It has been announced that tomorrow the Senate U.S. Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on "Don't ask, don't tell."

This decision comes in direct response to President Obama saying in his State of the Union Address last week that he wants to see the policy overturned quickly.

The Center for Military Readiness has a variety of resources on this topic, including one that establishes the harmful consequences of repealing the policy in terms of our nation's military readiness:

In the past 18 months the Center for Military Readiness has repeatedly analyzed in well-documented detail how the proposed new “LGBT Law” for the military would work in actual practice.  To make the information more manageable, we have drawn a “picture” in our January 2010 CMR Policy Analysis titled: 

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military

The CMR Policy Analysis uses few words, but every “box” placed on the charts highlights complicated social realities and problems that, taken together, would impose a crushing weight on the men and women of our military.  The flow-chart diagrams demonstrate how radical and problematic mandatory implementation the new LGBT Law would be.  

CMR encourages opinion leaders, media commentators, members of Congress and Pentagon officials to consider the wide-ranging, open-ended consequences of the proposed “LGBT Law.”  This CMR Policy Analysis draws a picture that is not a pretty sight.

Expert more coverage on this controversial issue this week.

update: readers who wish to learn more about this issue and take action on it are welcome to visit our sister website American Principles in Action.

From Phil Klein at AmSpec - a whopper: 

President Obama, speaking to today's Republican retreat in Baltimore, had this to say about this morning's GDP numbers:

"The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent. That’s the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren’t seeing positive job growth, we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So you’ve seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year."

Oh, where to start? For the sake of ease, let's just say the GDP of country A is $100. If it declines 6 percent, that would bring it down to $94. Then, if it bumps back up by 6 percent, that brings the GDP to $99.64. That is not, in fact, a 12 percent reversal!

A welcome openness to change, but this still does not address the fundamental problem of giving terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens:

Facing mounting pressure from New York politicians concerned about costs and security, the Obama administration on Thursday began considering moving the trial of the chief organizer of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks out of Manhattan, administration officials said.

... Mr. Obama left the decision on possible alternate sites to the Justice Department, which was scrambling to assess the options, administration officials said. - New York Times

Charles Krauthammer devoted his column today to this and related topics:

Hence the agitation over the [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] trial. This one can be reversed, and it's a good surrogate for this administration's insistence upon criminalizing -- and therefore trivializing -- a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).

On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.

Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It's an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue -- should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.

Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.

Preach it, Krauthammer!

Over at the Public Discourse, sometime APP contributor Matthew Franck on why we should not listen to calls to get rid of the filibuster:

Even before Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts on a promise to be the forty-first senator—and thus the decisive vote—against President Obama’s health-care reform plan, the frustrations of the Democrats and their allies in the media had spilled over into new criticism of an old phenomenon in American government: the filibuster in the U.S. Senate.  In late December, Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post that the frequent use of the filibuster on major legislation in the Senate prevents either party from being able to “successfully govern the country.”  Instead it produces “gridlock and inaction,” since it takes a 60-vote majority in the 100-member Senate to pass major legislation.

... But is the filibuster anti-democratic?  Or is it, in purpose and effect, an aid to legislative deliberation, and in that sense a valuable contribution to democracy?  A good case can be made for the filibuster, when it is used prudently on the most important matters.

[Read the full article here.]

One of the most uprising things to happen during last night's State of the Union Address was the reaction of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to one of President Obama's claims.

The President claimed that the supreme court's Citizens United decision last week "will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in [U.S.] elections".

Take a look for yourself (Justice Alito is in the upper-left corner, in robes and wearing a blue tie):

Within minutes, the news of Justice Alito's reaction - and visible disagreement with the President - went viral on the web, starting with Politico and Drudge (and boosted by a NYT blogger).

But what is the truth about this contentious matter between the court and President?

While the White House still claims today that Obama is right about his criticism of the court's decision, the non-partisan website Politifact.com rates Obama's claim as "Barely True", just one step above false.

The fact-checkers write:

"Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all."

Shannen Coffin, writing for National Review's The Corner, is stronger in his reaction:

"The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process.... So Obama’s attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation."

Meanwhile, Gary Andres, in the Weekly Standard, explains that the supreme court decision has yet to show how it will effect the everyday of politics (because it is so new), writing: "Obama’s comments accurately represent [his] anti-business mindset, [but] it’s not clear exactly how (or even if) corporations will use these newfound freedoms.  Nor is their effectiveness guaranteed."

As always, responsible citizens should do their homework rather than taking the comments of their elected officials at face-value.

And for those who have already come to a decision, I can't help but point out this new Facebook group: "Justice Samuel Alito for Chief Obama Fact-Checker."

It will be interesting to see if anyone on the court responds to the President's claim.

Philip Klein at the American Spectator on matching reality to Obama's rhetoric:

[Obama] can’t claim to be a tax cutter while pushing for a national energy tax, promoting a health care bill that hikes taxes on the middle class through the individual mandate, and allowing for a massive tax increase when the Bush tax cuts expire. He can’t tout his economic policies if job losses continue to mount and unemployment remains higher than he promised when he sold Americans on the stimulus bill.

It’s easy to talk a big game about deficit reduction during the State of the Union Address, as presidents often do, but it’s another thing to actually make difficult choices and take action to limit spending. And stories will continue to emerge that will contradict his promises of fiscal restraint. Just this week, for instance, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the economic stimulus bill would cost $75 billion more than initially projected, and that the federal deficit would be $1.35 trillion in 2010.

When it comes to health care, Obama will either exert pressure on reluctant Democrats to get the bill across the finish line, or he’ll recognize the difficulty of doing so and let the initiative wither and die. If he chooses to push ahead, the most talked about option among Democrats right now is for the House to pass the Senate bill, while making changes in a separate bill using the reconciliation process that requires just 51 votes in the Senate. This would mean that after telling the nation that he wanted to work together with Republicans and integrate their ideas, the response would be to cut Republicans out of the process entirely and ram the bill through in the most partisan way possible.

Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama's first official State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Calabria, Neal McCluskey, Michael D. Tanner, John Samples, Jim Harper and Malou Innocent:

Here at APP we've written before about Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's appointee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

As I cited back at the time:

"Her nomination has been delayed by Republicans who oppose her because she is strongly pro-abortion -- going as far as saying pregnant women are subjected to a form of slavery -- and because of other political reasons."

Even with the recent election of Scott Brown to the Senate, Dawn Johnsen's nomination could come down to a single vote because at least one Republican has pledged to support her.

American Principles in Action, our sister c4 organization, has a new letter for concerned citizens to sign and send to their senators:

I am writing to ask you to oppose the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.  From her radical pro-abortion political stance to her offensive characterizations of pro-lifers, Ms. Johnsen has demonstrated that she is not fit to hold this position.

A former attorney for NARAL, Ms. Johnsen's abortion advocacy puts her on the most extreme fringe of pro-abortion partisans.  She has compared pregnancy with slavery, even writing to liken the Thirteenth Amendment protections against involuntary servitude with denying an abortion.  Her hostility towards pregnancy has caused her to describe women as, "fetal containers," and pregnant ones as, "losers in the contraceptive lottery."  More than just a political sentiment, her pro-abortion bias even reflects itself in intolerance towards those who disagree with her, as she has offensively compared pro-lifers with the Ku Klux Klan.

Despite her attempts to distance herself from her statements on abortion, it is clear that both her legal career and philosophy have been profoundly influenced by her extremist position.  Such bias has no place in an office that speaks for the People on the nation's most difficult legal questions.  Respect for life and respect for those who speak in defense of it are a minimal thing to ask from one who aspires to such an influential public position.  I beg you to please demonstrate your own regard for these principles by voting against Ms. Johnsen's nomination and encouraging your colleagues in the Senate to do likewise.

If you want to support the activities of APIA, twitter this status and join this Facebook group!

I've written before about how effective the pro-life movement has been in stopping the pro-abortion legislation passing between the chambers of Congress.

The most effective thing pro-lifers can do as this debate continues is to encourage members of Congress to stand with Bart Stupak against any legislation that allows federal funding of abortion.

This issue of "no federal funding for abortions" is, after-all, a bi-partisan position - more members of each side of the aisle agree that health care should not become a bailout for the abortion industry than agree on any of the these other issues.

There is a great deal of confusion here in Washington DC as to what will happen next in the health care debate, but the Associated Press is still reporting that the Democrats might attempt to use the reconciliation process to push the Senate bill through the House. That's where the Stupak coalition comes in - if they fall apart, this unpopular bill will be pushed through using a technical procedural process that contravenes the clear will of the majority of people represented by these elected officials.

American Principles in Action, our sister c4 organization, has a new letter for concerned citizens to sign and send to their representatives:

The debate over health care reform has seen a number of controversies over issues as varied as end-of-life care, school programs, and the public option.  However, when it comes to a question of fundamental principles, no issue stands out as starkly as the need to protect life.  While there are sound reasons to take issue with many provisions of the health bill, it is here that we must draw our line in the sand.

Speaker Pelosi has indicated that she intends to push the House to pass a version of the health reform bill that closely mirrors the Senate bill--including an abandonment of the restrictions on public funding of abortion that were a fundamental part of the House bill.  The American people are strongly opposed to public funding of abortion.  This is an issue that goes beyond party lines and speaks deeply to the values and principles that our nation was founded on.

We simply cannot allow health reform that promotes and provides abortion--especially at taxpayer expense.  I urge you to please support the inclusion of pro-life language in any health reform proposal before the House, and to encourage your colleagues to do the same.

If you want to support the activities of APIA, twitter this status and join this Facebook group!

Earlier this week I posted photos of Dr. George addressing the inaugural reception of the Advocates for Life and now I can also provide video!

Introduction and Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

You can keep up to date on Dr. George's activities on the American Principles Project Facebook Page, and find out more about Advocates for Life on their Facebook page.

A fascinating possible by-product of the Citizens United case is the "precedent for overturning precedent" it establishes when it comes to other extremely controversial decisions such as Roe v. Wade, as Theodore Kettle explains:

Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.

The announcement of that guiding core principle means two very big things. First, Roberts and his fellow strict constructionists on the court are now armed and ready with a powerful rationale for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling if Justice Anthony Kennedy or a future justice becomes the fifth vote against Roe.

Secondly, successfully placing Roberts atop the high court is beginning to look like former President George W. Bush’s most important legacy – a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades.

... If Roberts really did just establish clear restrictions on the power of faulty Supreme Court precedents, it might not just mean a mechanism for the eventual conquest of Roe v. Wade, and victory for pro-lifers; a whole series of widely ranging liberal decisions going back to the activist Warren Court era could eventually be in jeopardy too.

[Read the full article here.]

The economic situation will be front and center in tonight's State of the Union Address by President Obama. And he is expected to focus on innitiatives aimed at helping families and the middle class. But one of the biggest things hindering economic recovery is the crippling, expanding national debt.

While top democrat leaders appear to be confused as to which direction to head, the priority of average Americans remains the economy and jobs (83 and 81 percent, respectively).

There are many ways to boost the economy and create jobs, and certainly one of the most important things is to address expanding entitlement debt (and not create more entitlements). But there are additional, more modest solutions that can be pursued as well.

While the President is trying to push a modest budget freeze, Senator Sam Brownback has re-introduced CARFA which would help curb the creation of new debt:

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback last night introduced the Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies legislation as an amendment to the Debt Limit Increase bill which is currently pending in the Senate. If passed, CARFA would address the urgent need to reduce federal government spending.

"It is time for the government to bring down costs and do away with wasteful, inefficient programs," said Brownback. "Congress must prioritize its spending and carefully review federal programs that are no longer useful; taxpayers have the right to expect that their tax dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible. In these tough economic times, people across the country are tightening their belts and asking why government isn't doing the same."

[Read the full press release here.]

Sandra Fabry at Americans for Tax Reform explains why this legislation is a good idea and why other such commissions have in the past made government run far more efficiently:

[The] “CARFA Act” ... would establish a commission that would focus exclusively on spending, and is modeled after the successful Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC).

The BRAC process, put in place by Congress in 1990, led to the successful closure of military bases that were underused in the wake of the Cold War, and has consequently helped to streamline military spending. Proponents argue that there is no reason this successful model could not be applied to all of the rapidly expanding federal agencies and programs.

The national debt can be tamed, and this burden on the American people lessened, if government leads the way in curbing its own out-of-control spending habits and waste.

Dr. Robert George explains the Manhattan Declaration, and urges conscientious citizens to join the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have already signed it:

Watch interviews with Tony Perkins, Bishop Jackson and Peter Shinn here.

You may also become a fan of the Manhattan Declaration on Facebook here (an easy way to share the news about it and to encourage your friends to sign it!)

Thomas Haine over at the Public Discourse on a question that has been gaining greater visibility.

American drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan have become increasingly common and controversial. What broad principles should guide our use of these attacks?

A New York Times article this past Sunday noted a serious uptick in CIA drone attacks in Pakistan over the last few weeks. Ninety suspected militants have apparently been killed in eleven strikes since Dec. 30, 2009. Yet as the Times also reported, the ACLU and others have voiced concerns about these attacks. We are not at war in Pakistan, critics argue; the process for choosing targets is secret and suspect; the collateral damage of civilian deaths is too high. Yet the CIA contends its drone attacks are fully legal by the standards of international law. Who is correct?

[Read the full article here.]

Ed Feulner, the President of the Heritage Foundation, with a message to President Obama:

The President of the United States tomorrow will inform the Congress on the State of our Union, as he is constitutionally mandated to do. The past 12 months have seen our country head down a dangerous course, and The Heritage Foundation can only hope that the President will use this time of reflection, coming on the heels of a stunning electoral loss, to change direction.

You must recognize, Mr. President, that the State of the Union is not good. You need a new approach and fresh domestic and foreign policies. The caps on spending which reports last night said you were considering are but an exceedingly modest first step, and the devil is in the details. The caps will do virtually nothing to improve the nation’s fiscal health unless you tackle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Shifting tactics and stoking populism will be both cynical and condescending to the voters, who will see through this strategy. Mr. President, it’s the policies you need to change, not the spin.

[Read the rest here.]

And, as if we needed any reminders, two of today's headlines:

• USA Today: Welfare rolls up in '09; more enroll in assistance programs
• Washington Examiner: A decline in economic freedom
• Reuters: Record number of young Americans jobless

Details from the press release:

GREENVILLE, S.C.—Robert P. George, recently called the nation’s most influential conservative thinker by The New York Times, will open Furman University’s 2010 Tocqueville Program Lecture Series on Tuesday, Jan. 26.

George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, will speak on “Science, Philosophy and Religion in the Embryo Debate” at 8 p.m. in the Younts Conference Center at Furman.

The event, sponsored by the Furman Department of Political Science, is free and open to the public. The lecture carries Cultural Life Program (CLP) status for Furman students.

[More information here.]

Some websites and blogs are trying to make a big deal today about the fact that Obama (they claimed) brought a teleprompter with him for his visit to a 6th-grade classroom.

Other news sites have since clarified that Obama, while he did use the teleprompter in a separate event where he made some brief comments to the news media...

... did not actually use the teleprompter during his chat with the schoolkids:

Something that no one else is taking about, however, is the absence of Kevin Jennings, Obama's so-called "safe schools czar" from Obama's visit with schoolkids and subsequent press conference, and frankly - from every education event Obama has ever held.

If the Department of Education is really as proud of Jenings' appointment and record as they have claimed in the past, why are they hiding him from practically all possible public appearances?

Is it possible the administration is trying their best to do damage control, and that's why the "safe-schools czar," since his appointment, has undertaken a perfect disappearing act from the public eye?

If Kevin Jennings' notable absense troubles you please visit www.expeljennings.org

Photo credit: Getty

One important fact that should not be lost site of as we consider the merit of social issues in our ongoing political debate is the central role pro-life issues had in halting the progress of the Democrat health care legislation plans:

Key pro-life lawmakers in Congress credit the pro-life movement for stalling a pro-abortion health care bill that appeared to have enough steam to make it to President Barack Obama. They say the focus on the abortion funding in the bill has caused enough dissension to health the legislation for now.

As LifeNews.com is reporting today, the status of the pro-abortion health care bill is uncertain in the wake of the Massachusetts election.

Rep. Mike Pence told CNS News that the abortion battle played a "critical role" in temporarily stopping the bill. (LifeNews)

Philip Klein, the American Spectator's Washington Correspondent (and a very active twitter journalist), writes on the (slim) prospects of Pelosi overcoming Rep. Bart Stupak's pro-life coalition:

"Even assuming Pelosi could win over House liberals by cutting a backroom deal with Reid that could pass through the Senate using reconciliation rules, she'd still have to keep keep all of the Stupak Democrats who voted for the bill last time on board without being able to do anything for them on abortion language and avoid the defection of any other moderates who were spooked by what happened in Massachusetts. For every member she loses, she would have to convince one of the 39 Democrats who felt the need to vote against the bill the first time around, to switch his or her vote to "yes." So, is it theoretically possible that Pelosi could still get 218 of her members to cave and support shoving this unpopular health care bill down our throats? Yes. But as you can see, it's highly unlikely."

Highly unlikely, in large part, due to the efforts of the pro-life movement.

Last Friday while in Washington DC, Dr. Robert George addressed the inaugural reception hosted by the Advocates for Life, a new national association for pro-life law students in affiliation with Americans United for Life and Lawyers for Life.

Here are a couple photos I snapped from the back of the (obviously-packed) room:

You can keep up to date on Dr. George's activities on the American Principles Project Facebook Page, and find out more about Advocates for Life on their facebook page.

From RealClearPolitics, some very confusing politicking:

I wonder what she would think of Republican Congresswomen such as Michele Bachmann?