Tag Archives: United States Constitution

I Don’t Know Whether To Laugh Or Cry

Posted on by

The War on Terror has reached the stage where Americans are asked not to travel abroad. Brussels has recently been in lockdown. France is nervous. Americans are wondering who is walking among them. The world has become a truly dangerous place. Well, there is a ray of sunshine in the works for Americans who live in New York City. Obviously, New York City was a target more than once in the past, and the fear is that it will be a target in the future. Fear not, Giovanni Gambino, a member of the Gambino crime family has offered to protect the city.

The American Thinker posted an article today about the offer. I am reminded of something I heard Joan Rivers say in an interview a long time ago.. She commented that when the Mob ran Las Vegas a handshake on a deal to appear there was all you needed. I am not praising the Mob, I am just noting that they take business seriously. There was also an incident of a New England blogger who hosted a weekly radio show. Da Tech Guy Blog is written by a friend in Massachusetts who hosted a radio show. At times conservative bloggers have been under attack physically (that is the reason my name does not appear on this blog). Someone called in and asked if Pete was worried about being physically attacked. His reply was very simple–“For some reason people seem reluctant to get into a grudge match with a Sicilian.” True.

Back to the article.

The American Thinker reports:

So word to the wise: if ISIS warriors would rather not wake up with a pig’s head in their bed, have hellfire visited upon them, be dismembered in a pork sausage factory, or prematurely meet 72 virgins after being dipped in a vat of boiling bacon grease, maybe the bloodthirsty should pick another neighborhood to carry out the commands of the Quran.

And in case ISIS is willing to gamble, there’s a track record both here and abroad to prove that unlike Barack Obama, if ISIS dares crosses the “red line,” the family will not hesitate to follow through on their word.

Taking that into consideration, in a city that overlooks the capital of Sicily, ISIS’s made men have decided that because of the threat of Mafia retaliation, the mountainous region of Palermo may not the best place to wage terrorist attacks or establish underground cells.

An Italian security official disclosed that out of fear of being eradicated by mob bosses, ISIS cells are afraid to enter certain areas such as “Sicily, Calabria, Puglia and Campania – including the city of Naples.”

I am not fond of this solution, but it is a reflection on the ineffectiveness of both local and national governments in dealing with ISIS. Admittedly, part of that failure is due to the limitations of the U.S. Constitution (which I have no desire to change), but part of that failure is due to people in power who refuse to admit that Islamic radicals are responsible for the current wave of terrorism.

The article further states:

A little closer to home, Gambino reminded the wary that “[t]he world is dangerous today” and reassured “people living in New York neighborhoods with Sicilian connections [that they] should feel safe.”  Rest assured Giovanni means it when he says, “We make sure our friends and families are protected from extremists and terrorists, especially the brutal, psychopathic organization that calls itself the Islamic State.”

Speaking of “brutal, psychopathic organizations,” in truth, the Mafia is just a more effective facsimile of the U.S. federal government.  Both entities extort money with the promise of protection.  The difference is that the Mafia is an organization that actually delivers on the promise.  

Hmmmm.

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated

Posted on by

Right now there is a lot of discussion as to whether of not American should allow Syrian refugees into America. There are a lot of aspects to this problem, but one that may not have been fully explored is the political left’s use of Saul Alinsky‘s Rules for Radicals.

Rule No. 4 states:

The left is using the refugees as a wedge issue. They are following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4, which states: RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.).

America has had problems with Muslim refugees in the past. Here are links to two articles dealing with past problems: one from The Clarion Project and one from World Net Daily. In June of this year, The Center for Security Policy posted the following:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

…Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand that Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible. The Muslim definition of free speech is not compatible with the American First Amendment. Under Sharia Law, the definition of slander includes saying anything negative about Islam whether or not it is true. Slander can be punishable by death.

Many of the Somali refugees in the midwest have left America to join Islamic terrorists. The Boston bombers were refugees. The refugee issue is not as simple as letting anyone into America who is fleeing violence. It is something that needs to be handled cautiously and without politics. I am not sure our present leaders are capable of either.

What Is Being Said Here?

Posted on by

Howie Carr at The Boston Herald posted an article today about remarks Secretary of State John Kerry made at the U.S. Embassy in Paris on Tuesday.

The article posted:

At the U.S. Embassy in Paris Tuesday, the secretary of state compared the two Muslim terrorist massacres in France this year — the shooting up of the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices and then last Friday’s celebration of diversity.

“There’s something different about what happened (Friday) from Hebdo,” he says on the tape, “and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not legitimacy — but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and, ‘OK, they’re really angry because of this or that.’ ”

The implication here is that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were caused by the actions of the editors. Actually, those responsible for the Charlies Hebdo acts were the people who planned them and carried them out. Note to Secretary Kerry–nothing justifies the kind of cold-blooded murder that went on at the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices.

There is another aspect to this. In his book, Catastrophic Failure, Stephen Coughlin explains that one of the goals of the Islamic Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is to institute Islamic Law on non-Muslims, beginning with the concept of slander. In Islam, slander is defined to any speech that mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam. It doesn’t matter if what you say is true, if it is negative, it is considered slander. The penalty for slander is death. We need to be careful that we do not compromise our free speech rights in this area. People who commit crimes because they do not like what is being said need to know that there will be consequences for their behavior. Unfortunately, what Secretary Kerry said implied that killing people because you don’t like what they published is understandable. Americans need to state clearly that this is neither understandable nor justifiable.

The invented word ‘Islamophobia’ is an example of the attempt to curtain the First Amendment rights of Americans. If we tell the politically incorrect truth about the goals of Islam, that word is often invoked. It is a way of avoiding the truth. It is unfortunate that our Secretary of State did not choose his words more carefully.

As The Debate On Refugees Continues…

Posted on by

Joe Fitzgerald posted a commentary in the Boston Herald yesterday about the current state of affairs in America. The title of the article was, “In desperate times, deception destroys.”

Here are a few very cogent points from the article:

In circles of recovery it’s sometimes referred to as “the gift of desperation,” that moment when it becomes crystal clear to an addict that a change must be made, that returning to the old ways is simply not an option anymore.

…Even the pope — who represents the Prince of Peace on Earth — seems to have embraced the spirit of the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” credo, as if to suggest there are limits on how often we should turn the other cheek, because it’s obvious the barbarians at our gates view kindness as weakness.

It’s not complicated. If we’re not going to love them into the family of civilization, then we need to crush them into oblivion, and soon.

…Immigration is as American as the bald eagle. Ellis Island bore witness to that.

But now it’s no longer a conversation about our hospitality; it’s clearly become the Achilles heel of our nation’s security as millions take refuge in our populace without learning our history, speaking our language or giving any indication of affection for this country.

Mr. Fitzgerald reminds us that asking who the refugees are and why they are coming here is not ‘hateful, prejudiced, or xenophobic’–it is common sense. We are responsible for preserving the country our Founding Fathers left us.

It would do us well to remember what Ben Franklin said after the close of the Continental Congress in 1787 when he was asked the following:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

We need to welcome people who want to live in that Republic and send those who don’t want to live in that Republic somewhere where they will be more comfortable.

The Challenge Of Balancing Compassion And Safety

Posted on by

We are faced with a flood of refugees coming out of the civil war in Syria and the advance of ISIS in other parts of the Middle East. These people need a safe place to go, but the situation is complicated. The nations where they would most easily assimilate are not willing to give them refuge. It is doubtful whether they would be willing to assimilate into western nations, and that fact comes with its own set of problems and concerns.

In evaluating this situation, we need to look at some of our history. The opening paragraph of the United States Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government is charged with providing for the common defense. Our Constitution is the Law of the Land. We are not open to another law. The people who have come here in the past have understood that and been willing to live under American law. I fear that the Syrian refugees, even those with totally peaceful motives, will want to establish Sharia Law. That is the history of Muslim immigrants. Also, the fact that we cannot vet these refugees because Syria is a failed state means that by admitting these refugees we are putting Americans at risk. That goes against our Constitution. It is also noteworthy that many of these refugees are military-age young men–not families.

Today’s U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about President Obama’s plan to bring Syrian refugees to America. The article reports that so far twenty-five Republican governors and one Democratic governor have stated that they do not want the Syrian refugees in their states.

There are enough stable Middle Eastern countries that could easily take in these refugees. One wonders why they have not stepped up to the plate. Meanwhile, the American President is responsible for the safety of the American people.

A Chilling Description

Posted on by

Politichicks posted an article today about socialism. The article was written by Dr. Sarah Condor.

This is her biography:

Sarah P. Condor-Fisher, Ph.D., Esq., LL.M. grew up in communist Czechoslovakia. When she was 17, she was apprehended crossing the border, cross-interrogated by the Secret Police (KGB) and jailed. She studied MA in philosophy at University College London, she holds BA and MA in English and Ph.D. in American Literature and Literary Criticism. She is also a practicing California attorney with her own law firm. Dr. Condor-Fisher published over 50 books of non-fiction, fiction and poetry. She is also a former Olympic swimmer, Miss World and Miss USA in natural bodybuilding (INBA).

Here are some of the highlights of the article:

Socialism consists of:

1) censorship, total control of speech, political correctness regulated by the government,
2) central planning, by design from above, based not on the needs of the people but on what the demagogue in power says that (his) people need,
3) limited freedom of movement,
4) limited ability to achieve and prosper (speak of Pursuit of Happiness, ha!), and
5) regulated market, thus limited economy and ability of the state (GDP, prosperity) to grow.

…Let me tell you about the “state of equality.” Socialism desires equality. Equality consists of a state of equal outcome, where everything is based on the NEED for an equal outcome. If you are a doctor and work twelve hours a day, your salary is the same as that of a shop assistant who works eight hours a day. As a shop assistant once told my mother (a physician who spent seven years of her life working shifts as a nurse while studying medicine at night): “We all have one mouth and two hands, why should you get paid more than I?” Teach that to two generations of people and it will take four generations to alter their (children’s children’s) thinking – if ever.

…The free healthcare you get in socialism is worth precisely what everything else you get “for free” is worth. You had better study medicine yourself or have a doctor in the family – else, in any case, just hope that you never need socialist healthcare. I did have an advantage, as I say, my mother being a physician, but we still had to bring bribes to the office and they could only do so much in terms of the communist market cures and medication…

The article concludes:

In a two party representative government, the danger of democracy turning into a totalitarian regime is much greater than in a multi-party parliamentarian system, where all powers and factions are kept in check by all the other powers and factions. As freedom is indispensable to democracy and it is also “to a faction as air is to fire” (as James Madison says in Federalist 10), we must treat democracy not as a stable system, a huge majestic animal without any natural enemies, but as a fragile, beautiful creature, a gentle lady, who can be swayed and lured, led astray and – violated – by a mob.

A mob is what people become in the hands of a socialist demagogue. There is no more “We the People.” People do not matter. Mottoes and icons matter, banners and slogans which you must shout too – or else…

I shiver when I see it, I can smell it a thousand miles away. When you have seen the Heart of Darkness, it alters you forever. “We the Mob, We the Mob!” is ringing in my ears. Ah, but that was not the old communist T.V. – that was NBC. Really? Just think in silence, do not let it out; for If you refuse to be subdued, suppressed, refuse to conform and give away your rights and liberties for some larger abstract “good,” off to the mine with you! Make no mistake about it: an individual “makes no difference!”

That is what socialism is about. Believe me, I have been there before – and I am not going back.

This is the road many of our young people want to take. They have no concept of history or of the values that created America. Our schools and colleges have not taught them what they need to know to become diligent citizens, protecting their nation from the evil that socialism represents. God help us.

Lying After A Horrific Incident

Posted on by

On Thursday, a lone gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. As usual, the College was a gun-free zone, and the gunman knew that he would meet no resistance. He is alleged to have questioned students as to their religious beliefs and shot the students who claimed to be Christians. There are no clear answers as to the roots of his hatred of Christians, but the hatred was obviously there.

President Obama immediately made a statement that included the following:

There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize.  It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.  I would ask news organizations — because I won’t put these facts forward — have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports.  This won’t be information coming from me; it will be coming from you.  We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so.  And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.  How can that be?

This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.  We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.  When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer.  When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer.  When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities.  We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.  So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.

This is disingenuous at best. First of all, gun ownership is enshrined in the United States Constitution. The only way the right to bear arms can be changed is through a Constitutional Amendment–it can’t be done by Congress, and it can’t be done with a pen and a phone. The Second Amendment was put there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It may become a critical Amendment in the future.

Second of all. The answer to shootings on college campuses is to increase security on campuses. Allow concealed carry by those who qualify. Let a potential murdered know that if he attempts to shoot up a campus, he will meet resistance.

Third of all. Violent crimes are fewer where gun ownership is not restricted. Texas, where even almost every grandmother is armed, has a lower murder rate than Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in America. Criminals don’t obey gun laws–law-abiding citizens do.

The following chart was posted at National Review today:

Oddly enough, more people have bought guns since President Obama was elected than in the years before. One NRA member has joking referred to the President as “Gun Salesman of the Year” on various occasions.

Seriously, the answer to the shootings at colleges is more security personnel carrying guns on campus–not less guns. To use this event to push a political agenda that is contrary to the United States Constitution is unseemly.

The Political Left’s War On Guns

Posted on by

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the closing of the last gun shop in San Francisco. It wasn’t that the gun shop was not making a profit–the regulations finally forced the gun shop to close down.

The article reports:

The new city laws were so far over the top that it’s difficult to imagine them surviving a court challenge, but the owners apparently don’t feel like converting their entire operation into little more than a legal defense fund to keep fighting the liberal legislature. They were going to force them to record videos of every customer in the store and keep those videos available permanently. The personal information of every customer would have to be turned over to the police department each and every week even if there wasn’t a hint of an allegation that any crime had taken place. In short, the rules were designed to force the shop to harass their own customers mercilessly to the point where no reasonable person would want to shop there anyway.

The Obama Administration has been waging a war on guns and gun owners for a few years now. In June 2014, I posted an article about Operation Choke Point, an outgrowth of the President’s Financial Fraud Task Force, established by President Obama by Executive Order in 2009.

I quoted a Daily Caller article that reported:

Operated under a cloud of secrecy by the Department of Justice and in coordination with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Operation Choke Point forces banks to keep a closer eye on companies in industries that are deemed “high risk”, including gun and ammunition dealers, coin dealers, payday lenders, and debt consolidation service providers.

As a result of this government interference, a gun shop in Massachusetts was forced to close its doors when it was denied a line of credit from his bank because of the fact that he sold guns.

Americans are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We need public officials that respect the Constitution that they took an Oath of Office to uphold.

Ignoring The Facts To Slant The News

Posted on by

On Sunday, NBC News reported that Dr. Ben Carson, who is running for President, does not believe that a Muslim should be President. The news is reporting this as if it were a horrible example of prejudice. It isn’t–it’s a comment from someone who understands Islam.

The article reports:

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is the support of Sharia Law. This is coupled with a belief that any legal system not based on Sharia Law is invalid and does not have to be followed. Couple this with the fact that another part of Islam is taqiyya, Taqiyya is based on Quran 3:28 which states that lying can and should be used to confuse and split the enemy.  The result of this is that often when Islamic leaders speak, they have one message for infidels and one for the Muslim audience. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect a Muslim candidate for President to lie to the American people about his intentions and then move to implement Sharia Law as soon as he was sworn in. A true Muslim would have no problem lying when taking the Oath of Office. If you don’t believe Sharia Law could come here, be aware that there are already Sharia advisory boards in the United States. It was also reported in a Center For Security Policy poll that 51% of American Muslims believe that American Muslims should have the choice of being under American or Sharia Law.

I agree with Dr. Carson’s statement that a Muslim should not be President of America. It is not a politically correct statement, but it is a true statement.

Has Anyone In Washington Read The U.S Constitution?

Posted on by

The question really should be, “Has anyone in Washington read the U.S. Constitution, and do they take their Oath of Office to uphold it seriously?” Currently, the obvious answer to both questions is “no.”

On Tuesday The New York Post posted an article about the Congressional maneuverings on the Iranian nuclear deal. First of all, I would like to note that many of our Congressmen and Congresswomen have been paid off by the Iranian lobby (rightwinggranny). The article in The New York Post points out how the approval process for the Iranian nuclear agreement is unconstitutional.

The article reports:

Under the Constitution, treaties require the support of two-thirds of the Senate. The deal with Iran is a treaty in every respect — a legally binding long-term agreement between sovereign powers, in which hundreds of billions of dollars will flow and billions of dollars in nuclear materiel will be destroyed.

Since this is a treaty and we have 100 senators, Obama should have been obliged to secure the backing of 67 senators, not 41.

But Obama knew he could never get his treaty through Congress. You see, the American people have given the Republican Party majorities in both the House and the Senate.

The very fact that the American people did so to put a brake on Obama’s outsized ambitions just wasn’t going to hold this guy back.

So where are we now? The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sometimes also known as “Corker-Cardin,” allows the Iran Nuclear Agreement to be treated like any other piece of ordinary legislation. In order to block the deal, the Senate would have to override a Presidential veto if the Senate voted the agreement down. Thus, rather than the two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify the agreement (required for a treaty), you need two-thirds of the Senate to oppose it or it becomes law. The Republicans cannot filibuster the treaty because forty-two Democrats support it–they can block a filibuster. The Iranian lobby will get its money’s worth, and the treaty will pass. The U.S. Constitution and the American people are the losers in this deal. Iran will now receive millions of dollars to use to support terrorism around the world. Even if a Republican President is elected in 2016, and voids the agreement, the money will have gone to Iran, and the damage will have been done. No Senator who supports this treaty should be re-elected. The Republican leadership who did not use all of the legal tools at their disposal to fight this treaty should also be replaced. We need Senators and Representatives who have read the U.S. Constitution and who will be faithful to their Oath of Office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. At the current time, that is not what we have.

One Side Of The Story

Posted on by

The has been a lot of discussion among the political class lately about the concept of birthright citizenship. At the present time, the policy seems to be that any child born in America is an American citizen, regardless of the status of the child’s parents. There are valid arguments on both sides, but I would like to present the argument that says the child’s status depends on the status of the parents.

The quotes are from an article in the Conservative Review by Daniel Horowitz. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The article points out what we would have to accept to say that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen:

Let’s put aside everything we believe as conservatives for a moment and take the activist ruling of Wong Kim Ark [169 U.S. 649 (1898)] as impregnable constitutional law.  As such, the 14th Amendment would compel Congress and the Executive agencies to grant citizenship to all children of legal immigrants.  Although we all agree as a matter of policy that it is a good idea to grant children born to legal permanent residents citizenship, by accepting the 1898 court decision as settled law, thereby enshrining birthright citizenship into our Constitution, we’d have to swallow the following ridiculous notions:

We’d be adopting one-directional stare decisis of an activist court that overturned two previous court decisions: the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).  In those cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was primarily to grant equal rights to freed black slaves and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required that the petitioner for citizenship be “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”  These cases excluded children born to foreign diplomats and Native American Indians and were quite clear that the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not include all children of immigrants – most of whom would have been covered by less political jurisdiction than even those born on Indian reservations, which were partially under U.S. jurisdiction.

…Immigration transformation pursued outside of the democratic process is even worse than having courts decide societal issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, in what Justice Scalia calls “societal transformation without representation.”  The courts have now empowered themselves to unilaterally and immutably change civil society itself – without any recourse from those the Constitution vested with making such decisions.  How far we have deviated from the Founders’ vision that even so-called conservatives support the idea of changing the civil society without the consent of its citizens.

Indeed, the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is not just a tangential topic within immigration.  It cuts to the very core of how illegal immigrants are able to coerce their will on the American citizenry and the broader issue of sovereignty.  This runs much deeper than the 14th Amendment.  The question for policy-makers has moved beyond whether we will survive as a nation as our Founder’s envisioned.  We have already deviated so far from that vision.  It’s a question of whether we are a nation at all.       

When told that we need automatic citizenship for all children born here regardless of the status of their parents, you might want to consider what the policy is in other countries. In most countries, enforcing the border is considered a natural thing to do. It is not a matter of debate. If an American went to Mexico illegally, he would be jailed or sent home–no other options. If we are to remain a nation, we have to begin to act like one. Acting like a nation includes taking responsibility for enforcing our borders and knowing who is in our country. We do need to change our immigration system to allow for legal immigration, but before we do that, we have to end illegal immigration.

Why APUSH Is Important

Posted on by

Last year, the College Board, under the leadership of David Coleman, introduced a new APUSH, (Advanced Placement U. S. History) Curriculum Framework. I have previously written about the content of the new APUSH curriculum (rightwinggranny.com). If you would like to see all of the articles, use the search engine at the top of the page. However, in this article I would like to share some quotes from a speech given by Dr. Wilfred M. McClay, G.T. and Libby Blankenship Professor in the History of Liberty at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. McClay spoke on July 10, 2015, at Hillsdale College. The full text of his remarks can be found at the Imprimis section of the Hillsdale College website.

Here are a few excerpts from his speech:

…the chief purpose of a high school education in American history is as a rite of civic membership, an act of inculcation and formation, a way in which the young are introduced to the fullness of their political and cultural inheritance as Americans, enabling them to become literate and conversant in its many features, and to appropriate fully all that it has to offer them, both its privileges and its burdens. To make its stories theirs, and thereby let them come into possession of the common treasure of its cultural life. In that sense, the study of history is different from any other academic subject. It is not merely a body of knowledge. It also ushers the individual person into membership in a common world, and situates them in space and time.

This is especially true in a democracy. The American Founders, and perhaps most notably Thomas Jefferson, well understood that no popular government could flourish for long without an educated citizenry—one that understood the special virtues of republican self-government, and the civic and moral duty of citizens to uphold and guard it. As the historian Donald Kagan has put it, “Democracy requires a patriotic education.” It does so for two reasons: first, because its success depends upon the active participation of its citizens in their own governance; and second, because without such an education, there would be no way to persuade free individuals of the need to make sacrifices for the sake of the greater good.

…The 2014 framework grants far more extensive attention to “how various identities, cultures, and values have been preserved or changed in different contexts of U.S. history, with special attention given to the formation of gender, class, racial, and ethnic identities.” The change is very clear: the new framework represents a shift from national identity to subcultural identities. Indeed, the new framework is so populated with examples of American history as the conflict between social groups, and so inattentive to the sources of national unity and cohesion, that it is hard to see how students will gain any coherent idea of what those sources might be. This does them, and all Americans, an immense disservice. Instead of combating fracture, it embraces it.

If this framework is permitted to take hold, the new version of the test will effectively marginalize traditional ways of teaching about the American past, and force American high schools to teach U.S. history from a perspective that self-consciously seeks to decenter American history. Is this the right way to prepare young people for American citizenship? How can we call forth the acts of sacrifice that our democracy needs, not only on the battlefield but also in our daily lives—the acts of dedication to the common good that are at the heart of civilized life—without training up citizens who know about and appreciate that democracy, care about the common good, and feel themselves a part of their nation’s community of memory? How can we expect our citizens to grapple intelligently with enduring national debates—such as over the role of the U.S. Constitution, or about the reasons for the separation of powers and limited government—if they know nothing of the long trail of those particular debates, and are instead taught to translate them into the one-size-fits-all language of the global and transnational?

Please follow the link above to Imprimis to read the entire speech. Dr. McClay has named one of the causes of the divisions we face today. Because our children have not been taught patriotism (it is out of favor right now and referred to as ‘gringoism’), they lack pride in themselves and in their country. When everyone gets a trophy, we have no one to celebrate. When everyone gets a trophy, no one is exceptional. It is time to start recognizing those who are worthy of trophies and letting those who don’t earn them at first to keep trying until they do. American History should be ‘warts and all,’ but it shouldn’t be all warts. The new APUSH curriculum is mostly warts.

Good News–If He’s Right

Posted on by

According to an article posted today in the Washington Free Beacon, former Senator Joe Lieberman has stated that he believes that there is enough Democrat opposition to the nuclear treaty with Iran to override a presidential veto if the Senate does not approve the treaty and the President vetoes their disapproval. (Just for the record, that is not the way the U.S. Constitution is supposed to work, but it seems as if no one is paying attention to the U.S. Constitution at this point).

The article reports:

Lieberman said he knew members of Congress would take this vote seriously and consider its ramifications. The deal, which relieves sanctions and does not provide “anytime, anywhere” inspections of suspected nuclear activity, paves the way for the rogue regime to become a nuclear power and continue to fund terrorism worldwide.

“They know that they voted for sanctions … Strong bipartisan majorities for a single reason—that economic sanctions on Iran would only come off if Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended,” Lieberman said. “This agreement does the opposite. Take the sanctions off, and after a period of years, they get to be a nuclear power.”

Lieberman said the U.S. “conceded and conceded and conceded” to the Iranians in the agreement.

“I can’t think of a vote that I cast, apart from the ones deploying American troops into combat, that was as important as this agreement is to the future security of the United States,” Lieberman said.

Former Senator Lieberman is a good example of a principled Democrat. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he seemed to be a man of integrity who tried to do the right thing for America. It is a shame that the Democrats did not support him because he voted his conscience while he was in the Senate rather than follow the party line. I wish the Democrats had more men like him.

This Would Be So Much Easier If We Would Just Get Back To Basics

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today about the recently announced nuclear treaty with Iran. Yes, it is a treaty.

This is the lead paragraph from the article:

It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.

So what does the U.S. Constitution say about treaties?

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

The deal with Iran is a treaty. It needs to be treated as such.

The article further reports:

Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed (piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.

There is no way America should ever defer to any other constitution, much less one subject to Sharia Law.

Let’s get back to the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the ‘supreme law of the land’ in America. It is time we got acquainted with what it says and got back to following it.

Please read the entire article. It contains a few very good suggestions on how Congress can limit the damage that will be caused by the current nuclear deal with Iran. The question is whether or not Congress will have the backbone to stand up for America.

First Amendment Rights For All Americans?

Posted on by

First Amendment RightsPlease keep this picture in mind when reading the following article.

This is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(The italics and underline are mine.)

Today CBN News posted an interview of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz stated:

“If you’re a religiously affiliated organization then you have wider latitude in terms of the Constitution and the protections that the First Amendment provides,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

“I think Americans make a distinction between protecting the First Amendment rights of a religious organizations or religiously affiliated organizations and being able to discriminate, broadly, simply because of one individual who owns a business and their own values and their being able to impose those values on either their employers or their customers.”

So let me get this straight–according to Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, the First Amendment only applies to religious organizations–it does not apply to individuals. So churches are allowed to act according to their religious beliefs, but people don’t have that right. Wow.

Individuals who hold traditional religious beliefs are losing their rights. Recently a gag order was put on an Oregon couple who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding (article here). A left-leaning website claimed there was no gag order. Here is the gag order:

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian added a gag order to the fine, ordering the Kleins “to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”

The head of the Democrat National Committee does not think individual business owners have First Amendment rights. Please keep this in mind as you consider your vote in the next election.

A Danger To Our Constitution

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s plan to deal with climate change. President Obama is planning on unilaterally committing America to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years.

Aside from the questionable ‘science’ of global warming, there is the issue of how President Obama is going about this.

The article reports:

In a congressional hearing Thursday, George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin told lawmakers that Obama’s argument that he unilaterally commit the U.S. to a United Nations agreement without Senate ratification was “a real change in our Constitution.”

…“We have certain background assumptions about how our government is supposed to work, that’s why we have a Constitution,” Rabkin responded.

“And what this is fundamentally about is saying, ‘ah, that’s old-fashioned, forget that, that didn’t work for [President Bill] Clinton– we’re moving forward with something different which the president gets to commit us,’” Rabkin added. “That’s a real change in our Constitution.”

This is a problem. Unless Congress has the intestinal fortitude to stand up against this power grab, we will be in danger of losing our Constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution functions as ‘the law of the land,’ at that point we will no longer be a nation of laws. The only way to stop this runaway train is to watch your Representatives and Senators to see what they do, and then vote accordingly in November.

When Politics Gets Totally Out Of Hand

Posted on by

I am a conservative. I totally disagree with liberal policies. I do what I can to see that conservatives who believe in the U.S. Constitution get elected. However, I am willing to believe that there is some common ground between conservatives and liberals and I believe they are as entitled to work for their causes as I am for mine. I am not sure how many liberals share that belief.

National Review posted an article today about an attack on conservatives in Wisconsin that has been going on for a while. I mean a physical attack based on something called a John Doe law.

The article tells the story of one incident:

It was still dark outside when “Jonah” (not his real name) heard the pounding on his front door. As luck would have it, he was awake — or mostly awake. He’d gotten up at 4:00 a.m. on October 3, 2013, to see his parents off to the airport. They were leaving on a quick trip to raise money for the children’s charity his father runs. Jonah was 16 at the time, old enough to stay home alone for a short time, but not old enough to deal with what awaited him on the other side of the door.

The pounding continued, and Jonah peered out the window to discover its source. To his horror, he saw uniformed officers, their guns drawn. “Police,” they yelled. “We have a warrant.” An officer shined a flashlight on a document Jonah couldn’t read. Unsure what to do, but unwilling to defy the authorities, he let them in.

Jonah was ordered not to tell anyone what had happened–even officials at his school. When he asked first to call his parents and then to call a lawyer, he was told no both times.

The article further reports:

The pretense for the October raids was suspected “coordination” between various conservative organizations and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s campaign — activity that a trial court has held constituted nothing more than entirely legal “issue advocacy,” if it even occurred. Because they’d had the temerity to engage in this issue advocacy — constitutionally protected free speech — multiple conservative citizens were subjected to so-called John Doe proceedings by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat.

…At present, John Doe II is halted. In response to a challenge from Wisconsin conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, a trial judge blocked multiple prosecution subpoenas, holding that they “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign-finance laws.” This ruling has been appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and a decision that could potentially end Chisholm’s witch hunts once and for all is expected any day. At least one victim isn’t waiting for such a decision before she takes action. Cindy Archer has filed a civil-rights lawsuit against Chisholm, and more suits may be coming.

I have posted other stories about the activities of the Milwaukee Country District Attorney here and here. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you choose to occupy, this story should concern you. If public servants are allowed to use their offices to intimidate political opponents, we are in serious trouble. I hope all of the people whose houses were stormed into by misguided police sue everyone responsible. That may actually be the best remedy, as the courts, as of yet, do not seem overly concerned.

Recent Quotes From The Supreme Court

Posted on by

There have been some major cases decided by the Supreme Court in recent days. Paul Mirengoff has posted a number of quotes from the Justices in recent blog articles (here and here). The quotes have to do with the Housing Authority Case and the Gay Marriage Case. In each case, Mr. Mirengoff states that he feels that the Justices were not fully aware of the unintended consequences of their rulings.

In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Mr. Mirengoff points out that both sides of the ruling were aware of the possible consequences.

Justice Alito stated:

No one wants to live in a rat’s nest. Yet in Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F. 3d 823 (2010), a case that we agreed to review several Terms ago, the Eighth Circuit held that the Fair Housing Act (or FHA) could
be used to attack St. Paul, Minnesota’s efforts to combat “rodent infestation” and other violations of the city’s housing code. The court agreed that there was no basis to “infer discriminatory intent” on the part of St. Paul.

Even so, it concluded that the city’s “aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code” was actionable
because making landlords respond to “rodent infestation, missing dead-bolt locks, inadequate sanitation facilities, inadequate heat, inoperable smoke detectors, broken or missing doors,” and the like increased the price of rent. Since minorities were statistically more likely to fall into “the bottom bracket for household adjusted median family income,” they were disproportionately affected by those rent increases, i.e., there was a “disparate impact.” Id., at 834.

The upshot was that even St. Paul’s good-faith attempt to ensure minimally acceptable housing for its poorest residents could not ward off a disparate impact lawsuit.

Today, the Court embraces the same theory that drove the decision in Magner. This is a serious mistake. The Fair Housing Act does not create disparate-impact liability, nor do this Court’s precedents. And today’s decision will have unfortunate consequences for local government,
private enterprise, and those living in poverty. Something has gone badly awry when a city can’t even make slumlords kill rats without fear of a lawsuit.

Makes sense.

Justice Kennedy also saw the risk in the decision:

Without adequate safeguards at the prima facie stage, disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and “would almost inexorably lead” governmental or
private entities to use “numerical quotas,” and serious constitutional questions then could arise.

The litigation at issue here provides an example. From the standpoint of determining advantage or disadvantage to racial minorities, it seems difficult to say as a general matter that a decision to build low-income housing in a blighted inner-city neighborhood instead of a suburb is discriminatory, or vice versa.

If those sorts of judgments are subject to challenge without adequate safeguards, then there is a danger that potential defendants may adopt racial quotas—a circumstance that itself raises serious constitutional concerns.

Somehow we have substituted the concept of equal outcome for equal rights.

In the gay marriage decision, there are serious questions as to whether the rights of Bible-believing Christians will be abandoned in favor of the new definition of marriage.

Justice Kennedy writes:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

Justice Roberts wrote:

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is my belief that in the future, when people who hold a Biblical view of marriage attempt to freely exercise their religion in the public square or their place of business, that freedom is going to be taken away from them, particularly in the area of a Biblical view of marriage. This happened in Massachusetts after the courts ruled that gay marriage was legal–the Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close down because adopting a child to a same-sex couple was against their religious belief. We may see that happen all over the country as a result of this ruling. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.

This Is Truly A Sad Day For America

Posted on by

The Supreme Court today chose to rewrite ObamaCare rather than do its duty as a court and rule on the case at hand.

CBS News is reporting:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement.

Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

The National Journal is reporting:

The decision, Scalia wrote, “rewrites the law.”

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he wrote.

He continued: “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges, Scalia wrote.

Scalia took issue with the majority’s interpretation of the language of the Affordable Care Act. The law states that in order for people to qualify for health care subsidies, they need to be “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State.” The majority upheld that by “state,” the law intended to mean individual state exchanges or exchanges set up by the federal government. If the Court had ruled the other way, more than 6 million people would have been at risk of losing their coverage. Their ruling rejects a lawsuit that aimed to gut federal health-care subsidies for people in 34 states.

“The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State,” Scalia wrote. (The majority argued that gutting the subsidies for the state exchanges would result in a “death spiral” for the market places and that “It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. “)

It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to write law. The Supreme Court can only examine legislature to see if it aligns with the U.S. Constitution. This right of review was established in 1803 with the Marbury v.. Madison case–it was not written into the original U.S. Constitution. although the concept was mentioned in Federalist No. 78:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

In the case of King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court rewrote the law and exceeded its authority. We have reached the point in America where the U.S. Constitution is no longer the law of the land. Unless the American people begin to pay attention to what is happening and take action (an Article V Convention of States is looking really good right now), we will lose our representative republic.

I’m Sorry, I Find This Attitude Offensive

Posted on by

On June 6, Lee Seigel posted an article in The New York Times explaining why he defaulted on his student loans. I’m sorry, I lack sympathy for his plight.

He states:

Years later, I found myself confronted with a choice that too many people have had to and will have to face. I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.

I chose life. That is to say, I defaulted on my student loans.

The article concludes:

There would be a national shaming of colleges and universities for charging soaring tuition rates that are reaching lunatic levels. The rapacity of American colleges and universities is turning social mobility, the keystone of American freedom, into a commodified farce.

If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, “Enough,” then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education. There are a lot of people who could learn to live with that, too.

I agree with the writer that college tuition is too high. I wonder if he understands that the rise in tuition has been parallel to the amount of money made available through student loan programs (generally government-funded). In recent years, colleges have had no incentive to keep tuition low–students just keep taking out loans to pay the increased amounts.

As for the government guaranteeing a college education. Where in the world is that written in the U.S. Constitution? Why in the world should the government be responsible for anyone getting a college education? It sounds to me like the writer of the article is simply looking for a free education at the expense of the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer will eventually pay for all the loans that have been defaulted on, but I really don’t think those of us who paid for our children’s education should have to pay for everyone else’s children also. I little personal responsibility would be really nice. If graduates pay back their loans, there will be money available for students who are just entering college. Learning the responsibility of paying back you student loans should be part of your college education.

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Posted on by

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Do We Want The Federal Government Telling Us Where We Can Live?

Posted on by

Local governments have traditionally been in charge of local zoning. Local governments are obviously closest to zoning issues, and having zoning issues resolved at the local level allows the local citizens to have a voice in zoning decisions. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government any control of zoning. However, right now we have a President who does not seem to have read the U.S. Constitution. President Obama wants to tell all of us where we can live.

The National Review posted an article today about President Obama’s new rule:

Safely past the hurdles of re-election and the mid-terms, President Obama has plenty of time and scope left to continue his transformative ways. Obama’s sweeping new rule, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH), is up next. AFFH would override local zoning authority and expand federal control over where and how Americans live. Because of its sweeping impact and the fact that potential Clinton Vice-Presidential running mate, HUD Secretary Julian Castro, will be in charge of implementation, this issue has the potential to shift the terrain of the presidential race as well.

…Contrary to its title, AFFH isn’t about blocking housing discrimination. That is already illegal, and former HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan acknowledged that AFFH is not about stopping housing discrimination, but instead about changing the way Americans live. AFFH will force every municipality that takes federal housing money to take a detailed survey of where its citizens live, by income, race, ethnicity, etc. If the mixture is not to the federal government’s liking, changes would have to be made at local expense. In effect, this would strip local governments of their zoning power.

The Republicans in Congress need to stop this power grab in its tracks. There have been a lot of talk about gerrymandering and the impact it has on elections. Gerrymandering will seem like a walk in the park when voters are told where they can live and where they can’t live.

There is an additional article from August 2013 on the government’s plan to take over local zoning at the National Review. This plan looks a lot like Agenda 21. For those of you not familiar with Agenda 21, it is a sustainable development plan developed by the United Nations at a meeting in Brazil in 1992. Basically it means the end of single-family homes and the concept of private property. It also has a very negative impact on American sovereignty.

 

The House Of Representatives Gets It Right

Posted on by

The Hill posted a story today about a bi-partisan group in the House of Representatives who have sponsored a bill stating that all trade deals would have to be made publicly available for 60 days before they could be approved using fast-track authority.

The article reports:

“Today it [trade promotion authority (TPA)] has become more of a blank check for the executive and turned Congress into little more than a rubber stamp,” Kaptur said. “This legislation calls for an end to this dangerous and irresponsible approach and replaces it with sunlight in the form of public access and accountability.”

The House is expected to vote on fast-track as early as Thursday, and opponents have argued that the administration is not providing enough transparency on the deals it is negotiating. 

Members of Congress have only been allowed to review text of the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal in a classified setting. 

Congress has a role to play in reviewing trade deals and treaties. The U.S. Constitution includes that review in its list of Congressional duties. It really is time those in power in Washington began to follow the U.S. Constitution.

Expanding The Bounds Of Ridiculousness

Posted on by

I don’t know if ridiculousness is a word, but in this case it surely applies. Last Monday, Breitbart.com reported that George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf has filed a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights against Catholic University. The Professor is charging the University with  creating an “offensive” environment in which Muslims are intimidated out of proper reverence for their own religion because of the large amount of Catholic imagery draping the halls. Dude, it’s Catholic University. What did you expect–statues of Buddha?

The article reports:

It’s hard to keep a straight face while reading all that, but rest assured the rusty gears and chains of the bureaucracy began clanking as soon as Banzhaf’s thick complaint was dumped into the hopper of the anti-discrimination machine. “A spokesperson for the human rights office said they are investigating Banzhaf’s complaint — and the inquiry could take as long as six months,” writes BeliefNet.

“I don’t know what the attorney wants them to do – if he wants them to actually move the Basilica or if the Muslim students can find someplace where they don’t have to look at it,” an incredulous Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society told Fox News. “One wouldn’t expect a Jewish institution to be responsible for providing liturgical opportunities for other faiths and I wouldn’t expect a Catholic institution to do that.”

“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” Reilly continued. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”

…This is all part of the effort to create a legal and super-legal regulatory environment in which maintaining faith-based institutions is nearly impossible… or, at least, so difficult that these institutions will be forever subdued beneath the heel of the almighty State. Just wait until churches lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to comply with Big Government decrees about same-sex marriage, and you’ll see how that works.

Religious freedom is under attack in America. It won’t be long before the tax-exempt status of churches will be under fire. If Americans value the right to freedom of religion, they need to begin to stand up now. One of the things to note is a subtle changing of the First Amendment. We are hearing people speak about ‘freedom of worship‘ rather than ‘freedom of religion.’ It’s a subtle difference, but the word change is an effort to keep religious people out of the public forum. Freedom of worship keeps God in the church. Freedom of religion allows God in the public square.

I Guess That Under President Obama There Will Be Atheists In Foxholes

Posted on by

Fox News posted a story today about Air Force Maj. Gen. Craig Olson. General Olson spoke at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7. In his speech, he talked about how God has guided his career.

The article reports:

The Air Force Times reports that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has taken issue with Olson’s remarks, is calling for the two-star general to be court-martialed and “aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions.”

The group authored a letter to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Walsh, arguing that Olson’s speech violates rules within the Air Force, which prohibits airmen from endorsing a particular faith or belief.

Since when is speaking about your personal faith an ‘unforgivable crime and transgression?” If this sort of foolishness persists, we will lose a lot of our best military men.