Affirmative action is a practice that establishes the provision of granting greater rights for particular groups of people over others which, ipso facto, is a violation of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution (unless, of course, it is interpreted as a living, changeable document by a progressive Justice). The way it has been applied in this country is to inequitably, immorally and probably unconstitutionally assign greater rights, opportunities and privileges to blacks at the expense of whites and Asian-Americans.
Is this fair?
Of course not!
This is reverse discrimination, plain and simple. People are being penalized because their skin is white (or they came from China or Japan, etc.). Such a policy fosters resentment from those who are discriminated against and exacerbates racial tensions and is counterproductive.
In the following editorial by Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a Democrat, he calls for the abolishment of this divisive, inequitable, morally wrong and unconstitutional (strictly speaking) policy. He states that:
“Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.”
We strongly agree.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.
James Webb July 22, 2010
The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.
In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.
How so?
Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.
The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.
The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."
The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.
In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.
Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.
Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.
Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.
Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.
The Dept. of Justice, which should be protecting the rights of all Americans and the Constitutionally enumerated equality of all (Fourteenth Amendment), apparently is not fulfilling its mandate. Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, a racist bias has suffused the agency. Their ideology is that some people - blacks in particular and Democratically voting Hispanics - are "more equal" than others, specifically Whites. Some of this also stems from Obama's 20 years attending the vitriolic, racist rants of Rev. Wright in church where he preached black nationalism and supremacy. (Then again, Obama "claimed" to have heard nothing controversial. And Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" or "have sex with that woman".)
This sanctioned and enforced racism of blacks over whites is something that all Americans need to be aware of and react and respond to aggressively. If not, our rights will continue to progressively erode and we will find ourselves in a racially very hostile country that may be balkanized.
Another Obama nominee for the Supreme Court … and another pernicious threat to our Constitutional rights. Even though Elena Kagan’s record is almost nonexistent, she has revealed a willingness if not propensity to restrict our First Amendment rights. If nothing else, that should be more than enough to deep six her being confirmed.
Everything else about her pales in comparison including no judicial experience, few cases argued, a long standing far left agenda, and unwavering support for socialism and big government.
She is a political appointee who hasn’t even reached the level of a judicial lightweight, never mind, having the wherewithal to become a Supreme Court justice.
We're Speechless
Investors Business Daily 05/12/2010
Supreme Court: Elena Kagan's thin paper trail was supposed to be an asset. But the confirmation of Obama's nominee may focus on one position it's clear she holds: that banning political speech can be constitutional.
'The government's answer has changed." That was how Solicitor General Kagan began her frantic damage control during a second round of oral arguments last September in the Citizens United case, which Kagan and the U.S. government ultimately lost and the First Amendment won.
Her deputy, Malcolm Stewart, in March of last year said the government had constitutional powers extending to banning books to limit corporate political influence.
As a result, the justices ordered a second round of arguments last fall to get into broader free speech questions.
For that, Kagan stepped into the fray herself, telling the justices that the government had reconsidered its position and conceding that banning books would elicit a strong court challenge.
So Chief Justice John Roberts asked her, "If you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?"
"I think a pamphlet would be different," Kagan responded. "A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering," and so the government could restrict such political speech.
Who you are should determine how much you can say — that is the admitted philosophy held by this high-court nominee.
According to the president, alluding to Kagan's role in the Citizens United case as he announced her as his Supreme Court choice on Monday, "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
But who decides who those powerful interests are and how much they can say?
The most powerful interest of all does: the government.
In a 1996 University of Chicago Law School Journal article titled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," which gets raves from left-leaning legal academics, Kagan contended that "the application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
If the motive is compelling enough, in other words, the government can regulate speech in the name of the public good.
The view that "the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage" is mistaken, Kagan wrote. "The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons."
Again, it is the government that decides if, say, a talk radio host or Tea Partyer is doing "harm" by engaging in political speech that allegedly incites some wacko to violence.
Columnist Jacob Sullum hit the bull's-eye on this when he wrote:
"While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on 'neutrally conceived harms,' Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on 'hostility toward ideas.'But as she herself more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful."
In last month's 8-to-1 U.S. v. Stevens court decision regarding depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan contended that First Amendment protection "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs," a claim Roberts called "startling and dangerous" in ruling against Kagan.
At only 50 years of age, Elena Kagan, a "speech redistributionist," could be on the high court for three decades.
Her upcoming confirmation hearings could be a First Amendment battle royal.
Has California become so liberal and politically correct that wearing or displaying an American flag constitutes grounds for punishment of even consideration it at public schools because someone (an illegal alien, perhaps) may be offended?
We strongly feel that such is the case. There has been an epidemic of anti-American posturing, actions and rulings in the state particularly in the San Francisco area (banning JROTC and other anti-military issues).
The extremely large Mexican population there which has been fed by illegal immigration compounds an already problematic situation and creates the quintessential contrast and irony. The nearby San Francisco area as well as Los Angeles and to a lesser extent San Diego have been vociferous in their attacks on Arizona which is trying to protect its citizens and financial and social integrity. These California areas are seeking to legislate boycotts of Arizona and its products. So in this state, they are punishing those who are patriotic, American born and descended from legal Americans while preferentially defending or supporting the “rights” of those who are not.
Conversely, Arizona is protecting the rights of all its citizens, abiding by the Constitution and proud to be part of America.
So as an American, under which legal and social conditions would you rather live in: Arizona’s or Cali-Mexico’s? Arizona enforcing the rights of Americans over illegals or California that seems to accord more rights to illegals than Americans.
We thought so!
California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo
Joshua Rhett Miller FOXNews.com May 06, 2010
Administrators at a California high school sent five students home on Wednesday after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts and bandannas -- garments the school officials deemed "incendiary" on Cinco de Mayo.
The five teens were sitting at a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., on Wednesday morning when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of them to remove their American flag bandannas, one of their parents told FoxNews.com. The boys complied, but were asked to accompany Rodriguez to the principal's office.
The five students -- Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel and Clayton Howard -- were then told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home, though it would not be considered a suspension. Rodriguez told the students he did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags.
Dariano's mother, Diana, told FoxNews.com she and parents of the other four students are now demanding an apology from officials and are considering a lawsuit.
"We want an apology," Diana Dariano said Thursday. "Who in the United States of America would have an issue with that? It's a sad, sad day."
Dariano said her son has at least four T-shirts with American flags that he wears often and did not try to cause any conflict at school.
"I'm more hurt than anything," she said. "It is so hurtful and disrespectful the way this has turned. These are American kids."
The boys told Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden that turning their shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents decided to take them home.
"I just couldn't believe it," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mother, told the Morgan Hill Times. "I'm an open-minded parent, but it's got to be on both sides. It can't be five kids singled out."
Galli told NBC Bay Area, "They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it."
In a statement released Thursday, Morgan Hill Unified School District Superintendent Wesley Smith characterized the incident as "extremely unfortunate" and said the matter is under investigation.
"The Morgan Hill Unified School District does not prohibit nor do we discourage wearing patriotic clothing," Smith's statement read. "The incident on May 5 at Live Oak High School is extremely unfortunate. While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not, and will not, be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing. This matter is under investigation and appropriate action will be taken."
Officials at Live Oak High School did not return several messages seeking comment on Thursday. A secretary told the Morgan Hill Times that Boden and Rodriguez were unavailable for comment on Wednesday.
According to its website, Live Oak High School is a 1,300-student institution in the southern part of Santa Clara County, with most students residing in the nearby cities of Morgan Hill and San Jose.
"The student population reflects the rich ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the community," the website reads.
More than 100 students were spotted wearing the colors of the Mexican flag -- red, white and green -- as they left school, including some who had the flag painted on their faces or arms, the Morgan Hill times reported.
While bandannas of any color are banned at the school, its dress code policy does not contain references to American flags.
"However, any clothing or decoration which detracts from the learning environment is prohibited," the policy reads. "The school has the right to request that any student dressing inappropriately for school will change into other clothes, be sent home to change, and/or be subject to disciplinary action."
Freshman Laura Ponce, who had a Mexican flag painted on her face and chest, told the Morgan Hill Times that Cinco de Mayo is the "only day" Mexican-American students can show their national pride.
"There was a lot of drama going on today," Ponce told the newspaper.
Some other Mexican-American students reportedly said their flags were taken away or asked to be put away, but no other students were sent home on Wednesday.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California-Los Angeles, said the students are protected under California Education Code 48950, which prohibits schools from enforcing a rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct, that when engaged outside of campus, is protected by the First Amendment.
If the school could point to previous incidents sparked by students who wore garments with American flags, they could argue that the flag is likely to lead to "substantial disruption," Volokh said.
"If, for example, there had been fights over similar things at past events, if there had been specific threats made," he said. "But if [school officials] just say, 'Well, we think it might be offensive to people,' that's generally speaking not enough."
Volokh said the students and their parents likely have a winning case on their hands if they decide to take the matter to court.
"Oh yes, it's almost open and shut," he said.
Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and a Fox News legal analyst, said the incident appears to a "blatant" violation of the students' First Amendment right to free speech. She noted that inciting violence is an exception to a First Amendment legal defense, but Wiehl said she saw no indications that the students provoked anyone.
"Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a blatant violation of the First Amendment," said Wiehl, adding that uniforms are not required at the public school. "And they're wearing, of all horrific things, the American flag."
Once again firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is spewing irresponsible, incendiary and groundless charges against the Orlando, Fla. Area urologist who posted a sign on the door of his office recommending that those who voted for Obama seek care elsewhere. In fact like many other uber partisan Democrats of his ilk, he has now transformed this freedom of speech issue into a racist one.
Despicable!
The level of hatred and intolerance which Grayson exhibits regarding this situation (as well as many others in the past) shows him to be emotionally and rationally challenged and not fit for his job as Representative. He should be investigated and censured as well as removed from office by those in his district.
Any attempt to silence this free speech is an attack on us all. Furthermore, we must prevent the government from using bullying, heavy handed or legal tactics to challenge our rights of expression and freedoms in general. By the way, where are all those demagogue Democrats who speciously claim that there is unwarranted vitriol in American discourse yet won't rein in one of their own? (They won't because they would level the same charges!)
As for you, Alan Grayson, we have an open question indirectly related to this case:
How can you reconcile the fact that 95% of all blacks voted for Obama and yet not charge that this constitutes racism?
There can be no other rational explanation for this yet we have not heard one word about this from any Democrat regarding this racist vote.
What if 95% of whites had voted for McCain? We are sure that you would vehemently consider that to be egregious racism!
Grayson: Doctor shooing away Obama backers will deny treatment to blacks
By Jordan Fabian - 04/03/10 11:28 AM ET
A doctor who posted a sign at his practice asking Obama supporters to seek care "elsewhere" will end up denying service to many African Americans, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Friday.
Dr. Jack Cassell, an opponent of the healthcare law President Barack Obama signed last month, put up the sign at his office in Grayson's district.
"Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans," Grayson said on CNN. "So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community."
Grayson, a freshman who represents a Republican-leaning district, gained national attention during the healthcare debate last year when he said the GOP's healthcare plan was for seniors to "die quickly."
Cassell has said that he is not violating medical ethics rules.
"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Cassell, 56, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."
But Grayson said that he was violating the rules and that he will probably be disciplined by medical licensing authorities.
"How many people walked in -- walked up to his front door, saw the sign, and turned away?" he asked. "How many people referred from other physicians in the community, including primary care physicians, how many patients saw that sign and walked away?"
Asked what kind of punishment Cassell should receive, Grayson said "Well, whatever the medical authorities think he should get. But it is a clear violation of ethics, and it's a particularly ugly one. Why is it that the right wing is so preoccupied with denying people health? Why is that?"
Obama is “changing” the Constitution by both by ignoring it and with insidious maneuvering. Activist judicial verdicts further pervert the original intent, reducing citizens’ rights and expanding government power and intrusion. What we need now are explicit Amendments to further delineate and proscribe federal government overreach.
Why should Congress regularly pass legislation that all Americans are mandated to follow but it is exempt from, most notably but not limited to Obamacare? What about the generous perks that they vote for themselves such as regular raises in salary and munificent retirement packages? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the average American could also say” I deserve a pay increase this year so I am going to give it to myself”- and they then do.
This corruption, greed and lack of accountability must be extinguished. Elections alone are not the answer.
Now may just may be the perfect storm for these monumentally important changes to be made.
Will Gov't Health Takeover Bring Constitutional 'Hope And Change'?
By Larry Elder 03/25/2010
We live in a fundamentally different country from that which existed only days ago. The government now requires every American to buy health insurance. The Constitution has been attacked, interpreted in a way beyond its original intent.
Therefore, we must change it.
Ignoring the will of the majority of Americans, the discouraging experiences of countries with socialized medicine, and the already staggering amount of entitlement debt, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats "reformed" health care.
Once a nation under a Constitution that restricted government intrusion, we now want government to provide for our "needs" by calling them "rights."
We now ask government to prop up failing businesses, make student loans, guarantee mortgages, build and maintain public housing, financially support state education from preschool though graduate school, fund private research, provide disaster relief and aid, pay "volunteers" and on and on.
Many in our nation happily submit to this bargain. They consider the Big Three entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — "rights," their absence unimaginable in a modern "caring" society. It is out of the question to expect people, families and communities to plan for retirement.
It's beyond reason to expect medical care, like any other commodity, to follow the laws of supply and demand — for prices and choices to allocate resources and competition to drive down prices and improve quality. It's too much to expect the compassion, morality and spirituality of humankind to aid those unable to care for themselves.
We ignore history's examples of how good intentions produce bad results. Almost 50 years ago, another "transformative" president launched a War on Poverty. But for many welfare recipients and their families, poverty became "structural."
People became dependent on government.
After the government finally placed some restrictions on welfare, dependency declined. Much to the surprise of those who denounced welfare reform as cruel, people changed their behavior.
We ignore the experience of price controls. Government can dictate prices, but cannot dictate costs. Price controls result in rationing, drive producers out of business and cause lower quality and less innovation. America, because its citizens enjoyed greater economic freedom, built a superior health care system — which ObamaCare now threatens to dismantle.
Communism collapsed under the romantic but bankrupt notion of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive does damage to the incentive of both parties.
European countries — "social justice" democracies — produce comparatively few private-sector jobs. Europe suffers from high taxes, choking union deals that make it virtually impossible to fire workers, and government policies that mandate paid vacations and other job-killing benefits.
Into this statist abyss we willingly jump.
Former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern left the Senate after 18 years and bought a small business. It went under. He wrote: "(I) wish I had known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American businesspeople while I was a U.S. senator and later a presidential nominee. ... Legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. businesses. ... Many businesses ... simply can't pass such costs on to their customers and remain competitive or profitable."
President Obama, like many in Congress, has little experience in or understanding of the private free-market economy.
Obama never started a business, ran one or struggled to meet a payroll. He shows little respect for the hard, long hours people put in to build successful businesses that hire people. He believes unequal outcomes are unjust and government exists to right this wrong by "spreading the wealth."
If this means telling doctors how to practice, so what? If this means people will be less likely to improve themselves through education and training to get "good" jobs with benefits, so what? If this means we make employers less likely to hire for fear of fines should they fail to offer health insurance, so what? And if the "wealthy" invest less and create fewer jobs because of higher taxes and expensive regulations, so what?
Now what? As many as 39 state legislatures have taken or will take action to block the mandate. Thirteen state attorneys general immediately filed suit, arguing, among other things, that ObamaCare's insurance mandate violates the Constitution's commerce clause. Expect more states to sue.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court broadly interprets the commerce clause — wildly beyond the intent of the Founders — to allow just about anything.
So, the Constitution must be changed. It must be amended to make what was once clear absolutely, positively, unavoidably clear.
Two-thirds of the states can call for a constitutional convention, where an amendment can be proposed to prohibit the forced purchase of health insurance. Three-fourths of the states could then ratify it.
"The end of freedom in medicine"
By 970 WFLA
Monday, March 29, 2010
TUCSON, Ariz. (970 WFLA) - The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).
“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”
“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”
The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. Insurance company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but the AAPS says it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another. AAPS is the first to assert this important constitutional claim.
The PPACA also violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation, the AAPS says. The Taxing and Spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies. The traditional sovereignty of the States over the practice of medicine is destroyed by the PPACA.
AAPS notes that in scoring the proposal the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was bound by assumptions imposed by Congress, including the ability to “save” $500 billion in Medicare, and to redirect $50 billion from Social Security. HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that PPACA would reduce the federal deficit, knowing the opposite to be true if these assumptions are unrealistic.
AAPS asks the Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the Court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.
Congress recognized that PPACA cannot be funded without the insurance mandates, and will become unenforceable without them.
Court action is necessary “to preserve individual liberty” and “to prevent PPACA from bankrupting the United States generally and Medicare and Social Security specifically,” AAPS stated.
The anti-Conservative violence in Canada that preceded Ann Coulter’s intended but canceled speech is not an oddity – there or here. It seems that free speech whether by private citizens, politicians, writers or members of the media is only free if it espouses principles that comport with far-left ideology. Many conservative speakers and politicians have been attacked or had their speeches disrupted or terminated by groups of the radical left yet little or nothing was mentioned in the “main stream” media. In the majority of these situations, it appeared that such disruptive behavior was officially countenanced and not adequately or expeditiously neutralized.
When was the last time a liberal speaker at a University had their speech cancelled by out of control conservatives? Can’t think of any.
If one unkind word is spoken against a far-left adherent, the media is in an uncontrollable frenzy. The reverse does not occur in that the media and our present government actually encourage wanton vicious attacks against the right.
There are several important lessons in all of this. First, we must stand up and protect and fight for our rights. We must not allow our conservative points of view to be officially suppressed, threatened or punished whether it is by our government or a public institution. If we back down and don’t fight back, the consequences will be further erosion of our rights and freedoms. This is what has happened even in Canada and, of course, elsewhere. Let’s not let it happen here in America. There are already proposals to do just this such as the "Fairness Doctrine" and Obama's information czar who suggested controlling, correcting or deleting information on the internet that the government may deem "inaccurate" or "inappropriate".
We also must not be apologetic for our points of view or for non-violent means to express them. The left has done this very well. We need to be more verbally aggressive, loud and persistent.
Oh, Canada!
by Ann Coulter 03/24/2010
Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").
Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.
Welcome to Canada!
The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me—widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me—in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F----you, Francois."
While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or—my suspicion—is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.
Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, America Alone in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."
Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait—that was somebody else.
Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims—nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.
You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality—not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers—incite real-world violence toward the conservative.
The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding—long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter—that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.
Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:
"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;
"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;
"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';
"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."
At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.
At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?
After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.
Sadly, I missed the book-burning because I never made it to the building.
But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."
I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said, "Get them!" and the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe—I mean, my speech.
So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.
Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.
(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.
Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.
In direct response to the irresponsible and profligate spending by both Republicans and Democrats, three Republican politicians have proposed a Spending Limit Amendment. This would serve to rein in and constrain such runaway spending whether it is by the President or Congress.
Given our financially dire present situation and an angry America as evidenced by the ascendancy of the Tea Party, it may just stand a chance.
Tea Party Amendment
Investors Business Daily 03/03/2010
Fiscal Crisis: Tea Partyers have made it clear they don't trust politicians — Democrat or Republican. Their historic uprising may now have a surefire way to stop politicians from spending us into the abyss.
In what promises to be a consequential election year, Republican leaders are eager to get the masses who make up the Tea Party movement on their side. But Tea Partyers remember that the GOP Congress and GOP president themselves spent way too much — even expanding the fiscally doomed Medicare entitlement program. Some Tea Party leaders even accuse Republican spendthrifts of practicing socialism.
GOP Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Mike Pence of Indiana and John Campbell of California may have just hit on a way of focusing the energy of a movement that's been accused by Democrats such as former Senate aide and Forbes columnist Dan Gerstein of being "incoherent, indiscriminate" and "all over the place" in its complaints.
The three have proposed a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution that would restrain the federal government to the average expenditures of the post-World War II era — 20% of the U.S. economy. It would take a declaration of war or a two-thirds vote by Congress to waive the spending constraints.
Tea Partyers will no doubt be impressed by the fact that the idea comes from no less than Thomas Jefferson. In 1798, the Declaration's author wrote: "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government."
There really is no credible argument against the idea. In common-sense fashion, the constraint would be suspended during a declared war, and any other real emergency would surely be recognized as such by two-thirds of lawmakers.
Other attempts to save Americans from the drunken sailors they send to Washington have failed. The automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman "sequester" of the 1980s worked, but the Supreme Court judged much of the law to be an unconstitutional restriction on presidential powers, and Congress defanged it. Gramm-Rudman's successor, Paygo, didn't use fixed targets, and expired in 2002. The line-item veto was famously ruled unconstitutional by the high court.
The Hensarling-Pence-Campbell Spending Limit Amendment is actually preferable to the line-item veto because it doesn't discriminate between big-spending Congresses and profligate presidents. It snaps the public purse closed on every Washington politician's fingers.
The SLA couldn't come at a more opportune time. The president and Congress want to add to our current $12 trillion in national debt a $2-trillion-plus big government health overhaul. Medicare, in the meantime, is less than a decade from bankruptcy, Social Security less than three decades away. As the plan points out, "if the SLA is not adopted, all of these programs are doomed on their current auto-pilot glide path as these three entitlement programs alone — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — are set to consume the entirety of the federal budget by 2036."
Investor's Business Daily on Wednesday asked Hensarling and Pence about the difficulties of getting three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment when so many amendment attempts by both sides of the aisle — from equal rights for women to abortion to flag desecration — have failed in recent decades.
"We're not naive," Hensarling said, noting that of about 5,000 proposed amendments only 27 have been ratified. But both men said that based on attending town halls and other venues, they have never seen the American people so incensed about runaway spending. The SLA "might be one of those simple ideas," Pence said, whose time has finally come.
If the Tea Party movement embraces this simple idea, with Thomas Jefferson as the SLA's avatar, there's no telling how big the political tsunami to strike Washington could end up becoming.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to bear arms, should not require much interpretation yet it has been challenged on numerous occasions. It is shocking that circuit court judges and even Supreme Court Justices provide variant interpretations. The fact that the Supreme Court decision in the Heller v. District of Columbia case in 2008 regarding Washington’s strict gun prohibition was overturned by only a 5 – 4 margin, should give pause to freedom loving Americans.
Our freedoms can be ephemeral – they can be taken away in a flash. The “progressives” and the far-left in our country are relentlessly attacking our innate rights and freedoms, often in incremental and stealth ways. The Second Amendment not only allows us to protect ourselves from others who aim to harm us but as Thomas Jefferson noted, it also is what can protect us from a tyrannical, overreaching government.
We must be ever vigilant in protecting and defending these rights and freedoms.
'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just That
Investors Business Daily 03/03/2010
Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns.
In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old ban on the private ownership of handguns. Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.
According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.
"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," he wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state."
We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can't be serious.
Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who won the Heller case, has expanded the argument to include the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent infringement on constitutional rights by states and others concerned about newly freed slaves owning firearms.
Introducing the 14th Amendment to Congress, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan referred to "personal rights" such as "the right to keep and bear arms, " explaining that his amendment would compel the states "to respect these great fundamental guarantees."
In 2008, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an amicus brief on behalf of 32 states that also challenged the constitutionality of the D.C. ban. Now he represents a group of 38 states fighting the Chicago ban. "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a critical liberty interest, essential to preserving individual security and the right to self-defense," Abbott explained.
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that in Chicago only two classes of people can possess firearms: "The criminals and the politicians."
City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."
Otis McDonald wants the same right to defend himself and his family. To deny him that right, city officials argue that repealing the ban will bring carnage in the streets. Yet in the forthcoming third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime," John Lott points out that the Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose afterward.
In an essay Monday for FoxNews.com, Lott noted that after the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional, murders in Washington plummeted 25% from 2008 to 2009. D.C.'s murder rate, he reports, is down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, its lowest since 1967.
More guns do seem to mean less crime. And as Mr. McDonald insists, those who gave us liberty gave us the means and the right to defend it.
By action and words on myriad occasions, Obama has indicated that the Constitution cramps his style. Exuding arrogance and narcissism, he readily indicates that he will blatantly disregard its restraints and promulgate whatever legislation he so desires, whether it be the Federal government takeover of healthcare, industries or even firearm and munitions restrictions.
Obama has shown particular disdain for and has challenged with legislation the First, Second, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. We, the American people, need to be eternally vigilant and vigorously oppose his each and every attempt to abrogate our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Obama must be stopped!
Obama vs. the 10th Amendment
by Chuck Norris 03/02/2010
Not surprisingly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last Friday revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.
Particularly apropos here is the feds' health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of this amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The point is that based on the 10th Amendment, when it comes to legislating and controlling our health care, the federal government doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on. And even its past violations of the 10th Amendment by implementing government health care services have proved to break more national legs than they have to mend them. The proof is in the pudding. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington? Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Case closed.
The government is inept to run America's health care system. And now it wants to expand its programs (its health care business) to oversee what equates to one-sixth of the gross national product? What rational board anywhere in the world would rightly appoint a CEO who had a string of miserable business failures and major corporate bankruptcies in his dossier?
I agree with Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University Medical Center, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who put it best in their article a few months back, titled "Alternatives to government health takeover." They said this: "We think it's critical that power shifts to the American consumer and away from government, employers and insurers, as evidence shows medical care prices come down when patients pay directly.
Government should offer tax relief, such as refundable tax credits, to encourage private health insurance purchasing -- especially for low-income families. Similar ideas, like those in the Patients' Choice Act ... are important for Americans to consider. We would do well also to consider creative ideas such as changing federal payments to state-based medicaid plans to individual vouchers or expanding health savings accounts, as has been done in South Carolina."
Returning the onus of solving health care issues to families, local communities and states would not only return a balance of power to our federal government but also help with America's economic recovery and build up communities at the same time.
The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans' private health care could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its constitution and that has governmental leadership that regards itself as above its people and its constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as "an imperfect document ... a document that reflects some deep flaws ... (and) an enormous blind spot." He also said, "The Framers had that same blind spot."
In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those "blind Framers," who just couldn't see the big picture as he does today. After all, he's the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!
Our 44th president would do well to learn from America's third president, Thomas Jefferson, himself a source greater than any living constitutional lawyer. Imagine Jefferson sitting there at the health care summit, a ripe sage at roughly 80 years of age. After listening to all the clamoring of both Republicans and Democrats, he politely but sternly utters these words, which he also wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in 1823: "The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They (did not learn from the past), nor (were they) aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
The Supreme Court on January 21st ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was unconstitutional and overturned it. Though intentions were ostensibly good in its passage, what it ended up doing was restricting the rights of free speech and created asymmetries in political information delivery. To wit: most of the liberal news media foisting their political biases unfettered on the public both by commission and omission yet they were not regulated by this legislation.
The ruling is a victory for free speech and the First Amendment and freedom from government intrusion and restraint on our rights.
The Gag Is Removed
Investors Business Daily 01/21/2010
Campaign Finance: Five justices ruled Thursday that corporations and labor unions can donate directly to political activities. At least someone in Washington is trying to protect free speech.
Lawmakers have been strangling constitutionally secured political speech for years. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that barred corporate political contributions. Twelve years later, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Among other restrictions, it banned for 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election any "electioneering communications" that would be broadcast over television airways or transmitted via cable or satellite.
The encroachments were too much for the Roberts Supreme Court, which on Thursday invalidated 5-4 the McCain-Feingold blackout period and overturned the 1990 high court ruling in its Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission decision.
In 2008, Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary, aimed at derailing Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, was political in nature. The FEC shut down pay-per-view broadcasts of "Hillary," saying that it was a political ad and therefore violated federal election law.
Citizens United, an advocacy group, rightly responded by asking the courts to protect its right to free speech. The Supreme Court rightly replied by ruling for Citizens United — and for everyone else in the country as well.
Free speech cannot survive in a society when it's for me but not for thee. If the government can take away one person's free speech, it can bar free speech for all. Yet that's the society some want.
Take note of campaign finance law supporters, who suspend belief that money donated to political activity is speech protected by the Constitution. They ignore both the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed that political donations are speech, and their own instincts that tell them financial contributions are indeed expression.
Today they condemn the pro-liberty Citizens United ruling and lament that the Roberts Court is moving hard to the right.
The First Amendment is neither right nor left. It protects all sides of every argument — yes, even the more unsavory speech that hurts feelings and offends our sense of decency. Constitutional expression promotes a vibrant, enlightened and open society. The more information we have, the better off we are.
The Citizens United ruling is an important decision that moves the country closer to the principles of its founding and the vision of its founders.
The following press release by Jim DeMint unveils his brilliant plan of seeking an Amendment to the United States Constitution which will set term limits for U. S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. In a very lucid and concise fashion he presents a very convincing case for this action.
November 10, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution that would apply term limits to all members of Congress, limiting U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. The amendment is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). As an amendment to the Constitution, it would require a two-thirds majority vote approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," said Senator DeMint. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power. I have come to realize that if we want to change the policies coming out of Congress, we must change the process itself. Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been reelected about 90% of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents. If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.”
Senator Coburn added, “The best way to ensure we are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election. The power of incumbency has created an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians. Incumbency allows politicians to raise millions of dollars in campaign funds in exchange for earmarks. Incumbency gives Congress the power to raise money for itself – Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the U.S. Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally, with redistricting incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle.”
“Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working out for us?” said Senator DeMint. “It wasn’t the ‘people’ who gave us a $12 trillion debt, an IRS tax code seven times longer than the Bible, over 1,700 departments of the federal government, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, $100 trillion long-term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the pending health care takeover.
“This nation can no longer afford these entrenched men and women who enjoy lives of luxury wholly insulated from the consequences of their major policy failures.
“I want to be clear: demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue. We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms.
“Term limits will increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials. By ratifying this amendment, we can end the tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents in Washington, break long-lasting ties to special interests and lobbyists, and transform Congress from the body of career politicians that it has become, to a chamber of true citizen legislators,” said Senator DeMint.
The following are some very insightful quotes from famous individuals, some over 200 years ago and still quite relevant. Think about each one of these pronouncements and place them in perspective with events transpiring today. They are very prescient and can be used to constructively address present issues.
From Thomas Jefferson:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world”
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker:
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
From George Mason:
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
From Henry Steele:
"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive."
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee wants levies on insurers to pay for ObamaCare and fines for families who don't sign up. We can cut costs and expand coverage without sacrificing freedom. Read article
A Senate bill lets the president "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" computer networks and do what's needed to respond to the threat. Didn't they just collect our e-mail addresses?
We wish this was just a piece of the fictional "Dr. Strangelove" that fell to the cutting-room floor, but it's not. It is a real piece of disturbingly vague legislation sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Read article
Veteran reporter, author and commentator Bernard Goldberg reports that when CBS News did its fake National Guard story on George W. Bush avoiding service in Vietnam, it knew it was a lie. Read article
The following letter was originally published in IBD on Friday August 21st and has been appeared again in several subsequent editions. We feel the perspective and message is powerful and important enough that it be posted in its entirety this 9/11. Many Americans take for granted the rights and freedoms that we still have and don't realize that we must relentlessly fight to preserve them as they can be legislated or just taken away.
By SVETLANA KUNIN
In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.
In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures.
The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They — engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers — earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.
Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.
There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise — the Socialist Revolution — began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.
In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.
The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.
Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.
Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.
These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.
The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.
Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.
Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.
When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.
Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.
Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.
Editor's note: Mrs. Kunin, an IBD subscriber, is a retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer.
There is a wise adage that goes: “Tell me who your friends are and I will know who you are.” Why are we mentioning it? Because before Obama was elected President, we learned of the many radicals, hate mongerers and anti-American individuals that Obama had associations with, some for a very long time - like Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Sheik Khalid, Saul Alinsky and Bernadine Dohrn. Despite his denials of any inimical influences from these individuals and the liberal press’ staunchly defending his claims, the pattern was irrefutable and damning.
Many conservatives in the media relentlessly and emphatically warned us that these were no chance and brief meetings and that Obama’s disaffirmations were overt audacious lies. He was a far left radical with an anti-American and racist agenda trying to pass himself off as a moderate. Unfortunately, a majority of voters seemed to have largely downplayed this – now to the detriment of our country.
We are seeing many of the manifestations of this radicalism now that Obama is President which he artfully tried to disguise previously. Many of the approximately 44 czars that he has appointed are of the same philosophical ilk – far left, radical, anti-American, racist and even avowed communists. Their positions in power and diversity of areas controlled make them a clear and present danger to the freedom and rights of ALL Americans!
