies. Not that such a thing is anywhere near de rigueur at this point... but, um, you know how hard The One is working, right?

So why the reverse? According to Roll Call:

The decision to change the policy follows the 60-day review period that the Obama administration set for the Office of Management and Budget to review the new lobbying rules. Several watchdog groups and lobbying entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American League of Lobbyists and the AFL-CIO, raised concern over the recently imposed rules.

So, I guess the hopinchangieness wasn't as hopey and changie as it was once imagined?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Wanna be an Ambassador in the era of "change"? OK, then what do you have to do? Do you need to speak a foreign tongue? How about have some training in diplomacy? Maybe exhibit familiarity with any particular foreign culture? Nope, not in Obama's Washington. All you need to do is donate a hefty sum to the Obama campaign and voila, you are in like Flynn. It may not bother Obama, but this big donor cum ambassador situation is striking a sour note with those Europeans that thought that Obama was going to be a man more interested in professionalism, qualifications and a serious attention to foreign policy than in paying off big donors.

So much for "change."

To be sure, this practice is no change from the past as American ambassadorships have often gone to big donors to presidential campaigns. It is a long tradition, though one that may or may not be a good one. But the fact is, Obama has made little effort to curtail this tradition proving that there is often far less "change" with President Obama than his advanced publicity claimed. This truth is something that has disappointed European allies that expected a new way of doing things to emerge from The One.

Maybe he's NOT the one they have been waiting for?

According to AFP, "Obama has been criticized for naming fund raisers with no diplomatic experience -- and who together drummed up well over a million dollars for his record-shattering campaign -- to be ambassadors to Britain, France and Japan."

"It's an 18th-century practice we are continuing which no other major democratic country does," said Ronald Neumann, a veteran ambassador and head of the American Academy of Diplomacy, a lobby of former senior diplomats.

"It's not 'change you can believe in,' but it's not terribly surprising," said Neumann, referring to Obama's campaign slogan.

This AFP report claims that the British and the Japanese are a bit miffed that the ambassadors sent their way are folks with no diplomatic experience nor any real familiarity with their various cultures. Worse, Japan is alarmed that the ambassador sent to China, Jon Huntsman, is just the opposite of that sent them, John Roos.

Many Japanese are nervous that the United States will ignore its longstanding Asian ally as it builds ties with a rapidly growing China.

While Tokyo publicly welcomed Roos' appointment, one Japanese magazine worried that Obama was "Japan-passing" -- opposed to US "Japan-bashing" during the 1980s trade wars.

Tokyo-based analyst Robert Dujarric said Japanese worry that Roos is "lightweight" compared with Obama's pick for Beijing, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman -- a Mandarin speaker who some eye as a future president himself.

Once again, we see an Obama administration that pays little attention to our allies while fawning over our enemies. This isn't a good trend.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying we should allow foreigners to pick our ambassadors for us. Any change that occurs in how we pick our ambassadors should be done because it is efficacious, not because Europeans demand it. All I am saying is that Obama's program of "change" is not that as sold to the nation and our allies and many are finding this out much to their shock and surprise. This is just one more example of that fact.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Naturally from our vantage point, Barack Obama is a left-wing terror as president. To name just a few things, he is turning our system from one of capitalism to one of socialism, he is attempting to undermine the Constitution by placing an activist on the Supreme Court, he is weakening our national security by frittering away the gains of the previous administration and by bending over backwards for our enemies while constantly flipping off our allies, he is looking to destroy our national healthcare system by introducing a disastrous single payer system, and he is attempting to give anti-business unions the power to destroy what is left of the business community that he himself hasn't gotten around to crushing as of yet. We on the right are alarmed by his trip down the ruinous road that Europe has already well traveled to rueful results.

