.gif)
From The American Thinker:
November 29, 2010
Jekyll and Hyde Government
By Monty Pelerin
Respect for anything associated with government that is non-military is virtually nonexistent. Opinion polls affirm that aside from loving their own benefits, Americans harbor respect for politicians and government at all-time lows. In a country that once prided itself on American spirit and individuality, it is not difficult to understand why. Two factors are important:
•1. "Government-gone-wild," characterized by unprecedented bailouts, stimuli, and quantitative easings, is a primary reason. In just two years, 3 trillion dollars was added to the federal debt. Congress, despite statutory mandate, refused to prepare a budget this year. Walter Williams observed:
The nation's founders would be horrified by today's congressional spending that consumes 25 percent of our GDP. Contrast that to the years 1787 to the 1920s when federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP except in wartime. Today, federal, state and local government consumes 43 percent of what Americans produce each year.
•2. Government has trampled on areas once considered personal and sacrosanct. ObamaCare is the poster child for intrusions and arrogance. Despite overwhelming opposition, this unworkable monstrosity was passed. Now the TSA imposes invasive screening methods despite public concern regarding health, constitutionality, and effectiveness.
Government is hopelessly out of touch and is trending authoritarian. It is corrupt and inept. Ordinary people see a ruling class thriving while they suffer. Large corporations get preferred treatment while the little guy is supposed to play by the rules and bail out mistakes he did not make. Politicians ask everyone but themselves and their cronies to "sacrifice." Government is no longer trusted or believed.
No government can survive when it loses the confidence of the people. We have nearly reached this dangerous point. To understand how we got here, it is useful to look at government and the dilemma it presents.
The Dilemma of Government
An intractable problem for any society is how to empower a government to perform some duties while containing it to just those duties. James Madison said, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
That statement by Madison is the essence of the problem of government. Power is easy to convey but difficult to contain or take back.
The Founding Fathers recognized government as a necessary and a positive force for freedom. However, they knew that if not contained, government would become the mortal enemy of liberty. In this schizophrenic view, government could be very good or very bad. It was akin to a Dr. Jekyll, capable of providing great service to society. Yet contained within the good was the evil Mr. Hyde, who was capable of destroying society. This concern was evident:
•"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
•"Fear is the foundation of most government." John Adams
•"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." Thomas Jefferson
•"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." James Madison
To achieve the good of government while protecting against its dangers, the Founders carefully restricted its power and sphere of influence. They established an agent-principal relationship with government as the agent, taking orders from the principal, the people. This relationship was codified in the U.S. Constitution, which strictly limited the duties and powers of government. In Joseph Sobran's terminology, the Constitution was to have been "an anti-trust act for government." So long as this document could hold, Mr. Hyde could be contained.
The Founders were not naïve and knew that the concentration of power, even though limited, would not prevent its abuse. While they believed the Constitution necessary, they hardly thought it sufficient to guarantee a permanent arrangement:
•... I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it ... " Benjamin Franklin
•"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson
•"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Our Current Situation
Almost immediately, the governing class began to push the boundaries imposed by the Constitution. After more than two hundred years of assault, the controlling document is little more than a historical artifact. The political class revere the Constitution so long as it does not get in their way. As the constitutional constraints were removed, the Mr. Hyde aspect of government emerged.
Today, Dr. Jekyll has all but left Washington, and Mr. Hyde vents in full fury. The agent-principal roles have been nearly reversed. The people have in too many instances been reduced to agents taking orders from their government. The government expects the people to support their whims. Today, Abraham Lincoln's well-turned phrase describing government as "of the people, by the people, and for the people" sounds like nothing more than obvious and cruel propaganda.
For much of our history, Americans seemed unaware of how government was continually gaining power at their expense. Like the proverbial frog in the heating pot, freedom was ebbing away so slowly that it went unnoticed. The cumulative effects, coupled with recent unprecedented government arrogance and overreach, awakened the frog. Americans are now concerned and angry.
Unfortunately, the awakening has occured too late to be remedied via conventional means. The election process, our means of political resolution, works only when there is meaningful choice. As described by Angelo Codevilla, Republicans and Democrats have been corrupted by power. They both consider themselves the principals to be served by their agents, the people.
Philosophically, there is some difference between the two parties, but the difference is at the margins. Primarily, it reflects in the rates at which they are willing to usurp additional power. The humorous wisdom of Will Rogers describes the current non-humorous situation: "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other."
Thomas Jefferson described two types of environments: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson adamantly favored the latter. Our current condition resembles the former.
A fundamental conflict has finally bubbled to the surface: that people finally realize that government has become something never intended. Government has grown beyond reasonable limits. Its size and power are squashing the personal freedoms that made the country what it is. It intrudes into every aspect of life. It has truly become Mr. Hyde. We have reached the state described by Frederic Bastiat:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
The public now recognizes the problem and wants to solve it.
Is There a Solution?
The last two elections were votes to change course. In each, the sitting majority was overwhelmingly rejected. Both were "throw-the-bums-out" elections. The first resulted in replacing one set of bums with another. That was not the change sought by the public. The results of the second remain to be seen, but I am not optimistic, given the power in the hands of the existing leadership.
The public wants to take back control of its government. It wants to downsize and declaw Leviathan. It wants to make government its agent, not its master. It still believes the words of Abraham Lincoln:
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Politicians in Washington seem too inbred to understand that a sea change is occurring amongst the people. Neither political party understands or likely will accept what the public wants. As Frank Chodorov observed, "The State acquires power ... and because of its insatiable lust for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates."
When both political parties are philosophically opposed to what people want, changing horses does no good. Elections become merely a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Camille Paglia framed our current situation thusly: "Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?"
Her question, while relevant to what kind of future might be in store, raises the question of whether there is a solution to a government unresponsive to its citizens. That question is easier to answer and was addressed by Samuel Johnson more than two hundred years ago:
No government power can be abused long. Mankind will not bear it. There is a remedy in human nature against tyranny, that will keep us safe under every form of government.
History shows that Johnson was correct for both totalitarian and democratic governments. The issue is what type of solution(s) will evolve and how long it (they) might take.
Solutions within the law and Constitution are still possible and preferable, but time is getting short. Three forces could initiate or work together to produce necessary change:
•1. Washington - No solution appears to be forthcoming. It is unlikely that one will be initiated here, although those in Washington will participate in change once they recognize how their hold on power is threatened.
•2. The Ballot Box - Neither political party seems willing to change. The Tea Party is a movement toward change. Both established parties are doing their best to discredit the Tea Party's effort. The movement will provide options at the ballot box, and its success will have some influence on the major parties. Resistance by the established parties, however, does reinforce point 1 -- change will not originate in Washington.
•3. The States - States have leverage. The massive realignment of state legislatures toward Republicans might provide an impetus for them to put the federal government back into its box. As their fiscal problems worsen, it becomes likely that a meaningful movement will begin here.
The interesting times in which we live are going to become even more so.
Monty Pelerin blogs at www.economicnoise.com.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
In Imama Rauf's America, There Would Be No Juries For Civil Or Criminal Trials
From Creeping Sharia:
In Imam Rauf’s America, There Would Be No Juries for Civil or Criminal Trials
Posted on November 29, 2010 by creeping
From Andrew Cochran at The Seventh Amendment Advocate:
It’s one thing to build a mosque near Ground Zero – it’s another altogether when the proponent of the mosque is an Imam who believes in imposing Shariah law inside the United States. And that’s what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, believes is his mission, and that’s what he would pursue inside any completed “Ground Zero mosque.” He already said so on the Huffington Post on April 24, 2009:
In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government – legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.
And what does he mean by referring to “a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith?” For starters, NO JURIES, EVER. A Shariah-trained lawyer for Aramco Oil wrote in 1966 about the complete control that a judge (the “Qadhi”) has inside a Shariah court:
In a Shari’ah court the Qadhi is the central figure. In some instances there may be a Junior Qadhi assisting him, but there are no juries. As an American lawyer, I was at first surprised by the absolute control which the Qadhi maintains over the proceedings before him and by the large discretionary authority at his command. In marked contrast to the more neutral role that a United States trial judge plays, the Qadhi actively participates in the case. Since his role is not to arbitrate, but to actively seek the truth to procure justice, he questions both parties and all witnesses at will. He even concludes cases by convincing the parties to settle their differences by the honorable method of sulh, or compromise, usually on the basis he recommends, when he is in doubt as to which party is in the right.
And that lawyer made it clear that the Qadhi is much more than just a trial of fact and law, he is revered above all other citizenry and leads the community’s religious life:
In the United States a judge is called “Your Honor.” In Saudi Arabia he is called “Your Reverence” and the difference is significant. A judge–more properly, Qadhi–in Saudi Arabia is more than a judge. He is also a religious leader, who leads prayers in the mosque, delivers sermons, advises the Amir of his area on religious matters and hands down fatwas (legal opinions) on matters referred to him. This is at once logical and necessary since the law in Saudi Arabia is rooted in the religious teachings of the Prophet, Muhammad.
So in Imam Rauf’s America, say goodbye to the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits (and the 4th Amendment too, of course); farewell to the common law of each of the 50 states, now protected by the 10th Amendment; adios to the 795-year-old right to a jury trial written in blood into the Magna Carta. That’s not my idea of an idea worth defending. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, can find common ground in our Constitution for opposing Imam Rauf’s mission and his mosque.
In Imam Rauf’s America, There Would Be No Juries for Civil or Criminal Trials
Posted on November 29, 2010 by creeping
From Andrew Cochran at The Seventh Amendment Advocate:
It’s one thing to build a mosque near Ground Zero – it’s another altogether when the proponent of the mosque is an Imam who believes in imposing Shariah law inside the United States. And that’s what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, believes is his mission, and that’s what he would pursue inside any completed “Ground Zero mosque.” He already said so on the Huffington Post on April 24, 2009:
In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government – legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.
And what does he mean by referring to “a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith?” For starters, NO JURIES, EVER. A Shariah-trained lawyer for Aramco Oil wrote in 1966 about the complete control that a judge (the “Qadhi”) has inside a Shariah court:
In a Shari’ah court the Qadhi is the central figure. In some instances there may be a Junior Qadhi assisting him, but there are no juries. As an American lawyer, I was at first surprised by the absolute control which the Qadhi maintains over the proceedings before him and by the large discretionary authority at his command. In marked contrast to the more neutral role that a United States trial judge plays, the Qadhi actively participates in the case. Since his role is not to arbitrate, but to actively seek the truth to procure justice, he questions both parties and all witnesses at will. He even concludes cases by convincing the parties to settle their differences by the honorable method of sulh, or compromise, usually on the basis he recommends, when he is in doubt as to which party is in the right.
And that lawyer made it clear that the Qadhi is much more than just a trial of fact and law, he is revered above all other citizenry and leads the community’s religious life:
In the United States a judge is called “Your Honor.” In Saudi Arabia he is called “Your Reverence” and the difference is significant. A judge–more properly, Qadhi–in Saudi Arabia is more than a judge. He is also a religious leader, who leads prayers in the mosque, delivers sermons, advises the Amir of his area on religious matters and hands down fatwas (legal opinions) on matters referred to him. This is at once logical and necessary since the law in Saudi Arabia is rooted in the religious teachings of the Prophet, Muhammad.
So in Imam Rauf’s America, say goodbye to the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil suits (and the 4th Amendment too, of course); farewell to the common law of each of the 50 states, now protected by the 10th Amendment; adios to the 795-year-old right to a jury trial written in blood into the Magna Carta. That’s not my idea of an idea worth defending. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, can find common ground in our Constitution for opposing Imam Rauf’s mission and his mosque.
Monday, November 29, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Confers On Obama Eligibility Case
From Western Journalism:
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Posted by Caleb on November 29, 2010 · Comments (68)
Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
Read More: By Brian Fitzpatrick, WND
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
(Story continues below)
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Posted by Caleb on November 29, 2010 · Comments (68)
Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
Read More: By Brian Fitzpatrick, WND
U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
(Story continues below)
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.
A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.
"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharia Law Is Already Here
From The American Thinker:
November 30, 2010
Sharia Law Is Already Here
By John Bennett
Sophisticated liberals have found humor in Oklahoma's recent ban on Sharia law. Along with humor, some have found offense in the bill. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted a temporary restraining order blocking the bill. Critics, such as the culturally aware Clarence Page, say that the OK measure is "a solution in search of a problem." Sharia law is not a threat. Page's evidence: There are only 15,000 Muslims in Oklahoma. It doesn't get much more convincing than that.
The deep thinkers at OpenLeft.com are equally informed: As Paul Rosenberg emphatically says, "there is zero evidence of sharia law having any influence on American law." Rosenberg is factually wrong. On the crucial factual matter of whether Sharia has been applied in our courts, he is unaware of what has occurred.
Sharia law has been applied in U.S. courts. There are at least seventeen instances of Sharia law being applied in eleven states, as Daniel Pipes has noted. Most notably, a NJ court held that a man did not commit rape because according to his belief in Sharia law, a man cannot rape his wife, since the wife serves him. So Sharia law was applied to the mental state element of the crime of rape. An American court actually adopted this barbaric reasoning:
[The defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
The resulting ruling was that a man was held not responsible for rape, where he would have been convicted without Sharia.
It's no comfort to say that a court of appeals overturned the NJ ruling. Judges are open to these arguments, and that is the beginning of Sharia victory if it is not stopped. Liberal judges will become, in their social circles, standard-bearers of enlightenment and cultural sensitivity for embracing the diversity of Sharia law. That is all the incentive they need to continue to use foreign standards to decide what our rights will be. Look no farther than Justice Ginsburg's incredible willingness to latch on to foreign precedents that confirm her preconceived policy preferences. If there is one multicultural lemming in a robe willing to betray our freedoms, that's one too many -- and we can be sure that there are many more who want to.
Every day, the news is full of examples of just how far Muslims will push. Take the infamous hijab at the Connecticut roller rink. A Muslim woman named Marisol Rodriguez-Colon -- soak in that cultural enrichment -- was asked to remove her medieval hood at a skating rink. The rink had a policy of no headgear because hats and scarves could cause injury on the floor. She claims that she needed to wear her hijab for "religious reasons." The "religious reasons" argument is the tip of the iceberg. If Muslims get to impose their practices and norms for "religious reasons," then they will reshape Western societies in their own medieval image.
Consider what else Muslims could demand at a roller rink for "religious reasons": For "religious reasons," males and females are to be separated from each other in public much of the time. For religious reasons, there must be no modern music to offend traditional ears. For religious reasons, there should be no pork products at snack bars. For religious reasons, homosexual skaters should be killed in one of many colorful ways -- a belief being taught to British Muslims.
If Marisol Rodriguez-Colon can force the roller rink to change its policy on headgear based on religious reasons, then why can't she change every other policy inconsistent with her creed? There is no way to say that all they want to do is change policy on headgear. There is no limit to what Muslims would force non-Muslims to do for "religious reasons." They want more; the radical leaders will demand the most, and they will take as much as they can get. Those two propositions are obvious. Don't be fooled by cringing sensitivity mantras about how moderates don't want to impose their views. Moderates can't stop multicultural appeasement judges from ruling in favor of radicals.
If radicals take as much as they can get, then headgear is one step on the path towards Sharia. There is nothing far-fetched about that prediction. It is the logical consequence of Muslim supremacy combined with Western cowardice.
Of course, this does not mean that each person who wants to wear their medieval headgear in public supports Sharia. What it means is that the headgear is the first step towards institutional acceptance and legal imposition of Sharia law. The same aggressive refusal to assimilate will carry out in other spheres of life. It will not be satisfied by wearing headgear. In fact, if the Muslim supremacists get their way with headgear, that will be a green light to them to make more demands -- demands that are more invasive, requiring even more fundamental changes to our society. That which gets rewarded gets repeated.
Most of us thought that we left the dark ages behind us, but a retrograde impulse is growing. We are far from the imposition of Sharia law, but not far enough. The habit of a liberty-loving people is to guard against any step, no matter how small, towards injustice. The first step toward injustice will guarantee a second step, and the zealots will take that step if they aren't stopped. The first step is never an accident or an exception; it's part of an established plan played out many times around the world. England is learning this tragic lesson as Sharia law makes women second-class citizens in divorce and child custody matters, according to a Guardian newspaper column. The only thing stopping Sharia will be the people willing to guard our liberty and culture. Things are best protected when they are jealously guarded. That is something that our founders knew very well.
Proactive defense of liberty and prevention of injustice are the reasons why Tennessee and Louisiana have already passed similar measures to Oklahoma's. At least twelve other states are considering such measures. Such policy is rank xenophobia, according to some, who contend that Islam is being unfairly singled out.
Sharia defenders should know that Islam is named specifically because Muslims single themselves out. Their leadership is uniquely comfortable forcing their religious practices and views onto other people. After a fitful two hundred years of protecting religious liberty in America, we have a sect seeking to impose its views in a way we haven't seen in a very long time. We should commend those who resist that imposition in advance.
John Bennett is a JD candidate, Emory University School of Law '11.
November 30, 2010
Sharia Law Is Already Here
By John Bennett
Sophisticated liberals have found humor in Oklahoma's recent ban on Sharia law. Along with humor, some have found offense in the bill. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted a temporary restraining order blocking the bill. Critics, such as the culturally aware Clarence Page, say that the OK measure is "a solution in search of a problem." Sharia law is not a threat. Page's evidence: There are only 15,000 Muslims in Oklahoma. It doesn't get much more convincing than that.
The deep thinkers at OpenLeft.com are equally informed: As Paul Rosenberg emphatically says, "there is zero evidence of sharia law having any influence on American law." Rosenberg is factually wrong. On the crucial factual matter of whether Sharia has been applied in our courts, he is unaware of what has occurred.
Sharia law has been applied in U.S. courts. There are at least seventeen instances of Sharia law being applied in eleven states, as Daniel Pipes has noted. Most notably, a NJ court held that a man did not commit rape because according to his belief in Sharia law, a man cannot rape his wife, since the wife serves him. So Sharia law was applied to the mental state element of the crime of rape. An American court actually adopted this barbaric reasoning:
[The defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
The resulting ruling was that a man was held not responsible for rape, where he would have been convicted without Sharia.
It's no comfort to say that a court of appeals overturned the NJ ruling. Judges are open to these arguments, and that is the beginning of Sharia victory if it is not stopped. Liberal judges will become, in their social circles, standard-bearers of enlightenment and cultural sensitivity for embracing the diversity of Sharia law. That is all the incentive they need to continue to use foreign standards to decide what our rights will be. Look no farther than Justice Ginsburg's incredible willingness to latch on to foreign precedents that confirm her preconceived policy preferences. If there is one multicultural lemming in a robe willing to betray our freedoms, that's one too many -- and we can be sure that there are many more who want to.
Every day, the news is full of examples of just how far Muslims will push. Take the infamous hijab at the Connecticut roller rink. A Muslim woman named Marisol Rodriguez-Colon -- soak in that cultural enrichment -- was asked to remove her medieval hood at a skating rink. The rink had a policy of no headgear because hats and scarves could cause injury on the floor. She claims that she needed to wear her hijab for "religious reasons." The "religious reasons" argument is the tip of the iceberg. If Muslims get to impose their practices and norms for "religious reasons," then they will reshape Western societies in their own medieval image.
Consider what else Muslims could demand at a roller rink for "religious reasons": For "religious reasons," males and females are to be separated from each other in public much of the time. For religious reasons, there must be no modern music to offend traditional ears. For religious reasons, there should be no pork products at snack bars. For religious reasons, homosexual skaters should be killed in one of many colorful ways -- a belief being taught to British Muslims.
If Marisol Rodriguez-Colon can force the roller rink to change its policy on headgear based on religious reasons, then why can't she change every other policy inconsistent with her creed? There is no way to say that all they want to do is change policy on headgear. There is no limit to what Muslims would force non-Muslims to do for "religious reasons." They want more; the radical leaders will demand the most, and they will take as much as they can get. Those two propositions are obvious. Don't be fooled by cringing sensitivity mantras about how moderates don't want to impose their views. Moderates can't stop multicultural appeasement judges from ruling in favor of radicals.
If radicals take as much as they can get, then headgear is one step on the path towards Sharia. There is nothing far-fetched about that prediction. It is the logical consequence of Muslim supremacy combined with Western cowardice.
Of course, this does not mean that each person who wants to wear their medieval headgear in public supports Sharia. What it means is that the headgear is the first step towards institutional acceptance and legal imposition of Sharia law. The same aggressive refusal to assimilate will carry out in other spheres of life. It will not be satisfied by wearing headgear. In fact, if the Muslim supremacists get their way with headgear, that will be a green light to them to make more demands -- demands that are more invasive, requiring even more fundamental changes to our society. That which gets rewarded gets repeated.
Most of us thought that we left the dark ages behind us, but a retrograde impulse is growing. We are far from the imposition of Sharia law, but not far enough. The habit of a liberty-loving people is to guard against any step, no matter how small, towards injustice. The first step toward injustice will guarantee a second step, and the zealots will take that step if they aren't stopped. The first step is never an accident or an exception; it's part of an established plan played out many times around the world. England is learning this tragic lesson as Sharia law makes women second-class citizens in divorce and child custody matters, according to a Guardian newspaper column. The only thing stopping Sharia will be the people willing to guard our liberty and culture. Things are best protected when they are jealously guarded. That is something that our founders knew very well.
Proactive defense of liberty and prevention of injustice are the reasons why Tennessee and Louisiana have already passed similar measures to Oklahoma's. At least twelve other states are considering such measures. Such policy is rank xenophobia, according to some, who contend that Islam is being unfairly singled out.
Sharia defenders should know that Islam is named specifically because Muslims single themselves out. Their leadership is uniquely comfortable forcing their religious practices and views onto other people. After a fitful two hundred years of protecting religious liberty in America, we have a sect seeking to impose its views in a way we haven't seen in a very long time. We should commend those who resist that imposition in advance.
John Bennett is a JD candidate, Emory University School of Law '11.
Treating Terrorists Like Americans And Americans Like Terrorists
From Town Hall:
Carol Platt Liebau
Treating Terrorists Like Americans – and Americans Like Terrorists
Email Carol Platt Liebau
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz
digg Sign-Up With approximately 21 million Americans flying during the 12-day period surrounding Thanksgiving – and more preparing to fly over the Christmas holidays -- the public debate over the new, intrusive TSA searches isn’t likely to die down any time soon. Nor should it.
Certainly, in a democratic republic, citizens have every right to weigh in on the proper balance between freedom and security (although it is a bit rich when those who routinely sport today’s most revealing fashions -- or their parents -- suddenly react with shocked modesty to the prospect of scanners showing what’s already pretty well evident to the naked eye). But the widespread outrage is more than the traditional American aversion to intrusive, overreaching government.
In truth, it’s a revolt against the Obama administration’s moral obtuseness in prosecuting the war on terror. The kind of searches the TSA is now empowered to conduct signal that the terrorist threat is real, and pressing, and imminently dangerous to each of us – so dangerous, in fact, that government agents must have license to grope anyone in the security line in the most personal, intimate ways. Now, Americans might be willing to accept this level of intrusion – where any law-abiding citizen can be treated as a potential terrorist – if it were consistent with the administration’s approach to confronting terrorism and those who engage in it.
But it’s not. And that mismatch rightly generates public disgust and outrage.
Think of the President’s longstanding approach to the war on terror. From the beginning, candidate Obama sent the message that the Bush administration was overreacting to the potential for attacks by Islamic extremists. Indeed, since taking office, the President has used the phrase “war on terror” less than a dozen times, preferring instead circumlocutions like “overseas contingency operation.” (And who can forget Janet Napolitano’s famous “man-caused disasters”?)
Worse, the administration has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to treating terrorism like a law-enforcement matter, rather than a military one. From proposing to move Guantanamo Bay prisoners to US prisons and send the 9/11 plotters to trial in Manhattan to terminating the questioning of the Christmas bombing suspect after one hour and reading him his Miranda rights, the Obama administration has been exquisitely sensitive to the perceived rights and sensibilities of suspected terrorists.
There’s a cost to that sensitivity, as the American people were recently reminded by the near-acquittal of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantamo detainee to face trial in a civilian court. He was convicted on only one count, and acquitted on more than 280 others, when the civilian rules of evidence barred key witness testimony about Ghailani personally providing explosives for a terrorist plot to destroy a US embassy in Africa. Nevertheless, the administration seems determined to persist with a civilian trial – complete with all the civil rights trimmings – for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
So as law-abiding American citizens stand patiently in security lines and submit to embarrassingly intimate searches by TSA employees (themselves uncomfortable with the new inspection regime), no wonder they are angry. If the President himself seemed deeply concerned about the potential of further terrorist attacks – and insisted on dealing sternly with those who perpetrate them – no doubt Americans would be more receptive to his insistence that they be treated like potential terrorists when they travel. But so long as he seems committed to treating terrorists – even known terrorists – to the full panoply of rights available to American citizens while subjecting American citizens to treatment that suggests each of them is a potential terrorist, there will be public outrage. And that’s just fine. Outrage is the appropriate response by decent, free people to their leaders’ willful moral blindness.
Carol Platt Liebau
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles. Learn more about her new book, "Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Hurts Young Women (and America, Too!)" here.
Carol Platt Liebau
Treating Terrorists Like Americans – and Americans Like Terrorists
Email Carol Platt Liebau
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz
digg Sign-Up With approximately 21 million Americans flying during the 12-day period surrounding Thanksgiving – and more preparing to fly over the Christmas holidays -- the public debate over the new, intrusive TSA searches isn’t likely to die down any time soon. Nor should it.
Certainly, in a democratic republic, citizens have every right to weigh in on the proper balance between freedom and security (although it is a bit rich when those who routinely sport today’s most revealing fashions -- or their parents -- suddenly react with shocked modesty to the prospect of scanners showing what’s already pretty well evident to the naked eye). But the widespread outrage is more than the traditional American aversion to intrusive, overreaching government.
In truth, it’s a revolt against the Obama administration’s moral obtuseness in prosecuting the war on terror. The kind of searches the TSA is now empowered to conduct signal that the terrorist threat is real, and pressing, and imminently dangerous to each of us – so dangerous, in fact, that government agents must have license to grope anyone in the security line in the most personal, intimate ways. Now, Americans might be willing to accept this level of intrusion – where any law-abiding citizen can be treated as a potential terrorist – if it were consistent with the administration’s approach to confronting terrorism and those who engage in it.
But it’s not. And that mismatch rightly generates public disgust and outrage.
Think of the President’s longstanding approach to the war on terror. From the beginning, candidate Obama sent the message that the Bush administration was overreacting to the potential for attacks by Islamic extremists. Indeed, since taking office, the President has used the phrase “war on terror” less than a dozen times, preferring instead circumlocutions like “overseas contingency operation.” (And who can forget Janet Napolitano’s famous “man-caused disasters”?)
Worse, the administration has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to treating terrorism like a law-enforcement matter, rather than a military one. From proposing to move Guantanamo Bay prisoners to US prisons and send the 9/11 plotters to trial in Manhattan to terminating the questioning of the Christmas bombing suspect after one hour and reading him his Miranda rights, the Obama administration has been exquisitely sensitive to the perceived rights and sensibilities of suspected terrorists.
There’s a cost to that sensitivity, as the American people were recently reminded by the near-acquittal of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantamo detainee to face trial in a civilian court. He was convicted on only one count, and acquitted on more than 280 others, when the civilian rules of evidence barred key witness testimony about Ghailani personally providing explosives for a terrorist plot to destroy a US embassy in Africa. Nevertheless, the administration seems determined to persist with a civilian trial – complete with all the civil rights trimmings – for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
So as law-abiding American citizens stand patiently in security lines and submit to embarrassingly intimate searches by TSA employees (themselves uncomfortable with the new inspection regime), no wonder they are angry. If the President himself seemed deeply concerned about the potential of further terrorist attacks – and insisted on dealing sternly with those who perpetrate them – no doubt Americans would be more receptive to his insistence that they be treated like potential terrorists when they travel. But so long as he seems committed to treating terrorists – even known terrorists – to the full panoply of rights available to American citizens while subjecting American citizens to treatment that suggests each of them is a potential terrorist, there will be public outrage. And that’s just fine. Outrage is the appropriate response by decent, free people to their leaders’ willful moral blindness.
Carol Platt Liebau
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles. Learn more about her new book, "Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Hurts Young Women (and America, Too!)" here.
Obama's Governance Is Right Out Of The Communist's Plan To Destroy America
From Floyd Reports and CIR:
Obama’s governance is right out of the Communists’ plan to destroy America
By Coach Collins, on November 28th, 2010
By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
The Communist plan of forty five declared goals for taking over America without waging a messy war contains several items that are eerily similar to Barack Obama’s criticism of our U.S. Constitution. Obama has said our sacred Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it lacks a mechanism for redistribution of wealth from those who create it to those who merely consume it.
“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Obama told a Black radio station audience about seven years before he ran for President. Perhaps our President isn’t familiar with the words of William Bradford the leader of Pilgrims.
Bradford characterized redistribution of wealth as a total failure because “men didn’t like having to share the fruits of their hard labor with other men who wouldn’t work.”
The plan for taking over America was read into our Congressional record in 1963 by Florida Democrat A.S. Herlong, Jr. It contains the following points: “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs.” This chilling goal is so similar to the stated criticism Obama made of our founding document that we need to constantly be aware of how he and his crew are trying to, in his own words, “fundamentally transform America.”
Did he have these Communist goals at the ready when he framed his speech just five days before his victory? A review of what the Communists planned revealed by Herlong, nearly 50 years ago, is frightening because of how much of this insidious plot is coming true. For instance, point 1 5 says, “Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.”(no question this one has been met). The next goal says, “Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.” Over and over we have seen the will of millions of voters overturned by just one judge.
Again and again we see decisions from un-elected government bureaucrats being allowed to abrogate the wishes of the American people, and what is worse, we are witnessing the acquiescence of our elected officials who are allowing this to happen!
Goal 17 in this scheme calls for the Communists to:
”Get control of the schools. Use them as conduits to force socialism and current communist propaganda into the minds of impressionable children. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.”
In the outstanding documentary “Waiting for Superman,” noted educational reformer Geoffrey Canada asked, “Why is this thing (public school system) an utter failure?” He answered that bad schools make for bad neighborhoods which is the opposite of what we’ve been told many times as “educrats” make us feel guilty about not giving enough money to our schools.
Another great educational reformer Howard Fuller talked about the “Dance of the Lemons” which forces school officials to rehire bad teachers over and over again. Both men stressed the involvement of the NEA and AFT which gave “$55 million to federal candidates, more than any other lobby, and 90% of those teachers’ dollars went to the Democrat party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers’ unions.”
The breakdown of American morality, fostering pornography under the guise of freedom of speech, plus legal initiatives eliminating prayer in our schools are recommended in the Communist plan as is using our legal system’s principle of separation of church and state to consolidate their victories. These things are happening now.
Why are we letting our country be destroyed from within? When will this scheme be revealed for what it is?
Obama’s governance is right out of the Communists’ plan to destroy America
By Coach Collins, on November 28th, 2010
By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
The Communist plan of forty five declared goals for taking over America without waging a messy war contains several items that are eerily similar to Barack Obama’s criticism of our U.S. Constitution. Obama has said our sacred Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it lacks a mechanism for redistribution of wealth from those who create it to those who merely consume it.
“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Obama told a Black radio station audience about seven years before he ran for President. Perhaps our President isn’t familiar with the words of William Bradford the leader of Pilgrims.
Bradford characterized redistribution of wealth as a total failure because “men didn’t like having to share the fruits of their hard labor with other men who wouldn’t work.”
The plan for taking over America was read into our Congressional record in 1963 by Florida Democrat A.S. Herlong, Jr. It contains the following points: “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs.” This chilling goal is so similar to the stated criticism Obama made of our founding document that we need to constantly be aware of how he and his crew are trying to, in his own words, “fundamentally transform America.”
Did he have these Communist goals at the ready when he framed his speech just five days before his victory? A review of what the Communists planned revealed by Herlong, nearly 50 years ago, is frightening because of how much of this insidious plot is coming true. For instance, point 1 5 says, “Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.”(no question this one has been met). The next goal says, “Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.” Over and over we have seen the will of millions of voters overturned by just one judge.
Again and again we see decisions from un-elected government bureaucrats being allowed to abrogate the wishes of the American people, and what is worse, we are witnessing the acquiescence of our elected officials who are allowing this to happen!
Goal 17 in this scheme calls for the Communists to:
”Get control of the schools. Use them as conduits to force socialism and current communist propaganda into the minds of impressionable children. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.”
In the outstanding documentary “Waiting for Superman,” noted educational reformer Geoffrey Canada asked, “Why is this thing (public school system) an utter failure?” He answered that bad schools make for bad neighborhoods which is the opposite of what we’ve been told many times as “educrats” make us feel guilty about not giving enough money to our schools.
Another great educational reformer Howard Fuller talked about the “Dance of the Lemons” which forces school officials to rehire bad teachers over and over again. Both men stressed the involvement of the NEA and AFT which gave “$55 million to federal candidates, more than any other lobby, and 90% of those teachers’ dollars went to the Democrat party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers’ unions.”
The breakdown of American morality, fostering pornography under the guise of freedom of speech, plus legal initiatives eliminating prayer in our schools are recommended in the Communist plan as is using our legal system’s principle of separation of church and state to consolidate their victories. These things are happening now.
Why are we letting our country be destroyed from within? When will this scheme be revealed for what it is?
Health Care Bill Faces Undercut By The Courts
From The New York Times and Alliance Defense Fund:
Health Law Faces Threat of Undercut From CourtsBy KEVIN SACK and ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 26, 2010
Recommend
Twitter
comments (301)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule.
Blogs
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
More Politics News
.Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (301) »
The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, has promised to rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance, which takes effect in 2014.
Although administration officials remain confident that it is constitutionally valid to compel people to obtain health insurance, they also acknowledge that Judge Hudson’s preliminary opinions and comments could presage the first ruling against the law.
“He’s asked a number of questions that express skepticism,” said one administration official who is examining whether a ruling against part of the law would undermine other provisions. “We have been trying to think through that set of questions,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case freely.
While many newly empowered Republican lawmakers have vowed to repeal the health care law in Congress, a more immediate threat may rest in the federal courts in cases brought by Republican officials in dozens of states. Not only would an adverse ruling confuse Americans and attack the law’s underpinnings, it could frustrate the steps hospitals, insurers and government agencies are taking to carry out the law.
“Any ruling against the act creates another P.R. problem for the Democrats, who need to resell the law to insured Americans,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a University of North Carolina political scientist, who wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine last week that such a ruling “could add to health care reform’s legitimacy problem.”
So far, there has been only one ruling on the merits among nearly two dozen legal challenges to the health care act. Last month, a federal district judge in Michigan upheld the law. But another judge, Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., has joined Judge Hudson in writing preliminary opinions that seemingly accept key arguments made by state officials challenging the law.
Unlike the judge in Michigan, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, both Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson were appointed by Republican presidents.
“We are not operating under the assumption that those two judges are inevitably going to rule against us,” the administration official said. “But of course we’re planning for the possibility that judges will reach different conclusions.”
The novel question before the courts is whether the government can require citizens to buy a commercial product like health insurance.
Because the Supreme Court has said the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” the judges must decide whether the failure to obtain insurance can be defined as an “activity.”
Lawyers on both sides expect the issue eventually to be decided by the Supreme Court. But the appellate path to that decision could take two years. In the meantime, any district court judge who rules against the law would have to decide whether to block enforcement of one or more of its provisions, potentially creating bureaucratic chaos.
Such a decision would prompt a flurry of appeals, as the Justice Department almost certainly would ask the judge and then the appellate courts to stay, or delay, the injunction pending the outcome of higher court rulings.
Administration officials, as well as some lawyers for the plaintiffs, agree that Judge Hudson seems unlikely, based on his comments from the bench, to enjoin the entire law. The judge volunteered at a hearing last month that his courtroom was “just one brief stop on the way to the Supreme Court.”
If he does not enjoin the law, the immediate impact of a finding against the insurance mandate would be limited because that provision, and others that might fall with it, do not take effect for more than three years.
Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican who filed the Richmond lawsuit, argues that if Judge Hudson rejects the insurance requirement he should instantly invalidate the entire act on a nationwide basis.
Mr. Cuccinelli and the plaintiffs in the Florida case, who include attorneys general or governors from 20 states, have emphasized that Congressional bill writers did not include a “severability clause” that would explicitly protect other parts of the sprawling law if certain provisions were struck down.
An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.
Blogs
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
More Politics News
.Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (301) »
Without such language, the Supreme Court, through its prior rulings, essentially requires judges to try to determine whether Congress would have enacted the rest of a law without the unconstitutional provisions.
The Justice Department, which represents the Obama administration, acknowledges that several of the law’s central provisions, like the requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions, cannot work unless both the healthy and the unhealthy are mandated to have insurance. Otherwise, consumers could simply buy coverage when they needed treatment, causing the insurance market to “implode,” the federal government asserts.
The administration argues that other key provisions do not depend on the insurance mandate. Those provisions include establishing health insurance exchanges, subsidizing premiums through tax credits and expanding Medicaid eligibility, all scheduled for 2014.
Nor, administration officials said, would an adverse ruling necessarily undermine certain insurance regulations that recently took effect, like the requirement that insurers cover children younger than 26 on their parents’ policies.
In a hearing last month, Judge Hudson remarked on the difficulty of determining Congress’s intent regarding a law with hundreds of disparate provisions. “This bill has more moving parts than a Swiss watch,” he said.
Lawyers for Virginia have sought to turn one of the federal government’s arguments on its head. They note that the health law explicitly refers to the insurance requirement as “an essential part” of the act’s regulatory scheme, and that Justice Department lawyers — in pressing their point that the law permissibly regulates commerce — have called it the “linchpin.”
If it is so essential, Virginia’s lawyers have asked, why should a judge believe that Congress intended for the rest of the act to stand without it?
Any illusion that the cases are not highly politicized was lost when Republican leaders raced this month to file friend-of-the-court briefs in Pensacola, and Democrats responded with briefs from state legislators and supportive economists. Among the Republicans intervening in the case are Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the future speaker; 32 United States senators; and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a possible presidential candidate.
A White House official said that in the meantime “the litigation is really not having an impact” on the pace of putting the law into effect: “I talk weekly to officials in states that have sued us, and in states that have not. I cannot tell the difference between them.”
Health Law Faces Threat of Undercut From CourtsBy KEVIN SACK and ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 26, 2010
Recommend
comments (301)
Sign In to E-Mail
Single Page
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule.
Blogs
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
More Politics News
.Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (301) »
The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, has promised to rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance, which takes effect in 2014.
Although administration officials remain confident that it is constitutionally valid to compel people to obtain health insurance, they also acknowledge that Judge Hudson’s preliminary opinions and comments could presage the first ruling against the law.
“He’s asked a number of questions that express skepticism,” said one administration official who is examining whether a ruling against part of the law would undermine other provisions. “We have been trying to think through that set of questions,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case freely.
While many newly empowered Republican lawmakers have vowed to repeal the health care law in Congress, a more immediate threat may rest in the federal courts in cases brought by Republican officials in dozens of states. Not only would an adverse ruling confuse Americans and attack the law’s underpinnings, it could frustrate the steps hospitals, insurers and government agencies are taking to carry out the law.
“Any ruling against the act creates another P.R. problem for the Democrats, who need to resell the law to insured Americans,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a University of North Carolina political scientist, who wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine last week that such a ruling “could add to health care reform’s legitimacy problem.”
So far, there has been only one ruling on the merits among nearly two dozen legal challenges to the health care act. Last month, a federal district judge in Michigan upheld the law. But another judge, Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., has joined Judge Hudson in writing preliminary opinions that seemingly accept key arguments made by state officials challenging the law.
Unlike the judge in Michigan, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, both Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson were appointed by Republican presidents.
“We are not operating under the assumption that those two judges are inevitably going to rule against us,” the administration official said. “But of course we’re planning for the possibility that judges will reach different conclusions.”
The novel question before the courts is whether the government can require citizens to buy a commercial product like health insurance.
Because the Supreme Court has said the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” the judges must decide whether the failure to obtain insurance can be defined as an “activity.”
Lawyers on both sides expect the issue eventually to be decided by the Supreme Court. But the appellate path to that decision could take two years. In the meantime, any district court judge who rules against the law would have to decide whether to block enforcement of one or more of its provisions, potentially creating bureaucratic chaos.
Such a decision would prompt a flurry of appeals, as the Justice Department almost certainly would ask the judge and then the appellate courts to stay, or delay, the injunction pending the outcome of higher court rulings.
Administration officials, as well as some lawyers for the plaintiffs, agree that Judge Hudson seems unlikely, based on his comments from the bench, to enjoin the entire law. The judge volunteered at a hearing last month that his courtroom was “just one brief stop on the way to the Supreme Court.”
If he does not enjoin the law, the immediate impact of a finding against the insurance mandate would be limited because that provision, and others that might fall with it, do not take effect for more than three years.
Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican who filed the Richmond lawsuit, argues that if Judge Hudson rejects the insurance requirement he should instantly invalidate the entire act on a nationwide basis.
Mr. Cuccinelli and the plaintiffs in the Florida case, who include attorneys general or governors from 20 states, have emphasized that Congressional bill writers did not include a “severability clause” that would explicitly protect other parts of the sprawling law if certain provisions were struck down.
An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.
Blogs
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
More Politics News
.Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (301) »
Without such language, the Supreme Court, through its prior rulings, essentially requires judges to try to determine whether Congress would have enacted the rest of a law without the unconstitutional provisions.
The Justice Department, which represents the Obama administration, acknowledges that several of the law’s central provisions, like the requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions, cannot work unless both the healthy and the unhealthy are mandated to have insurance. Otherwise, consumers could simply buy coverage when they needed treatment, causing the insurance market to “implode,” the federal government asserts.
The administration argues that other key provisions do not depend on the insurance mandate. Those provisions include establishing health insurance exchanges, subsidizing premiums through tax credits and expanding Medicaid eligibility, all scheduled for 2014.
Nor, administration officials said, would an adverse ruling necessarily undermine certain insurance regulations that recently took effect, like the requirement that insurers cover children younger than 26 on their parents’ policies.
In a hearing last month, Judge Hudson remarked on the difficulty of determining Congress’s intent regarding a law with hundreds of disparate provisions. “This bill has more moving parts than a Swiss watch,” he said.
Lawyers for Virginia have sought to turn one of the federal government’s arguments on its head. They note that the health law explicitly refers to the insurance requirement as “an essential part” of the act’s regulatory scheme, and that Justice Department lawyers — in pressing their point that the law permissibly regulates commerce — have called it the “linchpin.”
If it is so essential, Virginia’s lawyers have asked, why should a judge believe that Congress intended for the rest of the act to stand without it?
Any illusion that the cases are not highly politicized was lost when Republican leaders raced this month to file friend-of-the-court briefs in Pensacola, and Democrats responded with briefs from state legislators and supportive economists. Among the Republicans intervening in the case are Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the future speaker; 32 United States senators; and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a possible presidential candidate.
A White House official said that in the meantime “the litigation is really not having an impact” on the pace of putting the law into effect: “I talk weekly to officials in states that have sued us, and in states that have not. I cannot tell the difference between them.”
Extraordinary Powers Granted To European Police
From the Alfred the Great Society and Alliance Defense Fund:
Extraordinary Powers Granted to European Police
November 27th by Robin Phillips 0 Comments
Posted in Articles, Current events, Featured, Politics
On 22 November, the full extent of the EU’s police and criminal prosecution powers emerged.
These powers include the “European Arrest Warrant.” This allows British citizens to be captured within the UK and extradited to foreign jails for months or years without bail while awaiting trial without the right of appeal.
Most UK citizens are unaware of these powers, which came when the Lisbon Treaty removed Britain’s veto in justice and home affairs.
Just as the Treaty of Rome in 1957 provided the architecture for all states to be brought into a common agricultural policy, so the Lisbon Treaty established that laws relating to freedom, security and justice are a ‘shared competence’.
Mary Ellen Synon wrote in the Daily Mail explaining the meaning of ‘shared competence’. “This means EU law can now suppress existing legislation in justice and home affairs in a member state and replace it with European legislation.”
The justice powers now possessed by the EU include the European criminal intelligence agency ‘Europol’. Headquartered in The Hague, they receive £60 million-a-year and make up the EU’s federal police force. The picture above is above is of Catherine Zeta-Jones who played a Europol agent in the movie Ocean’s 12.
Europol’s 650 officials have diplomatic immunity, making them functionally unaccountable to the laws of Britain even though they can work in the UK.
In addition to the European arrest warrant, EU police powers also include “European Gendarmerie Force” – a 800-strong paramilitary police force that can be placed under military command and deployed as ‘an expeditionary police mission.’ The stated function of the European Gendarmerie Force is to “[aim] at a consistent and coordinated capability to deploy police forces with military status and full police powers.”
Through the European Investigation Order (EIO), the EU also has control of the British police. This order gives EU officers the power to force British police to investigate on their behalf, even if the person being investigated has not committed a UK crime. EIO also allows European officers to force UK police to interrogate suspects, to hand over DNA samples and fingerprints, to intercept communications and to spy on bank records.
This is just the beginning, however. In the years to come these departments will be expanding. Even though the EU is facing financial meltdown, the budget for justice and home affairs is set to increase by 13% in the year to come.
Extraordinary Powers Granted to European Police
November 27th by Robin Phillips 0 Comments
Posted in Articles, Current events, Featured, Politics
On 22 November, the full extent of the EU’s police and criminal prosecution powers emerged.
These powers include the “European Arrest Warrant.” This allows British citizens to be captured within the UK and extradited to foreign jails for months or years without bail while awaiting trial without the right of appeal.
Most UK citizens are unaware of these powers, which came when the Lisbon Treaty removed Britain’s veto in justice and home affairs.
Just as the Treaty of Rome in 1957 provided the architecture for all states to be brought into a common agricultural policy, so the Lisbon Treaty established that laws relating to freedom, security and justice are a ‘shared competence’.
Mary Ellen Synon wrote in the Daily Mail explaining the meaning of ‘shared competence’. “This means EU law can now suppress existing legislation in justice and home affairs in a member state and replace it with European legislation.”
The justice powers now possessed by the EU include the European criminal intelligence agency ‘Europol’. Headquartered in The Hague, they receive £60 million-a-year and make up the EU’s federal police force. The picture above is above is of Catherine Zeta-Jones who played a Europol agent in the movie Ocean’s 12.
Europol’s 650 officials have diplomatic immunity, making them functionally unaccountable to the laws of Britain even though they can work in the UK.
In addition to the European arrest warrant, EU police powers also include “European Gendarmerie Force” – a 800-strong paramilitary police force that can be placed under military command and deployed as ‘an expeditionary police mission.’ The stated function of the European Gendarmerie Force is to “[aim] at a consistent and coordinated capability to deploy police forces with military status and full police powers.”
Through the European Investigation Order (EIO), the EU also has control of the British police. This order gives EU officers the power to force British police to investigate on their behalf, even if the person being investigated has not committed a UK crime. EIO also allows European officers to force UK police to interrogate suspects, to hand over DNA samples and fingerprints, to intercept communications and to spy on bank records.
This is just the beginning, however. In the years to come these departments will be expanding. Even though the EU is facing financial meltdown, the budget for justice and home affairs is set to increase by 13% in the year to come.
Federal Judge Keeps Sharia Law Restriction Out Of Oklahoma Constitution
From The Daily Oklahoman and Alliance Defense Fund:
Federal judge keeps Sharia law restriction out of Oklahoma Constitution
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order against the Sharia law ban is only a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one. The Oklahoma Election Board can appeal.
BY NOLAN CLAY AND CARLA HINTON Oklahoman 380 Published: November 29, 2010
http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid66319854001?bctid=692156704001
An Oklahoma City federal judge Monday ruled against a voter-approved restriction on Islamic law.
In a 15-page order, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange continued to keep the restriction out of the Oklahoma Constitution. Her ruling was a victory for an Oklahoma City Muslim leader who had complained his constitutional religious rights were in jeopardy.
Muneer Awad is seen in this Nov. 22 photo by Paul Hellstern.
MultimediaVideo
view all videos
Judge issues injunction against Sharia law restriction in Oklahoma
Nov 29A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction that keeps a...
Photo
view all photos
Federal judge keeps Sharia law restriction out of Oklahoma Constitution
Related contentDocumentsRead the order
View the document. NewsOK Related ArticlesIslamic group's president pleased with ruling
11/29/2010 Imad Enchassi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said he was very pleased with the judge's ruling regarding the Sharia law...
Federal judge in OKC called ‘tough as nails, but...
11/29/2010 Vicki Miles-LaGrange, the federal judge the overseeing the Oklahoma Sharia law case, once said, “I just hope that's what I will be remembered for is being...
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out … the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights,” the judge wrote.
At issue was a constitutional amendment that forbids state courts from considering or using international law or Sharia law. The amendment describes Sharia law as Islamic law based on the Quran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Oklahomans on Nov. 2 approved the amendment — in State Question 755 — with 70.08 percent of the vote. Muneer Awad, 27, an American-born Muslim, sued two days later. The judge on Nov. 8 blocked the state Election Board from certifying the SQ 755 results.
The order Monday continues the freeze on those results.
The order is a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one. Still, the state Election Board could appeal now.
The state attorney general's office was considering its options, a spokesman said. A key supporter of the measure, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, said, “I was disappointed but not surprised. We look forward to working with the AG's office on it.”
Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “It is another positive step,” he said after the ruling.
“The initial filing of the lawsuit was a rough time,” Awad said, “But we've noticed since then a tremendous outpouring of support from Muslims and non-Muslims. We are confident we have supporters who want to see this amendment fail. It's not just about the Muslim community. It's about Oklahoma. The nation — the world — is watching.”
Imad Enchassi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said, “Justice has been served.”
In Monday's order, the judge wrote that Awad “has made a strong showing that State Question 755's amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
The judge rejected the state's argument that the amendment is a broad ban on state courts applying the law of other nations and cultures regardless of what faith they may be based on.
She wrote, “The actual language of the amendment reasonably … may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith.”
The judge wrote: “This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our (U.S.) Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights.”
Quoting from a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, she wrote, “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The judge said any harm to the state in delaying certification of the results is minimized because the amendment “was to be a preventative measure and the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur.”
Legislators called the measure the “Save Our State” amendment. The measure's principal author, former state Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, has called it a “pre-emptive strike ... against a growing threat.”
Critics of Sharia law contend it could be used as a defense in state courts to such barbaric practices as marital rape.
Read more: http://newsok.com/federal-judge-keeps-sharia-law-restriction-out-of-oklahoma-constitution/article/3519080#ixzz16jSKIAVl
Federal judge keeps Sharia law restriction out of Oklahoma Constitution
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order against the Sharia law ban is only a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one. The Oklahoma Election Board can appeal.
BY NOLAN CLAY AND CARLA HINTON Oklahoman 380 Published: November 29, 2010
http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid66319854001?bctid=692156704001
An Oklahoma City federal judge Monday ruled against a voter-approved restriction on Islamic law.
In a 15-page order, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange continued to keep the restriction out of the Oklahoma Constitution. Her ruling was a victory for an Oklahoma City Muslim leader who had complained his constitutional religious rights were in jeopardy.
Muneer Awad is seen in this Nov. 22 photo by Paul Hellstern.
MultimediaVideo
view all videos
Judge issues injunction against Sharia law restriction in Oklahoma
Nov 29A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction that keeps a...
Photo
view all photos
Federal judge keeps Sharia law restriction out of Oklahoma Constitution
Related contentDocumentsRead the order
View the document. NewsOK Related ArticlesIslamic group's president pleased with ruling
11/29/2010 Imad Enchassi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said he was very pleased with the judge's ruling regarding the Sharia law...
Federal judge in OKC called ‘tough as nails, but...
11/29/2010 Vicki Miles-LaGrange, the federal judge the overseeing the Oklahoma Sharia law case, once said, “I just hope that's what I will be remembered for is being...
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out … the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights,” the judge wrote.
At issue was a constitutional amendment that forbids state courts from considering or using international law or Sharia law. The amendment describes Sharia law as Islamic law based on the Quran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Oklahomans on Nov. 2 approved the amendment — in State Question 755 — with 70.08 percent of the vote. Muneer Awad, 27, an American-born Muslim, sued two days later. The judge on Nov. 8 blocked the state Election Board from certifying the SQ 755 results.
The order Monday continues the freeze on those results.
The order is a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one. Still, the state Election Board could appeal now.
The state attorney general's office was considering its options, a spokesman said. A key supporter of the measure, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, said, “I was disappointed but not surprised. We look forward to working with the AG's office on it.”
Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “It is another positive step,” he said after the ruling.
“The initial filing of the lawsuit was a rough time,” Awad said, “But we've noticed since then a tremendous outpouring of support from Muslims and non-Muslims. We are confident we have supporters who want to see this amendment fail. It's not just about the Muslim community. It's about Oklahoma. The nation — the world — is watching.”
Imad Enchassi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said, “Justice has been served.”
In Monday's order, the judge wrote that Awad “has made a strong showing that State Question 755's amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
The judge rejected the state's argument that the amendment is a broad ban on state courts applying the law of other nations and cultures regardless of what faith they may be based on.
She wrote, “The actual language of the amendment reasonably … may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith.”
The judge wrote: “This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our (U.S.) Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights.”
Quoting from a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, she wrote, “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The judge said any harm to the state in delaying certification of the results is minimized because the amendment “was to be a preventative measure and the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur.”
Legislators called the measure the “Save Our State” amendment. The measure's principal author, former state Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, has called it a “pre-emptive strike ... against a growing threat.”
Critics of Sharia law contend it could be used as a defense in state courts to such barbaric practices as marital rape.
Read more: http://newsok.com/federal-judge-keeps-sharia-law-restriction-out-of-oklahoma-constitution/article/3519080#ixzz16jSKIAVl
American Exceptionalism: An Old Idea And A New Political Battle
From The Washington Post and Lou Dobbs:
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
Gallery
Eye on 2012: The potential candidates
Now that the 2010 midterm elections are over, lips have already started wagging over who the potential Republican presidential candidates may be in 2012.
» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY
Network NewsX Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! BuzzReprints
COMMENT
0 Comments
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in
Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again? CLOSEWe've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 29, 2010; 12:10 AM
Is this a great country or what?
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
"American exceptionalism" is a phrase that, until recently, was rarely heard outside the confines of think tanks, opinion journals and university history departments.
But with Republicans and tea party activists accusing President Obama and the Democrats of turning the country toward socialism, the idea that the United States is inherently superior to the world's other nations has become the battle cry from a new front in the ongoing culture wars. Lately, it seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.
"This reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney writes in his campaign setup book, "No Apology: The Case For American Greatness."
On Monday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who is also considering a White House bid, is scheduled to address the Detroit Economic Club on "Restoring American Exceptionalism: A Vision for Economic Growth and Prosperity."
For former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the concept is a frequent theme in her speeches, Facebook postings, tweets and appearances on Fox News Channel. Her just-published book, "America by Heart," has a chapter titled "America the Exceptional."
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, contends in his speeches that Obama's views on the subject are "truly alarming."
In an interview in August with Politico, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee went so far as to declare of Obama: "His worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we've had. . . . To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."
And last week, Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, told a group of College Republicans at American University: "Don't kid yourself with the lie. America is exceptional, and Americans are concerned that there are a group of people in Washington who don't believe that any more."
Some, however, wonder whether Obama's conservative critics are sounding an alarm about the United States' place in the world - or making an insidious suggestion about the president himself.
With a more intellectual sheen than the false assertions that Obama is secretly a Muslim or that he was born in Kenya, an argument over American exceptionalism "is a respectable way of raising the question of whether Obama is one of us," said William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Much of this criticism harkens back to a single comment that Obama made at a news conference a year and a half ago in Strasbourg, France, during his first trip overseas as president.
Obama was asked by Financial Times correspondent Ed Luce whether he subscribes, as his predecessors did, "to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world."
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
The president's answer began: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
That may have been a nod to the fact that many abroad hear talk of American exceptionalism as worrisome jingoism. But it provided ammunition for Palin and other Republican critics.
"Maybe President Obama grew up around coaches who insisted that all the players receive participation 'trophies' at the end of the season and where no score was kept in youth soccer games for fear of offending someone," she wrote in her book. " . . . when President Obama insists that all countries are exceptional, he's saying that none is, least of all the country he leads."
At a minimum, Obama's comment reflected "casual staff work. Let's put it that way," said James Q. Wilson, an influential conservative thinker who has written extensively about American exceptionalism. "He did not understand how Americans feel about this."
But while the opening sentence of Obama's answer sounded dismissive, the president's full statement was more complex than that - and was indeed an affirmation of American exceptionalism, although arguably a qualified one.
In addition to the world's largest economy and its mightiest military, Obama said, "we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."
He added: "I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."
Obama was placing the concept in the context of his view that the United States must enter what he has called "a new era of engagement."
His Republican critics do have a point, Galston said: Democrats have become more squeamish about the idea of exceptionalism in the wake of the George W. Bush years, when spreading American values was used as a justification for unilateral action on the world stage.
"For many liberal Democrats, George W. Bush made the world unsafe for the vigorous assertion of American exceptionalism," Galston said.
But while Obama's statement - made on foreign soil - was about how the idea applies to this country's global role, the concept of exceptionalism also speaks to Americans' beliefs about the size, role and scope of their own government.
"The nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez faire," wrote the late political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the leading scholars of the subject.
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
Indeed, exceptionalism has often been employed to explain "why the United States is the only industrialized country which does not have a significant socialist movement or Labor party," Lipset wrote.
The proposition of American exceptionalism, which goes at least as far back as the writing of French aristocrat and historian Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, asserts that this country has a unique character.
It is also rooted in religious belief. A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that 58 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "God has granted America a special role in human history."
Gingrich says Obama fails to understand that "American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence," and that it is a term "which relates directly to our unique assertion of an unprecedented set of rights granted by God."
But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer noted that Obama has declared exactly that on many occasions - including in his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the moment that first brought the then-Illinois state senator to national attention.
"Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy; our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over 200 years ago," Obama told the delegates in Boston. " 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' That is the true genius of America."
Pfeiffer contended that the new criticism of Obama on the subject says more about the race for the Republican presidential nomination than anything else.
The GOP contenders know that this kind of argument - with its suggestion that Obama is undermining American values - was "a huge piece of what Sarah Palin did in 2008," Pfeiffer said. "They want a little bit of Sarah Palin magic, because she has a lot of enthusiasm and support among the base."
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
Gallery
Eye on 2012: The potential candidates
Now that the 2010 midterm elections are over, lips have already started wagging over who the potential Republican presidential candidates may be in 2012.
» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY
Network NewsX Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! BuzzReprints
COMMENT
0 Comments
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in
Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again? CLOSEWe've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 29, 2010; 12:10 AM
Is this a great country or what?
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
"American exceptionalism" is a phrase that, until recently, was rarely heard outside the confines of think tanks, opinion journals and university history departments.
But with Republicans and tea party activists accusing President Obama and the Democrats of turning the country toward socialism, the idea that the United States is inherently superior to the world's other nations has become the battle cry from a new front in the ongoing culture wars. Lately, it seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.
"This reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney writes in his campaign setup book, "No Apology: The Case For American Greatness."
On Monday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who is also considering a White House bid, is scheduled to address the Detroit Economic Club on "Restoring American Exceptionalism: A Vision for Economic Growth and Prosperity."
For former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the concept is a frequent theme in her speeches, Facebook postings, tweets and appearances on Fox News Channel. Her just-published book, "America by Heart," has a chapter titled "America the Exceptional."
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, contends in his speeches that Obama's views on the subject are "truly alarming."
In an interview in August with Politico, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee went so far as to declare of Obama: "His worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we've had. . . . To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."
And last week, Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, told a group of College Republicans at American University: "Don't kid yourself with the lie. America is exceptional, and Americans are concerned that there are a group of people in Washington who don't believe that any more."
Some, however, wonder whether Obama's conservative critics are sounding an alarm about the United States' place in the world - or making an insidious suggestion about the president himself.
With a more intellectual sheen than the false assertions that Obama is secretly a Muslim or that he was born in Kenya, an argument over American exceptionalism "is a respectable way of raising the question of whether Obama is one of us," said William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Much of this criticism harkens back to a single comment that Obama made at a news conference a year and a half ago in Strasbourg, France, during his first trip overseas as president.
Obama was asked by Financial Times correspondent Ed Luce whether he subscribes, as his predecessors did, "to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world."
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
The president's answer began: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
That may have been a nod to the fact that many abroad hear talk of American exceptionalism as worrisome jingoism. But it provided ammunition for Palin and other Republican critics.
"Maybe President Obama grew up around coaches who insisted that all the players receive participation 'trophies' at the end of the season and where no score was kept in youth soccer games for fear of offending someone," she wrote in her book. " . . . when President Obama insists that all countries are exceptional, he's saying that none is, least of all the country he leads."
At a minimum, Obama's comment reflected "casual staff work. Let's put it that way," said James Q. Wilson, an influential conservative thinker who has written extensively about American exceptionalism. "He did not understand how Americans feel about this."
But while the opening sentence of Obama's answer sounded dismissive, the president's full statement was more complex than that - and was indeed an affirmation of American exceptionalism, although arguably a qualified one.
In addition to the world's largest economy and its mightiest military, Obama said, "we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."
He added: "I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."
Obama was placing the concept in the context of his view that the United States must enter what he has called "a new era of engagement."
His Republican critics do have a point, Galston said: Democrats have become more squeamish about the idea of exceptionalism in the wake of the George W. Bush years, when spreading American values was used as a justification for unilateral action on the world stage.
"For many liberal Democrats, George W. Bush made the world unsafe for the vigorous assertion of American exceptionalism," Galston said.
But while Obama's statement - made on foreign soil - was about how the idea applies to this country's global role, the concept of exceptionalism also speaks to Americans' beliefs about the size, role and scope of their own government.
"The nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez faire," wrote the late political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the leading scholars of the subject.
This Story
American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle
A history of Republicans and 'exceptionalism'
What does American exceptionalism mean to you?
Indeed, exceptionalism has often been employed to explain "why the United States is the only industrialized country which does not have a significant socialist movement or Labor party," Lipset wrote.
The proposition of American exceptionalism, which goes at least as far back as the writing of French aristocrat and historian Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, asserts that this country has a unique character.
It is also rooted in religious belief. A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that 58 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "God has granted America a special role in human history."
Gingrich says Obama fails to understand that "American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence," and that it is a term "which relates directly to our unique assertion of an unprecedented set of rights granted by God."
But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer noted that Obama has declared exactly that on many occasions - including in his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the moment that first brought the then-Illinois state senator to national attention.
"Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy; our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over 200 years ago," Obama told the delegates in Boston. " 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' That is the true genius of America."
Pfeiffer contended that the new criticism of Obama on the subject says more about the race for the Republican presidential nomination than anything else.
The GOP contenders know that this kind of argument - with its suggestion that Obama is undermining American values - was "a huge piece of what Sarah Palin did in 2008," Pfeiffer said. "They want a little bit of Sarah Palin magic, because she has a lot of enthusiasm and support among the base."
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
America's Mis-Conception Of Freedom
From Activist Post and Secession and Nullification--News and Information:
Saturday, November 27, 2010America's Misconception of Freedom
S. Paul Forrest
Activist Post
America was founded in an attempt to escape the oppression of not only religious expression, but also the misrepresentation from a monarchist system that cared only for the proliferation and interests of the elite class. After 250 years, we have found ourselves in the same position as those who left Europe for these shores so long ago: oppressed by a system that only wants to serve itself before the citizens that support it. They say history repeats itself, and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of modern America’s politicians, putting their corporate puppet masters and damaging agenda of faux patriotism before the needs of the people.
To understand how we have been led to the erroneous conclusion that America is somehow a free nation, one must come to an understanding of what type of political system exists in this country and how it adds to or detracts from our social system as set up by our forefathers. We also must recognize the erosion of our system under the watch of the overzealous quasi-patriotism which has served to initiate the current Police State in place and growing in America.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that we do not live in a democracy as most people have been led to believe; America is a republic where we are granted the opportunity to elect representatives to make decisions for us. Our forefathers were learned enough to understand that a pure democracy was not possible in a complex society, especially the one they were setting up. In a democracy, although touted as the ideal system for freedom of the people to decide all matters of State, the minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group, whereas in a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person.
The problem with a republic, though, is that the inherent rights of the people are surrendered upon the casting of a vote for representation. After this action has taken place, our fate lies in the hands of politicians who, with the innate human deficiency of sin, represent our interests. This type of system was set up because the idea of a complex society deciding all aspects of government and the minority becoming unrepresented was unrealistic. The thought that we the people could effectively be served by those who are concerned not with the continuation of our liberty but with the development and proliferation of self-service has been greatly discredited by the reality of this, our modern model of representation.
To understand our freedom, or lack thereof, it is important to recognize what type of political system exists within our social structure into which we put our faith each election period. This country is currently run and controlled by a two-party system that determines for us, the “free” voters, who we can vote for. The choice of candidates is determined by the parties themselves as the proper representatives of their interests, rather than the interests of the American people. Even the self-labeled “freedom party” or Tea Party, is just an extension of this old, two-sided coin. We can either vote for the lesser of the evils, or suffer the consequence of others doing the voting for us.
Regarding words by James Madison on the American political system, Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University writes:
Madison assumed politicians . . . would be able to command the allegiance of large numbers of voters. Once in office, they would act with a broadmindedness that would elevate the very quality of public life. They would think not in terms of the immediate interests of their constituents, but of the larger public good which was synonymous with the concept of the public itself. The virtue which could no longer be expected to reside in the populace might still be found, he hoped, in its rulers.
It is clear from today’s system that this assumption was wrong. Our modern politicians are largely self-serving, and the quality of our lives is directly relative to our freedom to vote for true representation.
Madison obviously had great confidence that an elected official through the ages would think similarly as he and his colleagues with regard to intellectual consideration of the established hierarchy. The effects of this representation was, in theory, to contribute to the ongoing freedom of the people. With the issuing of the Constitution, he and others like him believed they had established a system that would endure the natural tendencies of corruption that had ended with the oppression of the masses in so many other social systems. The reality, as proven with our modern institutional malfeasance, is these representatives eventually become corrupt in the position of power they hold over the people.
The limited choice of representation has fostered a governmental system of insular thinking and the gradual erosion of our own national freedoms. The two-party system, with its inbred philosophy of elitism, has been taking our freedom from us bit by bit with innumerable laws and initiatives to foster control. The decay of our Constitutional freedom has been exacerbated by such legislative initiatives as the Patriot Act and its associated nullification of habeas corpus, while labeling some citizens concerned with the direction of our government as dissidents.
Some would argue this action is necessary to protect the security of the nation, but it only stands as proof of the intrinsic dilemma of our current democratic representation. As stated by the Constitutional Society:
. . . governments must be vested with a certain degree of power. It is this power that can be most dangerous to the liberties of the people. To find out who committed a certain crime, police must be able to question suspects and witnesses, and be able to search for evidence. In a society where the government is omnipotent, the powers of the police to detain, question, and search are unlimited. In fact, the power to determine guilt would be unlimited.
In the modern era of terrorist influence and the over reaction of associated governmental propaganda, a police state, initiated by our increasingly corrupt system, has expanded control and the violation of our rights to a writ of habeas corpus rather than allowing it to remain. It makes certain that any dissonance or suspicion of anti-patriotism is answered by restraint pending conviction. Guilt before proof of innocence has become the mantra of modern justice in the evolving decay of the American political system.
Ease of movement and civil rights are also largely questionable in this system. One only need look at the new TSA screening process, public face recognition programming and intelligence agency policy of Net watching to know these are not applicable freedoms in modern America. If we want to travel, we are forced to endure a violation of our rights and forced to endure molestation by security screeners. In an effort to protect our “democracy”, under the new American Police State, we are robbed of our innate, individual rights. These new, national security measures have only served to imprison us all within the realm of paranoia driven, political propaganda.
The U.S. Government, in the eternal quest of total control of the people, has led the charge in the deception and misconception of our freedom. In the ever increasing amplification of Al Qaeda’s desire to terrorize our country, America has expanded the control of the people through the Patriot Act, legislation that was pushed though Congress under false pretenses and nationalist plasticity. This Act was an orchestrated move in response to a false, immoral war begun and promulgated by the United States and has added a fascist element to our Republic.
It is vehemently argued from the creators of this control that steps must be taken to protect our borders and our citizens, but the American people are not the ones who started this war. It was begun by greedy politicians in an effort to obtain oil rights and control over an area that largely supplies the world’s fuel needs. The death of whatever freedom we may have previously enjoyed occurred with the initiation of this legislation and the paranoia associated with its inception.
The reality of it all is that our choices are limited, our politics contrived, and our country controlled by corporations fed by an American obsession with excess; America's political puppets no longer represent citizens, but rather their own interests. We are all slaves to a predetermined mentality of competition for monetary acquisition and zealot-controlled governmental fascism that provides us with 4,000 new laws per year. Our choice is to conform to these laws, or else be controlled by the bars of a real prison. We are coerced daily to live silently within a system that is corrupt, or we can pay the price for not following the rules of its deception.
This country is not the model of democratic individualism most of us were taught it was. From our schools to our media sources, the decay of our American rights has been continuously fed in the name of faux patriotism. Until we all wake up and see these truths of deception, the constant move to add to the growing state of total control will destroy not only the fabric of this nation but the last freedoms that we do possess.
There once was a dream that was America. With the ever increasing intrusion of Big Government and its media propaganda, we are slowly falling into the realm of fascist machination, the end result of which will spell the death of the dream of those settlers who first came here to establish a free society.
The time has come for Americans to realize how little control they have in daily choices and to awaken to the fact that we are now suffering from a very damaging misconception of our freedom. Until we collectively stand together and let our representatives know we will no longer allow their destruction of this wonderful country, the erosion will continue.
John Locke had once declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens and to replace the government with one that served the interests of those citizens. In the recent years, our governmental representatives have not acted in any interest save their own. It is time that the system is corrected and even more importantly, it is time for America to come to terms with its misconception of freedom else lose all that this great nation stands for. The revolution is near and unless the in-place system comes to realize its errant ways, they will find themselves thrown from the Ivory towers they have built upon the backs of America
Saturday, November 27, 2010America's Misconception of Freedom
S. Paul Forrest
Activist Post
America was founded in an attempt to escape the oppression of not only religious expression, but also the misrepresentation from a monarchist system that cared only for the proliferation and interests of the elite class. After 250 years, we have found ourselves in the same position as those who left Europe for these shores so long ago: oppressed by a system that only wants to serve itself before the citizens that support it. They say history repeats itself, and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of modern America’s politicians, putting their corporate puppet masters and damaging agenda of faux patriotism before the needs of the people.
To understand how we have been led to the erroneous conclusion that America is somehow a free nation, one must come to an understanding of what type of political system exists in this country and how it adds to or detracts from our social system as set up by our forefathers. We also must recognize the erosion of our system under the watch of the overzealous quasi-patriotism which has served to initiate the current Police State in place and growing in America.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that we do not live in a democracy as most people have been led to believe; America is a republic where we are granted the opportunity to elect representatives to make decisions for us. Our forefathers were learned enough to understand that a pure democracy was not possible in a complex society, especially the one they were setting up. In a democracy, although touted as the ideal system for freedom of the people to decide all matters of State, the minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group, whereas in a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person.
The problem with a republic, though, is that the inherent rights of the people are surrendered upon the casting of a vote for representation. After this action has taken place, our fate lies in the hands of politicians who, with the innate human deficiency of sin, represent our interests. This type of system was set up because the idea of a complex society deciding all aspects of government and the minority becoming unrepresented was unrealistic. The thought that we the people could effectively be served by those who are concerned not with the continuation of our liberty but with the development and proliferation of self-service has been greatly discredited by the reality of this, our modern model of representation.
To understand our freedom, or lack thereof, it is important to recognize what type of political system exists within our social structure into which we put our faith each election period. This country is currently run and controlled by a two-party system that determines for us, the “free” voters, who we can vote for. The choice of candidates is determined by the parties themselves as the proper representatives of their interests, rather than the interests of the American people. Even the self-labeled “freedom party” or Tea Party, is just an extension of this old, two-sided coin. We can either vote for the lesser of the evils, or suffer the consequence of others doing the voting for us.
Regarding words by James Madison on the American political system, Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University writes:
Madison assumed politicians . . . would be able to command the allegiance of large numbers of voters. Once in office, they would act with a broadmindedness that would elevate the very quality of public life. They would think not in terms of the immediate interests of their constituents, but of the larger public good which was synonymous with the concept of the public itself. The virtue which could no longer be expected to reside in the populace might still be found, he hoped, in its rulers.
It is clear from today’s system that this assumption was wrong. Our modern politicians are largely self-serving, and the quality of our lives is directly relative to our freedom to vote for true representation.
Madison obviously had great confidence that an elected official through the ages would think similarly as he and his colleagues with regard to intellectual consideration of the established hierarchy. The effects of this representation was, in theory, to contribute to the ongoing freedom of the people. With the issuing of the Constitution, he and others like him believed they had established a system that would endure the natural tendencies of corruption that had ended with the oppression of the masses in so many other social systems. The reality, as proven with our modern institutional malfeasance, is these representatives eventually become corrupt in the position of power they hold over the people.
The limited choice of representation has fostered a governmental system of insular thinking and the gradual erosion of our own national freedoms. The two-party system, with its inbred philosophy of elitism, has been taking our freedom from us bit by bit with innumerable laws and initiatives to foster control. The decay of our Constitutional freedom has been exacerbated by such legislative initiatives as the Patriot Act and its associated nullification of habeas corpus, while labeling some citizens concerned with the direction of our government as dissidents.
Some would argue this action is necessary to protect the security of the nation, but it only stands as proof of the intrinsic dilemma of our current democratic representation. As stated by the Constitutional Society:
. . . governments must be vested with a certain degree of power. It is this power that can be most dangerous to the liberties of the people. To find out who committed a certain crime, police must be able to question suspects and witnesses, and be able to search for evidence. In a society where the government is omnipotent, the powers of the police to detain, question, and search are unlimited. In fact, the power to determine guilt would be unlimited.
In the modern era of terrorist influence and the over reaction of associated governmental propaganda, a police state, initiated by our increasingly corrupt system, has expanded control and the violation of our rights to a writ of habeas corpus rather than allowing it to remain. It makes certain that any dissonance or suspicion of anti-patriotism is answered by restraint pending conviction. Guilt before proof of innocence has become the mantra of modern justice in the evolving decay of the American political system.
Ease of movement and civil rights are also largely questionable in this system. One only need look at the new TSA screening process, public face recognition programming and intelligence agency policy of Net watching to know these are not applicable freedoms in modern America. If we want to travel, we are forced to endure a violation of our rights and forced to endure molestation by security screeners. In an effort to protect our “democracy”, under the new American Police State, we are robbed of our innate, individual rights. These new, national security measures have only served to imprison us all within the realm of paranoia driven, political propaganda.
The U.S. Government, in the eternal quest of total control of the people, has led the charge in the deception and misconception of our freedom. In the ever increasing amplification of Al Qaeda’s desire to terrorize our country, America has expanded the control of the people through the Patriot Act, legislation that was pushed though Congress under false pretenses and nationalist plasticity. This Act was an orchestrated move in response to a false, immoral war begun and promulgated by the United States and has added a fascist element to our Republic.
