Dad threatened after blasting congressman
Wanted assurance Obamacare would care for handicapped son
from World Net Daily
Posted: August 10, 20099:44 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An irate Michigan father worried over what Obamacare would do to his handicapped adult son reports he was threatened after trying to get a direct answer from Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and has a warning of his own for those who made the threats.
"I will use every means available to me, lethal force if necessary, to protect [my son] and my wife. My wife is terrified," Mike Sola told Fox News today.
Meanwhile, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., was confronted by some pointed questions at a town hall meeting of her own, including one referencing the ongoing dispute over President Obama's refusal to allow public access to his original long-form birth certificate, which probably could establish his eligibility to be president.
In an interview with Fox, Sola explained how he took his wheelchair-bound adult son to the front of the room to confront Dingell, 83.
Sola said he demanded information about what Obamacare would provide for his son, and Dingell responded with a statement that there is an amendment to address the needs of the handicapped.
However, Sola said that amendment doesn't exist.
The controversy erupted just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed in a commentary that those who object vocally to the health care plan are "un-American."
"I was trying to speak as an American in a free country with a right of freedom of speech," Sola said.
Then he said that "thugs" already have located his home and delivered a threat, although he did not detail its contents. He said it had been reported to police.
Sola said he would "take the risk of going to prison" if the threats were repeated.
And he challenged members of Congress to establish a health care program for themselves and their own families before imposing it on the American public, which has expressed in multiple polls significant opposition to it.
According to a report from Associated Press, McCaskill faced "shouts and jeers" even in "friendly territory."
At Poplar Bluff, Mo., the report said, an audience of 500 applauded the loudest when Obama was called a socialist.
Another audience member asked, "Where's the birth certificate?" alluding to the dispute over Obama's still-unreleased eligibility documentation.
AP reported McCaskill was visibly frustrated and at one point said, "You guys are so mean."
The Obamacare package will be handled by Congress in a month when members return from several weeks of hearing from their constituents.
As WND reported, Pelosi, D-Calif., has accused attendees at health care town hall meetings of being part of an "Astroturf" movement, saying she didn't believe the angry constituents represented a legitimate grass roots opposition – and the Democratic National Committee called citizens "angry mobs" who are "seeking to destroy Obama."
Obama's own 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and now known as Organizing for America, is also calling on Obama supporters to show up at local representatives' offices to show support for health reform. "As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly," a letter from Organizing for America states. "Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
True conviction: The key to victory in 2010?
by Alan Keyes
Posted: August 07, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
As opposition intensifies against the totalitarian takeover of the health system, the Obama faction and its henchmen are seeking to portray all opposition as irrational, crazy extremists.
Naturally, conservatives are protesting against what one psychiatrist sees as an effort to dehumanize the Obama faction's opponents, to silence them and discourage others from openly associating with them. Yesterday's e-mail included a note from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association objecting to this strategy of intimidation. It quoted extensively from a mailing in which Gary Bauer encouraged opponents of the proposed health system takeover to take heart because, "The fact is, you are in the majority now – not the leftists trying to push European socialism on you."
Of course, I agree with Wildmon and Bauer in their protest against the Obama faction's campaign to denigrate and intimidate all opposition. It smacks of the repressive mentality we should expect from people like Obama, who were schooled in strategy and tactics by dedicated Communists like Saul Alinsky. Given what they are doing as they battle to gain and consolidate totalitarian control of our country, we have good cause to fear what they will do once their objective has been achieved. I cannot help but recall that as part of the strategy of totalitarian repression in the old Soviet Union, it became commonplace for dissidents to be committed to insane asylums after bogus psychiatric exams.
Unfortunately, while seeming to protest against the Obama faction's abuses, Bauer's words of encouragement to their opponents could be taken to suggest that the reason it's wrong to characterize opponents of the takeover as crazy is that they are now the majority. But if they were not the majority, would portraying them as kooks be acceptable? I can already hear readers objecting that it's wrong and unfair to suggest that someone like Gary Bauer would advocate the majoritarian fallacy. After all, even if a majority supported the health care takeover, many Americans would still oppose it because both the facts and America's moral principles condemn the surrender of liberty and conscience it involves. Gary Bauer is famous as a champion of faith and moral principle. Even if a majority clamored for it, he would courageously oppose Obama's totalitarian scheme simply because facts and truthful reasoning require that he do so. Wouldn't he?
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, help us reach half a million on petition and sign up now!
Once I would have been sure of the answer. But in recent months too many conservative leaders have been silent as the Obama faction sought to denigrate and dehumanize people whose only fault was their unwillingness to surrender the requirements of truthful reasoning. Other reputed conservatives have gone further, gleefully joining the jackals of ridicule. Now they find themselves being dumped in the same category as those the Obama faction's media claque refers to as "birthers" and portrays as kooks and extremists.
People like me have carefully presented the analysis of fact and constitutional provision that supports our demand for an authoritative investigation and decision with regard to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Facts and reasoning have been ignored, however, as the Obama faction systematically blocks disclosure of all relevant documents and information. They have relied upon the force of repression and verbal assault to arm the bodyguard of lies assembled to expel from the public square any who refuse to accept the transparent and self-contradictory fabrications with which they have contemptuously dismissed the requirements of truth and the Constitution. Conservatives, who were silent or complicit in the face of this campaign against people who simply refuse to surrender their reason and common sense, now protest against the Obama faction's use of similar tactics in its push to establish totalitarian control. Did they not realize the accuracy of the observation found in Shakespeare's classic study of tyrannical usurpation: "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill"?
I oppose Obama's totalitarian takeover of the health system for the same reason that I demand an authoritative investigation and decision as to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency: After careful examination of the available evidence, and in light of the constitutional or moral principles we claim to respect, I cannot with integrity do otherwise. In one case a majority applauds my conclusion. In the other it may not. But I can no more abandon the rational conviction of right to curry favor with a majority than I could to gain money, power or any other material gain. I believe that the key to the survival of republican and constitutional self-government lies in the possibility of leadership that has the heart and conscience to battle for right against the tide of opinion, with the faith that ultimately truth, courageously advocated, will move the common sense of the people. The history of our republic bears me out. The successful battles against slavery and for worker's rights, women's rights and civil rights all were begun and sustained by those who had the courage of true conviction.
(For the moment, no matter what the transient polls may say, the congressional majority the Obama faction achieved in the last election may be enough to secure passage of the takeover legislation, thus establishing the infrastructure for totalitarian control of health care. When that congressional majority speaks, must all opposition be silent? Must all dissenters quietly submit? It is human nature to retreat in the aftermath of exercised power. When unheeding ambition wins its temporary victories, what keeps the flame of righteous opposition burning? The conviction of truth and right – like the conviction that led the first patriots to declare the independence of the United States, and that sustained them through defeats and losses in the sometimes desperate battles that followed.
I believe that such conviction will move dissenters to the polls in 2010. In righteous anger, they will vote out the factional majority that now drives America to ruin. Until that election is over, we will not know whether the dissenters represent a winning electoral majority. But if those who oppose the socialist takeover act on their conviction, it will not matter when the media praises Obama to the skies in the run up to the 2010 election. It will not matter that his devoted media claque fabricates, for him and his allies, the aura of deserved victory. Instead of voting for the media-touted winners, people will vote to win a victory for liberty, conscience and the Constitution.
But which leaders will deserve their vote when so many so-called conservatives have surrendered to the majoritarian delusion that electoral victory is all that matters? Those who have proven that they think truth and the Constitution matter more. I pray that enough conservative leaders will step forward to offer such proof, before it is too late.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Posted: August 07, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
As opposition intensifies against the totalitarian takeover of the health system, the Obama faction and its henchmen are seeking to portray all opposition as irrational, crazy extremists.
Naturally, conservatives are protesting against what one psychiatrist sees as an effort to dehumanize the Obama faction's opponents, to silence them and discourage others from openly associating with them. Yesterday's e-mail included a note from Don Wildmon of the American Family Association objecting to this strategy of intimidation. It quoted extensively from a mailing in which Gary Bauer encouraged opponents of the proposed health system takeover to take heart because, "The fact is, you are in the majority now – not the leftists trying to push European socialism on you."
Of course, I agree with Wildmon and Bauer in their protest against the Obama faction's campaign to denigrate and intimidate all opposition. It smacks of the repressive mentality we should expect from people like Obama, who were schooled in strategy and tactics by dedicated Communists like Saul Alinsky. Given what they are doing as they battle to gain and consolidate totalitarian control of our country, we have good cause to fear what they will do once their objective has been achieved. I cannot help but recall that as part of the strategy of totalitarian repression in the old Soviet Union, it became commonplace for dissidents to be committed to insane asylums after bogus psychiatric exams.
Unfortunately, while seeming to protest against the Obama faction's abuses, Bauer's words of encouragement to their opponents could be taken to suggest that the reason it's wrong to characterize opponents of the takeover as crazy is that they are now the majority. But if they were not the majority, would portraying them as kooks be acceptable? I can already hear readers objecting that it's wrong and unfair to suggest that someone like Gary Bauer would advocate the majoritarian fallacy. After all, even if a majority supported the health care takeover, many Americans would still oppose it because both the facts and America's moral principles condemn the surrender of liberty and conscience it involves. Gary Bauer is famous as a champion of faith and moral principle. Even if a majority clamored for it, he would courageously oppose Obama's totalitarian scheme simply because facts and truthful reasoning require that he do so. Wouldn't he?
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, help us reach half a million on petition and sign up now!
Once I would have been sure of the answer. But in recent months too many conservative leaders have been silent as the Obama faction sought to denigrate and dehumanize people whose only fault was their unwillingness to surrender the requirements of truthful reasoning. Other reputed conservatives have gone further, gleefully joining the jackals of ridicule. Now they find themselves being dumped in the same category as those the Obama faction's media claque refers to as "birthers" and portrays as kooks and extremists.
People like me have carefully presented the analysis of fact and constitutional provision that supports our demand for an authoritative investigation and decision with regard to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Facts and reasoning have been ignored, however, as the Obama faction systematically blocks disclosure of all relevant documents and information. They have relied upon the force of repression and verbal assault to arm the bodyguard of lies assembled to expel from the public square any who refuse to accept the transparent and self-contradictory fabrications with which they have contemptuously dismissed the requirements of truth and the Constitution. Conservatives, who were silent or complicit in the face of this campaign against people who simply refuse to surrender their reason and common sense, now protest against the Obama faction's use of similar tactics in its push to establish totalitarian control. Did they not realize the accuracy of the observation found in Shakespeare's classic study of tyrannical usurpation: "Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill"?
I oppose Obama's totalitarian takeover of the health system for the same reason that I demand an authoritative investigation and decision as to his constitutional eligibility for the presidency: After careful examination of the available evidence, and in light of the constitutional or moral principles we claim to respect, I cannot with integrity do otherwise. In one case a majority applauds my conclusion. In the other it may not. But I can no more abandon the rational conviction of right to curry favor with a majority than I could to gain money, power or any other material gain. I believe that the key to the survival of republican and constitutional self-government lies in the possibility of leadership that has the heart and conscience to battle for right against the tide of opinion, with the faith that ultimately truth, courageously advocated, will move the common sense of the people. The history of our republic bears me out. The successful battles against slavery and for worker's rights, women's rights and civil rights all were begun and sustained by those who had the courage of true conviction.
(For the moment, no matter what the transient polls may say, the congressional majority the Obama faction achieved in the last election may be enough to secure passage of the takeover legislation, thus establishing the infrastructure for totalitarian control of health care. When that congressional majority speaks, must all opposition be silent? Must all dissenters quietly submit? It is human nature to retreat in the aftermath of exercised power. When unheeding ambition wins its temporary victories, what keeps the flame of righteous opposition burning? The conviction of truth and right – like the conviction that led the first patriots to declare the independence of the United States, and that sustained them through defeats and losses in the sometimes desperate battles that followed.
I believe that such conviction will move dissenters to the polls in 2010. In righteous anger, they will vote out the factional majority that now drives America to ruin. Until that election is over, we will not know whether the dissenters represent a winning electoral majority. But if those who oppose the socialist takeover act on their conviction, it will not matter when the media praises Obama to the skies in the run up to the 2010 election. It will not matter that his devoted media claque fabricates, for him and his allies, the aura of deserved victory. Instead of voting for the media-touted winners, people will vote to win a victory for liberty, conscience and the Constitution.
But which leaders will deserve their vote when so many so-called conservatives have surrendered to the majoritarian delusion that electoral victory is all that matters? Those who have proven that they think truth and the Constitution matter more. I pray that enough conservative leaders will step forward to offer such proof, before it is too late.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Preparing for war
by David Limbaugh
Posted: July 31, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I am gratified that an awakened public has sent Congress an unequivocal message not to socialize our health care system, but note that this war is just beginning. Gen. Barack Obama is not the slightest bit deterred by the public's negative reaction, because he knows more than they do about what's best for them.
As we go forward, it's imperative we recognize that the current hiccup in Obama's momentum is a result of so-called Blue Dog Democrats' refusing to go along with his plan – and this, largely because their constituents are raining down "tea party" speed bumps on their heads warning them against endorsing this disaster.
But if we're not careful, Obama will negotiate a path around this opposition, and it's important we anticipate it and prepare accordingly. The key lies in understanding the main reason for the Blue Dogs' resistance.
The Blue Dogs see themselves as being all about fiscal responsibility, even though most of them enthusiastically signed on to his budget -busting trillion-dollar porkulus scheme and his cap-and-tax debacle. Those little details aside, they have based their opposition to the bill thus far on their fear that the program wouldn't be able to pay for itself.
If that's true, then all Obama has to do to capture their support (he may already have) is to convince them it will be deficit-neutral – or better. He can do that either by manipulating the numbers or by making adjustments to create the illusion it would pay for itself.
Let's set aside for now the canard that socialized medicine could be structured to pay for itself even with the diminution in quality and quantity it guarantees. What's relevant here is that Obama might be able to convince the Blue Dogs that it could. Then the bill would regain momentum, setting in motion the inevitable destruction of the world's greatest health care system.
Here's the point. Fiscal concerns aren't the only reason to oppose this Stalinist nightmare. We have to understand that socializing our entire health care system would destroy the great things about our system, much more completely than mandates, regulation and other government intervention already have.
Health care quality, quantity, choice and cost are all in jeopardy. This message has to be communicated effectively to the already skeptical public before Obama negotiates his end run around the fiscal responsibility issue alone – as if that were the only legitimate objection.
In selling his scheme, Obama has already been promoting the myth that our system is no better than those of other advanced nations. His recent statements have betrayed his openly contemptuous attitude toward American health care and our top-flight medical profession. His attitude is consistent with his revealed general attitude about America, which he denigrates every time he gets a chance, especially on foreign soil.
He enjoys saying – incorrectly – Americans pay $6,000 more per year on health care than people of other advanced nations for no better care.
The statement is abominably false. Just as Obama is manipulating the cost and benefit numbers to enlist popular and Blue Dog support for his socialized medicine conspiracy, he distorts statistics to make the specious claim that our health care system isn't far superior to all others.
That's why we opponents of Obama's war against our health care system must bone up on the facts that put the lie to the ongoing liberal hoax concerning the quality of American health care – as well as to all their other health care myths.
A great place to start is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," by Sally C. Pipes. This is an extraordinarily edifying book that should be must-reading – a health care mandate even I can agree to – for every citizen upon whom socialized medicine could be visited and every politician contemplating visiting it upon us – or properly opposing it.
This book could be so helpful to the national discussion that I intend to devote a number of columns to it. But with the remaining short space in this one, let me highlight just one of its 10 myth-busting chapters, which debunks the notion that government-run health care systems of other countries are superior or even remotely equal to the American system.
I'll address in future columns how the proponents of socialized medicine distort the statistics to hide the overwhelming superiority of the American system, but for now, I'll quote Ms. Pipes on the quality issue: "In measuring the quality of a health care system, what really matters is how well it serves those who are sick. And it's here that American really excels."
Please stay tuned, and in my following columns, I'll give you specific data backing up Pipes' claim – data that expose President Obama's disgraceful attempt to deceive Americans about American health care quality. And I'll expose you to Pipes' other nine myth-debunking chapters – and her market-based solutions. The system needs reform, but in the direction of less government, not more.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
Posted: July 31, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I am gratified that an awakened public has sent Congress an unequivocal message not to socialize our health care system, but note that this war is just beginning. Gen. Barack Obama is not the slightest bit deterred by the public's negative reaction, because he knows more than they do about what's best for them.
As we go forward, it's imperative we recognize that the current hiccup in Obama's momentum is a result of so-called Blue Dog Democrats' refusing to go along with his plan – and this, largely because their constituents are raining down "tea party" speed bumps on their heads warning them against endorsing this disaster.
But if we're not careful, Obama will negotiate a path around this opposition, and it's important we anticipate it and prepare accordingly. The key lies in understanding the main reason for the Blue Dogs' resistance.
The Blue Dogs see themselves as being all about fiscal responsibility, even though most of them enthusiastically signed on to his budget -busting trillion-dollar porkulus scheme and his cap-and-tax debacle. Those little details aside, they have based their opposition to the bill thus far on their fear that the program wouldn't be able to pay for itself.
If that's true, then all Obama has to do to capture their support (he may already have) is to convince them it will be deficit-neutral – or better. He can do that either by manipulating the numbers or by making adjustments to create the illusion it would pay for itself.
Let's set aside for now the canard that socialized medicine could be structured to pay for itself even with the diminution in quality and quantity it guarantees. What's relevant here is that Obama might be able to convince the Blue Dogs that it could. Then the bill would regain momentum, setting in motion the inevitable destruction of the world's greatest health care system.
Here's the point. Fiscal concerns aren't the only reason to oppose this Stalinist nightmare. We have to understand that socializing our entire health care system would destroy the great things about our system, much more completely than mandates, regulation and other government intervention already have.
Health care quality, quantity, choice and cost are all in jeopardy. This message has to be communicated effectively to the already skeptical public before Obama negotiates his end run around the fiscal responsibility issue alone – as if that were the only legitimate objection.
In selling his scheme, Obama has already been promoting the myth that our system is no better than those of other advanced nations. His recent statements have betrayed his openly contemptuous attitude toward American health care and our top-flight medical profession. His attitude is consistent with his revealed general attitude about America, which he denigrates every time he gets a chance, especially on foreign soil.
He enjoys saying – incorrectly – Americans pay $6,000 more per year on health care than people of other advanced nations for no better care.
The statement is abominably false. Just as Obama is manipulating the cost and benefit numbers to enlist popular and Blue Dog support for his socialized medicine conspiracy, he distorts statistics to make the specious claim that our health care system isn't far superior to all others.
That's why we opponents of Obama's war against our health care system must bone up on the facts that put the lie to the ongoing liberal hoax concerning the quality of American health care – as well as to all their other health care myths.
A great place to start is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," by Sally C. Pipes. This is an extraordinarily edifying book that should be must-reading – a health care mandate even I can agree to – for every citizen upon whom socialized medicine could be visited and every politician contemplating visiting it upon us – or properly opposing it.
This book could be so helpful to the national discussion that I intend to devote a number of columns to it. But with the remaining short space in this one, let me highlight just one of its 10 myth-busting chapters, which debunks the notion that government-run health care systems of other countries are superior or even remotely equal to the American system.
I'll address in future columns how the proponents of socialized medicine distort the statistics to hide the overwhelming superiority of the American system, but for now, I'll quote Ms. Pipes on the quality issue: "In measuring the quality of a health care system, what really matters is how well it serves those who are sick. And it's here that American really excels."
Please stay tuned, and in my following columns, I'll give you specific data backing up Pipes' claim – data that expose President Obama's disgraceful attempt to deceive Americans about American health care quality. And I'll expose you to Pipes' other nine myth-debunking chapters – and her market-based solutions. The system needs reform, but in the direction of less government, not more.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
Americans have given up self-ownership
by Walter Williams
Posted: August 05, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
"No one has a right to harm another." Just a little thought, along with a few examples, would demonstrate that blanket statement as pure nonsense. Suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed. By the same token, if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. Whose harm is more important and should the beautiful lady be permitted to harm either Bob or Jim are nonsense questions.
During the 1970s, when Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments came out with scientific calculators, great harm was suffered by slide rule manufacturers such as Keuffel & Esser and Pickett. Slide rules have since gone the way of the dodo, but the question is: Should Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments have been permitted to inflict such grievous harm on slide rule manufacturers? In 1927, General Electric successfully began marketing the refrigerator. The ice industry, a major industry supporting the livelihoods of thousands of workers, was destroyed virtually overnight. Should such harm have been permitted, and what should Congress have done to save jobs in the slide rule and ice industries?
How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. Harm is reciprocal. For example, if the government stopped Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments from harming Keuffel & Esser and Pickett, or stopped General Electric from harming ice producers, by denying them the right to manufacture calculators and refrigerators, those companies would have been harmed, plus the billions of consumers who benefited from calculators and refrigerators. There is no scientific or intelligent way to determine which person's harm is more important than the other. That means things are more complicated than saying that one person has no rights to harm another. We must ask which harms are to be permitted in a free society and which are not to be permitted. For example, it's generally deemed acceptable for me to harm you by momentarily disturbing your peace and quiet by driving a motorcycle past your house. It's deemed unacceptable for me to harm you by tossing a brick through your window.
In a free society, many conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights have to do with rights belonging to the person deemed owner of property to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate similar rights of another. Let's say that you are offended, possibly harmed, by bars that play vulgar rap music and permit smoking. If you could use government to outlaw rap music and smoking in bars, you would be benefited and people who enjoyed rap music and smoking would be harmed. Again, there is no scientific or intelligent way to determine whose harm is more important. In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.
What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Posted: August 05, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
"No one has a right to harm another." Just a little thought, along with a few examples, would demonstrate that blanket statement as pure nonsense. Suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed. By the same token, if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. Whose harm is more important and should the beautiful lady be permitted to harm either Bob or Jim are nonsense questions.
During the 1970s, when Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments came out with scientific calculators, great harm was suffered by slide rule manufacturers such as Keuffel & Esser and Pickett. Slide rules have since gone the way of the dodo, but the question is: Should Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments have been permitted to inflict such grievous harm on slide rule manufacturers? In 1927, General Electric successfully began marketing the refrigerator. The ice industry, a major industry supporting the livelihoods of thousands of workers, was destroyed virtually overnight. Should such harm have been permitted, and what should Congress have done to save jobs in the slide rule and ice industries?
How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. Harm is reciprocal. For example, if the government stopped Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments from harming Keuffel & Esser and Pickett, or stopped General Electric from harming ice producers, by denying them the right to manufacture calculators and refrigerators, those companies would have been harmed, plus the billions of consumers who benefited from calculators and refrigerators. There is no scientific or intelligent way to determine which person's harm is more important than the other. That means things are more complicated than saying that one person has no rights to harm another. We must ask which harms are to be permitted in a free society and which are not to be permitted. For example, it's generally deemed acceptable for me to harm you by momentarily disturbing your peace and quiet by driving a motorcycle past your house. It's deemed unacceptable for me to harm you by tossing a brick through your window.
In a free society, many conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights have to do with rights belonging to the person deemed owner of property to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate similar rights of another. Let's say that you are offended, possibly harmed, by bars that play vulgar rap music and permit smoking. If you could use government to outlaw rap music and smoking in bars, you would be benefited and people who enjoyed rap music and smoking would be harmed. Again, there is no scientific or intelligent way to determine whose harm is more important. In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.
What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
OBAMA EMBRACES RUSSIAN SCHEME TO UNILATERALLY DISARM U.S.
From the blog of Howard Phillips
"Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a foreign-policy success. He got that illusion – at a substantial cost to America’s security. …
"He agreed to trim our nuclear-warhead arsenal by one-third and – even more dangerously – to cut the systems that deliver the nuclear payloads. In fact, the Russians don’t care much about our warhead numbers (which will be chopped to a figure ‘between 1,500 and 1,675’).
"What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if the Russians continue to get their way as the final details are negotiated.
"Moscow knows we aren’t going to start a nuclear war with Russia. Putin (forget poor ‘President’ Dimitry Medvedev) wants to cut our conventional capabilities to stage globe-spanning military operations. He wants to cut us down to Russia’s size.
"Our problem is that many nuclear-delivery systems – such as bombers or subs – are ‘dual-use’: A B-2 bomber can launch nukes, but it’s employed more frequently to deliver conventional ordnance.
"Putin sought to cripple our ability to respond to international crises. Obama, meanwhile, was out for ‘deliverables’ – deals that could be signed in front of the cameras. Each man got what he wanted.
"Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time . . .
"We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American Communist Party of the 1950s."
"Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a foreign-policy success. He got that illusion – at a substantial cost to America’s security. …
"He agreed to trim our nuclear-warhead arsenal by one-third and – even more dangerously – to cut the systems that deliver the nuclear payloads. In fact, the Russians don’t care much about our warhead numbers (which will be chopped to a figure ‘between 1,500 and 1,675’).
"What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if the Russians continue to get their way as the final details are negotiated.
"Moscow knows we aren’t going to start a nuclear war with Russia. Putin (forget poor ‘President’ Dimitry Medvedev) wants to cut our conventional capabilities to stage globe-spanning military operations. He wants to cut us down to Russia’s size.
"Our problem is that many nuclear-delivery systems – such as bombers or subs – are ‘dual-use’: A B-2 bomber can launch nukes, but it’s employed more frequently to deliver conventional ordnance.
"Putin sought to cripple our ability to respond to international crises. Obama, meanwhile, was out for ‘deliverables’ – deals that could be signed in front of the cameras. Each man got what he wanted.
"Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time . . .
"We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American Communist Party of the 1950s."
SONIA’S FONDNESS FOR FOREIGN LAW IS A DISQUALIFICATION
From the blog of Howard Phillips:
In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times (7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the following points:
"Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, explained well why judges must not use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution (‘Our laws, not foreign laws,’ Opinion, Tuesday).
"When Supreme Court justices take office, they take an oath that includes these words: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This Constitution, which the justices have bound themselves to defend, is not anything a justice says it is – any more than an ordinary criminal might claim that, by his own interpretation, he didn't violate the law.
"The Constitution is a document with specific and binding words, and the words are relatively clear, even common sense. A specific word may become obsolete over time, but its meaning is never obsolete.
"The same Article VI that requires the justices to ‘support this Constitution’ also declares that ‘This Constitution’ – plus U.S. laws and treaties – are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ This article forbids justices from following any foreign law instead of the Constitution and U.S. law exclusively. For a justice to follow the law of any foreign country is to violate the oath by which the justice is bound. The majority opinion in the case of Roper v. Simmons, mentioned by Mr. Sessions, is a good example of such a violation.
"It is no answer to claim that there are different ‘theories’ of constitutional interpretation. Of course there are. It is even less of an answer that the Constitution must apply to ‘the times.’ Of course it must. The question is whether adhering to foreign law instead of to the Constitution's own provisions is an impeachable offense.
"Senators and congressmen also bind themselves by a similar oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ Senators therefore have a duty to ensure that nominees whom they vote to confirm take their own oaths seriously.
"It would be worthwhile for Mr. Sessions and others to walk Judge Sonia Sotomayor and every judicial nominee through a series of questions to test how well they understand that their official oath prohibits them from following foreign laws when deciding cases.
"It would be worth learning whether Judge Sotomayor believes that adhering to other countries’ laws is an offense for which a justice can be impeached. It also would be invaluable to remind all citizens and officeholders that we owe a moral debt to the Constitution that has made us, in Mr. Sessions’ fine words, ‘the freest nation on Earth.’ "
In a Letter to the Editor of The Washington Times (7/1/09, p. A18), Dennis Teti of Hyattsville, MD, makes the following points:"Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, explained well why judges must not use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution (‘Our laws, not foreign laws,’ Opinion, Tuesday).
"When Supreme Court justices take office, they take an oath that includes these words: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ This Constitution, which the justices have bound themselves to defend, is not anything a justice says it is – any more than an ordinary criminal might claim that, by his own interpretation, he didn't violate the law.
"The Constitution is a document with specific and binding words, and the words are relatively clear, even common sense. A specific word may become obsolete over time, but its meaning is never obsolete.
"The same Article VI that requires the justices to ‘support this Constitution’ also declares that ‘This Constitution’ – plus U.S. laws and treaties – are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ This article forbids justices from following any foreign law instead of the Constitution and U.S. law exclusively. For a justice to follow the law of any foreign country is to violate the oath by which the justice is bound. The majority opinion in the case of Roper v. Simmons, mentioned by Mr. Sessions, is a good example of such a violation.
"It is no answer to claim that there are different ‘theories’ of constitutional interpretation. Of course there are. It is even less of an answer that the Constitution must apply to ‘the times.’ Of course it must. The question is whether adhering to foreign law instead of to the Constitution's own provisions is an impeachable offense.
"Senators and congressmen also bind themselves by a similar oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ Senators therefore have a duty to ensure that nominees whom they vote to confirm take their own oaths seriously.
"It would be worthwhile for Mr. Sessions and others to walk Judge Sonia Sotomayor and every judicial nominee through a series of questions to test how well they understand that their official oath prohibits them from following foreign laws when deciding cases.
"It would be worth learning whether Judge Sotomayor believes that adhering to other countries’ laws is an offense for which a justice can be impeached. It also would be invaluable to remind all citizens and officeholders that we owe a moral debt to the Constitution that has made us, in Mr. Sessions’ fine words, ‘the freest nation on Earth.’ "
Which 'ism' on display at Harvard arrest?
by Alan Keyes
Posted: July 24, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Though now scrubbed from the Boston Globe website where it was originally posted, what appears to be a .pdf copy of the incident report (#9005127) filed by the officer involved in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates is available online. Before being swept up in the indignant frenzy being whipped up over this supposed outrage, it's worth perusing.
The police officer responded to an apparent break-in in progress at Gates' Ware Street address in Cambridge, Mass., called in by a passing observer, who was on the scene when he arrived. She said that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of two black males on the porch of the Ware street residence "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." After listening to her account, the author of the unofficially published incident report writes that as he "turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer. … I made this observation through the glass paned front door."
The author further states:
As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied "no I will not." He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed "why, because I'm a black man in America?" I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen's call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to "get the chief" and "what's the chief's name?" Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was "messing" with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at ___ Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification, but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
Following this initial exchange, the officer states that he attempted to identify himself to Gates as requested, but that "Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn't someone to mess with. … When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." After this, the reporting officer states, Gates followed the officer outside, continuing his remonstrations. There the arrest eventually took place.
If this matter is properly handled, at the appropriate stage of the legal proceedings the verified official incident report will be reviewed and the details of the police officer's account will be substantiated or refuted. As I read this unofficially published version, I found myself sharing the officer's reported surprise at the behavior he ascribes to Gates in the initial moments of their encounter. Some years ago, I found myself locked out of my home. I eventually forced my way in through the basement, feeling both foolish and a bit apprehensive as the alarm sounded. I rushed toward the basement door, only belatedly remembering that we always lock it before leaving the house. That meant that I couldn't reach the system's data entry pad in time to disarm the alarm. The police would be called, and I would have to explain things to them.
Of course, since I was in my own home, I didn't see any real problem with that. In fact, I felt reassured by the fact that, if I had been a burglar, their prompt response would have prevented a successful theft. As related in this account, no sense of reassurance and gratitude is evident in professor Gates' response. It also seems entirely absent from most of the reaction and commentary on his behalf in the media. Was it a bad thing that a passing citizen was concerned enough by the appearance of a break-in to notify the police? Would an apathetic, "it's not my business" shrug have been the preferable response? Should the police have ignored the report of a break-in at this black academic's home, as they are so often accused of ignoring reports of black on black crime in predominantly black communities?
If Gates came to the door, thanked the police officer for the prompt response and showed his ID while explaining the appearance of a break-in, how could any incident have occurred? The resident of a home has a stake in the police officer's prompt performance of his duty, so there's nothing obsequious or inappropriate about being polite and appreciative toward someone who's doing exactly what a sensible resident would want them to do.
As far as I have read, no one denies that there was the plausible appearance of a break-in. The frenzied effort to tag as racist the responding officer (or the citizen who reported the suspicious activity) can serve no useful purpose. In fact, university communities generally encourage their members to report suspicious activities, and police in those communities pride themselves on the kind of prompt response that reassures people of the safety of their persons and belongings. I have always assumed that even Harvard professors have enough common sense to agree with such policies. This whole episode reminds me of the time a black congresswoman allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer who stopped her because she was not wearing the congressional pin that identifies people as members of Congress (who were permitted to enter Capitol Hill office buildings without going through security). It didn't take long for many to realize that the only -ism involved in that episode was narcissism. But surely no academic has ever shown traces of that disorder.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Posted: July 24, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Though now scrubbed from the Boston Globe website where it was originally posted, what appears to be a .pdf copy of the incident report (#9005127) filed by the officer involved in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates is available online. Before being swept up in the indignant frenzy being whipped up over this supposed outrage, it's worth perusing.
The police officer responded to an apparent break-in in progress at Gates' Ware Street address in Cambridge, Mass., called in by a passing observer, who was on the scene when he arrived. She said that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of two black males on the porch of the Ware street residence "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." After listening to her account, the author of the unofficially published incident report writes that as he "turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer. … I made this observation through the glass paned front door."
The author further states:
As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied "no I will not." He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was "Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police" and that I was "investigating a report of a break in progress" at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed "why, because I'm a black man in America?" I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen's call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to "get the chief" and "what's the chief's name?" Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was "messing" with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at ___ Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification, but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.
Following this initial exchange, the officer states that he attempted to identify himself to Gates as requested, but that "Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn't someone to mess with. … When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence." After this, the reporting officer states, Gates followed the officer outside, continuing his remonstrations. There the arrest eventually took place.
If this matter is properly handled, at the appropriate stage of the legal proceedings the verified official incident report will be reviewed and the details of the police officer's account will be substantiated or refuted. As I read this unofficially published version, I found myself sharing the officer's reported surprise at the behavior he ascribes to Gates in the initial moments of their encounter. Some years ago, I found myself locked out of my home. I eventually forced my way in through the basement, feeling both foolish and a bit apprehensive as the alarm sounded. I rushed toward the basement door, only belatedly remembering that we always lock it before leaving the house. That meant that I couldn't reach the system's data entry pad in time to disarm the alarm. The police would be called, and I would have to explain things to them.
Of course, since I was in my own home, I didn't see any real problem with that. In fact, I felt reassured by the fact that, if I had been a burglar, their prompt response would have prevented a successful theft. As related in this account, no sense of reassurance and gratitude is evident in professor Gates' response. It also seems entirely absent from most of the reaction and commentary on his behalf in the media. Was it a bad thing that a passing citizen was concerned enough by the appearance of a break-in to notify the police? Would an apathetic, "it's not my business" shrug have been the preferable response? Should the police have ignored the report of a break-in at this black academic's home, as they are so often accused of ignoring reports of black on black crime in predominantly black communities?
If Gates came to the door, thanked the police officer for the prompt response and showed his ID while explaining the appearance of a break-in, how could any incident have occurred? The resident of a home has a stake in the police officer's prompt performance of his duty, so there's nothing obsequious or inappropriate about being polite and appreciative toward someone who's doing exactly what a sensible resident would want them to do.
As far as I have read, no one denies that there was the plausible appearance of a break-in. The frenzied effort to tag as racist the responding officer (or the citizen who reported the suspicious activity) can serve no useful purpose. In fact, university communities generally encourage their members to report suspicious activities, and police in those communities pride themselves on the kind of prompt response that reassures people of the safety of their persons and belongings. I have always assumed that even Harvard professors have enough common sense to agree with such policies. This whole episode reminds me of the time a black congresswoman allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer who stopped her because she was not wearing the congressional pin that identifies people as members of Congress (who were permitted to enter Capitol Hill office buildings without going through security). It didn't take long for many to realize that the only -ism involved in that episode was narcissism. But surely no academic has ever shown traces of that disorder.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
A teachable moment, indeed
by David Limbaugh
Posted: July 28, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
The Henry Louis Gates Jr./Cambridge police flap is most significant for what it tells us about President Barack Obama, his approach to the presidency and his general attitude, including on matters of race.
In his July 22 news conference on health care, one member of the media asked Obama, "What does (the Gates arrest) incident say to you, and what does it say about race relations in America?"
Without hesitation, Obama launched into what appeared to be a pre-considered response. Had he been caught off guard by the question, we might assume he would hesitate – at least briefly – and then decline to inject himself into the matter.
We should expect Obama, of all people, given his reputation for coolness and sagacity, to act presidentially, not only in measuring his thoughts before speaking but also in declining to comment on local matters beyond his duties and about which he doesn't have all the facts.
But Obama's attitude toward the presidency is not particularly aligned with what our constitutional framers had in mind. He obviously believes it is his prerogative to micromanage any and every aspect of American life, from the catastrophic to the mundane.
He's displayed this attitude in town hall meetings, where he has given advice to attendees concerning their specific problems, as if it were his place to make personal house calls on matters ranging from people's health care problems to their mortgages. All of this is consistent with Obama's perception of government's cradle-to-grave caretaker role and his effort to cultivate a dependency mindset in Americans.
But in this case, Obama decided to weigh in, even after admitting that "Skip" Gates is his "friend," that he "may be a little biased here," and that he didn't "know all the facts." We know he made this decision with premeditation, because White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted they had anticipated and prepared for the question.
Obama recited a Gates-slanted version of the events, suggesting that Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after Gates, inside his home, showed Crowley his ID. Obama pointedly added that the charges were "later dropped."
Then he gratuitously and incendiarily threw race into the mix, saying that we don't know what role race played in the incident (hint, hint) and adding that it's "fair to say ... any of us would be pretty angry." He said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates in his own home – completely ignoring Crowley's explanation that he arrested Gates for his disorderly and abusive behavior as opposed to his race. Obama exacerbated that impression by launching into a mini-diatribe about the "long history" of racial profiling by American cops. "That's just a fact," he said.
Obama intentionally exploited the incident with reckless disregard for the damage he did to Gates, to law enforcement generally, and to ongoing race relations. All in all, a disgraceful performance and not one befitting a self-described post-racial president.
Adding insult to injury, he later held a news conference, not to apologize, but to justify himself. The arrogance and presumptuousness of his original remarks were only exceeded by these follow-up statements.
He revealed that he had personally talked with both Sgt. Crowley and professor Gates. Can you imagine the media reaction if President Bush – the guy they said never admitted his mistakes – had insinuated himself to that degree in a local matter?
Obama said he had given an unfortunate impression that he was maligning Crowley or the Cambridge Police Department and could have – not even "should have" – "calibrated" his words differently. Pure weasel words when a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed.
Next he offered his patronizing assessment that both men probably overreacted and that cooler heads should have prevailed. How about an acknowledgment that he – Obama – overreacted?
How does Obama know whether both were at fault? He may pretend he was being noble and high-minded by declaring that each shared blame, but if it turns out that Crowley was acting appropriately, then Obama further damaged him by suggesting otherwise.
Just as importantly, why would he continue, inappropriately, to comment on the facts? Obviously because he wanted to exploit this incident as a "teachable moment" on race relations, whether or not the facts fit his template.
If there's a teachable moment here, it's that not everything between blacks and whites or Hispanics and whites is about race, and people, especially U.S. presidents when commenting on local matters that don't concern them, should not always jump to the conclusion that racism is involved. They should not yell "racism" (or any other "ism") first and examine the facts later.
Leave that to the Sharptons and Jacksons.
If President Obama truly wants to enhance race relations, he would be better served to follow the example of Bill Cosby rather than that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com
Posted: July 28, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
The Henry Louis Gates Jr./Cambridge police flap is most significant for what it tells us about President Barack Obama, his approach to the presidency and his general attitude, including on matters of race.
In his July 22 news conference on health care, one member of the media asked Obama, "What does (the Gates arrest) incident say to you, and what does it say about race relations in America?"
Without hesitation, Obama launched into what appeared to be a pre-considered response. Had he been caught off guard by the question, we might assume he would hesitate – at least briefly – and then decline to inject himself into the matter.
We should expect Obama, of all people, given his reputation for coolness and sagacity, to act presidentially, not only in measuring his thoughts before speaking but also in declining to comment on local matters beyond his duties and about which he doesn't have all the facts.
But Obama's attitude toward the presidency is not particularly aligned with what our constitutional framers had in mind. He obviously believes it is his prerogative to micromanage any and every aspect of American life, from the catastrophic to the mundane.
He's displayed this attitude in town hall meetings, where he has given advice to attendees concerning their specific problems, as if it were his place to make personal house calls on matters ranging from people's health care problems to their mortgages. All of this is consistent with Obama's perception of government's cradle-to-grave caretaker role and his effort to cultivate a dependency mindset in Americans.
But in this case, Obama decided to weigh in, even after admitting that "Skip" Gates is his "friend," that he "may be a little biased here," and that he didn't "know all the facts." We know he made this decision with premeditation, because White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted they had anticipated and prepared for the question.
Obama recited a Gates-slanted version of the events, suggesting that Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct after Gates, inside his home, showed Crowley his ID. Obama pointedly added that the charges were "later dropped."
Then he gratuitously and incendiarily threw race into the mix, saying that we don't know what role race played in the incident (hint, hint) and adding that it's "fair to say ... any of us would be pretty angry." He said the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates in his own home – completely ignoring Crowley's explanation that he arrested Gates for his disorderly and abusive behavior as opposed to his race. Obama exacerbated that impression by launching into a mini-diatribe about the "long history" of racial profiling by American cops. "That's just a fact," he said.
Obama intentionally exploited the incident with reckless disregard for the damage he did to Gates, to law enforcement generally, and to ongoing race relations. All in all, a disgraceful performance and not one befitting a self-described post-racial president.
Adding insult to injury, he later held a news conference, not to apologize, but to justify himself. The arrogance and presumptuousness of his original remarks were only exceeded by these follow-up statements.
He revealed that he had personally talked with both Sgt. Crowley and professor Gates. Can you imagine the media reaction if President Bush – the guy they said never admitted his mistakes – had insinuated himself to that degree in a local matter?
Obama said he had given an unfortunate impression that he was maligning Crowley or the Cambridge Police Department and could have – not even "should have" – "calibrated" his words differently. Pure weasel words when a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed.
Next he offered his patronizing assessment that both men probably overreacted and that cooler heads should have prevailed. How about an acknowledgment that he – Obama – overreacted?
How does Obama know whether both were at fault? He may pretend he was being noble and high-minded by declaring that each shared blame, but if it turns out that Crowley was acting appropriately, then Obama further damaged him by suggesting otherwise.
Just as importantly, why would he continue, inappropriately, to comment on the facts? Obviously because he wanted to exploit this incident as a "teachable moment" on race relations, whether or not the facts fit his template.
If there's a teachable moment here, it's that not everything between blacks and whites or Hispanics and whites is about race, and people, especially U.S. presidents when commenting on local matters that don't concern them, should not always jump to the conclusion that racism is involved. They should not yell "racism" (or any other "ism") first and examine the facts later.
Leave that to the Sharptons and Jacksons.
If President Obama truly wants to enhance race relations, he would be better served to follow the example of Bill Cosby rather than that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificate
BORN IN THE USA?
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital
Posted: July 28, 20099:35 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth
certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)
Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.
The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.
The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.
As WND reported yesterday, Hawaii's director of health responded to the growing controversy over the White House' refusal to release Obama's original long-form birth certificate by issuing a statement about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino declared she has seen the "original birth records" that verify Obama was born in Hawaii and is a "natural-born American citizen," the Honolulu Advertiser reported.
Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run media coverup!
But in two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the health department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.
WND also reported the Hawaii Department of Heath affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.
The statement to WND by Janice Okubo, public information officer for state's health department, contradicted CNN U.S. President Jon Klein, who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing Obama's birth certificate on the air. Klein insisted the issue was "dead" because Obama's original long-form birth certificate had been destroyed by the Hawaii DOH in the conversion to electronic files.
A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.
Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.
The middle figure in Obama's purported registration also is different than the Nordykes'. Obama's is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes' is merely 61.
One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.
Another possibility is that Obama's number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Eleanor Nordyke told WND she thinks her twins got lower numbers because she went into the hospital Aug. 4, 1961, and was in labor for 20 hours before she delivered. She speculates that Ann Dunham came in after her and was given a later number, even though Dunham's baby was born earlier. Nordyke's twins were not born until the afternoon of the next day.
WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers.
Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"
He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."
It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital
Posted: July 28, 20099:35 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth
certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)Images of two 1961 Hawaii birth certificates similar to the one President Obama purportedly has on file have now been unveiled.
The Honolulu Advertiser published photostats of the original long-form birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.
The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby.
As WND reported yesterday, Hawaii's director of health responded to the growing controversy over the White House' refusal to release Obama's original long-form birth certificate by issuing a statement about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino declared she has seen the "original birth records" that verify Obama was born in Hawaii and is a "natural-born American citizen," the Honolulu Advertiser reported.
Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run media coverup!
But in two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the health department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.
WND also reported the Hawaii Department of Heath affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.
The statement to WND by Janice Okubo, public information officer for state's health department, contradicted CNN U.S. President Jon Klein, who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing Obama's birth certificate on the air. Klein insisted the issue was "dead" because Obama's original long-form birth certificate had been destroyed by the Hawaii DOH in the conversion to electronic files.
A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.
Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.
The middle figure in Obama's purported registration also is different than the Nordykes'. Obama's is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes' is merely 61.
One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.
Another possibility is that Obama's number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Eleanor Nordyke told WND she thinks her twins got lower numbers because she went into the hospital Aug. 4, 1961, and was in labor for 20 hours before she delivered. She speculates that Ann Dunham came in after her and was given a later number, even though Dunham's baby was born earlier. Nordyke's twins were not born until the afternoon of the next day.
WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state's procedure for issuing registration numbers.
Meanwhile, an image of an apparently fraudulent Kenyan certificate of birth circulated on the Web today from an unknown source. It alleged Obama was born in Mombasa. But a contributor at FreeRepublic.com debunked it, declaring "Busted!"
He pointed out that the background text, in Dutch, explained, in a rough translation, "This is not a government document. This is political commentary."
It's not just Obama's original birth certificate at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Exploiting public ignorance
Posted: July 29, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
by Walter Williams
"How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like 'Reagan budget deficits,' 'Clinton budget surplus,' 'Bush budget deficits' or 'Obama's tax increases'? The only answer is that they, or the people who believe such statements, are ignorant, conniving or just plain stupid. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.' A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them, but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.
Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and Congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?
If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." He later added, 'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' Thomas Jefferson said, 'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.' That means only those powers listed.
The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
© 2009
by Walter Williams
"How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like 'Reagan budget deficits,' 'Clinton budget surplus,' 'Bush budget deficits' or 'Obama's tax increases'? The only answer is that they, or the people who believe such statements, are ignorant, conniving or just plain stupid. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.' A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. He can propose tax measures or veto them, but since Congress can ignore presidential proposals and override a presidential veto, it has the ultimate taxing power. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. As such, presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.
Thinking about today's massive deficits, we might ask: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy? Between 1787 and 1930, we have had both mild and severe economic downturns that have ranged from one to seven years. During that time there was no thought that Congress should enact New Deal legislation or stimulus packages along with massive corporate handouts. It took the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations to massively intervene in the economy. As a result, they turned what might have been a two or three-year sharp downturn into a 16-year depression that ended in 1946. How they accomplished that is covered very well in a book authored by Jim Powell titled "FDR's Folly." Here's my question: Were the presidents in office and Congresses assembled from 1787 to 1930 ignorant of their constitutional authority to manage and save the economy?
If you asked President Obama or a congressman to cite the specific constitutional authority for the bailouts, handouts and corporate takeover, I'd bet the rent money that they would say that their authority lies in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost, Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." They'd tell you that their authority comes from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." He later added, 'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' Thomas Jefferson said, 'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.' That means only those powers listed.
The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Obama's 'noble truth' is a lie
Posted: July 17, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
by Alan Keyes
" 'Could we,' I said, 'somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need, of which we were just now speaking, some one noble lie to persuade, in the best case, even the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city? ... I'll attempt to persuade first the rulers and the soldiers, then the rest of the city, that the rearing and education we gave them were like dreams, they only thought they were undergoing all that was happening to them, while, in truth, at that time, they were under the earth within, being fashioned and reared themselves, and their arms and other tools being crafted. When the job had been completely finished, then the earth which is their mother, sent them up. And now, as though the land they are in were a mother and nurse, they must plan for and defend it, if anyone attacks, and they must think of the other citizens as brothers and born of the earth.' (Plato's "Republic," Allan Bloom's translation, III/414b-e.)
'All those in the city who happen to be older than 10 they will send out to the country; and taking over their children, they will rear them. …' (Plato's "Republic," Ibid. VII/540a.)
'Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America.'(White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, as reported in WND's article, "Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up.")
There was a time when good journalism had a standard consistent with Joe Friday's terse instruction, 'All we want are the facts, ma'am.' That was the pursuit of the simple truth. When I read the phrase 'the noble truth' in Robert Gibbs' smugly evasive riposte to Les Kinsolving's question about the president's shifting birthplace, I couldn't help but reflect on the difference between the two.
This brought to mind the famous passage in Plato's "Republic" (cited above) in which Socrates describes the "noble lie" that must be told to the guardians entrusted with ruling and defending the ideal polity he and his colleagues dream up in their efforts to discover the meaning of justice. Of course, from the perspective of those for whom the lie is intended, it is rather a "noble truth" than a lie, which explains why the passage came to my mind. The difference between the simple truth and the noble truth is that the noble truth is actually a lie.
Of course, in its Platonic context the difference isn't quite so simple. The "noble lie" is supposed to reflect the true good of the polity. Without being in fact true, it is meant to respect the truth, or at least to serve a purpose that does so. You might say that the "noble truth" is whatever you say on account of the good you aim to achieve. In this sense, it's rather like the moral perspective that often arises in relation to it: the view that the ends justify the means.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join over 400,000 others and sign up now!
I'm well-known for my view that the Obama faction represents a superficially updated 21st century re-visioning of 20th century communism. In light of this belief, Gibbs' allusion to "the noble truth" (which is to say a lie that serves the cause) doesn't surprise me. After all, this was the mindset that led to the peculiar attributes of party-line journalism characteristic of the old Soviet Union. Truth was changeable. What was "true" in the so-called news stories in Pravda had to do with the changes in strategy or tactics dictated by whoever happened to have the upper hand in the internecine power struggles of the Communist Party's elite. People who appeared in the photographs of an event one day would be erased from them on another. Events themselves were treated in much the same way.
This is precisely the kind of propaganda choreography we are seeing in the Obama faction's handling of the issues surrounding their failure to establish Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency. I think Gibbs' reference to "the noble truth" was his way of warning Les Kinsolving (and of course all other journalists) that they will have to get with the party line or suffer the consequences.
What consequences? We get hints of the near future in the fate of the U.S. Army reserve officer who has apparently lost his job because he felt it his sworn duty to demand the facts about Obama's birth before accepting Obama's authority to act as his commander in chief. ("Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility.") His livelihood was vulnerable because he works for a defense contractor.
But with the government grabbing the whip hand over more and more of our economy, the day isn't far off when everyone's livelihood will be subject to government sanction, in one way or another. Access to work, housing and health care will be dependent on structures ultimately subject to the dictation of those who control political and bureaucratic power. And if the handling of the so-called "stimulus" money is any indication, there will be no safeguards against abuse of this control. Then we will all devote ourselves to the governing faction's "pursuit of the noble truth," or else.
The brainwashed American elites buying into the Obama faction's pseudo-Platonic intellectual poison appear to have forgotten the wisdom of the American founders. The founders' approach to government was based on truths derived from observing human experience, rather than "noble" lies forcefully imposed by dictatorial elites. Such experience warned that unchecked power would lead to brutal oppression, no matter the lofty goals and promising rhetoric of those to whom it is entrusted. Plato tacitly acknowledges this severity when he conjures up the ultimate requirement of his Republic's "ideal" regime: the removal from society of everyone over 10 years old (i.e., anyone who refuses to submit to superior power the way very young children must). Given the massive atrocities perpetrated by the totalitarian ideologues of the 20th century, the idea of such large-scale purges is no longer a Platonic one.
I fail to see anything noble in the spectacle of a free people surrendering its constitutional liberty to a regime based upon oppressive lies. In fact, such surrender confirms that in our present merely human condition, true events can be ugly and ignoble.
Ironically, Socrates' "noble lie" to his ruling class also had to do with pretending that the circumstances of their birth qualified them to be the rulers and guardians of the regime. True origins are important; which is, I think, why our founders recognized that the human right to constitutional government originates from a source beyond the reach of human deception, the Creator God. Whatever Gibbs says, the standard of truthful integrity arises from the same source. So does the courage to uphold it. This is why the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency will keep gaining momentum until the Obama faction stops trying to enforce its "noble truth" and lets the simple facts speak for themselves."
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
by Alan Keyes
" 'Could we,' I said, 'somehow contrive one of those lies that come into being in case of need, of which we were just now speaking, some one noble lie to persuade, in the best case, even the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city? ... I'll attempt to persuade first the rulers and the soldiers, then the rest of the city, that the rearing and education we gave them were like dreams, they only thought they were undergoing all that was happening to them, while, in truth, at that time, they were under the earth within, being fashioned and reared themselves, and their arms and other tools being crafted. When the job had been completely finished, then the earth which is their mother, sent them up. And now, as though the land they are in were a mother and nurse, they must plan for and defend it, if anyone attacks, and they must think of the other citizens as brothers and born of the earth.' (Plato's "Republic," Allan Bloom's translation, III/414b-e.)
'All those in the city who happen to be older than 10 they will send out to the country; and taking over their children, they will rear them. …' (Plato's "Republic," Ibid. VII/540a.)
'Lester, let's finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America.'(White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, as reported in WND's article, "Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up.")
There was a time when good journalism had a standard consistent with Joe Friday's terse instruction, 'All we want are the facts, ma'am.' That was the pursuit of the simple truth. When I read the phrase 'the noble truth' in Robert Gibbs' smugly evasive riposte to Les Kinsolving's question about the president's shifting birthplace, I couldn't help but reflect on the difference between the two.
This brought to mind the famous passage in Plato's "Republic" (cited above) in which Socrates describes the "noble lie" that must be told to the guardians entrusted with ruling and defending the ideal polity he and his colleagues dream up in their efforts to discover the meaning of justice. Of course, from the perspective of those for whom the lie is intended, it is rather a "noble truth" than a lie, which explains why the passage came to my mind. The difference between the simple truth and the noble truth is that the noble truth is actually a lie.
Of course, in its Platonic context the difference isn't quite so simple. The "noble lie" is supposed to reflect the true good of the polity. Without being in fact true, it is meant to respect the truth, or at least to serve a purpose that does so. You might say that the "noble truth" is whatever you say on account of the good you aim to achieve. In this sense, it's rather like the moral perspective that often arises in relation to it: the view that the ends justify the means.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join over 400,000 others and sign up now!
I'm well-known for my view that the Obama faction represents a superficially updated 21st century re-visioning of 20th century communism. In light of this belief, Gibbs' allusion to "the noble truth" (which is to say a lie that serves the cause) doesn't surprise me. After all, this was the mindset that led to the peculiar attributes of party-line journalism characteristic of the old Soviet Union. Truth was changeable. What was "true" in the so-called news stories in Pravda had to do with the changes in strategy or tactics dictated by whoever happened to have the upper hand in the internecine power struggles of the Communist Party's elite. People who appeared in the photographs of an event one day would be erased from them on another. Events themselves were treated in much the same way.
This is precisely the kind of propaganda choreography we are seeing in the Obama faction's handling of the issues surrounding their failure to establish Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency. I think Gibbs' reference to "the noble truth" was his way of warning Les Kinsolving (and of course all other journalists) that they will have to get with the party line or suffer the consequences.
What consequences? We get hints of the near future in the fate of the U.S. Army reserve officer who has apparently lost his job because he felt it his sworn duty to demand the facts about Obama's birth before accepting Obama's authority to act as his commander in chief. ("Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility.") His livelihood was vulnerable because he works for a defense contractor.
But with the government grabbing the whip hand over more and more of our economy, the day isn't far off when everyone's livelihood will be subject to government sanction, in one way or another. Access to work, housing and health care will be dependent on structures ultimately subject to the dictation of those who control political and bureaucratic power. And if the handling of the so-called "stimulus" money is any indication, there will be no safeguards against abuse of this control. Then we will all devote ourselves to the governing faction's "pursuit of the noble truth," or else.
The brainwashed American elites buying into the Obama faction's pseudo-Platonic intellectual poison appear to have forgotten the wisdom of the American founders. The founders' approach to government was based on truths derived from observing human experience, rather than "noble" lies forcefully imposed by dictatorial elites. Such experience warned that unchecked power would lead to brutal oppression, no matter the lofty goals and promising rhetoric of those to whom it is entrusted. Plato tacitly acknowledges this severity when he conjures up the ultimate requirement of his Republic's "ideal" regime: the removal from society of everyone over 10 years old (i.e., anyone who refuses to submit to superior power the way very young children must). Given the massive atrocities perpetrated by the totalitarian ideologues of the 20th century, the idea of such large-scale purges is no longer a Platonic one.
I fail to see anything noble in the spectacle of a free people surrendering its constitutional liberty to a regime based upon oppressive lies. In fact, such surrender confirms that in our present merely human condition, true events can be ugly and ignoble.
Ironically, Socrates' "noble lie" to his ruling class also had to do with pretending that the circumstances of their birth qualified them to be the rulers and guardians of the regime. True origins are important; which is, I think, why our founders recognized that the human right to constitutional government originates from a source beyond the reach of human deception, the Creator God. Whatever Gibbs says, the standard of truthful integrity arises from the same source. So does the courage to uphold it. This is why the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the presidency will keep gaining momentum until the Obama faction stops trying to enforce its "noble truth" and lets the simple facts speak for themselves."
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Congress does something right
By Roy Moore
Posted: July 22, 20091:00 am Eastern
Posted: July 22, 20091:00 am Eastern
© 2009
During the week following the recent Fourth of July, the United States Congress did something which was not only right, but which also honored that day in July 233 years ago when America was freed from the bondage of tyranny. Both Houses of Congress acknowledged God by ordering the Architect of the Capitol to engrave "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "One Nation Under God" in prominent places at the entrance to the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C. Despite a price tag of $621 million for the three-story underground facility, such recognitions of our religious heritage were conspicuously absent from the Visitor Center.
Soon thereafter, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group dedicated to removing any mention of God from the public square, filed suit in a Wisconsin federal court to stop the display of our National Motto and the Pledge, because in their own words, Congress' order "diminishes nonbelievers by making god-belief synonymous with citizenship." Such actions would have shocked John Adams, who helped draft the Declaration of Independence that we celebrate on July 4 and said that Independence Day "ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."
But truth, logic, or even the law do not seem to bother groups like FFRF. In its press release, FFRF claimed that Congress only added the words "under God" to the Pledge to "deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism," during the Cold War. What Congress actually intended was that, "The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would (also) further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral direction of the Creator." Congress went on to explain that under God "in no way runs contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution. A distinction must be made between the existence of a religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God." In 1954 until this day Congress, as our lawmaking branch, has consistently represented in the Pledge of Allegiance that the acknowledgment of God is not the establishment of a religion, but is an appropriate part of our law and history.
Unfortunately, the federal courts of our land do not understand the difference between the establishment of a religion prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution and the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God. Instead, they rush around blindly to do everything they can to remove the recognition of God from our lives, from courthouses and school rooms to football games, public parks and state houses. In case after case, federal judges are more than willing to lend a sympathetic ear or gavel to those who want to remove that God upon whom our Founding Fathers staked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor."
One such case occurred only two days after the FFRF suit was filed. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the South Iron R-1 School District outside St. Louis, Mo., was impermissibly endorsing a particular religion by allowing Gideons International to give away free Bibles to fifth-grade students in public schools. Ayesha Khan, who represented the ultra-liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, smugly stated, "This battle has gone on far too long. It is past time for school officials in this district to obey the clear commands of the First Amendment. They must respect the rights of parents and the constitutional separation of church and state."
For once I must agree with Khan: This battle has gone on far too long! The federal courts must stop ruling on "empathy" and feelings of those before their court who are offended at the recognition of a sovereign God. The federal courts need to respect the rights of the great majority of the American people who believe in God and recognize that the only purpose of the religion clause of the First Amendment is to preserve the rights of conscience given to us by the Creator.
Rep. Louis Rabaut, who introduced Joint Resolution 243 before the House regarding the placement of "Under God" in our pledge, explained in the Congressional Record of Feb. 12, 1954, that "Children and Americans of all ages must know that this is one Nation which under God means liberty and justice for all." Thomas Jefferson would have wholeheartedly agreed, for he stated, "God who gave us life gave us liberty." He then asked, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
On the Fourth of July and throughout the year Americans must proudly proclaim that this is One Nation Under God with liberty and justice for all! It wouldn't hurt the courts to recognize that truth either.
Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala. He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God. Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom."
The Racism of Diversity
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009
The U.S. Naval Academy's PowerPoint display explains diversity by saying, "Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individual sailors and civilians which enhance the mission readiness of the Navy," adding that: "Diversity is more than equal opportunity, race, gender or religion. Diversity is the understanding of how each of us brings different skills, talents and experiences to the fight -- and valuing those differences. Leveraging diversity creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement to remove artificial achievement barriers and value the contribution of all participants." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that "diversity is the No. 1 priority" at the academy.
Diversity at the Naval Academy, as at most academic institutions, is not about equal opportunity but a race and sex spoils system to achieve what the Navy brass see as a pleasing race and sex mix. They accomplish that vision by the removal of "artificial achievement barriers." Let's go over what the Naval Academy sees as an artificial achievement barrier. A black candidate with B and C grades, with no particular leadership qualities, and 500 on both portions of the SAT, is virtually guaranteed admittance. A white student, who's not an athlete, with such scores is deemed not qualified.
Many black students are admitted to the Naval Academy through remedial training at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) in Newport, R.I., which is a one-year post-secondary school. Finishing the year with a 2.0 GPA, a C average, almost guarantees admission to the academy. A C average for remedial work is nothing to write home about. Occasionally, when students don't make the 2.0 GPA target, the target is renegotiated downward. Minority applicants with SAT scores down to the 300s and with Cs and Ds grades (and no particular leadership or athletics) are also admitted after a remedial year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
Bruce Fleming, an English professor at the academy for 22 years, teaches a remedial English class and finds that in his spring 2009 class, most of NAPS's students earn Cs and Ds and many are on probation. About seven years ago Professor Fleming was on the admissions board, where the standing instruction is not to write anything down because "everything is 'FOI'able" -- meaning it can be demanded under the Freedom of Information Act. Such an instruction highlights the dishonesty of race preferences. The dishonesty doesn't stop there. The academy will go to great lengths to retain black students. When Professor Fleming charged a black student with plagiarism, he was not properly informed of the hearing and subsequently the student's peer group found him not guilty. Honor violations by black students are usually "remediated."
I suspected that the Naval Academy's diversity agenda would give rise to resentments so I asked Professor Fleming about it. He said there are two levels of resentment. Some black students, who were admitted to the academy meritoriously on the same basis as white students, resent the idea of being seen as having the same academic qualities as blacks who were given preferential treatment, in other words being dumb. Another level of resentment comes from white students who see blacks as being admitted and retained at lower levels of academic performance and being treated with kid gloves. If these whites openly complained about the unequal treatment, they would run the risk of being labeled as racists. This is one of the unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.
Colleges and universities with racially preferential admittance policies are doing a great disservice to blacks in another, mostly ignored, way. By admitting poorly prepared blacks, they are helping to conceal the grossly fraudulent education the blacks receive at the K through 12 grades.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009
The U.S. Naval Academy's PowerPoint display explains diversity by saying, "Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individual sailors and civilians which enhance the mission readiness of the Navy," adding that: "Diversity is more than equal opportunity, race, gender or religion. Diversity is the understanding of how each of us brings different skills, talents and experiences to the fight -- and valuing those differences. Leveraging diversity creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement to remove artificial achievement barriers and value the contribution of all participants." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that "diversity is the No. 1 priority" at the academy.
Diversity at the Naval Academy, as at most academic institutions, is not about equal opportunity but a race and sex spoils system to achieve what the Navy brass see as a pleasing race and sex mix. They accomplish that vision by the removal of "artificial achievement barriers." Let's go over what the Naval Academy sees as an artificial achievement barrier. A black candidate with B and C grades, with no particular leadership qualities, and 500 on both portions of the SAT, is virtually guaranteed admittance. A white student, who's not an athlete, with such scores is deemed not qualified.
Many black students are admitted to the Naval Academy through remedial training at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) in Newport, R.I., which is a one-year post-secondary school. Finishing the year with a 2.0 GPA, a C average, almost guarantees admission to the academy. A C average for remedial work is nothing to write home about. Occasionally, when students don't make the 2.0 GPA target, the target is renegotiated downward. Minority applicants with SAT scores down to the 300s and with Cs and Ds grades (and no particular leadership or athletics) are also admitted after a remedial year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
Bruce Fleming, an English professor at the academy for 22 years, teaches a remedial English class and finds that in his spring 2009 class, most of NAPS's students earn Cs and Ds and many are on probation. About seven years ago Professor Fleming was on the admissions board, where the standing instruction is not to write anything down because "everything is 'FOI'able" -- meaning it can be demanded under the Freedom of Information Act. Such an instruction highlights the dishonesty of race preferences. The dishonesty doesn't stop there. The academy will go to great lengths to retain black students. When Professor Fleming charged a black student with plagiarism, he was not properly informed of the hearing and subsequently the student's peer group found him not guilty. Honor violations by black students are usually "remediated."
I suspected that the Naval Academy's diversity agenda would give rise to resentments so I asked Professor Fleming about it. He said there are two levels of resentment. Some black students, who were admitted to the academy meritoriously on the same basis as white students, resent the idea of being seen as having the same academic qualities as blacks who were given preferential treatment, in other words being dumb. Another level of resentment comes from white students who see blacks as being admitted and retained at lower levels of academic performance and being treated with kid gloves. If these whites openly complained about the unequal treatment, they would run the risk of being labeled as racists. This is one of the unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.
Colleges and universities with racially preferential admittance policies are doing a great disservice to blacks in another, mostly ignored, way. By admitting poorly prepared blacks, they are helping to conceal the grossly fraudulent education the blacks receive at the K through 12 grades.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
"Let It Come!"
by Chuck Baldwin
July 21, 2009
During Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, he said the following:
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it."
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it."
Later in his historic speech Henry said, "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"
Of course, Henry ended his stirring speech with the immortal words, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
(The complete text of Patrick Henry's immortal address on March 23, 1775, is found in my giant compilation of great, historic documents called THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, which may be ordered exclusively at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html )
Many people today (including the vast majority of my Christian brethren) are doing exactly what Patrick Henry said many were doing 234 years ago: they prefer to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth." Just as in 1775, many today, "having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not."
Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today. In fact, I would argue that federal usurpations of State sovereignty, personal liberty, and constitutional government are far more egregious today than at any time during the reign of old King George III. Were America's Founding Fathers alive today, they would have waged another war for independence years ago. Compared to the violations of liberty by the federal government in 2009, the abridgements of liberty committed by the Crown in 1775 were miniscule. We should all hang our heads in shame that we have not already exerted our right and responsibility as free people to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security" (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2). Were we as righteous as our forebears, we would have already done so.
If we were writing a Declaration of Independence today, in which we would "let Facts be submitted to a candid world," the examples of federal abuse of power would be so multitudinous it would be difficult to contain them to a single document. The question is not, "Has the current federal government become tyrannical?" The question is, "How long will the States continue to tolerate it?"
For example, within the last couple of months, the States of Montana and Tennessee have each passed their own "Firearms Freedom Act." Briefly stated, the bills provide that any firearms or ammunition that are manufactured, sold, and kept within the State are not subject to federal law or federal regulation. Clearly, Montana and Tennessee have the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution on their side.
Of course, the Constitution doesn't matter to the federal government. On July 16 of this year, BATFE Assistant Director Carson Carroll sent an "Open Letter" to all firearms dealers within the States of Tennessee and Montana, telling them in no uncertain terms, "Federal law supersedes the [Tennessee or Montana] Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
You see folks, in the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., there is no such thing as constitutional government. There is no such thing as State autonomy. There is no such thing as balance of power. To the miscreants in Washington, D.C., there is only federal authority. To them, these States United are merely colony-subjects, who must bow to an omnipotent, ubiquitous federal power that knows no limits and no boundaries.
I hope and pray that the Tennessee and Montana governors, State legislatures, and State supreme courts will tell Mr. Carroll "where to go," and will defend their State sovereignties "to the end." And by the same token, I hope and pray that dozens more states will put teeth to their State Sovereignty resolutions and follow the examples of Montana and Tennessee.
Add to the continual usurpations of State sovereignty the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties in Washington, D.C., have allowed our once-great free enterprise system to become a giant socialist economy, and the outlook only gets bleaker. This is why Republicans in D.C. have no moral credibility in opposing President Barack Obama's Marxist-style universal health care proposals. Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party expanded socialism in America like no administration in recent history. Now they are going to oppose the Democrat version of socialism? What a joke!
The only difference between the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., is Democrats want to tax-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Welfare State, while Republicans want to borrow-and-spend America into socialism for the benefit of the Warfare State. Neither party wants to confine Washington, D.C., to the prescribed limits of the U.S. Constitution. And neither party in Washington, D.C., is willing to recognize the constitutional authority and autonomy of the States United.
Given the fact that both parties are hell-bent on destroying constitutional government, dismantling State sovereignty, and trampling individual liberties, it seems painfully obvious to me that a war for State independence is inevitable. Just exactly what that means is unknown at this point, but all of the elements and ingredients that existed in 1775 exist today. In fact, in view of the battle currently taking place between Nashville/Helena and Washington, D.C., the war has--for all intents and purposes--already begun. And unlike many of my Christian brethren who want to "shut [their] eyes against a painful truth," I say with Patrick Henry, "Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!"
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090721.html
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090721.html
Saturday, July 19, 2008
King Barack?
David Limbaugh
Posted: July 07, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
Oh, how quickly times have changed. Just a few short years ago, Democrats were up in arms over King George III's (President George W. Bush's) "unconstitutional" executive power grabs. Where are these people now?
I'll tell you where they are: right in the thick of it, enabling President Barack Obama to consolidate and exercise unprecedented power.
Remember when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" were at risk because Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches? How about Sen. Russ Feingold, who was looking at impeachment as a remedy to keep the president in check and prevent him from acquiring power "like King George III"?
Today these same senators are not just passively mute about Obama's power grabs; they are co-conspirators.
You might think the repeated conservative complaint about Obama's egregious lack of transparency is, by now, a tired talking point. But we're not just referring to minor procedural matters that are substantively inconsequential.
He hasn't just breached his promise to make his legislation available for public preview. He and his congressional cohorts are burying very important matters in legislation.
Don't miss our Founding Fathers' most inspired arguments for constitutional government translated into today's English: "Federalist Papers In Modern Language"
The Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax debacle that just slipped through the House was bad enough, with its mandated broad-based assaults on America's taxpayers, energy and economy in exchange for no appreciable expected environmental benefits. But look at its stealth provision, reported by the Washington Examiner, creating a three-year package of unemployment benefits, a $1,500 job relocation allowance and a health insurance premium subsidy for workers unemployed as a result of this "jobs creation" bill. Unbelievable! How can any congressman who voted for this monstrosity possibly get re-elected?
This was nothing new, though, as you'll recall that Obama's non-stimulative stimulus bill increased unemployment benefits for those not magically benefited by that job creations bill.
Indeed, there are so many Obama abuses I can only chronicle a fraction of them in a short column. But just consider a few others, and ask yourself how long even rank-and-file Democrats can justify supporting such tyrannical madness by this arrogant chief executive, who truly is – as distinguished from Bush – engaged in a daily quest to "dictate" fundamental, structural changes to this nation:
Posted: July 07, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
Oh, how quickly times have changed. Just a few short years ago, Democrats were up in arms over King George III's (President George W. Bush's) "unconstitutional" executive power grabs. Where are these people now?
I'll tell you where they are: right in the thick of it, enabling President Barack Obama to consolidate and exercise unprecedented power.
Remember when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" were at risk because Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches? How about Sen. Russ Feingold, who was looking at impeachment as a remedy to keep the president in check and prevent him from acquiring power "like King George III"?
Today these same senators are not just passively mute about Obama's power grabs; they are co-conspirators.
You might think the repeated conservative complaint about Obama's egregious lack of transparency is, by now, a tired talking point. But we're not just referring to minor procedural matters that are substantively inconsequential.
He hasn't just breached his promise to make his legislation available for public preview. He and his congressional cohorts are burying very important matters in legislation.
Don't miss our Founding Fathers' most inspired arguments for constitutional government translated into today's English: "Federalist Papers In Modern Language"
The Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax debacle that just slipped through the House was bad enough, with its mandated broad-based assaults on America's taxpayers, energy and economy in exchange for no appreciable expected environmental benefits. But look at its stealth provision, reported by the Washington Examiner, creating a three-year package of unemployment benefits, a $1,500 job relocation allowance and a health insurance premium subsidy for workers unemployed as a result of this "jobs creation" bill. Unbelievable! How can any congressman who voted for this monstrosity possibly get re-elected?
This was nothing new, though, as you'll recall that Obama's non-stimulative stimulus bill increased unemployment benefits for those not magically benefited by that job creations bill.
Indeed, there are so many Obama abuses I can only chronicle a fraction of them in a short column. But just consider a few others, and ask yourself how long even rank-and-file Democrats can justify supporting such tyrannical madness by this arrogant chief executive, who truly is – as distinguished from Bush – engaged in a daily quest to "dictate" fundamental, structural changes to this nation:
- ABC News reported that a senior White House official said the urgency of extending the expiring U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty "might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties." Did you hear that, Sens. Leahy and Feingold?
- President Obama is appointing so many "czars" to help him run the government without the usual accountability of Cabinet-level positions that even Sen. Robert Byrd said this practice "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Byrd's worried, but what do Leahy and Feingold think of Obama's pay czar, who'll have broad discretion over executive pay
- Obama has so insulated himself from ordinary press scrutiny that even liberal journalists Chip Reid and Helen Thomas grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for Obama's "tightly controlled" town hall meeting on health care. During that forum, Obama "coincidentally" called on three people (out of 200) who work with groups trying to pass his health care proposal.
- Obama is so intent on bullying our ally Israel that he is breaching a previous Bush administration-negotiated agreement between Israel and the United States to allow some Israeli construction in West Bank settlements to allow for natural growth.
- The Obama-Holder Justice Department dismissed a strong case against New Black Panther Party members for billy club-style voter intimidation because the members were intimidating for Obama's election.
- Obama and Holder are going to vacate an order of prior Attorney General Michael Mukasey's stating that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.
- Obama and Holder are now mirandizing terrorists on the battlefield.
- Some have questioned whether Obama-Holder ordered the FBI to "back off" anti-terror investigations of radicalized Muslim converts, such as the one who police say shot two military recruiters in Little Rock, Ark.
- Obama's auto task force used "intimidation tactics" against Chrysler's senior bondholders and called their Democratic lawyer, Tom Lauria, a "terrorist" for refusing to accept its offer outright. Where, by the way, were Leahy and Feingold – and all the liberal media – when Obama's deal involved an executive-forced transfer of ownership from shareholders and creditors to Obama's favored unions? Were they also unbothered by claims of Chrysler dealers that they were threatened and lied to?
- Obama's thugs fired AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin and slandered him as virtually demented because he blew the whistle on the corrupt practices of Obama's buddies.
To say this is scratching the surface is a monumental exaggeration.
Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website, www.davidlimbaugh.com. And to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website.
Palin's choice: Duty or dereliction
Alan Keyes
Posted: July 10, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
For we may well be guided by those fundamental principles of justice which I laid down at the outset: first, that no harm be done to anyone; second, that the common interests be conserved. When these are modified under changed circumstances, moral duty also undergoes a change, and it does not always remain the same. For a given promise or agreement may turn out in such a way that its performance will prove detrimental either to the one to whom the promise has been made or to the one who has made it.
– Cicero, De Officiis I. x.
In the speech announcing her decision to resign as Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin made an argument that tracks with Cicero reasoning as to the requirements of moral duty. This was entirely appropriate. Though officeholders are inclined to forget its derivation, the word "office" has its root in the Latin word from which Cicero's treatise on duty takes its name. Someone who takes an office undertakes a duty. The oath of office is the public and solemn vow to fulfill that duty.
Palin argues that the circumstances of her promise changed because others practiced "the politics of personal destruction" after "August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running mate ... . The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice … all of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap – the state has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to "opposition research"… . And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources ... ."
It appears that the main reason for Palin's decision is her opponents' politically motivated abuse of a law she advocated. Would it be uncharitable to question the wisdom of a law that "silly people" can readily abuse as a political weapon? Why did Palin champion this law when it apparently contains no safeguards against such abuse? Does the lynch pin of the argument she uses to justify her resignation therefore raise serious questions about her judgment and common sense?
Get the definitive biography of Sarah Palin – "the hockey mom who turned the political establishment upside down"
In her speech, Sarah Palin refers to a "recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas" and "what we can all learn from our selfless troops ... they're bold, they don't give up and they take a stand …" Here words are an apt reminder of what the faithful performance of duty requires. Soldiers take a stand in the very teeth of enemy fire, even though it means certain death or grievous wounds. There is a word for soldiers who quit their posts because the enemy is shooting at them. It is not intended as a compliment, especially when it's their own bad judgment that has put them in the way of enemy fire in the first place.
Sarah Palin calls to mind our wounded soldiers in the very moment when she fails to follow their heroic example. In the process, she acknowledges that, thanks to the provision of Alaska's taxpayers, she has successfully evaded the cost-free political attacks allowed by "the ethics law I championed." She won! Had Custer won the battle at Little Big Horn, I doubt that anyone would have questioned the money expended for the guns and bullets required to do so. He had a duty to defend his command, especially after his own mistakes exposed it to danger.
Of course, resignation would have been in order once he acknowledged and took responsibility for those mistakes. But Sarah Palin has done no such thing. She claims Alaska is being damaged by the attacks against her, but that the fault lies entirely with the bad motives and actions of others. She says her tenure as governor has been successful; her judgments and actions sound; her record all for the good of the state and its people. But if this is true, it makes no sense to deprive the state of the governor duly elected by the people simply because bad folks attack her. In that case, resigning simply lets the (political) assassins finish their work. How can letting the duly elected governor be taken out in this way be consistent with her sworn duty to defend the state?
If she is without fault or blame, then Palin's explanation makes no sense except as a clear dereliction of duty. She swore faithfully to perform the duties of her office. She claims to have done so. Others have abused the law to attack her. She successfully defended against them. If, as she contends, she has simply been performing her duties, her defense of herself is in fact simply a defense of her office, in the literal sense. To preserve that office with integrity is one of her duties as governor. By resigning, she fails in the performance of that duty. She encourages the "politics of personal destruction" in much the same way that allowing terrorists to succeed encourages further acts of terrorism. This cannot be good for Alaska, and it does not keep faith with the people who elected her. They rightly expected her to defend the integrity of the office, which obviously means standing firm against those who attack its occupant without good reason.
If her stated explanation makes no sense, we are forced to look for an alternative that does. Absent that, we are forced to conclude that her decision to resign is, like championing the law used to harass her, just another example of her bad statesmanship.
Unfortunately for those who promote her aspirations for higher office, it falls in the very area where Republicans are now most suspect. Last fall, G. W. Bush abandoned his free enterprise principles to usher in the drive toward socialism that now threatens to destroy our country. The last thing we need is another Republican who quits her post when push comes to shove.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Posted: July 10, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
For we may well be guided by those fundamental principles of justice which I laid down at the outset: first, that no harm be done to anyone; second, that the common interests be conserved. When these are modified under changed circumstances, moral duty also undergoes a change, and it does not always remain the same. For a given promise or agreement may turn out in such a way that its performance will prove detrimental either to the one to whom the promise has been made or to the one who has made it.
– Cicero, De Officiis I. x.
In the speech announcing her decision to resign as Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin made an argument that tracks with Cicero reasoning as to the requirements of moral duty. This was entirely appropriate. Though officeholders are inclined to forget its derivation, the word "office" has its root in the Latin word from which Cicero's treatise on duty takes its name. Someone who takes an office undertakes a duty. The oath of office is the public and solemn vow to fulfill that duty.
Palin argues that the circumstances of her promise changed because others practiced "the politics of personal destruction" after "August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running mate ... . The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice … all of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap – the state has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to "opposition research"… . And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources ... ."
It appears that the main reason for Palin's decision is her opponents' politically motivated abuse of a law she advocated. Would it be uncharitable to question the wisdom of a law that "silly people" can readily abuse as a political weapon? Why did Palin champion this law when it apparently contains no safeguards against such abuse? Does the lynch pin of the argument she uses to justify her resignation therefore raise serious questions about her judgment and common sense?
Get the definitive biography of Sarah Palin – "the hockey mom who turned the political establishment upside down"
In her speech, Sarah Palin refers to a "recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas" and "what we can all learn from our selfless troops ... they're bold, they don't give up and they take a stand …" Here words are an apt reminder of what the faithful performance of duty requires. Soldiers take a stand in the very teeth of enemy fire, even though it means certain death or grievous wounds. There is a word for soldiers who quit their posts because the enemy is shooting at them. It is not intended as a compliment, especially when it's their own bad judgment that has put them in the way of enemy fire in the first place.
Sarah Palin calls to mind our wounded soldiers in the very moment when she fails to follow their heroic example. In the process, she acknowledges that, thanks to the provision of Alaska's taxpayers, she has successfully evaded the cost-free political attacks allowed by "the ethics law I championed." She won! Had Custer won the battle at Little Big Horn, I doubt that anyone would have questioned the money expended for the guns and bullets required to do so. He had a duty to defend his command, especially after his own mistakes exposed it to danger.
Of course, resignation would have been in order once he acknowledged and took responsibility for those mistakes. But Sarah Palin has done no such thing. She claims Alaska is being damaged by the attacks against her, but that the fault lies entirely with the bad motives and actions of others. She says her tenure as governor has been successful; her judgments and actions sound; her record all for the good of the state and its people. But if this is true, it makes no sense to deprive the state of the governor duly elected by the people simply because bad folks attack her. In that case, resigning simply lets the (political) assassins finish their work. How can letting the duly elected governor be taken out in this way be consistent with her sworn duty to defend the state?
If she is without fault or blame, then Palin's explanation makes no sense except as a clear dereliction of duty. She swore faithfully to perform the duties of her office. She claims to have done so. Others have abused the law to attack her. She successfully defended against them. If, as she contends, she has simply been performing her duties, her defense of herself is in fact simply a defense of her office, in the literal sense. To preserve that office with integrity is one of her duties as governor. By resigning, she fails in the performance of that duty. She encourages the "politics of personal destruction" in much the same way that allowing terrorists to succeed encourages further acts of terrorism. This cannot be good for Alaska, and it does not keep faith with the people who elected her. They rightly expected her to defend the integrity of the office, which obviously means standing firm against those who attack its occupant without good reason.
If her stated explanation makes no sense, we are forced to look for an alternative that does. Absent that, we are forced to conclude that her decision to resign is, like championing the law used to harass her, just another example of her bad statesmanship.
Unfortunately for those who promote her aspirations for higher office, it falls in the very area where Republicans are now most suspect. Last fall, G. W. Bush abandoned his free enterprise principles to usher in the drive toward socialism that now threatens to destroy our country. The last thing we need is another Republican who quits her post when push comes to shove.
For more from Alan Keyes visit http://loyaltoliberty.com. Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement, well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the Constitutional Republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He staunchly resists the destruction of the American people's sovereignty by fighting to secure our borders, abolish the federal income tax, end the insurrectionary practices of the federal Judiciary, and build a banking and financial system that halts elite looting of America's wealth and income. He formally severed his Republican Party affiliation in April of 2008 and has since then worked with America's Independent Party to build an effective vehicle for citizen-led grass-roots political action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
