Conservatives Winning On Key Social Issues, Partly Thanks to MTV?

While social conservatives face a looming time of decision on whether or not to continue fighting gay marriage, they can claim victories on other fronts.

The Washington Times reports that teen birthrates and abortions have plummeted to lows not seen in decades. Birthrates among teens fell 10 percent just in the past two years.  Statistics indicate that teens are also having record low numbers of abortions (since legalization.)  While many do use contraceptives, studies also show that teens are waiting longer to have sex, and even then doing it less often.

According to the Washington Post, studies indicate that over 5 percent of the drop in teen conceptions come from the impact of shows like MTV's "Teen Mom."  Far from glamorizing early parenthood, the shows have shown the difficult side of raising children when too young.

Lower abortion rates show that teens are also less willing to consider abortion as birth control.  Those same shows most likely have an impact on the perception of abortion being not a clinical procedure so much as the death of a child.

These numbers do show victories for social conservatives in important fields.  Advocates must remember, however, that part of the success came not from "thou shalt not" approaches, but generally respectful portrayals of individuals taking responsibility for unwise choices.

Disagree With Democrats? Keep It to Yourself . . .Or Else

Since the election of Obama, liberals have gone after their political dissenters.  First came White House attempts, fended off by the media, to declare Fox News a non news outlet, banishing them from the press corps. Then came years of the left's near fetish level fascination with "sedition."  Tea Parties, Republicans, libertarians, nearly everyone associated with opposing this president gets tarred with the word. "Sedition" is the idea that speech that disrupts government functions should be criminal.  Twice in American history have sedition laws been passed, both during wars with Great Powers.

The scandal over improper IRS harassment of groups opposed to the current federal government will not subside, despite the administration's best efforts.

Worst of all, last fall, a Washington Times  reporter uncovering problems with the air marshal service had her research materials illegally seized by the Maryland State Police and turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.

Last week brought more stories of liberals and left wing attempts to chill speech or silence opponents.

Public outcry forced the Federal Communications Commission to back off of a plan to send monitors into broadcast and print media newsrooms to ask "invasive" questions about story selection and coverage.  The FCC is mandated to regularly submit reports about potential barriers to small operators and entrepreneurship.  Its questionnaire included many questions about journalism decisions, which could have a chilling effect on issue coverage. Many experts agree this violates the First Amendment, at least in spirit.

And finally on the state level, as West Virginia Metro News's Hoppy Kercheval puts it, some Democrats "can't stand a feisty Republican."  West Virginia's elected Republican attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, faces the possible stripping of his constitutionally mandated powers. Like others, his "crime" seems to be strenuous opposition to the efforts and plans of the Obama Administration.  Morrisey has been an outspoken opponent of infringements on the Second Amendment and EPA attacks on coal and power.

House Republicans and others noted that the state constitution and recent case law forbid the state legislature from doing precisely what House Democrats are trying.

The pattern is pretty clear.  Speak out against Obama, oppose his administration's plans, and his allies try to bring the power of government down against you, usually illegally.  Why can't America have bipartisan discussions and compromises?  Partly because of this dynamic.

Obama's Re-election Strategy: Pander to Negative Stereotypes of Democratic Base Groups

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/obamas-bleak-view-of-african-americans/

This Emily Miller op-ed from the Washington Times pretty much confirms what elitist left-liberals think of their base. And it reflects a highly offensive worldview. Blacks go to jail, Hispanics are illegal immigrants, all gays are worried about AIDS. The only thing that is missing is programs on dental hygiene and front porch decorating tips for people in Appalachia.

Conversely, they imply that whites have no problems with incarceration, that straight people need not worry about AIDS, etc.

Sure, this was not intentionally offensive. It reflects the failed imagination of the worldview of the privileged leftist. They cannot imagine why their potential white constituents would be interested in programs for people getting out of jail. Leftists assign people into categories and treat them as objects and means, not as ends. This approach comes from their collective worldview combined with basic laziness.

When Republicans do this, it comes off as clumsy and gets the ridicule that it deserves. I am sure that Obama apologists will see this as simply a smart strategy.

Whatever. As an American, I am offended by their approach.

Our Taxpayer Dollars At Work

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/29/workers-porn-surfing-rampant-at-federal-agency/?page=3
Wanted: Senior Executive for National Science Foundation. Must be able to avoid looking at porn sites.
Wanted: Supporting staff at National Science Foundation. Must be willing to refrain from placing pornographic pictures of themselves on government computers.
The article above, an exclusive from the Washington Times (not that their crosstown rival would not have loved to be the first on this story) describes how staff and executives at the NSF spent so much time and foundation resources on internet pornography that millions have been spent by their inspector general. The IG was not able to do his real job of tracking down grant fraud; he was investigating a large number of employees spending all day looking at porn. A senior executive defended his actions by saying he was helping to support underprivileged Third World women.
So will ACORN be banned from running this outfit, too?

****************************************************************************

Congressman Rahall of the Third District recently defended his vote against defunding ACORN as a strike in favor of the Constitution. He (and likely Mollohan as well) interpreted the congressional action as a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder means that the government targets the actions of an individual or group for unfair punishment. The fact that widespread fraud and illegal behavior was found in this organization means that it was defunded for legitimate and legal reasons. The government has the authority to cut off funds when it believes they are being used for fraudulent purposes.
At what point did Congressman Rahall start representing Chicago and stop representing West Virginia?