The use of the term ?right?, as in ?Americans have a right to?,? has become watered down and incorrectly used in far too many instances. Generally, a right is a restriction on the authority of the government. By reserving certain powers to individuals, a right limits the strength of the government and prevents abuses of its citizens. However, a right is not an obligation to provide. While governments are, in some instances, obligated to provide certain items, these obligations are not rights. The distinction, while seemingly slight, is an important one that is often muddled in the popular arena.

Rights, as properly understood, are simply a restriction. They offer no direct provision to individuals. To understand this better one only needs to understand the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to religion. In the first instance, the right prevents the government from limiting what any individual can say. In the second instance, the right prevents the government from imposing a religion on any individual. In neither case is the government required to provide something to an individual. Other rights, such as the right to bear arms, can be understood in the same way. The right to bear arms is a restriction on the government?s monopolization of power. It prevents the government from encroaching on the personal lives of individuals, by restricting power.

However, many politicians incorrectly use the term ?right? to refer to certain things the government provides. Often this language is used in an attempt to expand entitlements and services. By using this language, politicians aim to make the provision of such items unassailable. This use, however, is incorrect when dealing with the rights an individual has vis-�-vis the government.

The ?right to a minimum wage? and the ?right to healthcare? are two such false rights. The reason these are not true rights is because they require the government to provide a service. A ?right to a minimum wage? demands that the government provide the means and structure for an individual to be provided with a certain wage. The ?right to healthcare? that is generally discussed when politicians try to cobble together a health reform package essentially demands that the government either directly or indirectly (eg. by establishing a legal system to force the provision from private sector) provides healthcare to every American. Since rights are defined as the restriction not the expansion of government roles, these claims cannot be rights. A properly defined right to healthcare would simply be defined as a restriction on the government not to prevent individuals from purchasing healthcare. Obviously, this is a relatively meaningless right and not what most proponents of a ?right to healthcare? discuss.

Civil rights are also an area where this distinction is very often incorrectly applied. Citizens undoubtedly have the right not to be persecuted or discriminated against based on racial, sexual, or other characteristics. The government is not allowed this power. However, civil rights do not mean that the government has an obligation to provide anything to people based on these same characteristics. In fact, if such an obligation existed it would most certainly violate other citizens? rights (read: affirmative action).

The point of such a distinction is to correctly define the use of the term ?rights? in order to better understand the role of the government. Many policies on the left, and some on the right, tend to dismiss this definition of ?right? in order to expand the role of government and provide benefits to narrow slices of the electorate. However, by applying such a definition it is relatively easy to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate role of the government.

[As an added caveat the correct use of the word ?rights? does not imply that the government has no positive obligations. What is not a right reserved to the people (or states) is often a role for the government to play. For instance, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from each other (policing) and from external threats (military). This positive action is something the government must provide its citizens. However, it does not mean that such a positive obligation is a right that the citizens possess.]

What is the Point of Attacking Fox?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Fox News, the Obama administration?s repeated assaults on the cable news network are unwise and bad for the country. Over the past few weeks, members of the Obama administration have gone on the record attacking Fox News. Amongst other statements, David Axelrod has said ?It?s really not news. It?s pushing a point of view,? while Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said that Obama does not want ?the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.?

These attacks are unwise for the Obama administration. They accomplish little except to galvanize support around (or against) Fox News and draw partisan lines in the sand. For an administration that apparently strives for bipartisanship, getting mired in the muck with Fox only speaks of desperation and partisanship. The battle has only been a boon for Fox, while making the administration look foolish.

The continuation of such desperate behavior emphasizes the perceived threat the administration feels from Fox. Fox News has revealed numerous scandals and stories, such as ACORN and Van Jones, which are damaging to Obama. The administration?s attacks read as a response to the political costs wrought by Fox News. This not only adds a level of legitimacy to Fox?s reporting, but makes the administration appear as if it is trying to portray a false image to America by demonizing its enemies rather than actually dealing with real issues. Neither is a perspective that the administration wants to foster.

More concerning is the fact that the executive branch is attempting to quash anti-administration (if they may be called that) perspectives. While certainly not yet violating freedom of the press, the administration is treading on dangerous ground. Freedom of the press is one of the most prized rights. Americans of all stripes bristle when it is attacked. Even if the administration?s indictments of Fox News are entirely correct, its behavior is not. No government should be meddling with the news sources that its citizens choose to use.

An open society has numerous voices and perspectives, some of which are correct and others which are not. No news source can be free from biases. Since every incident entails interpretation and perspective there is no such beast as completely objective news. It is up to the consumer of news ? the voter ? to distill and analyze the multitude of news. Accuracy and correctness will be awarded; while bogus news outlets will be marginalized. The government, and any other body or individual, can choose to play a role in the competition of ideas; however, it can not rightly use its power and position to attempt to silence a perspective that it does not like. Such abuses of power are characteristic of third world military dictatorships, not the United States of America.

Fox News may or may not be what the administration claims it is. Regardless, it is a voice in the mix. Obama?s administration would be wise to drop the attacks on the network; if not for the sake of fostering an open society, then at least to preserve its own image. Let Americans decide for themselves what they want to hear and from whom. America is educated and mature enough to judge Fox for what it is.

What Were Obama's Advisors Thinking?

The news has been abuzz with Obama?s failure to bring the Olympics to Chicago. The President has correctly been questioned on at least two fronts. First, why did he spend so much political capital and energy focused on such an insignificant issue when there are so many more pressing issues? Second, does his inability to bring home the Olympics signify a damaging inability for the administration to influence foreign bodies? There is, in addition, at least one more question that has not been readily addressed: What were Obama?s advisors thinking?

Even before Rio was awarded the Olympics and Obama journeyed to Copenhagen, pundits were questioning the merits of his quest. No sitting American president had attempted such a feat. Not only did it entail political risk, for relatively little gain, there are far too many pressing issues for our President to spend time on such a trivial issue. Even the Huffington Post, darling of the left, criticized Obama?s thinking.

The GOP also got it right in knocking Obama for wasting time chasing Olympic windmills when his time should be spent on health care reform, fixing the economy, confronting the Iran nuclear threat, and doubling his efforts to wind down two crippling wars.

Second, his failure to convince the IOC weakened his credibility on the international stage. As Fox News reports, critics question whether a President who cannot deliver something as menial as the Olympics will be able to deliver a nuclear-free Iran or a globally responsible China. Such claims, however, are probably overblown. After all, the levels of intricacy of negotiations, not to mention government effort, are most certainly leagues apart when negotiating with Iran versus the IOC. That being said, the failure does reduce the aura that surrounds Obama. Furthermore, Obama has most likely lost a little credibility with those that analyze his every move. Such a snafu is not really indicative of his inability to be an international force (there are myriad of other indicators that serve this purpose); however, it may lead to more friction for his agenda down the line.

All this being said, one of the most interesting questions is: ?What were his advisors thinking??. Where was the wise advisor cautioning him against the vast risks and costs and the minimal benefits inherent in such a ploy? Why did no one stand up and tell him it was not worth it? Did his team foresee the GOP attacks? Or were his advisors simply unable to convince him otherwise?

Either way is problematic. Obama selected an award winning set of advisors to run his campaign. They ran a tight, effective campaign that will most likely be a guide for years of future campaigns to come. However, upon ascent to the White House his ability to find strong advisors seemingly has fizzled. Obama has gone through far too many scandalized czars to make anyone comfortable. From the socialist Van Jones to the animal-friendly Cass Sunstein, Obama has surrounded himself with incompetent and downright scary individuals.

The failure of his advising team is becoming increasingly distressing. Every modern president needs to rely heavily on his advisors. It is clear that Obama?s inexperience and his reliance on an out-of-touch, incapable team, is contributing to his mounting political failures. If Obama wants to succeed with his agenda and not solidify his place as the next Jimmy Carter, he must seriously reconsider who he surrounds himself with. After all, if his team could not foresee the political damage of going to Copenhagen, how are they going to handle real issues?

Iran's Ahmadinejad, a Jew? Exports Anti-Semitism

In a recent report, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Iran?s anti-Israel, hardline ruler, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does in fact have Jewish roots. The surprising discovery is based on an identity card, displayed by Ahmadinejad, during his election ?campaign? last year. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Iranian President?s family name, prior to conversion to Islam in the 1950s, is clearly indicative of Jewish origins.

The discovery that the number one enemy of the Jewish people comes from a Jewish family highlights a sad and unfortunate political reality in the Muslim world. It has always been true that the political establishment in Iran and other despotic Muslim countries use anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to control and oppress their people. By creating an imaginary common enemy, the despotic rulers from Egypt to Iran to Pakistan divert focus from the abuses of their authoritarian regimes.

However, now Ahmadinejad?s extremely intense vitriol can be understood in a new light. Ahmadinejad has long been one of the most vocal opponents of Israel. While for the average Muslim despot an occasional fanning of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic flames is sufficient to direct his peoples? attention elsewhere; Ahmadinejad apparently has a real liability with his family roots. Like any bully he tries to maintain his power and keep his distance from what he hates about himself by attacking others. His intense anti-Israel tirades and Holocaust denial can be understood as a pre-emption against his own weakness.

What is most worrisome is that Ahmadinejad is now exporting his disturbing use of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism to some newfound political allies. The right-wing Ahmadinejad has long been cozying up with Venezuela?s leftist Hugo Chavez. The union has largely been one of anti-Americanism, shared nuclear knowledge, and assistance with terrorist activities. Now, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses, the union is sharing a growing hatred of the Jews.

Chavez, along with his allies in Honduras, is using the same tactics as the Muslim authoritarian regimes, and as the Nazis did before, to maintain power and control. Like their Muslim counterparts, the Latin American rulers are hoping to solidify their power and direct domestic unrest towards a scapegoat population. Furthermore, by allying themselves against the same common enemy, Chavez and his cronies are drawing themselves closer to Iran.

No good can come from this disturbing trend. As has happened many times throughout history, expanded persecution of Jews is often a harbinger of worse things to come. The growing Latin-Muslim axis is a threat to world Jewry and global peace. A common test of the freedoms of a nation is how the country treats its Jews. As Gandhi said, ?The measure of a country's greatness should be based on how well it cares for its most vulnerable populations.? Iran and Venezuela are failing this test.

Local Cops Enforce Immigration Laws

A controversial illegal immigration program has been expanded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The program, referred to as Section 287(g) allows local law enforcement officers to be trained by and work with federal immigration nforecement agencies. The aim is to enable local agencies to assist with the capture and removal of criminal illegal aliens.

Critics of 287(g), which has been in existence since 1996, hoped the Obama administration would end the program. Pro-immigrant and civil rights organizations have been outraged at the support for 287(g). However, DHS and the administration should be commended for supporting a program that helps maintain the rule of law and removes illegal criminals from America?s towns.

The critics? main argument, as reported by The Economist, is that 287(g) weakens already strained relationships between immigrant communities and law enforcement. The Economist states, ?Crime victims and witnesses are likely to be reluctant to come forward if they fear that they may be deported for their pains.? This relatively weak argument can be extended to claim that enforcement of any law can lead to weakened communication between criminals and law enforcement. While it is sometimes advisable for police officers to give petty criminals, such as minor drug dealers, a break in order to obtain information about more heinous crimes, no one supports blanket disregard for law enforcement to facilitate open communication channels. At their extreme conclusion, such arguments utterly prevent any form of law enforcement.

Policies, such as 287(g), may push illegal aliens further ?underground?; however, this will only help to create disincentives for future immigrants to choose to migrate illegally. Likewise, it will make legal methods of immigration more appealing. Both of these effects are end-goals that America?s immigration policy should strive to achieve. After all, there is no reason to support policies that make illegal immigrants comfortable living unlawfully in America.

Ultimately, Section 287(g) helps stop illegal activity. As a report by the Heritage Foundation points out, 287(g) fulfills one aspect of a triumvirate of immigration policy goals: ?internal enforcement of immigration laws, international cooperation, and border security.? By reducing the burden on federal agents, it creates efficiencies that limit tax dollar waste and facilitates the maintenance of law and order. While the original intent of the program may have been to enforce actions against major criminals, it is acceptable that the program has also been used to nab petty illegal immigrants. Residing in this country illegally is, despite pro-immigrant group?s claims, illegal.