The Art of the Un-manly Shave

Townhall.com We live in the Age of the Lecture; an era in which virtually every forum or opportunity for communicating, becomes a vehicle from which to lecture us about something deemed important to those whose existence revolves around political correctness. Now, even an ad for something as mundane and apolitical as a shaving razor has become the means by which the PC crowd presses its worldview upon us. Politically correct lectures packaged as ads for toilet paper cannot be far behind. Recently, the iconic men’s grooming brand Gillette released an ad featuring not its latest advancement in shaving technology, but instead taking on the scourge of “toxic masculinity.” This transition from a product built on the masculine art of shaving one’s beard, to a campaign focusing on softness and goodwill, is odd in the extreme.  It appears, however, that the public relations Brainiacs who dreamed up this campaign may have created more of a problem than a solution (to whatever the perceived problem might have been). At least those of us grown tired of politically correct subject matter being shoved at us via television ads, can hope it will backfire. Rather than striking a cord with its audience as a collective Kumbaya moment, Gillette’s latest ad appears to have struck a raw nerve with viewers. Ad Age, an advertising industry publication, reported that one marketing intelligence firm found 63 percent of social media’s reaction to the ad was negative, compared to just eight percent who viewed it positively. Does such responsive research mean that Gillette’s customer base is sexist, racist, or supportive of bullying? Hardly. It does suggest, however, that...

Reserve Police Officers — A Timely Resource For Combatting Crime

On the surface, national crime statistics confirm that violent crime rates have decreased significantly from their peak in the early 1990s. The further reality, however, is that they remain troublingly high. As computed by both the FBI and non-government organizations such as the Pew Research Center, the past five years have witnessed a noted increase in violent crime. This particularly is the case with regard to homicide rates in major cities, such as St. Louis and Baltimore. The bulwark against criminals and their often extremely dangerous behavior is America’s sworn law enforcement community — the men and women “in blue.” Consistent with the basic structure of our Federal Republic, the vast majority of our country’s approximately 850,000 law enforcement officers are employed not by federal government agencies, but state and local police departments and sheriff’s offices. While the figure of 850,000 law enforcement officers may seem large to the average citizen, if you ask any officer “on the street,” regardless of whether he or she serves in an urban or rural area, they are almost certain to tell you that needs remain unmet, in both manpower and equipment. Unfortunately, the number of sworn law enforcement officers is decreasing, even as rates of violent crime are rising.  The Pew Research Center calculates that in the past five years alone, “the total number of working sworn officers has fallen by about 23,000.” Pew calculates further that in the past two decades, the number of officers nationally per capita has dropped sharply — from 2.42 officers per 1,000 residents in 1997 to 2.17 per 1,000 population in 2016. The reasons for such decreases in sworn law enforcement officers are...

Democratic Party Has Become a Cartoon Version of Its Former Self

Townhall.com There was a time long, long ago in which the national Democratic Party actually stood for something.  Real ideas.   Not necessarily good ideas, but substantive ideas nonetheless. The Party was led by men and women who actually articulated substantive programs. John Kennedy formulated meaningful tax policies, and launched America’s conquest of the Moon.  His successor, Lyndon Johnson, proposed and pushed through the Congress massive and far-reaching federal support programs that still are costing us today.  During the 1970s and into the 80s there were Democratic Members of the Congress who articulated well-considered social policies for welfare recipients and working families; New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes to mind. But no more.  Today in the Democratic caucus, a substantive idea would land with an echoing thud on the floor and be quickly swept away; barely noticed amid the vitriol that consumes the nation’s senior national political party. While Democrats nowadays prefer the moniker “Progressive” to “Liberal” as a descriptor for their Party and its members, there is nothing remotely progressive about this once proud political movement.  Today’s Democratic Party has become not only a hollowed-out shell of its former incarnation, but as revealed in just the past four months, now is a cartoon version of what it used to be. In what previous era in the real world, for example, would a Senator sitting on that body’s Judiciary Committee, label himself “Spartacus” after a movie character, when posing a question to a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States?  New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker did precisely that; with a straight face, nonetheless.   In this...

Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’

Townhall.com Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”  Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.”  In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’” Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays. Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting. In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch.  This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body. By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to...

A Regulatory State Christmas Miracle

Townhall.com Assets at the National Security Agency have intercepted extensive email and internet chatter from sources within the United States and abroad regarding an alleged birth of a special child in a rural farm just yesterday, December 25th, almost certainly a small town known as “Bethlehem” in Pennsylvania. Due to the apparently unique circumstances of the birth, and the potential security threat of a child rumored to be the start of a social movement undermining the role of government as the people’s exclusive moral compass, we request permission to place federal and state security assets on high alert. Federal officials were first alerted to a potential disturbance when an abnormally bright star was spotted in the sky in the vicinity of Bethlehem. Teams at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported normal atmospheric conditions at the time. However, over the last 24-hours, research teams at both agencies are now speculating that global warming may have caused this unusual phenomenon. Drone surveillance has permitted us real-time gathering of evidence in our effort pinpoint the exact location and circumstances of the alleged miraculous birth. A confidential informant sent to the location has informed us of a shocking situation on the ground. It is said that the child was born in a barn, surrounded by various livestock, without the aid of medical doctors, other care givers, certified midwives, or even a licensed doula. We have therefore sought the assistance of the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, as well as inspectors at the Food and Drug Administration, to determine the full extent of federal health and agriculture regulations...

Federal Election Law “Gotcha!”

Townhall.com   Rather than jump into the media-led free-for-all clamoring for President Trump to be indicted or impeached (or both) based on the latest court filing by Special Counsel Mueller or the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, let’s step back for just a moment.  It might behoove all sides to  consider matters as weighty as these, by at least glancing at relevant historical and legal precedents. In so doing, two cases come readily to mind: the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton and the 2012 prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards.  Such a review would urge caution, rather than the headlong rush to judgment that appears as the default to which so many in the media and political arenas are today drawn. While a Member of the House of Representatives in 1997, I introduced the first formal resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into whether there were grounds for impeachment against Clinton.  This move followed mounting evidence that his Administration had violated a number of federal laws, including most importantly, those designed to protect against foreign government contributions to a U.S. presidential campaign, and guarding against disclosure of national security-related technology to a foreign government. Late the following year, after extensive hearings by the Committee and a vote by the full House, Clinton was impeached on two counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.  While these articles of impeachment were unrelated to those that precipitated my initial inquiry, they nonetheless were based on solid evidence establishing the elements of well-known federal criminal laws – perjury and obstruction. Rather than trying to manufacture trumped-up charges of wrongdoing...