Supreme Court

The Religion of Secularism

by Bill O'Connell on December 6, 2009

Share and Recommend:

“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 Mennonites 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 nothing in 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.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

The Multicultural Fifth Column

by Bill O'Connell on November 10, 2009

Share and Recommend:

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 twisting 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 saboteurs?

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 university coffee cart was banned from playing Christmas Carols, but public money was being used to install foot baths to accommodate 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” insists on killing us infidels.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Time to Go, Hillary

by Bill O'Connell on August 17, 2009

Share and Recommend:

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.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Provide for the General Welfare…

by Bill O'Connell on August 15, 2009

Share and Recommend:

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” in which the band plays on how the word “bad” now means ”good” in contemporary vernacular, but sometimes it actually means bad, really bad. It shows how words change can change with time. 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 original 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 parliament 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 27 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.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (2)

Stay on the Plantation

by Bill O'Connell on July 3, 2009

Share and Recommend:

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.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (4)

Congressional Representation: Getting our Money’s Worth?

by Bill O'Connell on June 14, 2009

Share and Recommend:

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 heartbeat. 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:

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

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Liberty and Mobility

by Bill O'Connell on June 1, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Movin' Out

One of the great blessings bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers was federalism. Our federal form of government evolved from the Articles of Confederation, where states had primacy and the national government acted only with the consent of the states. This proved to be too cumbersome.

In writing the Constitution, the Founders identified very specific roles and responsibilities for the national government and left everything else to the states or the people (see Tenth Amendment). In doing so it gave the people the power of liberty through mobility. If you didn’t like the way they did things in Massachusetts, you could move to Virginia. If the people of Pennsylvania didn’t want a mass migration of people to Georgia, they needed to be careful regarding the laws that they passed so as not to alienate a large block of their constituents.

The War on Federalism

The statist, who loves government and believes government should control every aspect of our lives, hates federalism, because it weakens its control. So they attack it through the courts.

Here is their standard battle plan. Let’s the case of Gay Marriage. Vermont’s legislature approves Gay Marriage. Whether you are in favor of that or oppose that it shouldn’t affect you if you don’t live in Vermont. If you are in favor and you live elsewhere, you can move to Vermont. If you live there and are opposed you can either fight to overturn it in Vermont, or move elsewhere. That’s the beauty of federalism. If continued to its logical conclusion, some states would approve it and those in favor would migrate there, and those who are opposed would concentrate in states that would ensure that it would not be adopted in their state. You could have a raging debate, but your liberty would be preserved through mobility.

However, the statists have a different view of things. After the law is passed in Vermont by the legislature (as is proper), or made up out of thin air by the court in Massachusetts (judicial activism and improper), some couples who are married in these states move to another state. By doing so, they should leave their state sanctioned rights behind. However, what they will typically do when their Vermont sanctioned rights are not honored in, say, Tennessee they will rush to federal court and says their Constitutional rights are being violated. A court stocked with judicial activists, will find some fig leaf of justification with words like emanations and penumbras, to make a new law of the land and with the stroke of a pen, the liberties of all Americans will be swept away based on the will of the people of Vermont. You no longer can protect your liberty through mobility. You cannot go anywhere to live in proximity to like minded people and live the life you believe in. Mobility is no longer a tool to protect your liberty it is a weapon against you. People can secure rights elsewhere and use mobility to come to your doorstep and use the courts to force their beliefs on you.

Fierce Fighting

I believe that is why the fighting over these issues become so fierce and acrimonious. If something is allowed anywhere, it will soon be allowed everywhere, because of an activist judiciary. Our rhetoric has become more strident, our politics is anything but bipartisan, all because everything is being elevated to the federal level. States are becoming less and less important. If you don’t believe it ask people, who was responsible for the fiasco after hurricane Katrina? If they say President Bush, ask them to name the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana at the time. Bush and the federal government should have been the third line of defense, not the first. The first should have been the city, then the state and then the federal government.

Back to Federalism

Show me where in the constitution it says the government should own General Motors and Chrysler. Show me where it says that a tunnel, entirely in the city of Boston should be paid for by the taxpayers of Arizona. Show me where in the constitution it says education is the responsibility not of local government but the federal government. It doesn’t. And until well roll back this juggernaut, our liberties will be crushed little by little, day by day.

This is why it is also important to guard against activist judges getting on the bench or being elevated to higher levels of the court. It is just these activist judges who are taking away your liberty to move away from those who don’t believe what you do and moving toward those you do agree with. Take note of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

The Truth Behind Proposition 8

by Bill O'Connell on November 29, 2008

Share and Recommend:

The scene was rather startling, an elderly woman holding a cross in her hand peacefully demonstrating for Proposition 8 in Palm Springs, California and some miscreant viciously slaps it out of her hand.

At another venue in the Castro district of San Francisco a group of evangelicals were peacefully gathered on the street praying and making themselves available to anyone who wanted speak to him. One young lady’s bible was stolen and when she asked that it be returned, her request was met with kicking and punching. Nice. So much for the city of tolerance.

So what we are hearing now, which is a formula we have seen before, is if you lose at the ballot box pick up your marbles and head off to find a activist judge who will discover within an evolved Constitution, the fundamental right that everyone missed for the last two hundred plus years and declare the will of the people null and void.

What’s This Really All About?

Here is the actual text of Proposition 8 (leaving out the legalese regarding where it fits in the California Constitution to just get to the meat of it):

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That’s it. If you landed here from another planet you would probably wonder what’s going on? If you are a foreign visitor and see this on the news you would probably think we had lost our minds. Who would propose a constitutional amendment to define what any idiot knows to be true? What should we look for next? A constitutional amendment that defines the world as round? The sky blue? The grass green?

But this is not about rights. It is not about tolerance. It is not about fairness. It is about mainstreaming. It is about a definition. It starts by tearing down a definition that has existed for several millennia, the definition of marriage.

Once that definition is altered, then terms like husband and wife lose their meaning. After all, if you are talking about the marriage of Jim and Joe, who is the wife? If you are talking about the marriage of Jane and Mary, who is the husband? If husband and wife lose their meaning, then what will soon follow is that it will become politically incorrect to use those terms at all. Any instance of husband and wife will have to be stricken first from any public documents then eventually from all documents. In the end we will all just be spouses or significant others or some other bland descriptor.

The reason, in my humble opinion, why the battle lines have been so starkly drawn and the fighting is getting so fierce and will continue to do so, is because this is not about adding to the rights of gays. It is about taking away how the majority of Americans define themselves. They just don’t see it as an equivalency.

If you took three islands and put all the heterosexuals on one island, all the gay men on another and all the gay women on the third and came back in 100 years, only one of those three islands would be populated. So how does A=B=C?

What Was the Point of Marriage in the First Place?

Marriage and the laws that eventually gave it protection and encouraged it were for the purpose of bringing children into the world. A man and a woman would come together, make a commitment to be bound to each other, to be responsible for each other and in that family unit bring children into the world and provide for their protection, care, and upbringing. It was survival, not only for that family, but for the community as a whole.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Yes. There are couples who for biological or other reasons cannot have children and there are couples who do not want children. For the former group adoption has been an alternative. In the case of homosexuals, the rule is the exception. They cannot have children without adoption or by involving a third party. So again, how is that the equivalent of marriage?

It’s Not About Rights

Prior to 1920, women were not allowed to vote. But with courageous leaders like Susan B. Anthony they fought for those rights and won them through the legislative process and by amendment to the Constitution. They didn’t seek out an activist judge to redefine the term “male” to mean both men and women.

In the 1947 movie, “Gentleman’s Agreement,” the character portrayed by Gregory Peck poses as a Jew to write about the discrimination against Jews in America. What was the solution? Did Jews find an activist judge who would redefine them as Episcopalians? Can you imagine them making that case?

“So, Mr. Levine,” the judge asked, “you want to become an Episcopalian? Then why don’t you just become one? Why are you here?”

“No, your honor, I’m perfectly happy being a Jew. I don’t want to become an Episcopalian; I just want to be called an Episcopalian.”

“Let me get this straight. You want to continue to be a Jew, worship like a Jew and live the life of a Jew, you just want to be called an Episcopalian?”

“Right.”

” Why?”

“Life would be so much easier.”

The battle surrounding Proposition 8 is a similar one, gays don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex in the traditional definition marriage, they just want to be defined the same way.

What Does Sex Have To Do With It?

I think that most Americans are open to the idea that the rights that gays are seeking, such as the right to share and inherit property, the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, the right to make decisions on the part of a partner that currently go to the next of kin, should be allowed. But taking it a step further, why should it be limited to those who have sexual relations?

Let’s take a hypothetical case of Felix and Oscar. Felix and Oscar are heterosexual men. They are getting on in years, both in their early eighties. They fought together in WWII. Their wives are both deceased. They are not physically attracted to each other. However, they both feel that at this stage in their lives they would like to look out for each other like they did on the beaches of Normandy and the Ardennes forest. They want to buy and share a house together, pooling their resources, and look after each others health, and leave whatever financial assets they have to the surviving partner. Their families, though distant, have no problem with this arrangement. Why couldn’t these two gentlemen have the same rights that gays are seeking? Do gays seek a special class that only includes those who are sexually intimate? Why shouldn’t Felix and Oscar have the same rights?

Stick to the Rights Issue

If gay advocates stick to the rights issue and be inclusive such that any two people, who want to be legally bound and committed, can have the right to share, look after, and care for each other, these rights that gays are seeking would probably be granted quickly. But if the objective is to tear down something that has existed for several thousand years in order to forcefully mainstream a way of life, then they had better be ready for a battle. Time and again gays are asking straights to be understanding, to be fair and to be compassionate. Perhaps it’s time to turn the tables where gays should be understanding, fair and considerate and leave marriage well enough alone.

Most fair minded Americans will support individual rights and oppose discrimination. But if their way of life, which is not discriminatory, comes under attack you can expect them to battle back. Marriage is not discriminatory. It is a loving bound between a husband and a wife.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (3)

Next Entries →

Supreme Court

The Religion of Secularism

The Multicultural Fifth Column

Time to Go, Hillary

Provide for the General Welfare…

Liberty and Mobility

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll