Twenty-five years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it, the belief that communism held anything but oppression, stagnation, tyranny and evil. Why – after lessons we have learned from others – are we headed toward the same mistakes, thanks to the man voted into the highest office in the land?

Robert Kaufman, a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University, writes in The Daily Caller:

President Obama has governed as if the Reagan presidency, pivotal for bringing down the wall, represented an unfortunate deviation from the progressive path of greater government control at home and diminished American power abroad. …

The president has put the United States on a path to become a Western European type social democracy at the very moment that model has proved unsustainable. …

The nanny state, in Margaret Thatcher’s scornful appellation, seeks to impose what Tocqueville called soft despotism where government supplies all our needs and wants. What the world construes as American decline under Obama has enhanced the global appeal of authoritarian alternatives to the open society — particularly a rising, authoritarian, increasingly repressive and dangerous China. Ironically, too, President Obama insists on spending less on one area of government where the lessons of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism instruct we spare no expense: national defense. …

Putin’s implacable determination to subvert Ukraine’s independence demonstrates the fallacy of President Obama’s worldview that conciliating rather than deterring adversaries will save much blood toil, tears, and sweat. …

Read the full column.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

When President Barack Obama stumped for Democrats at Wayne State University in Michigan recently, he was greeted by a relativity small but rambunctious group of libertarian college students and other like-minded individuals who faced down strict cops and angry Obama fans to get their side out to the throng of loyal Democrats.

Ty Hicks, a student at Central Michigan University and Michigan state chair of Young Americans for Liberty, tells his side of the story in a blog post, where he describes how his group was met Saturday with “heavy resistance” – including security who reportedly refused to allow them on the campus. But they kept up the good fight, anyway. There were about a dozen students and about 40 conservative and pro-liberty activists.

Hicks writes:

The local police department was ordered to work with the Secret Service, and they claimed that the entire block where Obama was having his speech was “federal property” although it was at a public state university! While the pro-democratic participants were allowed to handYALprotest out literature where all of the people were, those of us with a different view had our First Amendment rights limited to the other side of the street, well away from the speech and the people. But we didn’t give up that easily.

So the college students and others moved to the end of the street where there was a smaller police presence and handed out their fliers to those waiting in line, according to Hicks. The fliers – which were a satirical program of the event – accused Obama of hurting young people with his policies and violating the Constitution. It also decried the use of drones and the war on drugs, among other complaints.

Obama’s speech drew an estimated crowd of 6,000, and Hicks said the fake programs he and others passed out caused a stir among those waiting in line. Some yelled at the group and issued threats, “but it was just more energy for us to feed on,” Hicks stated.

“They were issuing some serious threats, and at some point, one guy even threatened me physically,” Hicks tells The College Fix. “Lots of angry people for sure.”

Later the group tried to picket the president’s appearance, but say they were blocked from walking on the campus. Hicks writes:

At all costs, we were kept off of the property even though we were peaceful at all times. Although our constitutional rights were violated over and over again, we made sure others would learn of it.

Read the full article.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Ty Hicks, Young Americans for Liberty

More than half – 51 percent – of America’s millennials who say they will “definitely be voting” in November prefer a Republican-run Congress, with only 47 percent favoring Democrat control, according to a Harvard Institute of Politics poll.

This marks a significant departure from the institute’s findings before the 2010 midterm elections, when America’s 18-29 year olds who were definitely voting favored Democrats 55 percent to 43 percent.

Institute director Maggie Williams described the youth vote as “politically up for grabs” and a potential “swing vote” for control of Congress in a conference call to announce the results.

“The message to political candidates is clear: Ignore millennial voters at your peril,” Williams said.

What’s more, the poll found that only 43 percent of millennials approve of President Obama’s job performance, while 53 percent disapprove. It is his second-lowest rating in the institute’s polls since he took office. The figures are only slightly worse for Obama among those who will “definitely be voting”: 42 percent approve, 56 percent disapprove.

The results showed a stark divide in presidential approval along racial and ethnic lines. Only three in 10 young whites approve of the president’s performance, while nearly eight in 10 young blacks approve. Hispanic youth approval fell to 49 percent, down from 60 percent just six months ago.

Director of Polling John Della Volpe described youth voters as “a little bit less Democratic” than during Obama’s first term, speaking on the conference call. Factoring in the voting likelihood of all millennials, more 18-29 year olds prefer a Democrat-controlled Congress than a Republican one (50 percent to 43 percent), Della Volpe said – but the age group has become less supportive of the party.

“A lot of it comes down to turnout,” Della Volpe said. “It seems that young Republicans are more likely to participate next week.”

The poll also surveyed voters about terrorism threats. More than six in 10 millennials say they are “a great deal” or “somewhat” worried about another terrorist attack, with young women (66 percent) more afraid than men (56 percent).

A plurality – 39 percent – supports the president’s expansion of the U.S. air campaign against ISIS. Twenty percent oppose the expansion of air strikes, while 38 percent are unsure.

The institute survey of 2,029 18-29 year-old U.S. citizens was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 9 with a confidence level of 95 percent and a margin of error of 2.6 percent.

College Fix reporter Michael Cipriano is a student at American University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: USGovt/Flickr


Georgetown University sociology Professor Michael Eric Dyson not only likened President Obama to Jesus in a recent television appearance, but admitted many of the president’s supporters really look at him as a savior, and possibly thee savior:

“Now, Eric Holder is great!  Let me tell you what, Eric Holder, one of, what, five most powerful black figures EVER?  Obama, Holder, Clyburn, William Gray.  These figures have been extraordinarily important in politics.  But, you know, I’m a Christian preacher and God finally said, ‘Look, I can’t send nobody else, I got to go myself.’  And I ain’t sayin’ that Obama is Jesus, but for many of his followers he is.  But I’m saying, show up dog, and show us that you are seriously committed to the interests of your people, because your presence says something louder than even your words.”

So, I guess the message here is Obama is sorta, kinda Jesus – but he’s not doing a great job for his “people.” In the words of the esteemed professor: Show up, dog!

By the way, Dyson – named by Ebony as one of the hundred most influential black Americans – is not the only professor who has compared Obama with Jesus.

There was also The Gospel According to Apostle Barack,” the title of a book penned by a Florida A&M University professor who compares Jesus with Obama and says God told her in a dream to write it.

p.s. Eric Holder is one of the worst attorney generals in this country’s history.

h/t Western Journalism

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Now here’s an idea!

Renowned University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds – addressing rumors that President Obama might employ executive action to grant blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (thereby sidestepping the required Congressional approval for such a move) – turns to the U.S. Constitution for answers.

Reynolds writes:

Such an action would be an extraconstitutional coup, entirely justifying the impeachment talk.

Actually, it might justify more. I can imagine governors — Rick Perry, perhaps — simply taking matters into their own hands. They’d have a better argument for self-help there under the Constitution — Article I sec. 10′s authorization to go to war when actually invaded, or in such danger as will admit of no delay — and the federal government’s default on its duty under the Constitution to protect them from invasion. There’s a lot of room for constitutional self-help there, and realistically what’s Obama going to do about it?

And therein lies how concerned Americans must combat Obama’s abuses of power; not with rhetoric – but with the rights outlined in that beautiful and brilliant document our Founding Fathers left us. Here is the specific clause regarding states’ rights:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Even if that clause’s intent was regarding a uniformed military invasion, make no mistake – our southern border is absolutely being invaded today by a different type of army – and amnesty would only guarantee that many, many more will try to subvert our laws and storm the border. And if the federal government won’t defend our borders – maybe the states will.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

h/t: PowerLine Blog

IMAGE: Chris Gold NY/Flickr

Just as former Vice President Al Gore did recently at Princeton, president Obama chose to focus on the issue of global warming in his commencement address at the University of California, Irvine, calling those who question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming a “radical fringe” who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“The question is not whether we need to act” on climate change, Obama said. “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest. The question is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”

The speech and creation of the fund follow Obama’s announcement earlier this month of plans to cut power-plant emissions, the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels.

“When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,” Obama said. “But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anyone saying the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese.”

Full story here.

(Image: PeteSouza.WhiteHouse)

(Via Drudge)

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter