“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  – Presidential Oath of Office,  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010

Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election.  It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election.  In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention.  Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.

Obama Weighs In

As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution.  The Constitution protects free speech.  So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech?  Is that what he is supposed to be doing?  Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.”  He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party.  Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.

If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House.  Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him.  If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby.  If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture.   Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about.  Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech.  I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon.  It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed.  Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.

The Incumbent Protection Act, aka McCain-Feingold, took a big hit yesterday from the Supreme Court.  It is particularly timely with so many incumbents nervously eying the exits.  The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within in 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election.  Those time limits probably match pretty nicely with when most people start paying close attention to elections.  So if this kind of communication is cut off, who is left with the power of name recognition?  That’s right, the incumbent and that is probably why 90% of incumbents are re-elected.

Outrage on the Left

President Obama immediately came out swinging saying it was a victory for “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other special interests.”  He somehow overlooked the SEIU union whose president topped the list of visitors to the White House.  Unions will have unfettered communications as well.  Chuck Schumer promises hearings and the Naderite Public Citizen group is proposing a constitutional amendment banning free speech for “for-profit” corporations.  I’ll give you a moment to ponder that; a constitutional amendment to eviscerate the First Amendment.

The Momentum is Building

On April 15 it will be the first anniversary of the Tea Parties that were held across the country.  Let’s raise a cup of tea, that the Ship of Liberty that was foundering on the rocks may at last be turning it’s guns on the enemy and turning the tide of battle.  Virginia, New Jersey, a close loss in NY23, Massachusetts, the First Amendment, the momentum is building.  But let’s not forget the words of Churchill:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. — Winston Churchill

Don’t let up until we have our country back.

In the midst of the financial meltdown the government and financial pundits argued that they had to rescue the big banks because they were too big to fail.  If we don’t save them, they could bring down the entire U.S. economy and in  turn the economy of the entire world.  Ignoring the history and responsiblity for how they got there, that could be a true statement that the government had to do something to avoid a worldwide panic.

The panic averted, many banks paid the money back with interest, are in the process of paying out massive bonuses and the Obama administration is twisting itself in self-righteous knots to tax them into humility.  Good luck with that.  While they target the banks, they are hands off on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, GM and Chrysler because to tax those basket cases would just be taking money from the left taxpayer pocket and moving it to the right taxpayer pocket.  If you look to the root of the problems of the fiscal meltdown you will find the government’s hand in almost every corner, but don’t expect this administration to try to get to the bottom of it.

Back Up, Go Ahead

There was an old Abbot and Costello routine where Abbot was guiding Costello in parking a car.

Costello asked what he should do and Abbot said, “Back up.”

Costello confirmed, “Back Up?”

To which Abbot replied, “Yeah, go ahead.”

“Go ahead?”

“No. back up.”

“Back up?”

“Yeah, go ahead.”

I don’t know if the Obama administration is Abbot or Costello, but they are telling banks, “Lend more money.”  Then they tell the banks, we are going to raise taxes and take your money away.  Then they ask the bank, “Why aren’t you lending more money?”

Programs You Can Believe In

Medicare

It is estimated that Medicare loses about $60 Billion ANNUALLY in fraud.  That’s right about $60 billion of your tax dollars are stolen every year from this program.

“If you want to find Medicare fraud, the first place you should look is South Florida, where 60 Minutes and correspondent Steve Kroft were told it has pushed aside cocaine as the major criminal enterprise.” – 60 Minutes – Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime

While the Obama Administration pushes their health care program one of the ways of funding the program is through savings in Medicare fraud.  However, no one has been able to stop it.  Not Republicans.  Not Democrats.

First Time Home Buyer Credit

This wonderful new program was designed to help first time home buyers achieve the American Dream.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t take a genius to also achieve that criminal American Dream, fleecing the government.

It’s hard not to laugh when viewing the results of the federal first-time home-buyer tax credit. The credit, worth up to $8,000 for the purchase of a home, has only been available since April of last year. Yet news of the latest taxpayer-funded mortgage scam has traveled fast. The Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, recently told Congress that at least 19,000 filers hadn’t purchased a home when they claimed the credit. For another 74,000 filers, claiming a total of $500 million in credits, evidence suggests that they weren’t first-time buyers. – WSJ – First Time Fraudsters, 10/29/2009

The  IRS even had to admit that in an investigation they found 53 cases where IRS employees filed “illegal or inappropriate” claims for the credit.

Too Big To Govern

A new president is elected once every four years, but the vast government bureaucracy remains.  It is said that a president will only be able to address 3-4 top priorities in their term.  By the time they appoint executive department heads and the Senate approves them and they set about to figure out the departments they are in charge of, it is an enormous undertaking to try to make significant changes.  To try to curb fraud, to overcome the inertia of the entrenched bureaucrats who know they will outlast the appointee, and their friends in Congress who will probably be there as long, is just too tall an order to accomplish in a four year cycle.  Every time a new liberal takes over, their first order of business is to make the bureaucracy larger.  It does not work.  It will not work.

The Only Solution

The only solution is to make the federal government smaller.  It must be bold.  It must be dramatic.  Tweaking it at the margins will fail.  Entire departments must be shut down.  The Constitution should be the blueprint for this.  If the power is not explicit in the Constitution, shut it down and allow the states or local governments to take it up if they choose.  Then drastically cut taxes accordingly.  Let people keep their money and decide at the local level if they want that service or not.  Let every state try their own solution and each state can learn what works and what doesn’t from each other.  But this idea of pushing every solution up to the federal and let one size fits all be forced on everyone is, quite simply, madness.  We need less government and more liberty.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  – Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

 The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is an interesting piece of work.  The way the Constitution is written is to explicitly state what the national government could do, and thereby exclude it from doing everything else.  When some of the Founding Fathers advocated a Bill of Rights the federalists strongly objected.  Why?  First, they thought it was redundant.  If, for example, the Constitution did not say the national government could regulate speech then having a First Amendment guaranteeing the Freedom of Speech made no sense.  The national government was only permitted to do precisely what the Constitution said it could do. 

 The second objection concerned having the opposite intent of the original writing of the Constitution.  You see, if the constitution has a provision that says what the national government cannot do (First Amendment barring free speech for example) it implies that the national government can do anything else that is not prohibited, which is exactly what the federalists did not want the Constitution to say.  It wanted to specifically enumerate the powers granted to the national government and no more.  So they compromised by adding the Tenth Amendment, which spelled out that distinction.  To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84:

 “Why, for instance should it be said that the liberty of the press should not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

The Federal Government’s Runaway Growth 

The federal government has expanded enormously particularly with FDR and the New Deal.  The Supreme Court has paid scant attention to the Tenth Amendment in curbing that expansion.  Perhaps it is time they gave it a closer look and more weight in their decisions.

 Below is what the Constitution says Congress has the Power to do.

 Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To:

• Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
• To Borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Apportionment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenels, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; — And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 Does anybody see anything there about minimum wages?  miles per gallon?  housing subsidies?  urban development? education? energy?  James Madison summed it up thus in Federalist 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce;….The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

To see how far we have come from Madison’s and the other Founding Fathers views can be seen in the New Deal era court case Wickard v. Filburn(1942).  Roscoe Filburn was a farmer during the Great Depression who was growing wheat to feed his chickens.  The Federal Government had imposed limits on how much wheat a farmer could grow based on acreage in order to prop up wheat prices.  The amount of wheat that Filburn was growing exceeded this number, however, Filburn intended to use the wheat entirely on his own farm.  Not only was the wheat not going to leave his home state, it was not going to leave his farm!  But the Supreme Court ruled that by growing more wheat than allowed, Filburn would not have to buy additional feed in the open market and by not doing so the lack of his consumption of wheat on the market would adversely affect the price of wheat, therefore he was violating the Federally imposed limits.  Now if that doesn’t set off Tenth Amendment alarm bells, I don’t know what could.

Federal Government Sprawl

Here are the cabinet level departments of the Federal Government.  Those in bold seem, in my opinion, to be consistent with the enumerated powers above.  Those in italics seem, again in my opinion, to be a national government overstepping its Constitutional bounds.  It is not that each and any of these things should not be done at all, but according to the Tenth Amendment should be at the discretion of the states or local government.

•  Department of Agriculture
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Defense
• Department of Education
• Department of Energy
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Department of Homeland Security (Incorporate in Department of Defense) 
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of Justice
• Department of Labor
• Department of State
• Department of the Interior
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Veteran Affairs (Incorporate into Department of Defense)

 Federalism

 One of the brilliant ideas of federalism is the ability to vote in two ways.  One, is at the ballot box and the other is with your feet.  If my state puts forth a bad idea and the majority of the citizens of my state agree with the bad idea, I have the freedom to move to another state.  However, if we keep moving all these bad ideas up to the national level, my right to vote with my feet is taken away.  If states like California and New York choose to follow polices that lead to their bankruptcy, so be it, but let’s not force those policies on Texas and Florida or forced the citizens of those states to pay for the mistakes of Californians and New Yorkers.

Since George Washington, who had four cabinet positions, we have added thirteen new cabinet departments and eliminated two and the ones eliminated did not go away, they simply became part of other government entities (e.g., Navy into Defense; Post Office into Postal Service).  In other words our government is telling us that they have not solved a single problem for which one of these agencies were created since 1789, otherwise why wouldn’t that cabinet department be shut down, after ceremoniously giving all the key players well deserved gold watches?  But Government encroachment marches on with the Obama Administration poised to devour one-sixth of the U.S. Economy into the Department of Health and Human Services.  They tell us they know how to solve that problem.  With their track record do you believe them?  Perhaps it’s time to dust off the Tenth Amendment, and start putting a scalpel to the federal government rather than tying a bib around its bloated neck.

Let’s look to 2010 as the year we start taking back our government.  Polls show how far out of tourch our elected leaders are from the views of their constituents.  It’s time to retire them from office.  Let’s keep up the hard work and countdown to November 2010.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  — Amendment I, Constitution of the United States

So what is one to make of the new campaign sponsored by atheists that says, “No God?  That’s good.  Let’s be good for goodness sake.”  Who could argue with the last part?  After all it comes from that famous Christmas carol, Santa Claus is Coming to Town. But what are we to make of the first part?

How do you argue in favor of something that doesn’t exist?  Having a manger scene in the public square next to a menorah is not the establishment of religion on the part of the government that is prohibited in the Constitution.  But demanding that all signs and symbols of religion be banned from the public, to me, comes pretty close to the state establishment of a religion called secularism.  What was the point of the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion?

Religion and America

The atheists will argue that a manger scene on public land is contrary to the establishment clause.  How so, I ask?  Specifically what religion is it establishing?  Christianity?  One of the reasons that the Founders created the establishment clause was to protect freedom of religion.  Christianity is too broad a term to be considered an organized religion.  If you don’t believe me, ask the Pilgrims, and the Quakers, and the Catholics, and the Menonites who fled the persecution that came with not swearing allegiance to the Church of England.  They are all Christians and that was the whole point.  The Founding Fathers did not want the new nation of the United States to form an official state religion and a specific form of worship and tyrannize anyone who did not adhere to it.  Having a belief in God and adhering to a particular way of practicing it are not the same.  It is easy to see that the Founding fathers manifestly believed in the former while protecting everyone’s rights to the latter.  So the very argument that the atheists and the ACLU are making should be pointed at themselves, for they are demanding that everyone follow their religion to keep the public square naked.

Faith of Our Fathers

“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…” — The Declaration of Independence

Are we to believe that the same people who wrote and signed this document meant that faith should be banished from the public square?  The Founding Fathers called upon God repeatedly for strength, guidance, and courage.  To say we should do the opposite today and call that the American way is bizarre, to say the least.

Pointing Out the Obvious

In any display of a manger scene or a menorah, or a Christmas tree, wreath, etc. the atheists are also covered.  Perhaps we need to be more careful to make it obvious.  An area, of appropriate size, should just be cordoned off or outlined in chalk, with nothingin it.  That’s what atheists believe in, nothing, so wherever you see nothing around the display, they are there.  They are represented.  Their tacky messages criticizing or condemning people of faith, is what is out of place and should be condemned.  You don’t see a message in front of a manger scene or Christmas tree pointing to the menorah saying, “They missed the boat on this one!”  Or a sign in front of the menorah pointing back at the manger saying, “Never happened!”  The universal messages are peace and understanding, not a Madison Avenue pitch for one brand over another.  So the atheists should stand down and go back to work.

Go Back to Work?

Yes, go to work.  Why are you taking December 25th off?  Without Christ, there is no Christmas.  Without Christmas there is no national holiday on December 25th.  With no national holiday on December 25th why aren’t you atheists working?  Instead of putting up insipid signs on buses go to work with gusto!  That will show the rest of us!

In his book, “What Americans Really Want…Really,”Frank Luntz writes:

 “Harris Interactive and MBA students from Brigham Young University developed a “happiness index” based on a list of questions such as positive relationships with friends and family members, worry about work and finances, and spiritual beliefs…for the most part, the results were conclusive: The happiest people were those who described themselves as very religious and those who pray or study religion every day.  Religious people worry less about their health and are less frustrated with work.  At the very bottom of the happiness index were people who said they were not religious at all.  The angriest people are atheists and agnostics.”

Just Because You’re Miserable, Don’t Blame the Rest of Us

So you don’t believe in God.  This is America, that is your right.  But you don’t have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe.  “Well, you can’t do that in the public square, because it offends me.”  How do you come out of your dwelling this time of year?  If you are truly offended by Christmas how could you set foot in New York City?  Is your argument that all the stores and churches along Fifth Avenue with their decorations are okay, but the decorations in City Hall Park, are an outrage to your sensibilities?  Or are you really trying to start by establishing your religion of Secularism in direct violation of the Constitution?

Lunacy Unleashed

This has really gone too far.  From removing a cross from the seal of the city of San Diego, to the assault on Christmas when will it end?  When will we see the campaign to rename Corpus Christi, Texas, since the name means “The Body of Christ”?

Instead of attacking people of faith, how about trying to emulate them.  Be of good cheer, hold a door open, help out at a soup kitchen, sing a joyful song.  Maybe, just maybe, the next time Frank Luntz takes a poll, you won’t be the miserable wretches at the bottom of the happiness index. 

Merry Christmas, everyone.

There was a time when people came to our shores to find a better life.  To escape persecution and poverty and to build a better life for their children was their goal.  They found Lady Liberty lifting her lamp beside the golden door.

What happened next was that people assimilated.  Their children went to school with other children and learned to read and speak English.  Their names may have sounded different but before long their voices didn’t.  Sure, New Englanders sounded different than those from Mississippi, but they sounded very much like their neighbors.  They became Americans.

I just finished reading Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen’s historical novel, To Try Men’s Souls, which is the story of the George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, and attacking Trenton.  Trenton was guarded by Hessian mercenaries, who were some of the most elite soldiers in Europe.  It was a mismatch beyond belief, but in a last ditch effort, their password that night was “Victory or Death,” and with the element of surprise, they prevailed.  In one passage it mentioned American soldiers of Dutch and German extraction shouting to the Hessians to surrender, in German.  They were probably closer to the Hessians in culture and blood than to their fellow Americans from Boston, but they considered themselves Americans and were willing to die for their country.

The Balkanization of America

Today, we are mired in multiculturalism.  I remember the story of an Hispanic man loudly protesting to his local school board regarding bilingual education to which he was opposed.  “You’re teaching my son to be a janitor!” he said, “I want him to learn in English, so that he can get a job with a future!” 

We should not lose track of our roots.  It is right to celebrate where we came from.  One of the great things about New York is the different neighborhoods and parades that teach and celebrate about where we came from, which is good.  But if carried to the point where we no longer assimilate; where we remain pockets of groups with their own identity and politics, we are in grave danger of ceasing to be America.

During World War II, what if people of German heritage refused to fight against Hitler or for that matter felt a greater allegiance to him than to America?  Some did.  They were tried for treason. What if they were protected instead?  What if their differences were looked at with admiration rather than suspicion?

Fort Hood

Commentators in the news are twitsting themselves in knots trying to disassociate Major Nidal Hasan’s slaughter of 13 Americans from his jihadist proclivities, despite evidence of outright hostility toward America and contact with a radical imam.  It is politically incorrect, to speak of his religion.  The Army Chief of Staff raises concern about negatively impacting the military’s record of diversity, if we focus on anything but a lone gunman who snapped.