It is vehemently argued from the creators of this control that steps must be taken to protect our borders and our citizens, but the American people are not the ones who started this war. It was begun by greedy politicians in an effort to obtain oil rights and control over an area that largely supplies the world’s fuel needs. The death of whatever freedom we may have previously enjoyed occurred with the initiation of this legislation and the paranoia associated with its inception.
The reality of it all is that our choices are limited, our politics contrived, and our country controlled by corporations fed by an American obsession with excess; America's political puppets no longer represent citizens, but rather their own interests. We are all slaves to a predetermined mentality of competition for monetary acquisition and zealot-controlled governmental fascism that provides us with 4,000 new laws per year. Our choice is to conform to these laws, or else be controlled by the bars of a real prison. We are coerced daily to live silently within a system that is corrupt, or we can pay the price for not following the rules of its deception.
This country is not the model of democratic individualism most of us were taught it was. From our schools to our media sources, the decay of our American rights has been continuously fed in the name of faux patriotism. Until we all wake up and see these truths of deception, the constant move to add to the growing state of total control will destroy not only the fabric of this nation but the last freedoms that we do possess.
There once was a dream that was America. With the ever increasing intrusion of Big Government and its media propaganda, we are slowly falling into the realm of fascist machination, the end result of which will spell the death of the dream of those settlers who first came here to establish a free society.
The time has come for Americans to realize how little control they have in daily choices and to awaken to the fact that we are now suffering from a very damaging misconception of our freedom. Until we collectively stand together and let our representatives know we will no longer allow their destruction of this wonderful country, the erosion will continue.
John Locke had once declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens and to replace the government with one that served the interests of those citizens. In the recent years, our governmental representatives have not acted in any interest save their own. It is time that the system is corrected and even more importantly, it is time for America to come to terms with its misconception of freedom else lose all that this great nation stands for. The revolution is near and unless the in-place system comes to realize its errant ways, they will find themselves thrown from the Ivory towers they have built upon the backs of America
Power To The People! Repeal Amendment Gaining Strength
From Big Government:
Breaking – Power to the People! Repeal Amendment Gaining Strengthby James M. Simpson
The great fear of all dictators is provoking rebellion before they are ready to handle it. So the Democrats, our Nation’s aspiring despots, have become refined experts at offering soothing, even encouraging, but always deceptive rhetoric about their sleazy, underhanded power grabs. Supported by a largely complicit mass media, they have brought our country to the breaking point.
But throughout history, the American people have repeatedly shown an amazing capacity for finding innovative solutions, often at the very last minute, to seemingly intractable crises. This fact of the indomitable, resourceful and defiant American spirit literally terrifies the left, and with good reason. They are now outed.
Flag of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts
First we got the Tea Party, a genuine, spontaneous, grassroots revolution that rose up in less than a year to become the most dynamic, influential political movement in America. It gave us the stunning defeats of Democrat politicians in New Jersey, Virginia and even the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. See my tribute flag to Ted above. Be sure to look up the Latin translation.
Finally, the Tea Party should be credited with the November 2010 election results in the U.S. House of Representatives and the state legislatures, where Republicans now hold the largest number since 1928. But we all know that even these gains are not enough, at least not yet, to stop the leftist juggernaut—led by the most radical President and facilitated by the most corrupt Congress in U.S. history. So Communists, er, Democrats, meet your nemesis, those damned innovative Americans, again.
The Daily Caller headline (November 24, 2010) says it all. Yet another unanticipated fastball has been hurled directly at the radical left’s destructive agenda. It is called the Repeal Amendment. Brainchild of distinguished Georgetown Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett, the proposal has gotten legs with the help of Florida attorney Marianne Moran, Executive Director of RepealAmendment.org.
The proposal calls for a constitutional amendment that would allow the states, by a two-thirds majority vote, to repeal objectionable federal legislation and regulations. Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, slated to be Majority Leader in the upcoming Congress, has gotten behind the movement, as has Virginia’s governor, and lieutenant governor, leaders in the state legislature and Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cantor articulates the justification well:
Washington has grown far too large and has become far too intrusive, reaching into nearly every aspect of our lives. In just the past few years, Washington has assumed more control over our economy and the private sector through excessive regulations and unprecedented mandates. Our liberty and freedom has lessened as the size and scope of the federal government has exploded. Massive expenditures like the stimulus, unconstitutional mandates like the takeover of health care, and intrusions into the private sector like the auto-bailouts have threatened the very core of the American free market.
Yeah, that about says it, although I would add the outrageous, blatantly corrupt misappropriation of trillions of taxpayer dollars for personal and political gain this administration and Congress have wantonly engaged in. These people need jail.
The Amendment is straightforward and simple:
Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.
This Repeal Amendment was inspired by Barnett’s April 2009 groundbreaking article in the Wall Street Journal, which described Constitutional remedies for taking our country back. The Amendment was publicly proposed for the first time on September 15 of this year, and a mere two months later has garnered the support of prominent legislators in nine states: Virginia, Utah, New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, Indiana, and South Carolina. Virginia has led the way with support from Governor McDonnell, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, House of Delegates Speaker Bill Howell, Lieutenant Governor/Senate President Bill Bolling, in addition to Representative Cantor.
It has gotten a lot of play in the press too. On November 23rd, Professor Barnett and Virginia House Speaker Howell went on Fox Business News to discuss the proposal with Fox News’ commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano was ecstatic about the idea:
…this sounds almost too good to be true, if it could happen. We wouldn’t have unfunded mandates; the Tenth Amendment would reign supreme; the states would be sovereign within their own borders…
But the Judge had his doubts.
Adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a deliberately difficult task. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, there are two ways it can be accomplished:
1. Both Houses of Congress agree to propose an Amendment with a two-thirds majority vote.
2. Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) pass a resolution to call for an Amendment Convention to vote on the amendment.
In both cases, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states).
In his interview, Judge Napolitano raised the questions everyone asks: 1. would Congress vote against its own interest by passing an Amendment specifically designed to check its power? 2. If the states were successful in suing for an Amendment Convention, would it become a “runaway Convention?”
In addressing the first question, Delegate Howell responded that if such amendment is requested by two-thirds of the states, Congress has no choice in the matter. He also observed that the newly-elected Congress has a decidedly different attitude towards governing, many having been elected on a platform specifically calling for limited government.
Some conservatives express anxiety about the specter of a “Constitutional Convention” or “ConCon” as it is colloquially known. This is when the entire Constitution is thrown open for rewrite—Judge Napolitano’s “runaway Convention”. It has only happened once, however, when in 1787 the Articles of the Confederation were rewritten to create the Constitution as we know it, and that was the purpose for which it was called.
Both Barnett and Howell are careful to point out that Article V speaks of “Amendment Conventions” which consider individual amendments as opposed to the entire document. Since amendments require a two-thirds majority vote from the fifty states, it is difficult to imagine a “runaway convention.” It is more difficult to imagine enactment, since three-fourths of the states must ultimately agree to each amendment.
Whatever the case, it is a very high hurdle to call a convention. According to Wikipedia, since 1787, Amendment Conventions have been requested by states over 700 times. None have occurred.
RepealAmendment.org’s Moran, however, does not believe a convention is necessary. In the past, when states got close to obtaining the requisite two-thirds support, Congress stepped in to act, thus maintaining control of the process. This has happened at least four times, regarding the 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th Amendments. (Citation). The original Bill of Rights was also created by Congress under threat of a second Convention.
In some circumstances, Congress has passed legislation that addresses the demands embedded in the Amendment without creating a new Amendment. This occurred during the Reagan administration, when in response to a Convention called by 32 of the requisite 34 states for a balanced budget amendment, Congress passed the Gramm, Rudman, Hollings Act. All other Amendments have been formulated in Congress and passed to the states for ratification.
Either way, Moran explains, “…the goal is to force Congress to act in lieu of an amendment convention, as has happened every time the states have used the Article V mechanism. It should be used again now with Virginia once again leading the way.”
Supporters of the Amendment are optimistic, saying the time has come for states to take back the power Congress has increasingly usurped. It may just work. It is a good idea whose time has definitely come, and is a possible solution to Congressional Democrats’ seeming determination to jam as much awful legislation down our throats as possible before the clock runs out this January. Yet more reason to redouble our efforts for 2012.
A press conference will be held this upcoming November 30th with select Speakers, Senate Presidents, members of Congress, and other State legislators at 9 a.m. at the Grand Hyatt Washington, McPherson Square Room – ALEC Media Room, 1000 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001.
The American people have just begun to fight. Professor Barnett’s proposal, and the movement that has sprung up around it in a mere two months, is one example of that fine, unpredictable, independent spirit embedded in the American psyche, something that the hidebound, gutless left will never understand. It is reflected in the spirit of the Gadsden Flag:
Don’t tread on me!
Breaking – Power to the People! Repeal Amendment Gaining Strengthby James M. Simpson
The great fear of all dictators is provoking rebellion before they are ready to handle it. So the Democrats, our Nation’s aspiring despots, have become refined experts at offering soothing, even encouraging, but always deceptive rhetoric about their sleazy, underhanded power grabs. Supported by a largely complicit mass media, they have brought our country to the breaking point.
But throughout history, the American people have repeatedly shown an amazing capacity for finding innovative solutions, often at the very last minute, to seemingly intractable crises. This fact of the indomitable, resourceful and defiant American spirit literally terrifies the left, and with good reason. They are now outed.
Flag of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts
First we got the Tea Party, a genuine, spontaneous, grassroots revolution that rose up in less than a year to become the most dynamic, influential political movement in America. It gave us the stunning defeats of Democrat politicians in New Jersey, Virginia and even the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. See my tribute flag to Ted above. Be sure to look up the Latin translation.
Finally, the Tea Party should be credited with the November 2010 election results in the U.S. House of Representatives and the state legislatures, where Republicans now hold the largest number since 1928. But we all know that even these gains are not enough, at least not yet, to stop the leftist juggernaut—led by the most radical President and facilitated by the most corrupt Congress in U.S. history. So Communists, er, Democrats, meet your nemesis, those damned innovative Americans, again.
The Daily Caller headline (November 24, 2010) says it all. Yet another unanticipated fastball has been hurled directly at the radical left’s destructive agenda. It is called the Repeal Amendment. Brainchild of distinguished Georgetown Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett, the proposal has gotten legs with the help of Florida attorney Marianne Moran, Executive Director of RepealAmendment.org.
The proposal calls for a constitutional amendment that would allow the states, by a two-thirds majority vote, to repeal objectionable federal legislation and regulations. Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, slated to be Majority Leader in the upcoming Congress, has gotten behind the movement, as has Virginia’s governor, and lieutenant governor, leaders in the state legislature and Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cantor articulates the justification well:
Washington has grown far too large and has become far too intrusive, reaching into nearly every aspect of our lives. In just the past few years, Washington has assumed more control over our economy and the private sector through excessive regulations and unprecedented mandates. Our liberty and freedom has lessened as the size and scope of the federal government has exploded. Massive expenditures like the stimulus, unconstitutional mandates like the takeover of health care, and intrusions into the private sector like the auto-bailouts have threatened the very core of the American free market.
Yeah, that about says it, although I would add the outrageous, blatantly corrupt misappropriation of trillions of taxpayer dollars for personal and political gain this administration and Congress have wantonly engaged in. These people need jail.
The Amendment is straightforward and simple:
Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.
This Repeal Amendment was inspired by Barnett’s April 2009 groundbreaking article in the Wall Street Journal, which described Constitutional remedies for taking our country back. The Amendment was publicly proposed for the first time on September 15 of this year, and a mere two months later has garnered the support of prominent legislators in nine states: Virginia, Utah, New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, Indiana, and South Carolina. Virginia has led the way with support from Governor McDonnell, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, House of Delegates Speaker Bill Howell, Lieutenant Governor/Senate President Bill Bolling, in addition to Representative Cantor.
It has gotten a lot of play in the press too. On November 23rd, Professor Barnett and Virginia House Speaker Howell went on Fox Business News to discuss the proposal with Fox News’ commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano was ecstatic about the idea:
…this sounds almost too good to be true, if it could happen. We wouldn’t have unfunded mandates; the Tenth Amendment would reign supreme; the states would be sovereign within their own borders…
But the Judge had his doubts.
Adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a deliberately difficult task. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, there are two ways it can be accomplished:
1. Both Houses of Congress agree to propose an Amendment with a two-thirds majority vote.
2. Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) pass a resolution to call for an Amendment Convention to vote on the amendment.
In both cases, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states).
In his interview, Judge Napolitano raised the questions everyone asks: 1. would Congress vote against its own interest by passing an Amendment specifically designed to check its power? 2. If the states were successful in suing for an Amendment Convention, would it become a “runaway Convention?”
In addressing the first question, Delegate Howell responded that if such amendment is requested by two-thirds of the states, Congress has no choice in the matter. He also observed that the newly-elected Congress has a decidedly different attitude towards governing, many having been elected on a platform specifically calling for limited government.
