Public Strongly Opposes Obama's Syrian Intervention 

Last week the White House announced that it would begin providing weapons and military aid to the Syrian rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The conundrum for U.S. policy makers is that many of the rebels are Al Qaeda extremists. 

This "nuance," and the failure of the Arab Spring to bring real freedom to the Middle East, have not been lost on the American people. A new poll finds that 70% of the public opposes Obama's policy of arming the Syrian rebels. Only 20% support the idea. That is an incredible 50-point gap. 

The opposition to Obama's policy is bi-partisan: 74% of independents oppose it, as do 71% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats. Even worse for the president is that opinions are hardening against U.S. intervention. In March 2012, 63% opposed arming the rebels and 29% supported doing so -- a 34-point gap. 

Good people can disagree on the best approach to this problem, and there are good people who support toppling Assad. In the Pew poll, a majority of Americans (53%) agreed with the view that it was "important for the U.S. to support people who oppose authoritarian regimes." 

But given the results of Obama's foreign policy choices in places like Egypt and Libya, a growing majority clearly does not feel this administration is capable of intervening in Syria and securing an outcome that will serve U.S. interests or freedom in the Middle East.

Last week Sarah Palin told an audience of conservative activists that if we see Al Qaeda-backed jihadists fighting Iranian-backed jihadists perhaps the best policy is to "let Allah sort it out." 

Big Government And The Crisis Of Confidence 

Jeffrey Lord has a column today at The American Spectator connecting the public's distrust of Big Government to the current debate over the Senate's quasi-amnesty bill. He recounts the IRS scandal involving illegal immigrants claiming tax credits for children who do not exist. 

The IRS and leading politicians have known about the problem for years. Last year, Harry Reid killed legislation to stop it, even though this rampant fraud is costing taxpayers more than $4 billion a year. 

Lord writes that this example of "massive IRS fraud by illegal immigrants vividly illustrates is yet another story of corruption and government gone wild." Here's more of his column: 
 

Lord then suggests that those pushing this so-called "immigration reform" bill are ignoring the reality of corruption: 
 

I couldn't agree more. 

Speaking of fraud and waste in Big Government, check out the latest video by James O'Keefe. He helped to bring down ACORN, and now he's exposing the fraud in the "Obamaphone" program, which is paid for by fees tacked on to the bills of regular cellphone users. 

Boehner Speaks On Border Security 

There is growing angst among conservatives around the country about how Speaker John Boehner will handle immigration reform legislation once the Senate passes its amnesty bill. Politico reports that Speaker Boehner made the following statement to a closed-door meeting of the House GOP caucus this morning: 
 

Obama's Abortion Extremism 

One of the more memorable moments of the 2008 presidential campaign occurred during a debate at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. Pastor Warren asked then-Senator Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights?" Obama responded that the question was "above my pay grade." 

In the wake of the Kermit Gosnell trial, many Americans were exposed for the first time to the gruesome realities of the culture of death wrought by Roe v. Wade. Thankfully pro-life members of Congress are fighting to restore respect for the sanctity of life. 

Today the House of Representatives is expected to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would ban late-term abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy based on medical evidence that unborn children may feel pain starting at 20 weeks. 

Kermit Gosnell specialized in late-term abortions. Some babies were born alive in his office, but not even they were spared. He finished the job by "snipping" their spinal cords. 

Regrettably, President Obama seems unmoved. The White House issued a statement vowing to veto the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act should it reach his desk. 

In the statement, the White House predictably resurrected the "war on women" theme, blasting the bill as "an assault on a woman's right to choose" and "a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade" that "shows contempt for women's health … and the Constitution." Nothing could be further from the truth. 

But if the White House wants a serious debate about women's health, it should examine the link between abortion and violence against women. I have a column in USA Today, co-authored by Daniel Allott, exploring this very subject. 

Yes, Media Bias Is Real 

As the country debates same-sex "marriage," the left-wing media and the popular culture have been eager cheerleaders for the radical notion of men "marrying" other men. 

The Pew Research Center studied more than 500 media reports about the issue during the time when two prominent cases were before the Supreme Court. Pew concluded: "Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1."

Many Americans have come to falsely assume that nearly a quarter of the population is gay partly because of this type of grossly distorted reporting. The real figure is significantly lower.