One would think that the American left (or the anti-American left as the case may be) would be thrilled that their most fantasized about social, political, and economic sledgehammers were being wielded by their Obammessiah. But, one might be surprised to see that the extremists on the left are beginning to rumble in seething anger over the fact that, to date, Obama hasn't gone fast enough or far enough to the extreme left to suit them. One of these wild-eyed, bomb-throwers has even just called for his resignation.

So, are we beginning to see waning the far left's love affair with The One? Might this disappointment turn into the sort of lefty outrage that it did with Lyndon Baines Johnson? Will Barack Obama's left wing flap him to death?

It is too early to tell, of course, but there are rumblings that seem to be revealing a great disappointment in Barack Franklin Fitzgerald Abraham Hussein Obama.

For U.S. News, Kenneth T. Walsh has written an interesting brief treatment of the left's dissatisfaction with Obama. In it, Walsh outlines some of problems the left is having with President Obama. Some of the items rattling the far left are the continuation of the Bush era's idea of utilizing military tribunals for terror suspects, the seeming squeamishness to go directly for socialized national healthcare, and Obama's stated desire to ramp up U.S. presence in Afghanistan in contravention to the left's "peace" ideals.

Naturally, Walsh blows off the far left's growing annoyance with Obama as of little importance, but it is no less virulent for being dismissed. Accordingly, as if on cue, the spittle specked former cartoonist, now tin-foil-hat wearing columnist Ted Rall called for Obama to resign because the President has been revealed to be a lair the likes of which "makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through."

Conservatives might agree with Rall's disdain and desire to see Obama resign -- but for far different reasons, of course -- but Rall is all fired up, nonetheless.

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now -- before he drags us further into the abyss.

Naturally, Rall is upset because Obama didn't instantly turn the United States into a communist, third-world nation the second he got his key to the Executive Mansion washroom. Rall wanted all of Bush's administration in jail, the entire corporate world summarily fired, the government to take over the economy, the Constitution wiped clean to be replaced by some manifesto or another, and all U.S. troops to be dismissed from service and he's mad that all the things that Obama promised he'd do seem to have come with an expiration date of January 20, 2009. But Rall is not alone as this rumbling is being felt in many quarters on the left-wing.

A quick Google search finds many disappointed voices out there among the left. From lone voices, to some common folks at a Yahoo Answers page, to CNN's Fareed Zakaria, and half-baked lefty economist Paul Krugman the rumblings of Obama being a failure seems to be building. After initial praise, some gays aren't happy with Obama and even the whack-jobs at the DemocraticUnderground are busy deleting comments that attack Obama as a failure. If one looks carefully, some rumblings can be found at The Huffington Post and the DailyKos, as well.

So, what will this do to the Obama presidency? Will it drag him wildly to the left causing centrists to grow tired of him? Will he be able to successfully steer a safe path between the un-American left that got him to office and the rest of America? Will Obama continue to ignore his patrons of the far left until they LBJ him? I won't pretend to know the answers to these questions, especially seeing as how early we are into the era of Obama. But it is interesting to see the once starry-eyed left sour on this president so quickly. After all, he only has five months under his belt!

For now this is all nothing but an amusing anecdote, but it could develop into something that might vex the Obama administration. It is certainly something to keep our eyes on, at any rate.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

With the first days of Summer a long standing American tradition emerges anew from yards and garages all across the country. Once again this season we will see the venerable American garage sale bloom everywhere. Homeowners will be seen busily setting up folding tables or bringing picnic tables from back yards to load them up with used clothes, toys, collectibles, and items of all sorts. Couples will once again cruise the neighborhood looking to those bargains. It's as American as Baseball, and the rest.

But a new player has been introduced to the venerable garage sale scheme and this one isn't looking for a deal. It is a new player that isn't looking to ask you "how much" but is looking to tell you what you'll be allowed to sell. It's the federal government and it's iron boot heel come a'calling at your local garage sale.

That's right, folks, the federal government is here to warn you that you will no longer be allowed to sell certain things at your garage or yard sales or even on auction sites like ebay. If you are a scofflaw, Big Brother is here to stomp you. The nanny state is here to "protect" you. And you better watch out or there's no telling what just might happen to you if you don't bow down to the all powerful state.

Ignorance of the law is not  an excuse

"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse," or so we are warned in a new handbook from the federal government. In it we are dutifully informed that, "on August 14, 2008, the President signed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) into law." It warns us that this new act will have "dramatic changes for the marketplace," and that there are "strict laws" for selling certain products. (Find the downloadable handbook at cpsc.gov/)

You may wonder what this has to do with your garage sale? Well, a look at the section titled "the basics" will tell you that this act doesn't just affect Wal-Mart or Sears. Ominously, this law applies to everyone that wants to sell anything.

CPSC's laws and regulations apply to anyone who sells or distributes consumer products. This includes thrift stores, consignment stores, charities, and individuals holding yard sale and flea markets.

This will also affect auction sites like ebay.

So, what does this do to sellers and collectors of antiques? One would guess that ebay and other on-line auction services will eventually see the federal government come down on them like a load of bricks. If vigorously enforced, this act will have a devastating effect on certain collectible markets like old toys, books, comic books and vintage clothing collectors.

Naturally, these government thugs claim that they have no plans to monitor garage and yard sales... at least not now they don't. But they are ready and willing to go after re-sale shops like GoodWill and auction sites like ebay.

Whatever the case, this is just one more example of the nanny state involving itself in every aspect of our lives and regulating freedom and liberty out of existence. The government is out of control and this is another horrid example of it.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Not long ago the San Diego Union-Tribune got bought up by a private Beverly Hills firm named Platinum Equity. Platinum was heavily invested in by the Los Angeles police pension fund. And so, because the police are large stake owners of the news paper, the police union has called for the firing of certain employees it considers anti-union.

So much for freedom of the press as far as this union is concerned!

League President Paul M. Weber believes that he has the right and the power due to that financial stake to demand the firing of writers of the Union-Tribune that have been outspoken advocates of cut backs in salaries and benefits for California's public employees and politicians.

Yes, this union thug is demanding the head of anyone that has the audacity to suggest that unions should sacrifice as everyone else is expected to do in this harsh economic climate.

"Since the very public employees they continually criticize are now their owners, we strongly believe that those who currently run the editorial pages should be replaced," Weber wrote in a March 26 letter to Platinum CEO Tom Gores.

This is more evidence of the essentially anti-American philosophy underpinning the concept of unionism. If you don't like freedom of the press, you are essentially saying that American principles are not good ones and that tyranny is the way to go.

For the paper, editor Bob Kittle scoffed at the union leader's arrogance.

"We are not anti-public safety or public employee," he said. "All of this has to be considered within the context of what the city can afford. A bankrupt city can’t provide any public safety very well."

This is also proof once again that unions are antithetical to good government and should be eliminated.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

On May 20, ABC's Jake Tapper asked a few salient questions about coverage of an April 27 incident at the White House basketball court, a sort of event after the event that the White House press corps was barred from covering. Tapper wondered then why the president barred the press but it later became clear that Team Obama was creating its own little media report "complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who's speaking."

Tapper subtly warned that the president's penchant for controlling the message smacks of an Obama Ministry of Propaganda styled effort that excludes "actual reporters" from covering the White House and leaves the country with faux news that is free of any "uncomfortable questions" asked by probing journalists.

At issue is a pick-up basketball game on the White House court that President Obama hosted with NCAA champion basketball team the University of Connecticut Lady Huskies. The impromptu game was joined by the Lady Huskies after Obama met publicly with team members and their families, a meeting that the White House press corps was permitted to observe. But, as Tapper shows, reporters were "not allowed to attend" the impromptu basketball game held after the official meeting.

Reads the print pool report from that day: "After shaking hands with the team's parents and members of Congress who showed up, the president walked the team over to his basketball court and shot hoops. The pool was held back from the stroll down the drive and around the corner, and couldn't see the court. Poolers could hear periodic cheering coming from the other side of the bushes."

The lap dog media snubbed by The One! Ouch.

But here is the thing, coverage of this basketball game appeared on Obama's new media extravaganza that Tapper dubs "OTV." The real press was not allowed, but Team Obama created its own media coverage instead.

So, why was the real press kept away from this simple basketball game and how many more times in the future will Obama's handlers exclude the press from covering the president in the people's house? Further, is this Ministry of Propaganda styled, presidential approved "media" coverage the sort of thing that American's should be concerned about? Isn't it a troubling proposition to have the White House excluding the actual press to create its own media reports for public consumption? Even if the Old Media is so often a lap dog for Obama, isn't his outright dismissal of them something to raise eyebrows? Further, would that snubbed White House press corps allow without comment a Republican president to do this sort of thing?

Speaking of penchants, Tapper is well known to cast a zinger or two and he didn't disappoint with this little Political Punch posting. Remembering how past presidents have bemoaned how vicious the press was to them, Tapper unleashes this amusing little jab:

Do Obama White House officials think their media coverage isn't flattering enough?

Certainly a tacit admission that the press has let Obama off easy thus far. But Tapper's chief criticism is one we should all wonder about.

It's perfectly fine, of course, for the White House to put out its own version of events -- but is it right to do so by preventing actual reporters from covering something? (Even something like a pickup basketball game).

Is the goal to ultimately replace the pesky photographers who film what they want to and not what they're told to (not to mention the annoying reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about, say, detainee policy and bank bailouts)?

Heady questions, indeed.

So, are you ready for your "OTV"? Tapper ain't so thrilled. We shouldn't be either.

(Photo credit: The American Press Institute)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

A group called the Economic Policy Institute is touting a paper by Cornell professor Kate Bronfenbrenner who claims to be investigating anti-union forces that she says are growing in intensity, boldness, and power. Bronfenbrenner writes that between 1999 and 2003 employer resistance to union organizing has increased causing unionizing efforts to fail despite what she claims is an increase in the public's desire to see more union success. But it seems that there are some problems with her methodology: she never talked to anyone but disgruntled union organizers to gather her material.

Bronfenbrenner is concerned that there is mounting efforts in the business community to oppose union organizing and sets out to prove her theory. She investigates several unionizing efforts that failed and compiles some stats on such efforts. But, her facts are self-fulfilling her premise in that the percentage of failed union attempts seem to be higher than the average for National Labor Relations Board elections during the targeted years of study. (This according to Union Free America)

On top of that, all her quotes and stats seem to be from labor union activists that failed to succeed in unionizing their places of work. Bronfenbrenner even concedes that her conclusions are drawn only from one side of the issue. In her methodology section the professor says, "Some critics have raised questions as to the reliability of union organizers as a data source." In answer to that, she pleads that there isn't enough solid information by which to reckon but goes on to say that she feels she is right in her conclusions anyway. It's the "yeah, but" defense I guess. As in well, we don't have any real data, yeah, but we are right, anyway.

Amusingly, she even insists that talking to employers about the issue is "simply not possible" because they are "illogical," and can't be believed. Amazingly, as Bronfenbrenner discounts any possibility that the employer can be believed, she takes as gospel the words of disgruntled, failed union organizers and bases her whole report on same.

One wonders if anyone would imagine a failed union organizer to have an unbiased opinion upon which a "scientific" conclusion could be drawn? Apparently Bronfenbrenner does.

Also the Economic Policy Institute as well as American Rights At Work, both sponsors of Bronfenbrenner's study, are supported by the nation's largest labor unions both receiving millions of dollars a year from them. So, the study cherry picks data favorable to unions and is sponsored by union backed organizations. Unsurprisingly, the study ends up supporting and pushing the labor union agenda.

Doubtless this slanted study will be source material for anti-business forces soon. Few that use this report to buttress their anti-capitalist position, though, will reveal the big labor backers of the thing, to be sure.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

A few of our newly minted spokesmen for all those seemingly ubiquitous new Republican moderates out there are starting to say that if we oppose Sotomayor, we do so at our own risk. By this they mean that if we are seen to oppose a strong Hispanic woman we will be hurting our chances further with Hispanic voters. To this one can only say poppycock. Sotomayor should be opposed and vigorously but not because of anything other than her rather un-judicial judicial philosophy.

No one, not one conservative commentator or politician, cares a whit that Sotomayor is Hispanic. There simply is no expectation of opposing her because she is of Latino heritage. And so, because of this, there should be no reason whatever to shy from criticizing her qualifications and philosophy. Further, to allow moderates on our side or anyone on the left to equate our opposition to a racial objection is illegitimate and should be vociferously denied.

Ms. Sotomayor does not believe in the rule of law, she does not believe in precedent -- except for creating new ones based on her political/racial as opposed to judicial ideals -- and she has no interest in judicial restraint. She is not a jurist but an activist for the most liberal of causes. She will make for an unreasonable Supreme Court Justice and will surely churn out one illogical, constitutionally unsupportable decision after another. She should be opposed on these principles.

But the crux of the pro-Sotomayor argument is two fold. One part holds that if we oppose this Latino woman we will be made out as haters of Hispanics and will lose Hispanic voters and the second is that opposition of Obama's pick will be no different than our constant complaints of Democrat opposition to Reagan's, George H.W. and W. Bush's picks. Both are specious arguments.

First of all, we should stop pretending that being nice to every Hispanic candidate for anything regardless of that candidate's ideology will "get" us anything. George W. Bush went out of his way to pick Hispanic candidates for all sorts of government positions. He has Hispanic family members and is well known for his soft stance on immigration reform. No Republican can stake a claim to being more Hispanic friendly. What did it get him? Not a single thing. Over his 8 years the Republican Hispanic vote has steadily eroded.

So, any obviation of conservative principle to pander for the Hispanic vote is a fool's errand. It isn't worth the erosion of our principles to try and cajole votes from the Hispanic community. This is absolutely not to say that we should abandon any efforts to recruit good Hispanic candidates that exhibit strong conservative principles, far from it. But, as in this case, meekly accepting a candidate like Sotomayor will do no good to help us gain the vaunted Hispanic vote.

Secondly, crying over the spilled milk of the days when a president could expect little opposition to his Supreme Court picks is a waste of time. Since Reagan, the left has seen to it that this long-time practice is dead as the Dodo. Bemoaning the partisan tone of Supreme Court picks truly is futile. Furthermore, since we've allowed the SCOTUS to become so overly powerful, it is foolish to want to return to the days of presidential deference for Court picks anyway.

If the goal is to return to an era when SCOTUS picks sail through the Senate without rancorous partisan fights, then we will first have to denude the Supreme Court of the undue power it has accumulated. That would require that Congress retake its role as Constitutional authority. Instead of making law to which it hasn't thoroughly applied the litmus test of the law of the land and then assuming that the Courts will iron out the constitutionality of same, Congress has to again begin to consider the legal basis of its attempts at legislation.

Until such time as Congress again begins to think in terms of the constitutional legitimacy of its own actions, however, we must all realize that the battle for the rule of law will be in the arena of the Courts. That being true we must fight for judicial restraint and constructionist principles in judicial candidates.

Sotomayor is well known for having said that she sees her job as that of rule maker instead of law reader. She has said that she feels her status as a Latino woman makes her better qualified than a white man to be a judge and she has issued many a ruling based on her theories of social "justice" as opposed to an adjudication on the law as written. This woman is an activist that has never shied from using the bench to advance her political goals nor has she been squeamish about saying so. (For some of the issues against her qualifications, see this piece)

This is why we oppose her and we should not allow her candidacy to quietly glide by unopposed. That Sotomayor is of Hispanic heritage is a meaningless distraction and we must reiterate this fact in every posting about her.