Some conservatives express anxiety about the specter of a “Constitutional Convention” or “ConCon” as it is colloquially known. This is when the entire Constitution is thrown open for rewrite—Judge Napolitano’s “runaway Convention”. It has only happened once, however, when in 1787 the Articles of the Confederation were rewritten to create the Constitution as we know it, and that was the purpose for which it was called.
Both Barnett and Howell are careful to point out that Article V speaks of “Amendment Conventions” which consider individual amendments as opposed to the entire document. Since amendments require a two-thirds majority vote from the fifty states, it is difficult to imagine a “runaway convention.” It is more difficult to imagine enactment, since three-fourths of the states must ultimately agree to each amendment.
Whatever the case, it is a very high hurdle to call a convention. According to Wikipedia, since 1787, Amendment Conventions have been requested by states over 700 times. None have occurred.
RepealAmendment.org’s Moran, however, does not believe a convention is necessary. In the past, when states got close to obtaining the requisite two-thirds support, Congress stepped in to act, thus maintaining control of the process. This has happened at least four times, regarding the 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th Amendments. (Citation). The original Bill of Rights was also created by Congress under threat of a second Convention.
In some circumstances, Congress has passed legislation that addresses the demands embedded in the Amendment without creating a new Amendment. This occurred during the Reagan administration, when in response to a Convention called by 32 of the requisite 34 states for a balanced budget amendment, Congress passed the Gramm, Rudman, Hollings Act. All other Amendments have been formulated in Congress and passed to the states for ratification.
Either way, Moran explains, “…the goal is to force Congress to act in lieu of an amendment convention, as has happened every time the states have used the Article V mechanism. It should be used again now with Virginia once again leading the way.”
Supporters of the Amendment are optimistic, saying the time has come for states to take back the power Congress has increasingly usurped. It may just work. It is a good idea whose time has definitely come, and is a possible solution to Congressional Democrats’ seeming determination to jam as much awful legislation down our throats as possible before the clock runs out this January. Yet more reason to redouble our efforts for 2012.
A press conference will be held this upcoming November 30th with select Speakers, Senate Presidents, members of Congress, and other State legislators at 9 a.m. at the Grand Hyatt Washington, McPherson Square Room – ALEC Media Room, 1000 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001.
The American people have just begun to fight. Professor Barnett’s proposal, and the movement that has sprung up around it in a mere two months, is one example of that fine, unpredictable, independent spirit embedded in the American psyche, something that the hidebound, gutless left will never understand. It is reflected in the spirit of the Gadsden Flag:
Don’t tread on me!
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Has Security Trumped Freedom?
From The American Thinker:
November 28, 2010
Has security trumped freedom?
Rick Moran
Roger Cohen thinks so:
I don't doubt the patriotism of the Americans involved in keeping the country safe, nor do I discount the threat, but I am sure of this: The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.
America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic.
[...]
Intelligence has improved beyond measure since 9/11. It can be used far more effectively at airports. Instead of humiliating everyone, focus on the very small proportion of travelers who might present a threat.
You can't talk down fear simply by calling terrorists "violent extremists," or getting rid of the color-coded terrorism alert system, as the Obama administration has done. During the Bosnian war, besieged Sarajevans had a word - "inat" - for the contempt-cum-spite they showed barbarous gunners on the hills by dressing and carrying on as normal. Inat is what Americans should show the jihadist cave-dwellers.
Posted at 12:10 AM
November 28, 2010
Has security trumped freedom?
Rick Moran
Roger Cohen thinks so:
I don't doubt the patriotism of the Americans involved in keeping the country safe, nor do I discount the threat, but I am sure of this: The unfettered growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the T.S.A. represent a greater long-term threat to the prosperity, character and wellbeing of the United States than a few madmen in the valleys of Waziristan or the voids of Yemen.
America is a nation of openness, boldness and risk-taking. Close this nation, cow it, constrict it and you unravel its magic.
[...]
Intelligence has improved beyond measure since 9/11. It can be used far more effectively at airports. Instead of humiliating everyone, focus on the very small proportion of travelers who might present a threat.
You can't talk down fear simply by calling terrorists "violent extremists," or getting rid of the color-coded terrorism alert system, as the Obama administration has done. During the Bosnian war, besieged Sarajevans had a word - "inat" - for the contempt-cum-spite they showed barbarous gunners on the hills by dressing and carrying on as normal. Inat is what Americans should show the jihadist cave-dwellers.
Posted at 12:10 AM
Americans Learning To Submit
From The American Thinker:
November 27, 2010
Americans Learning to Submit
By Anthony W. Hager
In the George Orwell classic Animal Farm, there lived a horse named Boxer. He was strong, willing, and dependable. In fact, Boxer was so dedicated to his assignments and his leader that he often said, "Napoleon is always right," followed by his personal pledge to "work harder" toward accomplishing the state's goals.
Boxer was a good, faithful horse. But his fault was his blind devotion to his leader and his willingness to sacrifice himself for Napoleon's grand schemes. Boxer never benefited from his loyalty or from Napoleon's phony promise of an easy future. When he was no longer useful, he was shipped to the glue factory, ironically under the guise of receiving state provided medical treatment. Let that sink in, ObamaCare advocates.
On Animal Farm, appeals to necessity, subtle changes to established rules, and revisionist history were the tools used to control Boxer and his comrades. Boxer willingly accepted his marching orders until his fate was sealed. The tactics that led to his demise and the enslavement of his friends are now deployed at airport security checkpoints across America. I can't help but wonder if we've become a nation of "Boxers."
Even before John Tyner's overblown confrontation with body image scanners and full-body groping sessions, there was Joe Sharkey, who wrote of his own experience with the TSA. Sharkey also refused to be scanned, which prompted security screeners to relay a vocal alarm that might have been necessary had Osama bin Laden himself tried to board a plane. But there was no reason to suspect Sharkey. There was nothing conspicuous or suspicious about him. His sin was balking at being treated like the terrorist he isn't.
Sharkey's article mentioned another flier, Bruce Delahorne, who faced a similar situation. When Bruce questioned the need for the unfamiliar tactics to which he was exposed, he was informed that nothing had changed in airport security screenings. "We have always done this," the TSA agent explained. After passing through the checkpoint, Delahorne asked the same question of another agent. He received a similar answer: "The process has always been the same."
Well, airport screenings haven't always been this way. Sure, we live in a post-9/11 environment, and caution is prudent. But body-imaging every air traveler isn't the same as intercepting specific phone conversations between Abdullah the Butcher and a cave in Waziristan. We're dealing with de facto strip-searches of everyday Americans, frisking of nuns, and confiscation of shampoo and nail clippers. All of this nonsense is done so as not to offend Islam, whose virulent adherents fostered this "necessity."
The rules are changed and history is rewritten so that everything appears constant. Napoleon is always right. And we, like Boxer, adapt and comply.
The TSA has released images from both the millimeter wave and backscatter imagers currently in use. The fact is that the TSA images aren't exactly fodder for next month's Playboy centerfold. Other images are circulating that depict an inverted scan that reveals both nudity and identity. But such photos are easily faked, and there appears to be no proof that they are authentic. That's little comfort to air travelers who are exposed to humiliating body scans and invasive pat-down searches. Even the stance assumed for the scans -- feet apart and hands held above the head -- portrays a submissiveness that belies a free people. Fellow Americans, our government has declared us guilty until we prove our innocence.
There remains the argument that body scanners prevent terrorists from smuggling bombs aboard aircraft. That's true to a degree, but realistically, the scanners do nothing to combat terrorism as a tactic. A terrorist attack isn't like an advancing army; it doesn't acquire territory, and it needs not commandeer or destroy an airplane to accomplish its goal. Terrorism needs only to sow doubt and fear to be effective.
When innocent Americans are electronically strip-searched in airport concourses, the terrorists have achieved a victory. In fact, terrorists are equally served without boarding an aircraft at all. Suicide bombers need only detonate their payload at a crowded TSA checkpoint. Scores of unsuspecting travelers would be killed or injured. Such an attack would do as much to shatter our illusion of security as blowing up an airliner.
We're being sold a false sense of safety from a federal government that can't muster the courage to identify our genuine enemies, much less target them. But Napoleon is always right. Thus, we'll be scanned and probed so as not to offend the very people who hate us, our liberties, and our culture simply because we've refused, thus far, to adopt their customs.
The day will come when we won't be able to enter a sports arena, a shopping mall, or a public parking deck without passing a body imaging checkpoint. Maybe then we'll realize we've become like Boxer, dutiful and obedient until securely locked in the knacker's wagon.
Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 250 articles for various newspapers, periodicals, and websites. Contact him via his website, www.therightslant.com.
November 27, 2010
Americans Learning to Submit
By Anthony W. Hager
In the George Orwell classic Animal Farm, there lived a horse named Boxer. He was strong, willing, and dependable. In fact, Boxer was so dedicated to his assignments and his leader that he often said, "Napoleon is always right," followed by his personal pledge to "work harder" toward accomplishing the state's goals.
Boxer was a good, faithful horse. But his fault was his blind devotion to his leader and his willingness to sacrifice himself for Napoleon's grand schemes. Boxer never benefited from his loyalty or from Napoleon's phony promise of an easy future. When he was no longer useful, he was shipped to the glue factory, ironically under the guise of receiving state provided medical treatment. Let that sink in, ObamaCare advocates.
On Animal Farm, appeals to necessity, subtle changes to established rules, and revisionist history were the tools used to control Boxer and his comrades. Boxer willingly accepted his marching orders until his fate was sealed. The tactics that led to his demise and the enslavement of his friends are now deployed at airport security checkpoints across America. I can't help but wonder if we've become a nation of "Boxers."
Even before John Tyner's overblown confrontation with body image scanners and full-body groping sessions, there was Joe Sharkey, who wrote of his own experience with the TSA. Sharkey also refused to be scanned, which prompted security screeners to relay a vocal alarm that might have been necessary had Osama bin Laden himself tried to board a plane. But there was no reason to suspect Sharkey. There was nothing conspicuous or suspicious about him. His sin was balking at being treated like the terrorist he isn't.
Sharkey's article mentioned another flier, Bruce Delahorne, who faced a similar situation. When Bruce questioned the need for the unfamiliar tactics to which he was exposed, he was informed that nothing had changed in airport security screenings. "We have always done this," the TSA agent explained. After passing through the checkpoint, Delahorne asked the same question of another agent. He received a similar answer: "The process has always been the same."
Well, airport screenings haven't always been this way. Sure, we live in a post-9/11 environment, and caution is prudent. But body-imaging every air traveler isn't the same as intercepting specific phone conversations between Abdullah the Butcher and a cave in Waziristan. We're dealing with de facto strip-searches of everyday Americans, frisking of nuns, and confiscation of shampoo and nail clippers. All of this nonsense is done so as not to offend Islam, whose virulent adherents fostered this "necessity."
The rules are changed and history is rewritten so that everything appears constant. Napoleon is always right. And we, like Boxer, adapt and comply.
The TSA has released images from both the millimeter wave and backscatter imagers currently in use. The fact is that the TSA images aren't exactly fodder for next month's Playboy centerfold. Other images are circulating that depict an inverted scan that reveals both nudity and identity. But such photos are easily faked, and there appears to be no proof that they are authentic. That's little comfort to air travelers who are exposed to humiliating body scans and invasive pat-down searches. Even the stance assumed for the scans -- feet apart and hands held above the head -- portrays a submissiveness that belies a free people. Fellow Americans, our government has declared us guilty until we prove our innocence.
There remains the argument that body scanners prevent terrorists from smuggling bombs aboard aircraft. That's true to a degree, but realistically, the scanners do nothing to combat terrorism as a tactic. A terrorist attack isn't like an advancing army; it doesn't acquire territory, and it needs not commandeer or destroy an airplane to accomplish its goal. Terrorism needs only to sow doubt and fear to be effective.
When innocent Americans are electronically strip-searched in airport concourses, the terrorists have achieved a victory. In fact, terrorists are equally served without boarding an aircraft at all. Suicide bombers need only detonate their payload at a crowded TSA checkpoint. Scores of unsuspecting travelers would be killed or injured. Such an attack would do as much to shatter our illusion of security as blowing up an airliner.
We're being sold a false sense of safety from a federal government that can't muster the courage to identify our genuine enemies, much less target them. But Napoleon is always right. Thus, we'll be scanned and probed so as not to offend the very people who hate us, our liberties, and our culture simply because we've refused, thus far, to adopt their customs.
The day will come when we won't be able to enter a sports arena, a shopping mall, or a public parking deck without passing a body imaging checkpoint. Maybe then we'll realize we've become like Boxer, dutiful and obedient until securely locked in the knacker's wagon.
Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 250 articles for various newspapers, periodicals, and websites. Contact him via his website, www.therightslant.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
