Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Hatred's Strange Bedfellows | CNSNews.com
Hatred's Strange Bedfellows | CNSNews.com
Last week’s near-massacre at the Family Research Council (FRC) put into sharp relief a curious fact: The people most aggressively denouncing others for their “hatemongering” sure are engaging in a lot of it themselves – with dangerous, and potentially lethal, repercussions.
Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, the SPLC helped counter the Ku Klux Klan and other racists and anti-Semites. At the moment, though, the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the preeminent threat to civil rights – especially those of women – in America: Islamists bent on insinuating here their anti-constitutional, misogynistic and supremacist doctrine known as shariah.
A case in point occurred last Wednesday night, just hours after a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins entered the headquarters of the FRC. Corkins apparently was bent on killing as many of the Center’s employees as possible, perhaps because of the social conservative group’s listing (along with this columnist and a number of others) earlier this year by the SPLC as among the worst hate groups and bigots in America.
It turns out that, as with the Family Research Council, what seems to qualify one for smearing by the Southern Poverty Law Center is disagreement with its political agenda.
If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater. It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups like La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.
Last week’s near-massacre at the Family Research Council (FRC) put into sharp relief a curious fact: The people most aggressively denouncing others for their “hatemongering” sure are engaging in a lot of it themselves – with dangerous, and potentially lethal, repercussions.
Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, the SPLC helped counter the Ku Klux Klan and other racists and anti-Semites. At the moment, though, the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the preeminent threat to civil rights – especially those of women – in America: Islamists bent on insinuating here their anti-constitutional, misogynistic and supremacist doctrine known as shariah.
A case in point occurred last Wednesday night, just hours after a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins entered the headquarters of the FRC. Corkins apparently was bent on killing as many of the Center’s employees as possible, perhaps because of the social conservative group’s listing (along with this columnist and a number of others) earlier this year by the SPLC as among the worst hate groups and bigots in America.
It turns out that, as with the Family Research Council, what seems to qualify one for smearing by the Southern Poverty Law Center is disagreement with its political agenda.
If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater. It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups like La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.
Obama’s dark side - Washington Times
Obama’s dark side - Washington Times
President Obama’s ugly campaign is backfiring. With bad news clouding over our struggling nation, Americans are sick of all the political lies, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s claim that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years and the Obama camp’s inference that the Republican presidential candidate was guilty of a felony related to his business background. A defensive Mr. Obama even stopped hiding from the press for a few minutes on Monday to stammer, “We point out sharp differences between the candidates, but we don’t go out of bounds.” Yeah, right.
Increasingly fewer voters are buying what Mr. Obama is selling. According to Gallup, Mr. Obama is losing to Mr. Romney by 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Even more telling, only 36 percent approve of Mr. Obama’s management of the economy, and a mere 30 percent support the president’s handling of federal deficits. On top of those dire numbers is the fundamental disconnect between Mr. Obama’s left-wing dogma and background as a community agitator with the normal views of Main Street USA. His animosity for the average voter was made plain when he sneered about mainstream Americans bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Now the president is targeting those people’s beliefs.
Read more: Obama’s dark side - Washington Times
President Obama’s ugly campaign is backfiring. With bad news clouding over our struggling nation, Americans are sick of all the political lies, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s claim that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years and the Obama camp’s inference that the Republican presidential candidate was guilty of a felony related to his business background. A defensive Mr. Obama even stopped hiding from the press for a few minutes on Monday to stammer, “We point out sharp differences between the candidates, but we don’t go out of bounds.” Yeah, right.
Increasingly fewer voters are buying what Mr. Obama is selling. According to Gallup, Mr. Obama is losing to Mr. Romney by 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Even more telling, only 36 percent approve of Mr. Obama’s management of the economy, and a mere 30 percent support the president’s handling of federal deficits. On top of those dire numbers is the fundamental disconnect between Mr. Obama’s left-wing dogma and background as a community agitator with the normal views of Main Street USA. His animosity for the average voter was made plain when he sneered about mainstream Americans bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Now the president is targeting those people’s beliefs.
Read more: Obama’s dark side - Washington Times
Conservative Quote
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"Issues" or America: Thomas Sowell
"Issues" or America?
By Thomas Sowell - August
There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.
The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.
For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.
The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn't like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.
President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining "work" to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.
There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.
ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President's arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the "equal protection of the laws," promised by the 14th Amendment.
John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: "A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement."
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
By Thomas Sowell - August
There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.
The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.
For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.
The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn't like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.
President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining "work" to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.
There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.
ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President's arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the "equal protection of the laws," promised by the 14th Amendment.
John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: "A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement."
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
Big Brother's Enablers
If there’s a trait common to politicians, it’s their instinct to avoid making tough choices. Members of Congress prefer to delegate policy decisions to federal agencies or the judiciary so someone else can take the blame when constituents are upset. There’s plenty of disappointment to be found in a 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision from last week granting police free rein to track individuals through GPS location chips built into nearly all cellphones.
In this particular case, U.S. v. Skinner, Drug Enforcement Administration investigators went to the trouble of obtaining a court order before asking a wireless service provider to hand over real-time location information on a suspect. Nevertheless, the three-judge panel found a warrant was “not necessary” and getting one only “strengthened” the legitimacy of the government’s case. The 6th Circuit reasoned the GPS surveillance was nothing more than the electronic equivalent of following a criminal’s footprints left in the snow. Because the agents obtained this information without any physical trespass, the judges avoided the Supreme Court’s recent precedent in United States v. Jones, which requires a warrant before a GPS tracker can be attached to an automobile.
It’s hard to fault jurists for undermining privacy in one case and protecting it in the other. Rulings are going to be contradictory because they involve interpretation of federal surveillance statutes that were drafted back in the days when people used pay phones and everything was hard-wired into the communications network. Instead of asking the least accountable branch of government to divine congressional intent, Congress should man up and say exactly what it means.
That’s what Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, intends to do with his Wireless Surveillance Act of 2012. His office is circulating a draft proposal that generally would prohibit anyone from accessing “the geolocation information of a person for protective activities or law enforcement or intelligence purposes except pursuant to a warrant.” That means police could use the latest gadgets to catch the bad guys so long as they have probable cause to investigate — precisely as the Fourth Amendment requires.
Absent such a clear legal framework, government authorities can operate without restraint, free to track everyone’s every move. Though the initial intent in such surveillance will be crime-fighting, that can change over time when there’s no third-party oversight. It’s just as easy to use the spy devices to keep tabs on an ex-wife or a political enemy as it is to monitor a suspected drug dealer. This is all the more true because — in addition to cellphone GPS — officials also use toll-road transponders and automated license-plate-recognition cameras to create long-term histories of where people go, and when.
The public ought to have a say in whether this snooping is appropriate. Federal agents also deserve to work under clearly drawn rules so they don’t find the results of their investigations overturned later by judges. Mr. Markey is right to kick off the debate. Hopefully lawmakers can be forced to take a clear stand that voters can take into account on Election Day.
Read more: EDITORIAL: Big Brother's enablers - Washington Times
In this particular case, U.S. v. Skinner, Drug Enforcement Administration investigators went to the trouble of obtaining a court order before asking a wireless service provider to hand over real-time location information on a suspect. Nevertheless, the three-judge panel found a warrant was “not necessary” and getting one only “strengthened” the legitimacy of the government’s case. The 6th Circuit reasoned the GPS surveillance was nothing more than the electronic equivalent of following a criminal’s footprints left in the snow. Because the agents obtained this information without any physical trespass, the judges avoided the Supreme Court’s recent precedent in United States v. Jones, which requires a warrant before a GPS tracker can be attached to an automobile.
It’s hard to fault jurists for undermining privacy in one case and protecting it in the other. Rulings are going to be contradictory because they involve interpretation of federal surveillance statutes that were drafted back in the days when people used pay phones and everything was hard-wired into the communications network. Instead of asking the least accountable branch of government to divine congressional intent, Congress should man up and say exactly what it means.
That’s what Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, intends to do with his Wireless Surveillance Act of 2012. His office is circulating a draft proposal that generally would prohibit anyone from accessing “the geolocation information of a person for protective activities or law enforcement or intelligence purposes except pursuant to a warrant.” That means police could use the latest gadgets to catch the bad guys so long as they have probable cause to investigate — precisely as the Fourth Amendment requires.
Absent such a clear legal framework, government authorities can operate without restraint, free to track everyone’s every move. Though the initial intent in such surveillance will be crime-fighting, that can change over time when there’s no third-party oversight. It’s just as easy to use the spy devices to keep tabs on an ex-wife or a political enemy as it is to monitor a suspected drug dealer. This is all the more true because — in addition to cellphone GPS — officials also use toll-road transponders and automated license-plate-recognition cameras to create long-term histories of where people go, and when.
The public ought to have a say in whether this snooping is appropriate. Federal agents also deserve to work under clearly drawn rules so they don’t find the results of their investigations overturned later by judges. Mr. Markey is right to kick off the debate. Hopefully lawmakers can be forced to take a clear stand that voters can take into account on Election Day.
Read more: EDITORIAL: Big Brother's enablers - Washington Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)