But what if there is a larger plot?  What if there is an effort on the behalf of some muslims to purposely not assimilate, to infiltrate the military and become a fifth column within?  Multiculturalism makes it far easier for this to occur because if everyone looks different, no one stands out.  On the other hand, if everyone assimilates, those who speak, act, or plot against America become more obvious.  Again, imagine multiculturalism in the United States in 1943.  You might have whole communities that were German to the core, did not like non-Germans among them and quickly spread the alarm when a stranger approached.  How much easier would it have been for Hitler to build a network of sabateurs?

Kill Multiculturalism Before it Kills Us

We must reinvigorate the idea of assimilation.  Speak any language you want at home; dress any way you want; practice your faith as you please, but where government is involved, we should be treated equally. We should speak one common language for all official business.  If not, where do we draw the line?

In Minnesota in 2007 a public univerity coffee cart was banned from playing Christmas Carols, but public money was being used to install foot baths to accomodate Muslims before prayer.  After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and now another terrorist attack at Fort Hood, we have to be able to tell the good muslims from those out to kill us.  We must have true peace loving muslims, become true Americans.  We have to engender that we are Americans first, like those early Americans of Dutch and German decent, and not have divided loyalties particularly where the “other loyalty” insisits on killing us infidels.

From being the foregone conclusion as the first woman President of the United States in 2008 to a marginalized, snarky misrepresentative of the United States, it time for her to realize, the band stopped playing and everyone has gone home but her.  It’s time to call it a day and resign.

Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

Proving, once again, he is the master of hardball politics, Barack Obama dangled the Secretary of State job in front of his vanquished rival.  She took the bait.  No more would she be a force in the Senate able to challenge Obama at the first stumble.  She was now part of the problem, not a potential solution.  Once ensconced at Foggy Bottom, she thought she enhance her image by holding the most prestigious post in the Cabinet.  But she again underestimated Barack Obama.

He proceeded to divvy up foreign policy among many advisers, undercutting Hillary every step of the way.  She’s no fool, she can see it and it is eating away at her, to the point where she is becoming a gaffe machine to rival Joe Biden.

She’s No Condoleezza Rice

Upstaged by her husband in North Korea, negotiating the release of the journalist hostages, she was asked what her husband thought about another matter while in Africa.  In a similar situation, Condoleezza Rice, would have handled that with aplomb and not become rattled. But here is Hillary’s response.  Hillary Snaps.  Smacking down a questioner on the world stage?  Well that will surely “correct” our image as the Ugly Americans.

The Apology Tour Continues

She goes on to make a speech in Nigeria and wants to emphasize that there is no place in the world for corrupt elections.  A very good point to make, that few could argue with.  But what does she use as an analogy?  She openly suggests that Jeb Bush fixed the 2000 Presidential election for his brother.  Of all the analogies of corrupt elections that she could have used, let’s see, Iran?  Cuba?  the old Soviet Union? she points to the oldest democracy in history and suggest that we are as corrupt as any third world dictator.  Hillary Compares U.S. Elections to Third World Corruption.  Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed Hillary to take his Senate seat, must be turning over in his grave.  He used to staunchly defend the United States at the UN and here his protege is saying we are no better than the worst of them.

In Honduras, the rule of law is being followed to prevent a Chavez style dictator from taking over that country, and who does Hillary and the Obama administration support?  The Chavez puppet.  What about standing up for democracy in our Hemisphere?  It is time for her to go.

The Gore Thing in 2000

Let’s get this straight one more time.  On election night 2000, Gore lost Florida.  He lost the recount.  He lost the re-recount.  He lost the re-re-recount.  He lost the official recount.  He lost the private recount sponsored by newspapers.

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

“In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States,” said Mark Seibel, the paper’s managing editor. “I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked.” — CNN

If Democrats and their radical supporters want to salve their wounds with this myth, live the fantasy.  But don’t smear this country with these lies while acting as our chief diplomat.

Congressman Tim Bishop referred to it in his town hall meeting.  If you ask a statist where does the Constitution authorize them to get involved in every detail of our lives, the only place they can point to is Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; {my emphasis}

So what does the general Welfare mean?  Statists who claim the Constitution is a living breathing document believe that this clause gives them the right to do whatever they please, and whatever gets them reelected.  As conservatives we believe in original intent and therefore we have to go back to what the founders meant when they penned those words.  Why is that an important distinction?  Because the meaning of words change.

Are You Gay?

If you were asked that question in the eighteenth century, the questioner would have been asking you if you were merry; keenly alive and exuberant; having or inducing high spirits.  If asked that question today, the questioner wants to know if you are a homosexual.  So if the founders wanted to emphasize that the Constitution was a serious document and wrote, “nothing contained herein should be construed to be gay,” no one at the time would have raised an eyebrow, other than the dopiness of the clause.  If read in today’s context, it would create an uproar.

Are You Bad?

The band Huey Lewis and the News have a song called “Bad is Bad” and here is part of the lyrics:

“Went uptown to see my cousin
Plays guitar, sounds like a chainsaw buzzin
In the crowd, I see his mom and dad
I said hey, hey uncle, man your son is bad

But sometimes, sometimes bad is bad
Cool is a rule, but, sometimes, bad is bad.”

It plays upon how words change.  Back when the Founders wrote the Constitution and you said someone was bad, you might find yourself choosing dueling pistols.  Today, the response to the statement, “You’re bad,” would probably be, “Thanks, man.”

So if you don’t seek out the orignal meaning of the Constitution and our laws based on when they were written, everything can become meaningless over time.

What Did the Founders Mean by Provide for the General Welfare?

Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of a broad interpretation of the General Welfare and he supported that position during the Constitutional Convention.  However proposals along those lines, such as spending for internal improvements were rejected by the Convention.

“{James} Madison repeatedly argued that the powers to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Jefferson.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.93

There was another interpretation that fit in the middle that even Hamilton recognized.  That was that the term “general” meant “national” welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe demonstrated this

“in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road.  Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend is restricted ‘to purposes of common defense, and of general,  national, not local, or state, benefit.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 93.

Later President James K. Polk vetoed a bill that looked a lot like today’s runaway earmarks.

“It provided $6,000 for projects in the Wisconsin territory — constitutionally permissible because of Congress’s broader power over federal territories — but it included $500,000 for a myriad of projects in the existing states.  Polk contended that to interpret the Spending Clause to permit such appropriations would allow ‘combinations of individual and local interests [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into hopeless indebtedness.’” – ibid, p. 95

If you changed some of the numbers you could have written that today rather than in 1847.  Where this came off the rails, along with so many other government disasters we are paying for today,was during FDR’s tenure beginning in 1936.  Subsequent Supreme Court decisions left the definition of “General Welfare” up to Congress.  How ridiculous is that?  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor summed it up pretty well in her dissent in South Dakota v. Dole

“If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality….is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress….to become a parliment of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’  This….was not the Framer’s plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

Out of Control Spending

The outrage demonstrated at the town halls shows that the American people are fed up with Congress ignoring what they are saying and bankrupting the country.  The Supreme Court in the 1930s opened the door to profligate spending by Congress that was kept in check by the Constitution for 140 years prior.  To allow Congress to define general welfare as they want and then spend accordingly, makes no sense logically or otherwise.  If the Supreme Court does not set this right, a Constitutional Amendment may be required, and I am no fan of amending the Constitution at every turn.  As an American I take pride our Constitution that we have only felt a need to amend 28 times in over 200 years.  But if we allow changes in the definitions of words to drag the Constitution along with them, then we need to take measures to put the Constitution back where it was as a beacon to guide us rather than a quaint artifact of our history.

On this Fourth of July weekend we will have many opportunities to celebrate the genius of the founding fathers who created this country.  There is no other country like ours nor has their been.  It was and is a beacon of hope for people around the world who we welcome, those who come here legally, to help continue to build this great country.  Here is how Emma Lazarus described the new Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

Liberals vs. Conservatives

The most stark difference, I see, between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in the individual and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, while liberals believe in groups.  And God help you if you stray from the Plantation of your group.  Groups, like blacks for instance, have “leaders”.  For years if you wanted to know what blacks thought about an issue you asked Jesse Jackson.  He would tell you what blacks thought and then he would tell blacks what they are supposed to think.  If your skin was black, you belonged in the group called “blacks” and Jesse Jackson was your leader, no independent thought, no dissension, he was it.  He would collect the money from the coffers of the guilt ridden whites, take his fair share, and preside over the distribution of the rest.  In return to access to power he would tell blacks to always vote Democratic. It was a very lucrative career for Jesse Jackson.  For blacks?  Not so much.

If you were so bold as to be a black with an independent mind such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, J.C. Watts, and many more, watch out.  You were to be condemned in the vilest language imaginable for your failure to surrender your soul and pledge your fealty to the black leadership.

But this country was built on individual rights, the Pursuit of Happiness, not the guarantee of Happiness.  This country was not founded on the principles of taking from the successful and giving handouts to those who are not, either through misfortune or sloth.  Those suffering from misfortune were cared for by organized religion and charity.  Liberals believe that government should use its enormous power to steal from successful individuals and give to whoever they deem to be needy.  There is no clearer demonstration of this than in who gives to charity.

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). — RealClearPolitics

Consider for example, “Buck-a-Day” Biden, who gave an average of $1 per day to charity, although being a millionaire, with an annual salary of $174,000 per year.  In a formulation that liberals like to use, Joe Biden earns that much money before his head hits the pillow on New Year’s Day.  But he keeps virtually all of it and from his seat of power tells us how it is patriotic to pay more taxes to fund pork projects for his favored groups.

The Hunt for the Latest Escapee from the Plantation

Lieutenant Ben Vargas is a New Haven Connecticut firefighter.  He had the audacity to pass a test for promotion and fight for the promotion he won when the city of New Haven invalidated the test because no blacks made the cutoff.  You see, Ben Vargas is Hispanic and as such liberals have assigned him to the group that includes all Hispanics.  When not protesting how not every Hispanic is successful, Hispanics are required to fight for other groups if they are not all successful.  Ben Vargas stood up for his rights and was assaulted by a black man in the bathroom of Humphreys East Restaurant and ended up in the hospital.  Having wandered off the plantation, the Hispanic firefighters association publicly refused to back him up.

Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” — NY Times, July 3, 2009

This case has achieved notoriety because of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  This case came before her and was dismissed with little explanation.  The Supreme Court just overturned the decision 5-4.  Now Lieutenant Vargas is set to become Captain Vargas.  Here are his views:

“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

That’s the American Dream.

With all the umbrage by the likes of Barney Frank about reining in executive compensation, a reasonable question to ask is, “What kind of value are we getting for the $174,000 per year that we pay each and every Congressman and Senator?”  If these people worked for me in private industry, I would fire them in a heart beat.  Lest it be thought that I am just raging at my television set over the nightly news, let me relate a more personal experience.

Writing your Congressman

I wrote to my congressman expressing my opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act, the purpose of which is to codify Roe v. Wade.  I received a letter back from my Congressman with these dubious points:

1. “As a practicing Catholic, a husband, and a father…I strongly believe that women in America must have the legal right to choose an abortion.”
2. “Legislating the outcome of this decision would be an undue intrusion on the rights of women, as well as the confidential relationship between doctor and patient.”
3. “Outlawing the operation will not end the practice of abortion in America, but rather force it underground and expose women to unacceptable health risks.”
4. “I share your concerns about late-term abortions, and have said that I would support a ban on late-term abortions if it includes an exception that encompasses the life and health {emphasis added} of the mother.”

Responding to the Congressman

Although writing to your Congressman is supposed to be the way to express your views other than biennially at the voting booth, I have always been skeptical about the practice.  My view is that if the Congressman is of the same political philosophy they might give your letter some weight and try to gain your support ($).  If on the other hand your philosophies diverge, they will likely find a bland polite response from their database of responses, just to make you feel like they care what you have to say.

I felt compelled to respond to the Congressman because his logic seemed both contradictory and flawed.  Here is my response:

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for your response to my communication to you regarding the Freedom of Choice Act.  While I understand your positions, I feel compelled to challenge your reasoning.

You state:

“I strongly believe that women in America must have the legal right to choose an abortion, with the advice of their doctors and trusted confidantes.  Legislating the outcome of this decision would be an undue intrusion on the rights of women.

The fundamental argument that makes this a controversial issue is when does life begin?  Are there just the mother and a clump of cells involved, or are there two human beings involved?

Let’s examine your position from the context of the first point.  If it is just a woman and a clump of unwanted cells, you say government should not intrude.  However many people who share your beliefs feel that it is perfectly alright to intrude all the time, where the consequences are even less grave.  An individual wants to ride their bicycle and feel the wind through their hair but the government steps in and says no, you can’t do that, you must wear a helmet.  Why?  Who is affected other than the bicycle rider?  No one. Yet government can step in and say no.  An individual wants to drive their car without wearing a seat belt, and the government steps in and says no, you can’t do that.  Who is affected other than the unbelted person?  No one.  Yet the government can step in and say no.

Now in the case of abortion, while I can understand the arguments on both sides, and the real reasons behind them, cases of botched abortions where the child lived are proof enough that this involves more than a single individual, but you say government shouldn’t intrude to protect a human life.  Government can dictate to an individual how they can live their own life, but it is out of bounds to protect the lives of the innocent?

You state:

“Outlawing the operation will not end the practice of abortion in America, but rather force it underground and expose women to unacceptable health risks.”

Can’t the same be said of outlawing murder?  Outlawing murder hasn’t ended it.  So should we legalize murder?  Perhaps we can set up murder centers so it can be done cleanly and painlessly.  We should really fight to stop back alley murders.

You say:

“Public laws should not attempt to overrule a doctor’s professional judgment on crucial medical decisions regarding a patient’s health.”

Can I count you among those opposed to President Obama’s health initiative?  After all it includes the creation of a national board that will review medical practices and procedures and, let’s not kid ourselves, dictate what health care can be administered and what cannot.  You’re overweight?  No hip replacement for you.  You’re over 80?  Well we’ll have to let you go blind in at least one eye before we pay for the surgery to correct your vision.  You’re a smoker?  Well you’ll have to quit before we can even consider treating you.

It pains me when I hear people say, “As a practicing Catholic,” and then go on to defend their position on abortion.  That formulation provided a unique twist when Mario Cuomo first foisted it on the American people, as a neat way for Catholics to look the other way on abortion and still be faithful.  With all due respect Congressman, as a practicing Catholic, you need more practice.

Would you stand in front of the NAACP debating the Dred Scott case, with the argument, “Well, I have to support the Supreme Court’s decision on Dred Scott, for while I am personally opposed to slavery, I believe legislation opposing slavery would be an undue intrusion on the rights of slaveholders.  After all, they paid good money for these slaves.  We just can’t take them away.”  Would you?  To the slaveholder, it was property, not a person.  To the abolitionist, they were human beings who couldn’t be owned by another.  Today, those who are pro-abortion are the same as the pro-slavery people of the nineteenth century.  Those who are pro-life are the abolitionists of the current era.

Slavery was wrong then and a ugly blemish on our history.  People will look back on us and see the same ugly stain of 40,000,000 aborted babies and ask, “Have they learned nothing?”

Sincerely yours,

The Congressman Responds

I really didn’t expect a response to my rebuttal.  I didn’t think the Congressman would want to wade into the arena and battle it out.  When I saw the letter in the batch of mail, I set it aside.  I wasn’t quite ready for the ire of another cafeteria Catholic telling me I had no right to challenge his faith.  However, when I opened the letter I was surprised.  It was the exact same copy of the original letter that I received! The only thing changed was the date.

“How should we reply Congressman?”

“Let’s see, he sounds conservative, let’s send him letter No. 37″

“Okay, done!”

If the Congressman was employed by me and pulling down $174,000 and he tried to submit the same workproduct twice, he would get an escort to his car after a brief stop to clean out his desk.

The Truth Revealed

The most telling point I missed the first time around.  The Congressman when writing about late term abortions states, “…if it includes an exception that encompasses the life and health of the mother.”  Children have mothers.  Clumps of cells don’t have mothers.  If a woman goes into the hospital to have her appendix removed, do we call her a mother, if she has no children? So if the good Congressman is talking about a mother, what is being aborted is her child.  Killing a child is murder.

Let us not forget that President Obama, the great conciliator and healer, fought against a law while in the Illinois Senate, that would require that a child that survives an abortion be given medical care.  Instead, State Senator Obama supported leaving the newborn infant to die, since that was the intent of the mother.  It’s pretty gruesome and heartless in Obama’s America.