POLITICSCOMMENTARY Artwork Depicting Cops as Pigs Has No Place in the US Capitol

POLITICSCOMMENTARY

Artwork Depicting Cops as Pigs Has No Place in the US Capitol

Scott Erickson / @SGErickson / December 30, 2016 / comments

Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., selected a controversial anti-police painting as the winning artwork from his district for the annual Congressional Art Competition. (Photo: Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call Photos/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Scott Erickson@SGErickson

Scott G. Erickson is the president of Americans in Support of Law Enforcement.

There currently hangs in the United States Capitol building a painting that depicts police officers as anthropomorphic pigs.

Yes, you read that correctly. The painting actually depicts police officers as gun-wielding pigs. And yes, it is hanging in the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

The Capitol building contains, among the obvious two houses of Congress, multiple historically significant works of art, statues of our nation’s greatest heroes, innovators, and civic leaders, and is capped by a rotunda graced by Constantino Brumidi’s famed fresco “The Apotheosis of Washington.”

And alongside all of this beauty now hangs a divisive and insulting painting ostensibly meant to highlight social injustice. How could such a humiliating work of “art” make its way into such a prestigious place?

Dear reader:

With today’s liberal media influence, there are few publications that Americans can rely on to learn the “other” side of the issues.

The Daily Signal is a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts solely funded by the financial support of the general public.

• We are a non-profit organization
• We serve more than 2 million readers a month
• We do not accept government funds
• We do not run any advertising

Please donate by December 31 to ensure we can continue to provide The Daily Signal for free. Your support is needed now more than ever.

Time Left Until December 31st

If you rely on The Daily Signal for news and analysis on key issues, please make a tax-deductible contribution by the end of the year. Thank you.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

No, Colin Kaepernick did not sneak into the Capitol and hang the painting while no one was looking. Its placement in the Capitol can actually be credited to Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo.

Clay selected the artwork, named “Untitled #1,” as his district’s winner in the 32nd Annual Congressional Art Competition. As such, “Untitled #1” now proudly hangs in the Capitol alongside other winners of the competition.

Its unseemly content has not gone unnoticed. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., a former police officer, told theIndependent Journal Review, “Unfortunately, many people of influence have taken part in promoting offensive and inaccurate caricatures of the very people who do the most to protect our families.”

He added, “While I understand in some neighborhoods trust between police and communities has all but deteriorated, we must work on rebuilding these relationships and focus on our shared goals of peace and civility.”

Clay, however, seems to have no qualms about the divisive nature of “Untitled #1.” He described the work as “the most creative expression that I’ve witnessed over the last 16 years” and added that it “portrays a colorful landscape of symbolic characters representing social injustice.”

Apparently, depicting police officers as pigs—an image long understood to be derogatory and insulting to the entire law enforcement profession—is justifiable since they are merely “symbolic characters representing social injustice.”

It’s a shame that Clay, like so many others, seemingly has no issue with broadly disparaging an entire profession of men and women, from all backgrounds and walks of life, who literally risk their lives on a daily basis to provide safe and secure communities.

Although they would never say so—surely out of pride and the honor with which they uphold their profession—but the men and women of the United States Capitol Police, working merely yards from this piece of art, must be disheartened at how some in society, and apparently at least one member of Congress, holds them in such disregard.

The young artist who created “Untitled #1” no doubt meant for his work to be provocative and thought-provoking. In that regard, he was certainly successful, but for the wrong reasons.

Rather than elicit a thoughtful response on community strife and social injustice, “Untitled #1” divides and separates observers. If your desire is to help a community heal and overcome division, then purposely and unnecessarily playing to people’s prejudices is not the way to go.

Artwork in any form is certainly subjective, but “Untitled #1” is objectively insulting and has no place hanging within the halls of the United States Capitol. Lawmakers should demonstrate their respect for law enforcement by having this image promptly removed.

POLITICSCOMMENTARY Standing Up to Political Bullying Is What Voters Want

POLITICSCOMMENTARY

Standing Up to Political Bullying Is What Voters Want

Tami Fitzgerald / @tamifitzgerald / December 21, 2016 / comments

Gov. Pat McCrory, R-N.C., lost his re-election bid by 10,277 out of 4.7 million votes, or two-tenths of 1 percent. (Photo: Jerry Wolford /Polaris/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Tami Fitzgerald@tamifitzgerald

Tami Fitzgerald is the executive director of NC Values Coalition.

After a month of counting absentee and provisional ballots, exploring voter fraud, and recounting 90,000+ ballots in one of the progressive strongholds of the state that were turned in at 11:30 p.m. on election night, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory conceded that he lost his re-election on Dec. 5.

McCrory lost his re-election by only 10,277 out of 4.7 million votes, or two-tenths of 1 percent. However, repeal of the H.B. 2 “bathroom bill” is not the lesson to be learned from the election.

The governor’s race in North Carolina had barely concluded before the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups began taking credit for having unseated the one-term governor over his refusal to back down to their bullying.

The Human Rights Campaign engaged in an eight-month smear campaign against the state of North Carolina—with McCrory as the primary target—over the passage of North Carolina’s privacy law, which blocked a Charlotte city ordinance that would have allowed men into women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and other intimate facilities.

Dear reader:

With today’s liberal media influence, there are few publications that Americans can rely on to learn the “other” side of the issues.

The Daily Signal is a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts solely funded by the financial support of the general public.

• We are a non-profit organization
• We serve more than 2 million readers a month
• We do not accept government funds
• We do not run any advertising

Please donate by December 31 to ensure we can continue to provide The Daily Signal for free. Your support is needed now more than ever.

Time Left Until December 31st

If you rely on The Daily Signal for news and analysis on key issues, please make a tax-deductible contribution by the end of the year. Thank you.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Human Rights Campaign points to highly suspect internal polling as proof that this issue was his downfall, but the facts bear out a different conclusion. McCrory’s strong stance for privacy and safety and ensuring that local laws do not impose financial and legal liability on businesses actually helped him in his re-election bid, rather than hurting him.

So how does a governor who has presided over a massive economic comeback lose his re-election bid?

The most compelling evidence that the privacy law was not a deciding factor in the governor’s race is the fact that Lt. Gov. Dan Forest (who had championed the law) and the Republican majorities in the General Assembly (who crafted and passed the law) ended up winning re-election overwhelmingly.

Forest won 51.8 percent to 45.3 percent, a higher winning margin than President-elect Donald Trump, Sen. Richard Burr, or the Democrats who won the governor and attorney general races received. In fact, Forest brought in more total votes than either Trump or Gov.-elect Roy Cooper.

Republican state legislators, who had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, retained those veto-proof majorities in both chambers, actually picking up a seat in the Senate and retaining the same number of seats in the House.

State Rep. Dan Bishop, who championed the privacy law in the House, was elected to the Senate by almost 14 percentage points. If H.B. 2 were really a factor, it would have been a factor in these races as well as the governor’s race.

The truth is that voters in North Carolina were enthusiastic about re-electing those who preserved dignity, privacy, and safety by standing strong even in the face of bullying and extortion from the media, Fortune 500 companies, the NBA, and the NCAA.

The most measurable reason for McCrory’s downfall can be attributed to his refusal to scrap a toll road as the means for expansion of an interstate highway used heavily by commuters north of Charlotte.

The dispute arose over three years ago and peaked a year before the election, when four Republican state lawmakers called for the governor to kill the I-77 toll lanes and start over.

A Republican grassroots group threatened not to vote for McCrory in his re-election bid unless he scrapped the toll construction—and sure enough, those voters made good on their promise. Planned Parenthood was even caught red-handed posing as an anti-I-77 toll group.

A post-election comparison of votes from this highly Republican part of the state reveals that McCrory received 33,775 fewer votes in 2016 in these areas of the state than he did in 2012—enough to cost him the election.

To add further support to this argument, Republican State Rep. John Bradford lives in the middle of this I-77 toll corridor, and he won his re-election race handily (56.5 percent to 43.5 percent), despite the fact that his opponent ran solely on her opposition to H.B. 2. Bradford won by a larger margin in 2016 than he did in 2012, another indicator that H.B. 2 was not what influenced his race or the governor’s race.

The toll road wasn’t McCrory’s only problem, unfortunately. For over three years leading up to the passage of North Carolina’s privacy law, McCrory was trailing in public opinion polls. In fact, in the 16 polls taken before the privacy law was passed, McCrory was trailing in nine of them.

Social conservatives were not enthusiastic about McCrory before H.B. 2 because of his veto of a previous religious liberty bill, his opposition to passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and his threatened veto of a pro-life bill. McCrory himself admitted that he is not known for his support for social issues.

Only in the summer of this year did McCrory earn higher marks in the polls than his opponent, Cooper. It was then that the Republican base began to realize McCrory was standing strong on restroom and locker room privacy and safety, indicating that his handling of H.B. 2 and his determination not to give in to bullying, threats, and misrepresentations on the issue actually helped him gain ground with voters.

In addition, his handling of relief efforts for the destruction caused by Hurricane Matthew gave him a bump in public opinion polls right before the election.

Even the left-leaning group Public Policy Polling admits that McCrory’s approval right before the election (and post-H.B. 2) was the highest it’s been in over three years: “We’d found Pat McCrory with a negative approval rating every single month since July 2013 until now—45 percent of voters give him good marks to 43 percent who disapprove.”

The logical conclusion is that the negative trend for McCrory started long before North Carolina ever passed its privacy law, and his surprisingly strong stand in favor of H.B. 2 helped him gain enough support to run almost even with Cooper on Election Day.

But rising public opinion alone was not enough to help McCrory win, especially when he was being outspent by his opponent by almost $8 million.

Cooper raised $21.6 million to McCrory’s $13.75 million. That type of disparity between the candidates’ campaign budgets was destined to put McCrory at a disadvantage.

Republican insiders said that McCrory had not built his fundraising base outside of Charlotte, and that he was ill-prepared as a result. When money drives elections, not having it is critical.

The most damaging assault on McCrory’s re-election bid came from the “Blueprint for North Carolina” effort led by progressive groups to retake the state. They crafted a plan that directed their members to “eviscerate, mitigate, litigate, cogitate, and agitate,” and politically wound the state’s leadership, well before H.B. 2 became an issue.

One thing is for sure: Any claims that McCrory lost re-election because of North Carolina’s privacy law must be taken with a big grain of salt. The truth is that all politics is local, and McCrory’s refusal to act on conservative priorities such as the I-77 toll road and a larger progressive plan to target and take down the governor are to blame.

If anything, H.B. 2 helped the governor shore up the millions of North Carolinians who were skeptical about his commitment to religious freedom and conservative causes.

Although he narrowly lost the closest governor’s race in recent history, McCrory was right to stand on principle and not give in to the left’s bullying and attacks.

He may be leaving office, but North Carolina’s families and businesses will benefit from his bold stand for dignity, privacy, and safety, as well as his economic reforms, for years to come.

Conservative Groups Warn of Obama’s ‘Midnight Litigation’ Against US Business

Leah Jessen / @_LeahKay_ / December 30, 2016 / comments

“Midnight litigation” should be of concern to the new Trump administration, according to a coalition of conservative and pro-business groups. (Photo: Pat Benic/UPI/Newscom)

Conservative and pro-business groups warn that the Obama administration may pursue legal action to enforce some of its thousands of new “job-crushing” regulations before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.

Regulations promulgated in “the waning days” of President Barack Obama’s lame-duck administration could constrain the new Trump administration, the coalition of groups warned Vice President-elect Mike Pence in aletter dated Dec. 28.

“Because of this concern, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which provides Congress procedural tools to disapprove expeditiously these last-ditch midnight regulations,” the letter says.

The Congressional Review Act could address regulations put in place by the Obama administration since June 3. However, the law can’t prevent so-called “midnight litigation” launched by the executive branch to enforce those regulations.

Dear reader:

With today’s liberal media influence, there are few publications that Americans can rely on to learn the “other” side of the issues.

The Daily Signal is a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts solely funded by the financial support of the general public.

• We are a non-profit organization
• We serve more than 2 million readers a month
• We do not accept government funds
• We do not run any advertising

Please donate by December 31 to ensure we can continue to provide The Daily Signal for free. Your support is needed now more than ever.

Time Left Until December 31st

If you rely on The Daily Signal for news and analysis on key issues, please make a tax-deductible contribution by the end of the year. Thank you.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Obama administration issued 3,852 new federal regulations during 2016, according to a new analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, first reported Friday by the Washington Examiner.

The letter from conservative activists and business leaders says:

It has come to our attention that a number of departments and independent agencies are working furiously behind closed doors to bring significant, legally tenuous litigation against American business interests before Jan. 20, 2017. Doing so will saddle the Trump administration with having to litigate cases based on job-crushing liberal legal theories.

Inauguration Day, when Trump is sworn in as president, is Jan. 20.

Signers of the letter include Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; Ken Blackwell, chairman of Constitution Congress; and Clyde Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The signatories represent 29 organizations, including Frontiers of Freedom, the Heartland Institute, and Liberty Counsel.

The letter warns Pence, a former congressman and governor of Indiana who is well-liked by conservatives, that the new administration should review any litigation to enforce the recent regulations.

“Should the Obama administration bring nonroutine, last minute, legally unorthodox midnight litigation, your administration should not hesitate to withdraw immediately from that litigation,” the letter to Pence states.

“Your administration should not hesitate to withdraw immediately from that litigation,” says a letter to VP-elect @mike_pence.

Such last-minute litigation could hurt job growth, the letter says.

John R. Smith, the chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, wrote in an op-ed for BizPac Review:

The lame-duck Obama administration has launched a mad scramble to throw up as many hurdles, and to plant as many last-minute landmines as possible against the new American president. In his final days of office, Barack Obama has initiated a major flurry of new executive orders, directives, and regulations, thousands of them, that he is piling into the federal books.

Frontiers of Freedom, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting traditional American values, circulated the letter.

“Everything should be suspect,” George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, told The Daily Caller News Foundation, referring to the Obama administration’s final gush of regulations.