Victory Over Obama - Peace at Last: The Meaning of Scott Brown's Victory in MA

The good news is the Obama administration has helped at least three people get new jobs, one each in VA, NJ, and now MA...

On a more serious note, it is clear that Scott Brown's triumphant entry into Washington, D.C. symbolized the collapse of one of the most powerful Presidential terms in U.S. history. Very rarely does an energetic new President come to office in complete control of both houses of Congress. Brown's startling victory, however, marks the end of the Obama revolution.

The Supreme Court also timed things perfectly driving a nail in the Obama administration's Marxist socialist fantasies. It's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Moreover, the 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.

The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

This decision is important from a theoretical perspective because the Supreme Court's rulings have a massive impact on the way we play the political game. This assertion, by the way, is controversial among traditional Marxists who underestimate the power of the state itself to regulate and control human behavior. The Supreme Court decision is welcome news for everyone who feared the growth of big government at the expense of the private sector. This move will give non-government organizations the resources they need to protect markets (and themselves) from undue political influence. I can always pick another corporation or insurance company. It's not so easy to find a new government.

In the domestic terrorism front, I think this concern was another issue raised by the Scott Brown campaign. Most of us think that it is fair to treat our enemy as enemies...and not as citizens in civilian court. Increasingly, Obama's divergent point of view is why a plurality of us would already prefer to vote for "someone else" to be President in 2012.

It's a pleasure to live in a country with freedom of speech. :) Personally, I was following the election results on Twitter and later on talk radio. Nevertheless, I figured out it was over for Coakley when Michael Barone said on FOX that turn out was high in the neighborhoods expected to go for Scott Brown. I'm grateful non-government institutions can now fight back against the goverment and against the big companies that own left wing media outlets like MSNBC or ABC or CBS or NBC.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Reviewing a Close Call: Obama Administration Discovers Islamic Terrorism

One of the most annoying things about Janet Napolitano was her belief that guys like me are among the top security threats to our nation because of our conservative views, Constitutional perspective, and commitment to various "single issue" causes. Now, however, it looks like the predictions that Obama's approach to terrorism would make us safer have all been proven wrong.

In this regard, I think it is entirely fair, and important, to point out that the recent terrorist attacks during the first year of the Obama administration can all be traced to its overly optimistic trust of devout Muslims. This is the common theme that runs through accounts of the Ft. Hood shooter, the panty bomber and the CIA base attack. As far as I can tell, participants in the Obama administration are so committed to their politically correct point of view that they don't understand that religious books have real world consequences.

Unfortunately for the Democrat party, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - the 23-year-old Nigerian panty bomber - was brought to the attention of the Obama administration by British authorities prior to his attack.

This fact alone undermines the theory that Obama's genius and superior governing skills would keep us safe.

For me, increased national security starts with a proper understanding of the nature of the threat we face from radical Islam. The thesis of Dore Gold's excellent book - Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism - is that Wahabi Islam has always been a dangerous religious movement - even to other Islamic adherents. The violence of Wahabi Islamic thought predates the establishment of Israel.

Accordingly, it is extremely important for the Obama administration to adjust its risk profiles to take this into accout. Pretending that Islamic terrorism is the product of loneliness or mental illness or discrimination is going to get a lot more Americans killed. The recent uptick in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil shows the Obama administration needs to go back to whatever was working so well during the last six years of the Bush administration.

The news, of course, is not all bad. The practical elements of the Obama administration are already tightening up procedures regarding travellers from Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, which are considered “state sponsors of terrorism” as well as citizens from Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. These travellers will be subject to specialized intensive physical scrutiny.

Once again, conservatives are winning the battle of ideas. This is the same "profiling" program that I've argued for for years. I don't think all those searches of me and my luggage this year while I was visiting Northern California or Pennsylvania or Tennessee were making us any safer.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.