One of the best single paragraph explications in this early debate against Sotomayor was penned NRO's Rich Lowery:

Sotomayor’s nomination represents an extraordinary personal accomplishment and an important symbolic affirmation for Latinos. Her confirmation, though, would be another step toward eviscerating the constitutional function of the Supreme Court, as empathy trumps impartiality.

Just so, Mr. Lowery, just so. Think of this as a model of how to argue against this horrid SCOTUS nomination.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

President Obama sent a wreath to the Confederate memorial at Arlington cemetery during the memorial services to recognize the sacrifices and service of the members of our armed forces this week. It has been a tradition since Woodrow Wilson offered a wreath to memorialize Confederate dead at Arlington and a tradition that many on the American far left wanted to see ended. They have been disappointed.

But the president also started a new tradition, one that everyone should welcome and one that we should all hope is continued by every succeeding president that comes after Obama. President Obama also laid a wreath at the African-American Civil War Memorial at Vermont Avenue and U Street Northwest in Washington D.C.

President Obama struck just the right balance on this and he should be commended. By memorializing the fallen from federal service, the fallen from Confederate service, and the fallen memorialized by the African-American monument we have at last a united effort that recognizes the sacrifice of all Americans, equally.

Sadly, many leftists in America didn't want this reconciliation, this retying of bonds, to occur. They wanted punishment, further separation, and vitriol to reign. They wanted President Obama to refuse to recognize that the many hundreds of thousands of Americans of southern heritage could possible have died in an honorable fashion. After nearly 150 years, the left wanted to continue the strife.

Don't get me wrong, rapproachement is not always the right course at just any time. There are requirements for both sides for such an effort to be worthwhile. In this case, the north was the victor the south the vanquished, but a realignment between our two once warring sections has obviously been successful for several generations. Unlike other societies wracked by sectional differences that ended in war, America's rift has healed. While there certainly remain some differences and political clashes, there is no feeling of separation that tears at those bonds of affection or shatters the mystic chords of memory between us, north and south.

So, it is right and good that President Barack Obama should continue to remember the Confederate fallen while also renewing our obligations to remember all who fell for the union. All, each and every one, not just those of the "right" color.

Some may say that the memorial at Arlington most certainly represents the black Americans that fell during the Civil War. They may say that a wreath at the African –American monument is pointless pandering. On the surface, they would be right to say so. But there is significance to recognizing the blacks that fought and fell with a special remembrance. Because of the unfulfilled promise that the Civil War represents, it is fitting that fallen African-Americans be given their due here.

Obama's wreath at the African-American monument costs us nothing and rewards us well. His continuation of the memorial to the Confederate dead reminds us that all is forgiven and renews our brotherhood, and his solemn duty at Arlington for the fallen of our federal services pays homage to those who gave their last full measure.

May God bless our fallen. Each and every one, Americans all.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Tell me President Obama, how many babies would Jesus kill?

Liberty University, a Christian college situated near Lynchburg, Virginia and founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell, has this week decertified its college Democratic Party club over the singular fact that the National Democratic Party is a supporter of abortion. After the debacle of allowing a president that is a supporter of infanticide being invited to speak at the leading Catholic University in the nation, I can only say that Liberty University should be congratulated for standing up for its principles. At least these Baptists actually believe in something unlike the putative Catholics at Notre Dame.

But is this a violation of political free speech in a nation where the Democratic Party is a long-standing, historically important political force that is followed by half the electorate and currently holds a majority of the seats in our national government? Are these students having their speech illicitly quashed by Liberty University?

The simple answer is a resounding "no."

Before I get into my explanation of why I support this decision whole heartedly, though, let's review what happened in Virginia.

On May 21 a story appeared about an email that was sent by Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs of Liberty University, informing the campus Democratic Party club that it could no longer use the university's name in its operations. The email sent on May 15 to club president and Liberty student Brian Diaz.

Hines assured the students that the problem wasn't with them, but was with the Democratic Party itself.

Part of Hine’s e-mail said, “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)” LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The decision had been made that from this point on the students could not use campus meeting rooms and could not use the university's name in advertising or functions. Hines also warned the students that violations of these new strictures could lead to reprimands that would ultimately end in expulsion.

Later on May 21, the university backtracked a bit saying that the students could still meet on campus, but all other decisions remained in effect.

Naturally, Democrats throughout Virginia decried the decision saying the school was trying to quash free speech. The rallying cry seems to have become "It IS possible to be a Christian AND a Democrat," a statement that runs counter to the perceived notion that the university is saying that one cannot be a true Christian and support a Democratic Party platform that includes a pro-abortion plank.

And there, to date, the story stands. The university has not rescinded its decision to decertify the Democrat club and I, for one, hope they stay the course. The university is doing right by its principles and should be congratulated for it.

Unlike the purported Catholics at Notre Dame, the folks at Liberty university stand four-square against abortion and are willing to fight for their principles, ideals that are deeply held on both the political and religious fronts. Therefore, since their position is stark, the college has every right not to lend its support to a campus club that is built on a political party that is zealously against the principles that the university holds dear. Revoking the certification of the Democrat club was the only logical and morally consistent thing the college could do.

But it isn't any violation of free speech, it isn't censorship, nor is it an un-American decision.

Unfortunately, too many Americans confuse the concept of "free speech" with that of license. Free speech simply does not mean that you can say just anything. Additionally, people misunderstand what "censorship" is under the American system.

In America people have a right to speak their minds on politics with few restrictions imposed by government. Political free speech is one of the true American rights, an original first principle. The founders wanted to assure that political opposition to whomever or whatever party is in power was not oppressed. They saw the results of such oppression throughout history and wanted to make sure it didn't happen here. And when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed by the Adams administration, there was a great hew and cry raised about it. That act was allowed to die an ignominious death not to be revived and since the early republic the US has had very few eras where political speech has been curtailed.

The simple fact is, though, only government can engage in "censorship." Only government has the power to oppress speech and enforce that oppression. Liberty University can ban the Democratic Party from its campus all day long and not truly affect the free speech of its students. Off campus those students may regurgitate all the Democratic Party talking points that they wish to indulge. Their right to free speech is not harmed. Further there is no pretension by the university of telling students to which party they are "allowed" to be a member. So, the student's right to association is also not harmed.

It should be beyond question that, as a private organization, Liberty University has the right to create its own standards within the law and stand by them. What is a more American ideal than having the right to live by your own principles? The university claims to stand against abortion. The university could not, then, logically allow its name to be linked in any way with advocates of infanticide. The Democratic Party is strongly FOR infanticide. Following logic and principle the decision could not be clearer for the college and decertifying the cub was the only choice.

During his flowery speech at Notre Dame, President Obama, the man carrying the infanticide banner for the Democratic Party, pointedly told Catholics that they needed to abandon their religious rigidity and meet him on the irreligious side of the aisle, there in the supposed middle. Obama clearly told Catholics that he believed the American way was to compromise despite convictions. Catholics, Obama held, needed to throw away their religious beliefs in order to win political favor. Liberty University has rejected Obama's serpent-in-the-garden view of the American way. Liberty University has decided that principles mean something and that compromise for the sake of compromise is not their way.

The truth is, if you are a Christian that thinks abortion is against your most deeply held religious principles, then you can't be both a Christian and a member of the Democratic Party. If you stand against baby killing, how can you belong to a party that supports it?

So, kudos to Liberty University for standing by its principles. Notre Dame should have been as honorable. Let's hope Liberty's strong stance for principle gains adherents across the land. Let us also hope they don't cave to pressure and reverse this decision in the coming days.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!