Liberalism and Radical Islamism- Two Peas in a Pod

 

 I used to wonder why liberals were so violently opposed to conservatism and hostile toward Christianity but so tolerant of radical Islamism. Why do liberals cite the medieval terrors of the inquisition and the crusades as proof of the immorality of Christianity yet ignore the contemporary, murderous oppression of the Mullahs and the Taliban? Why do liberals point to the Salem Witch Trials (1692-1693) to prove Christianity’s disdain for women yet poo poo the flogging and imprisonment of Muslim women convicted of committing “forced adultery”?  I don’t wonder any more however, I know the answer Islamism and liberalism are basically the same thing.

 

1)      Both love big government.  In order to impose a coercive agenda, government control is essential.  Limited government by its very nature is not capable of nor does it seek to impose an oppressive set of controls on the individual. Limited government recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, big government denies individual sovereignty. You cannot be trusted to make up your own minds, to decide what religion to follow, what light bulb to use, what clothes to wear what food to eat, when and where to pray, what to listen to on the radio, or what conduct you should or should not find acceptable. You can take every one of these examples and find a case where they apply to either liberals or Islamists (except Islamists don’t necessarily care about light bulbs).  Both systems “bet the farm” on the idea that governmental authority can create a new and Utopian society if only the decisions are removed from the prevue of the individual and placed in the hands of masterminds (or Mullahs).

2)      Both are intolerant of dissent.  Once you establish that the good of the society is best served by the theocracy/bureaucracy, than opposition to those institutions becomes harmful to society. If a woman wears pants or doesn’t cover her head then society is threatened. Likewise anyone who rejects gay marriage or doesn’t drink the climate change “cool aid” is a threat. For a despotic regime to be successful then uniformity of the masses must be achieved, individualism must be suppressed, except when the individual is useful to the state. In Islamist countries they have the full power of law to deal with descent; liberals have it harder at least for the moment. They have to settle for name calling bullying and intimidation. Who wants to oppose the powers that be if they have to be put through what the Palin family has?  How many men have the courage to bear up under the lies and accusations that Clarence Thomas did? Have you not noticed that any and all opposition to Obama is racism, that any lie about Romney is OK, i.e. Romney killed my wife, or Paul Ryan wants to take Medicare away from seniors, but Obama can lie endlessly about creating millions of jobs, or cover up a deadly scandal like fast and furious and hardly receive one tough question about it? Next time a liberal claims to believe in tolerance we should meet that claim with scornful laughter.

3)      Neither cherishes freedom of speech. Of course the liberals love to claim the 1^st amendment to protect crucifixes submerged in urine, or any form of pornography, but those fit the liberal utopian model.  However, let speech that is inconvenient to them be spoken and they are up in arms. If liberals truly loved free speech they would never have pushed for a fairness doctrine that would silence conservative talk radio, they would not have attacked private citizens like Rush Limbaugh from the Senate floor nor would the President’s lackeys probe Sean Hannity and Fox News. This is the work of despots not statesmen. In Pakistan a young mother named Asia Bibi sits upon death row, her crime: she made the following statement, “My Christ is alive.” (for more info and to sign a petition on her behalf please visit http://www.callformercy.com/)  Liberals do not as yet have the power of the death penalty but they have certainly come to an important consensus with the Islamists in recent weeks. Somebody made a video that offended Muslims (what doesn’t?)  So as is their want they went on a killing rioting rampage. What is interesting is that both Islamist dictators and liberal pundits agree: the problem is not that the mobs are killing each other over some cheesy video, no the problem is too much free speech. Obama and Clinton have gone out of their way to make sure everyone knows it is the fault of the video not the bloodthirsty mobs, we feel their pain, though officially we think the murders are going a little too far. We apologize over and again, our Egyptian embassy apologized, see how that placated the mob? We are currently spending 70,000 taxpayer dollars to produce and air apologies in Pakistan. Compare these quotes: “We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,”  and “A permissive approach to hate speech is not a prerequisite to functioning democracy, On the contrary, our European friends would argue that democracy is better served by banning such material." The first quote is from radical cleric Mohammad Qatanani, who leads one of the largest mosques in New Jersey the second is from liberal pundit Peter Spiro.  Point made. At least Mitt Romney had the guts to stand up unapologetically for free speech, so hopefully we will again have a President who believes in the 1^st amendment come January.

4)      Both see religious freedom as a threat. In addition to character assassination and misrepresentation there is a strong push to extend hate crimes laws to include many forms of noncompliant behavior (IE homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God and therefore morally reprehensible- by some proposed standards that statement would make me a criminal not that that would stop me from saying it.) Canada already has this type of hate crimes legislation.in our own country the most sacred of all American rights and the first amendment to our constitution has been cast carelessly aside in the name of healthcare reform. By ordering Catholic and other religious institutions to provide health care plans covering contraception and abortive agents, the God given right of religious freedom was made subject to the whim of the secretary of the Department of Health and Human services. Thanks to John Roberts and the guys on the US Supreme Court we may well look to the onset of Obama-care as the end of religious freedom. Of course Islamist countries deal with this by having a state religion, Islam, and banning all others Liberals are content to do away with Christian practice and symbols. Compare these stories: KABUL - Ignoring an international outcry, Afghanistan's puritanical Taliban Islamic militia began demolishing statues across the country on Thursday, including two towering ancient stone Buddhas. Taliban Minister of Information and Culture Qudratullah Jamal told AFP the destruction of scores of pre-Islamic figures, designed to stop the worshipping of "false idols," had begun throughout the country. He said militiamen started wrecking the almost 2,000-year-old Buddhist masterpieces in the central province of Bamiyan, including the world's tallest standing Buddha measuring 50 meters (165 feet), after sunrise. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines.shtml?/headlines01/0301-04.htm) and WASHINGTON — The 40-foot-tall cross rises above the nearby shopping centers and neighborhoods, a local landmark that for more than 80 years has served as a gateway to the Maryland communities of Bladensburg and Hyattsville. The Memorial Peace Cross honors 49 men from Prince George’s County, Md., who lost their lives during World War I. Now the American Humanist Association, a Washington-based group that represents atheists and others, is calling for the cross’ removal, arguing that a religious image on public land violates the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/09/15/2272594/debate-erupts-over-wwi-monument.html#storylink=cpy. You will get the point.

5)      Both devalue human life. Islamists murder apostates and Christians, they erupt into riotous bloodthirsty mobs at the drop of a hat, they measure tactical victories by innocent deaths, and they strap bombs on kids and blow them up in crowded theatres.  Liberals consider any restriction on the murder of the unborn as crime against woman, support euthanasia for the elderly and handicapped (Terry Schiavo was murdered on these grounds) and assisted suicide.

6)      Both disrespect women. There is little doubt that women in Islamist countries are second class citizens or worse. In some countries woman can’t legally drive, some cannot testify in court cannot ride a bus without a male relatives permission go out unescorted, can be convicted of crimes at the testimony of a man, can be flogged for wearing pants or getting raped. However we are told that Democrats OWN women’s issues in this land. Let me be blunt ladies, liberals believe you to be so stupid and such sex objects that you don’t care about the economy or defense, you’re not worried that national debt is crushing your children’s future, woman do not care about those who wish to stay home and raise their babies but are compelled to work due to crushing tax burdens or the inability of the husbands to find gainful employment.  No, Ladies your votes can be bought by free abortions and $9 worth of contraception. To the Islamist you are chattel to the liberals you are useful idiots.

7)      Both prosper in times of economic chaos. The poverty of the Middle East plays into the hands of the Islamist, just as the culture of dependency plays into the hands of the liberals. Dependency is key, men lack the strength to fight against the hand that holds the bread and controls the flow of water and electricity. It does not behoove the Islamist for the people of the middle east to leave their quasi 14^th century existence, but it does behoove the American liberal to stifle economic progress and to retard the creation of wealth, to devastate the healthcare industry until panels of bureaucrats make all healthcare decisions until 51% are too afraid to oppose the hand that feeds them and thus keep and vote always for the party that controls their dependency.  If the liberals win one more election we may well reach the point of no return.
 

Two forces threaten American liberty and the foundation of the civil society. If we are to save it, then we must defeat both. One we must fight with our armies, the other with our votes. If we lose to either we lose it all.  If I sound not politically correct, well more than usual, it’s because time is short and I am angry at what is happening to my country.

 

Next week I am probably going to lose friends but we must press on as I address the concept of voting for the “lesser of two evils”.

 

Until next time,keep on the firing line 

September 11th Outrage- Again!

 

Where were you when the World stopped turning that September day?  The title of the great Alan Jackson song about the terrorist attacks on September 11^th, 2001. I’m like everyone else in that I will never forget the way that day affected me. I mourned that day more than I did for the loss of my parents. Never have I felt the urge to wring my hands and cry out, “what did we do wrong?”, rather I have always been more prone to cry, “Let’s get the b……..”  In addition to writing and amateur political blog and a few unpublished novels I have written lyrics to a couple of dozen gospel songs. (Southern Gospel, 4 part harmony, aka the good stuff) but I never wrote one about 9/11 for one simple reason, you can’t put profanity into a gospel song. The Evil of radical terrorism that befell our nation 11 years ago should inspire unrepentant anger. I settle for giving an amen to Toby Keith’s lyric “We’ll put a boot in you’re a.., it’s the American way.” If anger has no place in the Christian life than I read my Bible wrong. While God does not desire us to seek personal vengeance, we should be angry at the murder of innocents done in the name of Allah. We should be angry when we see the oppression and suffering of the people of the Middle East and the persecution of Christians and anyone who refuses to accept not only Islam but a particular sect of Islam. 

 

Following the September 11^th attacks America went to war. President Bush did not make every decision correctly, (what successful wartime president has? Roosevelt? Wilson? Lincoln? Of course not) but success is measured in results. In spite of dealing with a political party that was willing to undermine the US military in the field to harm the president politically, the war on terror from 2001 until 20012 was unquestionably successful. There were no more successful terror attacks in the US mainland, two crucial safe havens were  lost to the radicals ,Afghanistan and the ruling Taliban were first, than Iraq and its support of terror and capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.  (Stockpiles that the world universally agreed that they had were not found but camps dedicated to training Al-Qaida affiliated groups in their use were found along with remnants of chemical weapons) Iran briefly stopped its nuclear program seeing that the US meant business, Libya disarmed, and the entire force of Al-Qaida was dedicated to trying to stall the US victories in those aforementioned nations. When Iraq was finally lost to them, they continued to stir up trouble in Afghanistan finding hiding places in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden survived but being the number two man at Al-Qaida became the job with the shortest life expectancy in the world. God only knows how many special ops raids  went off without the public ever knowing.  Meanwhile the US ran political interference for Isreal so they could deal with Hamas in Lebanon,   a successful venture that would have been an overwhelming victory if not for Prime Minister Omert’s lack of decisiveness. Bin Laden’s “paper tiger” was devouring his cause while he hid out in his Pakistani complex.

 

• Enter Barack Hussein Obama. Quote:

---

I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated not only does the country look at itself differently, but the whole world looks at America differently.

If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I understand their point of view.

My sister is half Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years so I am intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspectives these folks have.

And these are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world, and when you combine that with my work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on everything from immigration to issues of genocide, then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is (sic) tied up with our ability to work with other countries of the world.

And that will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration [Bush] has failed to understand.

What arrogance! What naivety! Obama’s foreign policy is based on the belief that the evil people who murdered 2,753 Americans are going to like us now because Barak Obama likes them!  Thanks to an intelligence trail that began with the Bush administration (largely gathered by methods and programs Obama opposed) Bin Laden is dead- but Al-Qaida is alive! Now they have two new countries to stage in, Egypt and Libya. Prior to the Arab Spring Hosni Mubarak ruled in Egypt. According to Vice President Biden:” Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator”. Of course Obama through Mubarak overboard like a racist white grandmother as soon as public opinion went against him, and now Egypt is in the hand of the Muslim Brotherhood, granddaddy of all Islamist terror groups. I am sure that other world leaders who might be on the fence will think twice about allying with us after that.  Libya was worse, as Obama committed American military forces to aid in the overthrow of the malevolent but controlled Momar Gadhafi without the slightest clue of who we were giving the country to.  This decision is directly responsible for the attacks on our embassy that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. While these attacks were planned well in advance a cheesy you-tube video was used to whip up the frenzied crowd which provided cover for the military assault that killed our men, but more importantly caused Obama to delay a fund raising trip by one hour. Obama’s response?  “Too bad about Stevens sorry to have offended you folks with that movie, maybe we can get you-tube to take it down”. Of course there was some nonspecific reference to bringing the killers to justice, just as Bill Clinton did with the bombing of the USS Cole.

 

I have more to say but I found someone to say it better, here is the “controversial” statement by Mitt Romney. “Good morning. Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts. As they consider that individuals that served in our diplomatic core were brutally murdered across the world.

This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It’s disgusting. It breaks the heart of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives the cause of freedom and justice and honor. We mourn their loss. And join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

Four diplomats lost their life. Including the US Ambassador, Jay Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones who have left behind as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation. And I know that people across America are grateful for their service. And we mourn their sacrifice.

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend, also, our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution. Because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.

The White House distanced itself last night from the statement saying it wasn’t cleared by Washington. That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place. And American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests.

Over the last several years, we stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region. But it also poses the potential for peril if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events. We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. With that, I’m happy to take any question you may have. Steve?”

Reporter: [beginning inaudible] … statement you referred was very toughly worded statement last night. Do you regret the tone at all given what we know now?

Romney: The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached. Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead when our grounds are being attacked and being breached that the first response by the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course."

I know I can only vote once (not being an illegal immigrant or dead Chicago Democrat) and I have always intended to vote against Obama, but with this statement I have changed my mind: I now intend to vote FOR Mitt Romney!

 

You see I don’t think it was inappropriate at all for Romney to act presidential in the midst of this crisis, after all someone had to.

Until next time, keep on the firing line!

 

 

 

 

 

The Proper role of the US Judiciary

Mark Levin is a brilliant man, as a lawyer, author, talk show host and student of the constitution and of history. I do not however, think Mr. Levin would disagree when we say that hearing someone else discuss the constitution is no substitute for understanding it ourselves. So before we read excellent books like “Ameritopia”, Liberty and Tyranny”, or “Men in Black” before we study Locke and  Alexis de Tocqueville,  before we dig in to the Federalist Papers or the Debate on the Constitution, and before we look at ways to limit the out of control power of the Federal Bench, let’s look directly to the Constitution itself and see what the founders intended in the first place.

---

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

These are the specific regulation as it affects the Federal judiciary. As you can see the majority of what the guidelines deal with is jurisdictional.  A couple of things strike me. 1^st is that nowhere is the court given the specific power to declare a law unconstitutional. This arose from the Supreme Court decision of Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The decision was far more important than the actual case it decided. You see outgoing president John Adams had issued an extra-constitutional commission that new Secretary of State James Madison refused to deliver. William Marbury the recipient of the commission sued to force its issuance.  Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority decision included a phrase that has since defined the check and balance of the Supreme Court, ““A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

Even though this power was not specifically granted, the court is charged with the words,” The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” hence I believe and most across the political spectrum agree that Judicial Review is very much a legitimate function of government.

So the powers of the court were limited to trying those cases that fall in its jurisdiction and those cases that involve rather a law is constitutional. Judicial Review was used in limited cases in those early years. After Marbury vs Madison there was not another case overturned as unconstitutional until 1857, (the controversial Dred Scott case).  While clearly disagree with the principle behind “Dred Scott” it cannot be overstated how important the Supreme Court has been in protecting the rights and limits of the constitution for the American people. Even when the constitution was not correct, as in women’s suffrage, the court insured that the laws were made and changed in strict accordance to the procedure laid out in the constitution.   

Now though the court has become not a protector of our rights but one of the chief threats to the same. How then do we turn it back? Nowhere was it intended that the Supreme Court be the check on the other branches but that it have unlimited power. First the constitution allows for the removal of any official through impeachment. Recently a Federal judge was convicted in an impeachment trial for taking bribes.( http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-08/politics/washington.impeach.judge_1_judge-walter-l-nixon-judicial-impeachment-previous-impeachment?_s=PM:POLITICS) but should we limit impeachment to criminal acts? Judges do not receive life appointments as we often say; they receive appointments for a term “during good Behavior”.  Now let us consider dangerous ground. Dangerous because congress can never be permitted to impeach a judge just because it doesn’t like his or her politics, but for decades politics has permeated the Federal bench through judicial activism.  Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. This is not appropriate. We’ve long felt the goal was to elect presidents who would appoint the right type of judge, but in a close court this is not enough, John Roberts proved that.  If the court can no longer protect the citizenry from the most egregious invasion of individual liberty in the history of the Republic, we need more then we need to do something drastic, even dangerous.

Suggestion one: an impeachment list.  Each Congress should declare at its onset a list of impeachable acts, in addition to illegal or unethical conduct some things which should be impeachable are citing of foreign law in making domestic decisions, citing constitutional rights that are not identifiable in the constitution i.e. the right to unrestricted access to abortion.  Issuing orders that exceed the court authority or denying the rights of citizens guaranteed in the constitution.  Like I said, dangerous ground, but bringing the debate over these matters to the Senate floor would possibly keep the courts in check.

A second less dangerous suggestion is to limit the terms of the court to 8- 12 years or so. There is a fear this would further politicize the court but I am gambling it will have the opposite effect. It would also prevent one party from locking in an ideologically friendly court for an extended item.

Surely these are not the only suggestions and they may not even be the best but I hope to start a debate that will bring sanity and restraint back to the courts.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.  

 

Dealing with the Ugly subject of Rape-Pregnancy from a Pro-life viewpoint

I really want to write about the Federal courts, and their usurpation of power. However, given the flack caused by Rep. Todd Akin and his comment concerning “legitimate rape” I am compelled against my will to deal with rape and pregnancy and how to apply a pro-life viewpoint to such tragic situations.   

First off, I have no desire to be critical of a Republican who takes a principled stand. As a matter of fact if anyone wants to accuse me of not standing on principle I’ll choose dueling pistols. However if we are to take principled stands on ugly complex issues should we not get our facts right? False arguments in support of the truth are damning to that truth.

Is rape-pregnancy rare? Yes, but not because a woman involved in “legitimate rape” has some biological safeguard that her “illegitimately” raped sister does not. I do not think a rapist should be able to plead a lesser charge if his victim gets pregnant. Rape is defined as the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. The possibility of pregnancy is related to the amount of control the aggressor has over the victim, I.E duress, as opposed to force.

Pointing out a legitimate number of such pregnancies is important only because the left uses this argument as key reason that unrestricted abortion must remain available and must even be tax payer funded. A number of factors restrict rape-pregnancy;  there is only a 1 in 5 probability that the women will be ovulating at the time of a random assault,  many woman are on birth control medication, some are already pregnant, physical resistance may lessen the possibility of fertilization, loving committed couples average 5-10 months of regular intercourse before conceiving, so the likelihood of a single event resulting in pregnancy is limited, further stress limits a woman’s ability to conceive and carry so all these  factors considered how many such pregnancies occur annually. According to my research (horrible disquieting research that I hope never to do again) a legitimate estimate is 200-300 per year. Only half of which are terminated ( http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461)  There are @ 1.21 million abortions per year (http://www.lifematterstv.org/abortioncounters.html) so do the math as few as a 12.5 percent of abortions involve rape pregnancy. Even if you use the grossly inflated numbers of 25,000 rape pregnancies some radical feminists claim (that a quarter of rape victims get pregnant) it would still mean ¾ of murdered babies are not rape-babies.

Still for the woman in this situation, these stats are small comfort, so let me attempt to do what Rep. Akin failed so miserably to do, explain why “it’s not the babies fault”.

I offer an analogy; some lousy SOB is caught and charged with a 2 decade long string of rapes and murders. Fortunately he’s is arrested in a “death penalty state”. He is tried and convicted and there is no doubt that he will receive the death penalty. However the night before his sentencing he dies of a cerebral hemorrhage, or else takes the cowards way out and hangs himself. Either way he will never answer for his crimes. The DA in our death penalty state realizes that this is an injustice to his victims but upon researching the case learns that not only had one of his early victims survived but she had borne a child and placed a baby girl up for adoption. Doggedly this agent of justice finds this now twenty year old woman. She of course knows nothing of her biological father’s crimes and her own criminality is limited to a speeding ticket or two, but by God she looks like that rapist SOB!  So our devoted DA does the only just thing. He has this twenty year old woman arrested, extradited and executed in her father’s place.

Preposterous? Of course! But follow the logic of the left; the same liberals who would vehemently oppose the death sentence for the rapist SOB are entirely in support of it for the child so long as that same twenty year old woman is killed when she is a twenty week old fetus. Same DNA, same hair and eye color, same unique spirit breathed with life by God Almighty, same potential to contribute to society, the one thing of beauty that may come from the mother's suffering and sacrifice, snuffed out because rather then residing in her adoptive parent's home or a college dorm some where she still resides in the womb, and that is not even her choice. The only difference from our woman in example one and example two is that our twenty week old fetus is not even guilty of  speeding.

How distressing that we live in a world where the murder of an innocent bystander due to his or her genetic relation to a criminal is not only allowed, but those who oppose it are called mean-spirited and heartless.

Todd Akin may have done far more harm then good to the pro-life argument, but his basic stand is the right one. Life is an inalienable right, or nothing is. However uncomfortable the subject we as pro-life Christians and Pro-life Americans cannot afford to allow the left to dictate the debate on this subject.  

Maybe next time we can address the federal courts, until then keep on the Firing Line!

 

 

 

 

 

Huzzah for Ryan!

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves; an exciting conservative VP does not automatically elevate a lackluster moderate candidate. Ask John McCain if you doubt me. Having said that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate does not strike me as an attempt to pull the wool over conservative’s eyes. Remember how McCain instantly began downplaying Sarah Palin as soon as it became apparent she was more popular than he was,  more so when she “went rogue” and continued to campaign as a conservative instead of a populist.

Romney will always be the guy who thought Romney care was a good idea and like so many candidates he has had a number of evolving stands on issues. Some of us have questioned rather Romney is a true conservative at heart, or more importantly does he plan to govern as a conservative.  Paul Ryan is not the guy you pick as window dressing in a campaign, he is articulate and intelligent but he represents the wing of the Republican Party that actually wants to do something to fix this mess. The pluses of Ryan the candidate are not insignificant but this is a choice made with an eye on governing not just winning.

The choice of Ryan says to me that Romney is committed to dealing with issues of debt and spending and is willing to cross the minefield of entitlement reform, all of which are essential steps if we are to save our nation from default.

More importantly, if the expert analysis is correct, and Romney is prepared to take the campaign to the level of ideas we’ve won already. Thus far the campaign has went: “Romney hates women and dogs” “Obama has had the most consecutive months of +8% unemployment since the depression” Romney doesn’t pay taxes”  “Obama’s welfare reform policy is misguided” “Romney killed my wife” “Obama’s spending is irresponsible”  I don’t think this is getting us where we need to be. In a sense every election is a referendum on the incumbent, but I think we need a clear and distinct vision for Romney’s America, to contrast Obama’s America. The ideology of conservatism is the winning argument; properly presented it translates into landslide victories. Romney- Ryan is likely to do a far better job of making the case than Romney’s campaign against Obama’s failed stewardship has done so far.

Finally this is a solid indication that President Romney may well be willing to pursue the kind of change we have been discussing over the last few weeks. In the coming weeks we’ll look at Ryan’s budget proposal in depth, but next week we’ll look at reigning in the out of control powers of the Federal courts.

Until next time, Keep on the firing line!

Restoring the Sovereignty of the “Several States”

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This, my friends is the 17^th amendment to the US constitution. Prior to its enactment senators were selected not by direct election but by duly elected state legislatures. There was a huge push to enact this amendment over the resistance of the elected officials, so much so that 27 states had called for a constitutional convention to deal with the matter if the house and Senate would not. As we look to make the necessary changes we can draw inspiration from the dogged insistence of the people beginning in the late 1800’s until 1913 when this amendment was ratified. The people refused to be put off and finally the dissenting voices in congress chose to be silent and abstain from voting rather than fight the will of the people. After all it is government of the people by the people and for the people is it not. We can affect change of equal proportion if we stay the course.

Today you can still get up a healthy debate over rather or not the 17^th amendment was a good thing. Some have the opinion that in removing the roll of state legislatures from the appointment of Senators, we also weakened the states themselves. Those who lived in the time prior to the 17^th were pretty unified that the interests of their individual states were not being appropriately represented by appointed senators. History shows that one of the best protections against supermajorities has been in the 17^th amendment. Reagan for instance would have likely had to deal with a 70-30 Democrat majority in the senate which would have effectively nipped the Reagan Revolution in the bud. The downside, and I refer to this often, is that states like mine may well vote for a career politician whose voting record may reflect none of the people’s beliefs if he or she brings Federal money and projects to their area. Exhibit 1: the late Robert C Byrd.

Before and after the 17^th amendment the main job of the Senate was to represent the needs of the states, just as the house represents the interests of the citizenry at large. The Senate has not done its job, states like Arizona have to defend in court their right to protect its citizens from drug gangs and violence sweeping across the border, the EPA is sapping the life out of coal producing states with its regulatory power, not to mention the destruction that Obama-care is set to bring if not repealed. Personally I don’t think repealing the 17^th amendment would help; rather it would make things worse, so I am proposing nullification.

I grant you that nullification didn’t go real well in the 1800’s.  What I am proposing though is different; I propose a constitutional amendment that simply states “if insert number of states shall vote either their state legislatures or by direct referendum of its citizenry to nullify any Federal law, that law shall be null and void.” In my idea each state would put in place the procedure necessary to take a nullification vote, though they would not wish to make the process too long. In my humble opinion this is the remedy for so much of the government’s runaway power. The states never would have ratified the constitution in the first place if they knew the level of decay their sovereignty would have undergone in the past few decades; this gives them back that sovereignty.

The only debate is how many states should be necessary to nullify.  I think a number as low as 20 should be considered. Any law that 20 states oppose would be beyond any specific regional interests, and this would make the federal governments take serious pause when considering laws that place burdensome over regulation and unfunded mandates on the states. Others will suggest a higher number like 30 which will assure that only the most egregious laws are subject to such action, but would still give the states recourse.  Probably a good compromise is 25. If half the states are hurt by it then the Federal government should be prevented from doing it.

Of all the things we can do to take back our country this may be most important: restring the sovereignty of the individual states.

Until next time keep on the firing line.

Ps we lost our internet for a while, then our computer went down but we should be back in business now.

Desperate Measures for Desperate Times.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They did so much more than give us a functional government, they institutionalized liberties that prior man had only aspired to and achieved in the smallest fragments. Our founding documents have endured longer than any other because they balanced the ambitions of government with three competing branches and limited the central government to certain enumerated powers, leaving all other matters to the state and local authorities. Most importantly the founders empowered the individual with sovereignty over his or her own life and destiny. We have fallen far.

Once bold men met and declared these words that could lead only two places: freedom or a noose. By God’s sovereign providence they achieved the former. Let us read those words again.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In light of the betrayal of the Constitution and of the American people by Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court we can no longer argue against the notion that our form of government has ceased to do what the founders envisioned.  Our government has become an obstruction to liberty rather than its protector. Some will contend that this actually happened at one point or another in the past, others will say I’m a “dupe” for ever believing in the promises of American freedom to begin with. In the past, since before the constitution was ever written or ratified there has been an ebb and flow in the authorities of government. So concerned with the dangers of creating a new despotism that our founders first erred so far to the side of caution that our first governing document created an weak and impotent central government without the ability to safe guard the rights of the sovereign sates under its care. A reading of The Articles of Confederation is useful however because it reveals much about what our founders feared. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=3&page=transcript.

We are well beyond the point of political ebb and flow, we have a government destructive to those ends and according to Jefferson it is our duty as well as our right to alter or abolish it.

I’ll let that sink in for a minute.

The choice between the two is not hard. We must choose to ALTER, even in its current state of “disrepair” our constitution still grants and secures more liberty then has any governing document in the history of the world. Besides it’s not as though we have never altered the constitution before. The founders provided for that eventuality, but they wisely did not make it easy. 27 times the constitution has been amended, the first 10, known as the “bill of rights” were essential to the ratification of the Constitution in the first place, the 12^th, 20^th, 25^t and 27th   deal with standardizing technical aspects of governance. The 13^th 14^th 15^th 19^th and 24^th corrected the shortcomings of the original text establishing the provisions of the bill of rights to 100% of the citizenry. The 11^th and 23^rd dealt with issues of jurisdiction. The 18^th was a well intended but ineffective attempt to do away with intoxicating drinks and the 21^st repealed it. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Other than prohibition which was abandoned, the vast majority of the constitutional amendments did little to alter the basic relationship between the citizenry and the government other than to expand existing rights to neglected parties. The amendments we want to look at now are the ones that did, four of them in particular, the 16^th and 17^th amendment were the first two fundamental changes, and 16 the most dreaded of all, it established the income tax.

Is it hard to fathom that once the Government didn’t receive or even need income taxes?

Customs duties, excise taxes, and tariffs were sufficient. In fact prior to the expense of the War Between the States customs duties were all the Federal authorities needed to perform the necessary functions of government. During the War a graduated tax on income was put in place but a later attempt to collect taxes on individual income was thrown out as unconstitutional in 1894. You see chief Justice Roberts, the government’s power to tax was never meant to be unlimited, adding a new source of revenue required a constitutional amendment, but more on Chief Justice Roberts later.

In this matter the founder’s were wise they knew that the simplest most effective way to limit the power of government was to limit its funds. The 16^th amendment (  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.) did more than simply provide the government with a massive pool of money, it put the federal government in direct contact with the individual tax payer, something that actually was rare prior to 1913. It also opened a Pandora’s Box of “unintended” consequence. Remember, conservatives view taxation as a necessary evil to fund the essential functions of government, liberals, while they love the money and power that high taxes give them, see taxation as a means to an end, that end being he creation of a society that is “fair”. This is why when it was pointed out that raising capitol gains taxes historically lowered Federal revenue Sen. Barrack Obama replied, “it s about being fair”, or when the same Sen. and Presidential candidate Obama was challenged by “Joe the Plumber” he stated that the purpose of his tax proposals was to “spread the wealth around”. These neither are not free market ideas nor are the American, they are communist. (It is plank number two of the 10 planks of Marx and Engels blueprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto which calls for a heavy progressive income tax).

What do we do about excessive taxation? There are several proposals that are appealing. Mitt Romney’ tax plan would be a good start (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax) but over the long term it treats the symptoms, which could themselves be fatal to the economy, but the disease what John Roberts calls the unlimited power to tax, would be like a cancer in remission waiting for one bad election result to flair up again. In order to insure that the government tax policy returns to the limit envisioned by our founders we must define limits that the founders would never dream would have been crossed. We see that the 16^th amendment is loosely defined, intentionally so by the progressives who designed it, when the income tax was first implemented the top marginal rate was 7%, within 4 years that top rate was all the way up to 67% (War Revenue act of 1917).
One idea with appeal is that of former and often Presidential candidate Ron Paul- ditch the income tax altogether. It may however be impossible to fund a legitimate national defense without any tax on income, though I sure would love to see smart people crunch those numbers. Rep. Paul may be overly ambitious but this is the type of outside the box thinking we need.
Another outside the box example is Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 which drew a great deal of attention during the primary season. If you recall the current tax code would be scrapped and a 9% tax would be imposed on income both personal and corporate, as well as a 9% sales tax. This would require a constitutional amendment and I would support it if, and only if, one of these conditions were met. 2/3 majority to raise any of the rates in both houses; the rates were built in to the amendment and could only be changed in a time of crisis and any such increases would have a  sunset of 1 year to 18 months than would have to be actively renewed.
An idea I have not heard articulated outside of my own head, is to change the 16^th amendment to strictly limit what can be taxed and how much it can be taxed. For instance “the Federal government shall not have the authority to tax any individual or business at a rate of more than 20% in peacetime nor 25% in time of war or crisis.”  Or “congress shall be forbidden to lay any tax or duty upon any inheritance of any citizen received from any party related by blood.” Death to the Death Tax!

Sadly, and this is the fiscal madness of our day, limiting tax does not guarantee a limit on spending. The government must have the ability to borrow in crisis situations but the fact that we borrow $0.40 of every dollar is madness!

The popular fix is a balanced budget amendment and I would support it if it was the right one, there are some versions that allow the government to ramp up spending then require tax increases to cover it. Still it was always the clear intention of our founders that we balance our books. Such an amendment must focus on the spending issues and must place strict limits on the purposes for which the government can borrow.

For a long time I have opposed constitutional amendments in most cases. If they are going to ignore the constitution anyway why not ignore the amendments as well? now though we must fight fire with fire as they say. That which our founders intended which has been “reinterpreted” must be properly defined.

Next time we’ll look at the 17^th amendment as well as the overall concept that the several states retain their sovereignty.
Until then… keep on the firing line.