We will be exposing several of these individuals in the future. The first is Mark Lloyd, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and an admirer of Hugo Chavez, who was appointed as the chief diversity officer at the FCC. His philosophy is that free speech is an inconvenience that interferes with governance and need to be rigidly controlled. That includes cable news, talk radio and the internet. He praised Hugo Chavez’s revolution in Venezuela when he clamped down on opposition news sources including radio and TV stations.
Mark Lloyd is a dangerous radical in a position to effect severe restraints of our rights of free speech and diversity of information. He must be exposed and stopped!
Closely scrutinizing the big picture by assessing Obama’s past, his rhetoric, associations and actions reveals far more nefarious intent than most people realize. In just a short time, he along with an abetting Democrat controlled Congress has turned this country upside down economically, socially and politically. Intentionally irresponsible legislation will bring this country to the brink of bankruptcy and encumber Americans with taxation rates consistent with slavery. It will also insinuate the government in all aspects of our lives so that we will be severely constrained legally in our options and activities of daily living. In the last few months, it has acquired varying levels of control of our banking, insurance, and automobile industry and is intent on taking over the healthcare sector which constitutes around seventeen percent of America’s GDP. The Cap and Trade Bill threatens to massively increase our taxes and the cost of energy including an estimated doubling of the price for electricity as well as even the light bulbs we use. It will also affect the cars we drive and even how much we do drive.
If all this weren’t egregious enough for the American people, there are now some rumors that consideration is being given to some sort of monitoring and policing of the internet by the Federal government. Though not couched in such terms, this is unequivocally censorship which threatens our First Amendment rights and with it, many others. This must not be allowed to come to fruition.
Thanks to the far-left ideologues who blame society and the perpetrator’s unfortunate circumstances (he had such a bad childhood!), the pendulum has swung excessively far in order to protect the “rights” of criminals, especially repeat offenders, who they empathetically claim are “victims” too. This, of course, is to the detriment of innocent and often dead victims and their families who never will have justice or peace. Our public officials, most notably judges, should be held accountable for their actions and more egregious rulings. If these evil, depraved individuals were kept off the streets with much longer prison sentences that were appropriate to their crime and past criminal history, there would be less crime and we would all be safer.
Practically, we need to be able to fully defend ourselves against crime. The vocal far left, media and many Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration appear to be preparing to challenge the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, in a variety of ways.
In the following video, Ted Nugent expresses his moral outrage about this problem and voices solutions that many people feel but may not verbalize.
In the recent history of these confirmation hearings, the Democrats have monolithically voted for the appointees if they were liberal and against if they were of conservative ideology – and aggressively and relentlessly challenged them. The Republican Senators have been far too gracious and derelict of their responsibilities, essentially mailing it in and accepting candidates that should have undergone far more rigorous questioning. Unfortunately, it appears that history is repeating itself again. This should rightfully enrage the countless conservatives who are placing their dwindling hopes that Sotomayor can be exposed for the racially divisive jurist that she has so patently demonstrated in the past and have her confirmation blocked. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama has taken his responsibilities seriously and should be lauded whereas Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina initial comments to her that confirmation was inevitable essentially removed virtually all of the pressure off her.
The following is Senator Jeff Sessions in Senate Hearings discussing concerns regarding Sotomayor and the issue of "empathy"
In this video, Senator Sessions discusses his concerns about Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
This video shows Democrat Charles Schumer, the smarmy, arrogant, and condescending lawmaker that he is in his introduction of Sotomayor. You may not want to watch this on a full stomach!
Americans who want to preserve what freedoms and liberties we still have need to contact their Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding the Sotomayor confirmation hearings which are being conducted this week. Her confirmation, a lifetime appointment, would impose her abominable misguided “empathetic” legal input and judgments on the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans for decades! Her long dismal track record speaks for itself – someone who consistently considers race, sex, etc. as highly influential factors when she adjudicates thereby ascribing more legal rights to these individuals than to others. As we noted before, this is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment where all Americans are mandated to have equal protection before the law. There is no legal authority for “oppressed” or privileged minority groups.
Whatever she reveals in her testimony before the Senate will be just plain expedient, hollow rhetoric. She stated that "Many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law." Her previous writings, judgments and statements even captured on video belie these comments, instead showing a racist, manipulative and intellectually dishonest arbiter. Just review her most recent case that was overturned by the Supreme Court, Ricci vs. The City of New Haven to understand the dangers to freedoms, liberties and impartial justice that she represents. This was the fourth out of her six cases that the Supreme Court has reversed – an ignominious record.
The following video captures Sotomayor's comments on judicial activism that contradicts her testimony given today before the Senate. Read between this lines of her comments.
The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that all Americans in this country have the same legal rights and no one is more equal than anyone else. Increasingly, this stipulation is being ignored by the infusion of socialist ideology and “empathy” for certain “victimized” groups into our laws that ironically will give them more rights than other Americans. Affirmative action is certainly the poster child of this but the expansion of federal hate crime laws certainly threatens further erode the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Excerpting from the article below: “As it stands, the bill criminalizes any violent act perpetrated against someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.” Let’s look at the real world consequences of this bill as currently. A White man is beaten by a Black man. The Black man will be charged with assault as under current laws. Now let’s reverse this. A Black man (protected group) is beaten by a White man. Now, not only will the White man be charged with assault but he will also be federally charged with a hate crime.
This same asymmetry of rights is present in other scenarios – just select the protected group. A lesbian attacking a straight female will only be charged with assault but a heterosexual male attacking a gay man not only will be charged with assault but also a hate crime! Though the intentions of the law might have been noble, the unintended consequences on other people’s rights are not. This law should not see the light of day!
Yesterday in our post, we cheered the Supreme Court correct verdict in favor of Ricci and the Firefighters versus the City of New Haven. We also noted that this case was unequivocally a blatant and abhorrent example of reverse discrimination in order to allow the city of New Haven to realize greater ethnic “diversity” in its member firefighters. It egregiously abridged the rights of a group of individuals (largely White) who were more qualified and scored better on the test but did not have the correct ethnicity yet was overturned by only a 5 to 4 margin. We may not be so lucky in the future if Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court justice vacancy and whose decision the Supreme Court overturned, is confirmed. Her decisions, opinions, speeches and background are replete with “ethnic empathy” where some people (specific minority groups) have and will be afforded more rights and leeway than others.
The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin overturned the decision of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor rendered and that went against Ricci and the White firefighters in their case versus the City of New Haven. In the surprisingly close ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that these firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race (reverse discrimination) in order for the city of New Haven to implement their diversity plan.
Though the decision was anticipated, what we find shocking is that the vote was only 5 to 4 to reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in a case that was patently was blatantly reverse discrimination by any criteria. This case and the razor thin margin should serve as a clarion call regarding the importance of vehemently opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. A similar case like this in the future could go the opposite way resulting in the discriminatory abridgement of our rights thus attributing greater inherent rights and equalities to some favored groups or individuals versus others.
Contact your representatives and voice your opposition to Sotomayor being confirmed!
See Video regarding the case and Supreme Court verdict:
We have seen myriad examples of political correctness run amok in America. College campuses which should be a bastion of free speech and ideas for all have been notorious offenders and we’re not just talking about small institutions. Names like Columbia, Yale, and Harvard are but just a few. Activities, events, individuals and speeches that don’t toe the liberal philosophy are restricted, prohibited or harassed. Events or activities run by or honoring the military are thwarted and protested but book a terrorist or dignitary from a rogue nation to vilify the United States and voila – we have a well organized, publicized, funded and secure event.
Students are relentlessly indoctrinated both by their liberal professors and the politically correct and historically revised textbooks that they are forced to learn from. Do you want to know how a student who thoroughly researches and writes a brilliant, coherent, well organized and supported paper gets a C or D? He or she displays a conservative point of view!
The following editorial discusses problems of political correctness on campuses.
Evidence uncovered from Sotomayor’s past reveals staunch opposition to the death penalty. Some of her reasoning is unequivocally refuted by data readily available to all thus substantiating that ideology for her trumps facts. Furthermore, it also makes quite apparent that she is both naïve and an intellectual lightweight whose empathy will pervert the law to where there will no longer be equal justice for a given crime.
Not surprisingly, like many effete liberals, she attaches greater empathy toward the perpetrator than to the victim and their family. This is not the type of empathy America needs!
Chicago’s gun control law (ban) was upheld by a three judge panel based on their unusual interpretation of the Constitution. Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s selection for Supreme Court justice, supports this decision. This is additional evidence that she is on the wrong side of the right to bear arms.
Read: Sotomayor Guns For The 2nd Amendment
Americans are getting restive and angry with the bloodless coup we find ourselves in the midst of thanks to the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Reid and other ultra-left Liberals in Congress. In every direction we turn, there are threats to our rights, freedoms and economic well-being. We have ubiquitous taxes and proposals for more taxes. Giving our fair share means taking as much as possible from those who are productive and distributing it to those who are lazy, undeserving or illegally living in this country.
Warp speed to Socialism with consolidation of power and wealth to the Big Brother Government! It is now the proud owner of GM, wants to determine pay for employees of companies even beyond those to whom it has bailed out and gives sweetheart deals to unions while illegally shafting bond holders.
In the legal department, we have a nominee (Sotomayor) that in no uncertain terms states that some individuals are more equal than others, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also has indicated disdain for the First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) and the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) as well. We haven’t yet reviewed her stance on the other Amendments.
We can go on and on enumerating more of these radical changes and confiscatory policies being implemented but you get the point. Meanwhile, where is the opposition, the Republican Party who is supposed to represent and speak out for us? They are a minority party but their influence and presence appears to be microscopic. Perception and appearance is everything and they appear to be a feckless group though this may not necessarily the case. Instead, several passionate, articulate and well-informed Conservatives in the media have effectively taken on the challenges. Like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell and many others. Conservatives in America have been active with grassroot organizations and, of course, the Tea Parties.
The Republican Party needs to be more articulate, passionate, aggressive, bold, persistent and omnipresent rather than just polite and trying to be thought of positively by the liberal media. Maybe they should seek inspiration from their New York counterparts who recently staged a coup in their State Senate.
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution delineates the division of authority between the States and the Federal government: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thoroughly tired with relentlessly increasing, costly and intrusive Federal mandates which also infringe on the Constitutional rights of the States, many States are now fighting back vigorously – and winning. The following article details this growing movement to reduce Federal Government interference and return power back to the states.
The following editorial by Patrick Buchanan provides a more thorough analysis of who Sotamayor really is and her thought processes over time. The findings reveal consistency of attitude and thought over time but in a way that should frighten the average American who wants equal justice and not race based politics and justice (a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment). Though there are a few issues in this editorial that we take exception to, his assessment of Sotomayor is right on.
In a lucid and convincing fashion, Thomas Sowell delineates the far reaching dangers that Obama’s selection for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, presents to the average American and their rights.
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, Sonia Sotomayor, last year rejected the First Amendment claim of a Burlington, Connecticut student penalized by school administrators for using the words “douche bag” in a blog she wrote at home. Read full story
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments