Thought For The Day
*
Irony at its best: 290 people get the Swine Flu and everybody wants to wear a mask. Ten million people irrefutably have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.
Recently, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric reported on the staggering costs of health care for illegal immigrants, the bill for which, of course, is entirely footed by the American taxpayer. Now, Mexican groups like La Raza are up in arms over the report, which they claim promoted "anti-Latino falsehoods" and "demonized" illegal aliens.
Well, I've got news for our cousins from south of the border. Anyone that's here in the U.S. illegally deserves demonizing and immediate exportation (not necessarily in that order). And I'm not going to play the political correctness game and dance around the issue.
In the report, CBS reporter Byron Pitts talked with a pregnant Mexican woman who underwent an emergency C-section at a south Texas hospital. This woman did not pay anything for the $4,700 procedure because she qualifies for emergency Medicaid. The report also pointed out a study estimating that Americans are forced to pay - are you ready for this? - $1.1 billion per year for illegal immigrants' health care.
Of course, the illegal immigrant groups like La Raza and others had no facts to counter what they called the "anti-Latino falsehoods" in the CBS report. I guess we have to assume that it's just not fair to point out the negatives about the growing illegal population in our country.
Here's the most outrageous part: I looked into the Rand Corporation (a non-profit global policy think tank) study that the CBS report was based on, and La Raza is right - the CBS report was inaccurate. In fact, the report UNDER ESTIMATED the size of the financial kick-in-the-teeth that the American taxpayer is getting from illegal Mexican immigrants.
According to the statistics that appeared on-screen during the CBS report, the $1.1 billion per year was what taxpayers were paying for "all undocumented men, women, and children." However, the Rand study said the $1.1 billion tally was the healthcare costs ONLY for "non-elderly participants - those between 18 and 64."
So the TRUE cost of illegal immigrant healthcare in this country is likely SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the $1.1 billion claimed in the report. Take, for example, the child born during that emergency C-section mentioned in the CBS report. He or she will have 17 years of healthcare (not to mention the cost of postnatal care at the south Texas hospital where she was born) that won't be factored into Rand's figures.
Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, called the CBS report a breath of fresh air, considering that most media coverage is largely biased heavily in favor of illegal immigrants.
"The mainstream media has pretended that there is no cost or downside to the millions of people coming over the border illegally," Knight said. "So these groups are trying to intimidate Couric and her colleagues at the major networks."
Knight rightly points out that America's left-leaning media essentially approves of the massive influx of illegal aliens as a way to increase the Democratic voter base. According to Knight, liberals think that once illegal aliens are enrolled in liberal welfare programs and government subsidies, they will eventually become what he calls "a new generation of Democratic voters."
Which is true enough. But I think it's wrong. Because if these brazen illegals have proven one thing, it's that they care little for American citizenship. All they want is American rights and jobs. I'm sure they'd happily accept the right to vote too, but they won't bother to attain citizenship to get it. They believe they're entitled to it. And liberals are not bothering to disabuse these criminals (yes, CRIMINALS - that's what they are) of the notion that they're not deserving of these privileges. After all, California came close to giving ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LEGAL DRIVERS LICENSES. I wish I could believe that this won't happen. But some day, I'm sure it will.
Quite frankly, groups like La Raza make me ill. These people routinely have the gall to march through the streets of American cities carrying MEXICAN FLAGS while they are demanding the rights and privileges that are afforded only to AMERICAN CITIZENS. What's more, when protesting the CBS News report, a group similar to La Raza called the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) threatened the network by saying, "If CBS is playing to immigration hawks to boost its sagging ratings, the network risks being tuned out by the expanding Latino community. Advertisers know that by 2011, Hispanic buying power will total $1.2 trillion, almost 10 percent of all U.S. purchasing power."
So, ignore the facts or else? Charming. Isn't it nice that people like this have graced our nation with their presence? We can only hope that someone in our government will seal the borders before it's too late.
One mad Americano,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
The national corporate media outlets, and Barak Obama, have been desperately trying to convince the public that it is not important, and insensitive, if not actually racist, to question Mr. Obama about either his name or religion. However, these questions are neither specious, nor incidental, nor irrelevant. In fact, they are vitally important, and a significant factor that the American public must consider before electing him to the Presidency of the United States. Any media outlet irresponsible enough to suggest these issues should be ignored exposes both their ignorance, and a betrayal of the important role the Fourth Estate plays in our democracy.
Mr. Obama may now attest to being a "Christian" and that certainly is his right. Many of us change religious affiliation over the course of our lives. We may be born to a Methodist family, but later choose to become Catholic, or Buddhist. We can convert to Judaism from Christianity or we may be born and raised as an orthodox Jew, only to suffer a crisis of faith in college, and become Atheist. We may choose to leave our faith when we marry, and join the faith of our spouse and their family. Some people change religious affiliation several times during their lives. Our right to change our beliefs and religious affiliations is a precious thing to Americans, enshrined in our Constitution and in our entire history as a people, many of whom came here for the very reason of escaping oppression so that they might have freedom to practice their religion of choice.
However, this kind of decision, to change faiths, is not one taken lightly, and is usually something that political figures are willing to discuss. It offers them an opportunity to humanize themselves to the public, on a topic that is considered fairly non-controversial. Questions of faith or religious changes are typically "soft ball" question for a political figure. Presidents such as Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan spoke easily about how their faith fluctuated in their lives, and how they felt those changes were a positive influence in their lives. When senator Leiberman was a vice-presidential candidate, he had no difficulty in discussing his Judaism, or how he felt it impacted his life, family, and world view. John F. Kennedy directly addressed his Catholic faith and how he perceived its role (or lack thereof) on his job as President.
Yet for some reason, Mr. Obama is not only permitted to answer questions of faith obliquely, or merely with a simple declarative that, "I'm Christian." Mr. Obama has said, "I've been a Christian for fifteen years." Ok, we accept that. That's fine Senator, but what were you 16 years ago? What was your faith when you were 21 years old and graduating from college? We do have a right to know, and we would like you to help us to know you better, by explaining your decision to make that change. Were you ever a Muslim? This simple, direct, basic question, remains unasked. Why should this be so? How can it be there is such reluctance to ask something so obvious?
Is Mr. Obama afraid to tell us that for most of his life he was a Muslim? If he became a Christian 15 years ago, by his statement, what was he before that? Athiest? Jewish? Zoroasterian? If he is afraid to tell us that, then is he being fully honest and forthright with us? If he won't be fully honest and forthright on something so basic, how can we possibly trust him with the office of the Presidency?
It is obvious from Mr. Obama's very name, that for some portion of his life he was a Muslim. "Barak" is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew word "baruch" which means "blessed." Hussein is the name of the son in law of Mohammed, and the founder of the Shiite version of Islam. Obama is a known Islamic surname in his father's native country of Kenya. We know that Mr. Obama's stepfather was a Muslim as well, from Indonesia, so his mother at least had a warm regard for the teachings of Islam, since both her first and second husbands were both Muslims. So, why would Mr. Obama be so reluctant to share this basic fact of his life with the American public?
This is more than merely an academic question, and has even deeper implications than merely his personal degree of "openness." While Islam is open to conversion, and anyone of any faith may convert to Islam from another religion, converting to another religion from Islam is strictly forbidden. In fact, converting from Islam, to any other faith, is called "apostasy" and the Koran imposes a death penalty for it. This is not some obscure, unpracticed, "dead letter" of Sharia law. Earlier this year, Iranian Shiite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, proposed a law that would restore the death sentence for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Under the current laws as practiced in Iran, those charged with converting are prosecuted and face jail time for vague crimes like "blasphemy" and "insulting Islam", as a compromise from the death penalty mandated by Sharia law. "Egyptian Islamic Jihad", assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat with merely the unfounded allegation of apostasy. In many parts of the world, "honor killings" take place as Muslim family members kill their own children for marrying outside the faith. So, if Mr. Obama admits to having converted from Islam, or merely the fact that it is known that he did so, means that he is marked for death by all fully observant Muslims in the world. This is something the American public should be allowed to consider, in their decision as to whether they should choose to make him the President of the United States.
The deep importance of this question does not end there. While the Koran forbids apostasy, it does make specific mention of allowing Muslims to "pretend" to convert to other religions, for convenience, to protect their life, or to advance themselves in the parts of the world that remain "unconquered" by Islam. Could it be that Mr. Obama is following this prescription of his Islamic faith? Could it be that Mr. Obama is merely "pretending" to be Christian, to advance himself, while secretly still being a Muslim in his heart? It may be so, because he stated quite clearly in his book "Audacity of Hope" that, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." If he is merely feigning Christianity, that might explain how he can sit in the pews of Jeremiah Wrights Church for over a decade, and never pay any attention to what the man was saying up there. Once again this is something the voting public has a right to know about a man who wants to be president. Someone needs to be brave enough to press this question which must be asked.
We absolutely have the right to know if the man who wants to be president of the United States of America is either "marked for death," like Salmon Rushdie, or if he is furtively practicing a religion different from the one he claims. These aren't academic questions, these aren't salacious rumors, and these aren't intolerance or racism. These are fundamental questions as to his suitability for that office, which go to his truthfulness, his candor, and other personal baggage that he will carry into the oval office with him.
Americans are a tolerant people. We value our religious and ethnic diversity. We cherish our right to have personal religious beliefs, and to feel free to express those beliefs. Mr. Obama should not be so afraid to share with the public his personal religious and philosophical journey. However, his furtiveness in this regard should greatly inform us as to the dangers he may present, and be attempting to conceal. Putting limits on questions about his religious background, family, and even name, is a catastrophic failure by the press, in its primary duty to our democracy. Such blanket prohibitions about asking questions this vital, in this case, makes the "Fourth Estate" look more like a "Fifth Column."
By David Roth
David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Arguments against an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights are so self-evident that they simply fly off your tongue. But that doesn't mean that it is unnecessary to make them. This is especially the case when supposedly serious people like former IDF chief of general staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dan Halutz - co-architect of the strategic disaster which was the Second Lebanon War - advocate withdrawal in exchange for "peace."
So here goes.
Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Golan Heights has been Israel's quietest, most stable border. This is largely the case because the Syrians know that from the Golan Heights, the road to Damascus is wide open. An Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights would destabilize the border by removing Israel's offensive deterrent capacity against Syria.
Since nature abhors a vacuum, Israel's deterrent capacity would be transferred to the hands of Syrian dictator and Iranian proxy Bashar Assad and his henchmen. Additionally, in the wake of an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights on the heels of Iran's consolidation of its hold over Lebanon, Assad's regime will be triumphant. His decision to cast his country's lot with Iran will be perceived an act of brilliant statecraft.
While there is no certainty about how long it would take before Syria took advantage of the new situation to initiate aggression against Israel, it is clear that an Israeli withdrawal would raise tensions dramatically. And those tensions would find the remainder of Israeli territory more vulnerable to an Iranian-Syrian attack than ever before.
Today Syria already has the capacity to attack all of Israel with its Scud and Nodong ballistic missiles. But while these missiles can terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, their guidance systems are generally assessed as too primitive to enable them to be successfully deployed against tactical and strategic targets. Possession of the Golan Heights would enable Syria to use more conventional armaments to precisely target IDF positions, arms depots and attack formations throughout Northern Israel. So one of the consequences of Israel's handover of the Golan Heights would be a steep rise in the price in blood that a post-Golan Heights-withdrawal-Israel would be forced to pay to win any future military contest with Iranian proxies Hizbullah or Syria. Indeed it would dwarf the heavy price that Israel paid for victory in 1967 and 1973.
And the cost of an Israeli relinquishment of the Golan would not be paid by Israel alone. With Syria in control of the Golan, Damascus and its allies in the Iranian axis would be even more willing to assert themselves in battlegrounds like Iraq. Their renewed will to fight would limit still further the possibility that the US could remove its forces from Iraq without risking the prospect of Iraq being forced into the Iranian axis.
Moreover, with Israel's strategic options massively curtailed as a result of its surrender of the Golan Heights, the Iranians would have far less cause to fear that Israel would launch a counter-attack in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel or a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear installations.
In his statement Saturday in support of Olmert's announced intention to give Assad the Golan Heights, Halutz said, "For real peace one must be willing to pay a real price." While this is no doubt a true statement, it is completely irrelevant. Everyone knows that Israel won't get a "real peace" from Assad. Indeed it won't even get a pretend peace from Assad.
To understand why Israel can expect to receive absolutely nothing from Syria in exchange for the Golan Heights, one needs to look no further than Syria's last big peace treaty with a neighbor. In 1989, Syria agreed to withdraw all its troops from Lebanon under the Taif Accord that ended Lebanon's civil war. Needless to say, Syrian troops
continued their illegal occupation Lebanon for the next 15 years and still today continue to block Lebanese independence by arming Hizbullah.
Or consider Israel's "successful" treaty with Egypt, under which Egypt received the entire Sinai Peninsula in exchange for signing a peace treaty with Israel. Due to Egypt's willingness to sign the deal, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship has been hailed as a moderate and friendly regime by the US and Israel alike. And yet, short of going to war against Israel, since it signed its peace treaty, Egypt has done just about everything in its power to endanger Israel's security.
At the cabinet meeting Sunday, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin warned the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government that Hamas has missiles with ranges long enough to hit Ashdod and Kiryat Gat. Diskin added that with the border between Gaza and Egypt breached, time is working in Hamas's favor. With every passing day of Israeli inaction, Hamas brings in more and more advanced weapons.
Aside from Iran, which is the major source of Hamas's weapons, Egypt has done more than any other country to enable Hamas's missile war against southern Israel and its takeover of Gaza in general. As MK Yuval Steinitz has noted repeatedly over the past several years, those missiles didn't just magically appear at the Egyptian-Gaza border. Those Iranian weapons are transported in ships through Egyptian waters that dock at Egyptian ports. The weapons are then offloaded onto trucks and travel overland across the country before reaching Gaza.
Egyptian security forces could intercept these weapons at any point along the way. But they pass through unmolested because Egypt wants Hamas to have those weapons to attack Israel and to keep the border destabilized.
And if this is what Israel gets from our supposedly moderate Egyptian friends, what can Israel expect to receive from our radical Syrian enemies? Here it bears noting that Syria is still preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency from sending inspectors to check out the site of the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria that Israel destroyed last September 6. And again, if this is how Syria treats the UN, how will it treat Israel after Israel relinquishes its ability to threaten the Syrian capital?
Given all of these self-evident drawbacks of Olmert's proposal to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria, it is obvious that the plan is ridiculous. Similarly, in light of the massive danger such a withdrawal would entail, withdrawal advocates like Halutz are exposed as complete fools.
But the fact that this is true does not diminish the chance that Israel may still give up the Golan Heights if those who advocate this policy remain in power and continue to enjoy public respectability. Reality has counted for little in Israel's political and strategic discourse in recent years.
The lunacy of transferring control over south Lebanon to Hizbullah in 2000 and of giving Gaza to Fatah and Hamas in 2005 was just as obvious as the lunacy of relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria in 2008. Moreover, the lunacy of transferring control over Gaza and Judea and Samaria to the PLO was obvious to anyone with eyes to see in the 1990s. And yet, even though all the opponents of these strategic fiascos made these arguments until they were blue in the face, Israel still withdrew.
All along and still today, standing against these voices of sane reality were voices preaching utopian peace. Men and women like Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Shulamit Aloni, Tzipi Livni, Yuli Tamir, Sheli Yachimovich, Amnon Shahak, Uri Saguy, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and their chorus of "peace" operatives in the media castigated all proponents of reality-based policymaking as nothing more than fear-mongering fanatics and enemies of peace almost indistinguishable from the likes of Hizbullah, Hamas and all the rest.
And of course the voices of reason were correct every time and never thanked for their wisdom. Indeed, they continue to this day to be condemned as fear-mongering fanatics.
And in spite of the fact that the utopian peace junkies have been wrong every single time, they are still the first to be put on television and the radio to advocate Israel's capitulation on every conceivable front. Even as the cemeteries fill up with the charred corpses of Israelis killed because of their utopian madness, they are still feted as experts and wise men and elder statesmen.
The one hopeful sign of change is found in the Israeli public's reaction to the current malformed public debate about Olmert's new plan to give Assad the Golan Heights. In the past every time a government launched negotiations or simply called for unilateral surrender of land opinion polls showed an immediate jump of some 20 percent in public support for the initiative. Today's polls suggest that public support for a withdrawal from the Golan Heights has decreased since Olmert announced he is negotiating their surrender.
If during past negotiations and planned withdrawals, politicians enjoyed the support of 45 percent of Israelis for their moves, today Olmert has the support of only 22 percent of Israelis for his plan to give up the Golan Heights.
The fact that Israelis are reacting negatively to people like Olmert and Halutz and their advocated withdrawals for "peace," may simply be a consequence of the public's contempt for these men specifically. That is, it is possible that the public would be more supportive of capitulation to Syria if more popular leaders like former prime minister Ariel Sharon were advocating it.
But it is also possible that the public has finally had enough of these utopian gasbags and their capitulation agenda. One can only hope that this is the case. Because while Israel will not be destroyed if its leaders are stupid enough to relinquish the Golan Heights, without the Golan Heights, Israel's chances of survival in the long term will be vastly diminished.
Carolline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
-----------------
Response by Len S.:
"Peace operatives" seem to be the types vying to assume or retain control both in America and Israel. They and their constituencies have lost (if they ever had) the capacity to recognize, and act against evil.
Rather, they insist that their "feelings" be the gauge by which "civilized" nations should act. These are NOT students of history, finding that pursuit "irrelevant" in today's "modern world." Such well-intentioned fools (like those who brought home signed peace documents from meeting with Hitler) represent an existential threat to Israel and to America today. Their ascent to the corridors of power can only be pernicious.
Tucson Unified History Teacher Speaks Out on La Raza "Curriculum"
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department. Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class. I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university. Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites. In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos." It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead. It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization. It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty. When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period. The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments. Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get. The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/85853.php
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Right now, one of the most anti-gun politicians ever to set foot in Washington, D.C., may be just one election away from the Oval Office—and far too few gun owners realize the true threat to freedom this candidate represents.
No, it’s not Hillary Clinton—we already know how bad she is. It’s Senator Barack H. Obama, D-Ill., the man who promises “change” while pretending to offer “hope.” But exactly what kind of “change” is Obama “hoping” for?
It is far too easy for gun owners to slip into a false sense of security, unquestioningly accepting the candidate’s promises and proclamations regarding the Second Amendment; but the unreported truth is that Barack Obama has an atrocious record on your most fundamental civil right—the right to a firearm for self-defense.
Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to enact, laws to:
• ban all handguns
• ban the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms
• ban the Right-to-Carry in every state, nationwide
• ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection
And he voted against a “self-defense exception,” which absolves folks of violating gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend off criminal attack in the home.
Go to Obama’s website and you’ll see his claims of respect for your rights—claims which are, at best, misleading.
Obama’s website claims, “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”
But as the bumper sticker says—“The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting.”
In 1996, Obama’s Illinois state senate campaign answered a questionnaire indicating his support for a blanket ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.
In 2000, Obama sponsored a “one-gun-a-month” law to ration the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Illinois.
Obama has supported bans on ammunition magazines, gun-lock mandates, renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and California-style gun registration. He voted against confirmation of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court, and then refused to sign the pro-gun “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by 55 other senators and 250 House members in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case.
In July 2005, Obama voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act—a vote against the rights of every law-abiding gun owner, dealer and manufacturer in America, and a vote against our national defense.
Obama even proposed a federal law banning licensed firearm dealers from operating within five miles of any school or park, nationwide! Imagine a map with a five-mile circle drawn around every school and park in the United States. Unless you live in the wilderness interior of Alaska, you probably couldn’t find a law-abiding gun dealer anywhere under Obama’s ban!
Yet, while Obama’s disdain for Second Amendment freedom appears limitless, his attitude toward armed, violent criminals has been one of benign neglect, at best.
In 1999, on a vote in the Illinois senate on whether to try teenage gang-bangers as adults when they fire a gun on or near school grounds, Obama voted “present” —the functional equivalent of “NO”!
In 2001, when Illinois lawmakers tried to control rampant gang violence by making gang members eligible for the death penalty when they commit murder to help their gang, Obama voted against the measure.
Responding to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire, Obama said he believed federal mandatory-sentencing laws used to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished!
And if those same violent criminals attack you, Obama opposes your fundamental, God-given right to protect yourself. He opposes your Right to Carry. In fact, according to Obama’s own hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, Obama supports federal legislation to ban the Right to Carry for everyone but police officers!
Obama supported Washington, D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home for self-defense; and when Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill that would exonerate citizens for violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend themselves in their homes, Obama voted “NO”!
Even attorney Walter Dellinger, who tried to defend the Washington, D.C., gun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court, admitted, “It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying.”
In other words, Barack Obama’s position is even more anti-gun than the District of Columbia’s! Obama’s record is clear—his concept of “hope and change” will surely result in anti-gun/anti-freedom changes bringing more hopelessness for the most helpless in our society.
Now is the time to act! Every gun owner in America must be alerted to Obama’s record.
Please, tear out this page (from the American Hunter magazine), copy it and distribute it to fellow gun owners, hunters, shooters, family and friends. Spread the word and get ready for the most important election battle of our lifetime.
President’s Column
By John C. Sigler
NRA President
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Keep in mind that we are not talking about associating with those who simply opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
Senator McCain’s communist connections consist of bombing the communists during the Vietnam War and then being shot down, badly injured, captured, and tortured by them. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama was mentored by an identified Communist Party member in Hawaii who had functioned as a Stalinist agent. That was before Obama developed cordial relationships with communist terrorists who openly supported the communist regime that tortured McCain and killed 58,000 of our fellow Americans.
Can we have some coverage of the contrast between the two candidates on Memorial Day? It’s not just a matter of McCain serving in the military and Obama not doing so. It’s a matter of which side they were on.
McCain was on the American side during the Vietnam War. He personally risked his life and carried out the U.S. policy of resisting the communist military conquest of South Vietnam. Obama had friendly associations with those who had been on the other side and they helped launch his political career in Chicago. Obama can’t solve this problem by occasionally wearing an American flag lapel pin.
Keep in mind that we are not talking about associating with those who simply opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Obama’s friends, such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, cheered for a communist victory and visited Havana, Cuba and Hanoi, North Vietnam to bring that about. Like his comrades in the communist Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden of “Progressives for Obama” wrote a letter urging a communist military victory over the U.S. These were people who actually supported the enemy.
In the case of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, we are dealing with someone who was on the communist side long before the Vietnam War. Davis supported Stalinist Russia even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. This relationship may help explain why Obama would leave Hawaii, associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences in college (as he admits in his book, Dreams From My Father), and then associate with terrorists, communists, and socialists in Chicago, where he would launch his political career. Davis was a key influence over the young Obama, filling his head with anti-American thoughts.
Thanks to Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily and his excellent reporter, Jerome R. Corsi, many people are learning the basic facts about these relationships. Corsi covered the release of two reports on the subject through my America’s Survival, Inc. organization.
At our event, an audience member wondered what the media reaction would be if it were discovered that a Republican presidential candidate had been mentored by a Nazi or fascist during his growing-up years. You and I know that it would be enough of a story that the candidate would be forced from the race. The candidate would be peppered with questions about this relationship at every turn. Reporters would be scrambling to dig up more details about this relationship.
But rather than focus on Davis, some in the liberal media are making fun of McCain’s war injuries. Brent Baker reveals that, during a report on the release of McCain’s medical records, Dr. Jon LaPook asserted on CBS News that “people” notice that McCain is “not able to raise his arm” and think “doesn’t that look funny?” Baker asked, “Who thinks McCain’s limitation, caused by an attack on him after his plane crashed in North Vietnam and he was denied medical care, looks funny? In what circles does CBS’s doctor travel?” The answer, of course, is the circle of Obama’s friends, where veteran correspondent Linda Douglass has now ended up. She has taken a job as a press secretary and adviser to Obama and previously worked for CBS News, ABC News, and National Journal.
Significantly, the basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend [and secret CPUSA member] Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Obama and his family. As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”
However, in Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Frank Marshall Davis was identified only as “Frank.” Among other things, according to Obama’s own account, “Frank” told him that blacks had a reason to hate and that he should not believe all of that (expletive deleted) about the American way of life.
When one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters brought up the issue of Davis’s influence over Obama, by circulating an article I had written for AIM about Davis playing the role of Obama’s mentor, he was pilloried by the left-wing blogs. The reaction suggests awareness that the role of Davis in the formation of Obama’s political views could sink the candidate. They are desperate to keep this information suppressed.
Horne is not the only significant figure to talk about the influence of “Frank” on Obama. Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a dissertation on his life and career, confirmed to me that the “Frank” is, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.
Takara, an Obama supporter, confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school. These would have been the years 1975-1979. She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a “strong black male figure” and thought he exerted a “positive” influence over the young man in his high-school years.
Asked why she thought Obama didn’t identify Davis in his book by his full name, she replied, “Maybe he didn’t want people delving into it.” She said that this could have had something to do with Davis’s lifestyle, rather than his politics. “Frank’s was a place where you could have drinks,” she said.
Yet, Obama has been open about some things—such as his past drug use. It is difficult to understand why he would not name “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis simply because “Frank” drank or hosted people who did. It is apparent that Obama covered up his full name because of the notoriety surrounding Davis’s political views. Remember this was a black communist who stayed with the CPUSA even while others, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, broke with it.
So how long will Obama’s cover-up persist?
There are many in the liberal and conservative media who want desperately to avoid this subject. The liberals want to protect Obama. The “conservatives” avoiding the subject don’t want to be accused of “McCarthyism” if they mention it. But thanks to Farah’s WorldNetDaily and other new media outlets, the story is coming out and won’t be ignored.
By Cliff Kincaid
May 25, 2008
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-candidates-communist-connections/
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Assuming Israel is the canary in our civilization’s coal mine, it will all be over soon.
-------------------
Assad's week of triumph
Iran's man in Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad has just had the best week of his career as dictator. Everywhere he cast his gaze he was greeted by massive victories. Most were courtesy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his colleagues in Kadima, the Labor Party and Shas.
Monday morning, it was already clear that the sun was shining on Damascus when Vice Premier Haim Ramon acknowledged that in direct contravention of the government's own binding decision, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is conducting negotiations with Iran's Palestinian proxy Hamas.
The day after Ramon's announcement, Defense Minister Ehud Barak went down to Egypt to conclude a ceasefire agreement with Hamas through the group's Arab sponsor - Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. The terms of the accord require Israel to stop fighting Hamas. Hamas has pledged to decrease the number of rockets, missiles and mortars it shoots at Sderot, Ashkelon and surrounding communities. During its bombing hiatus, Hamas will build its army and bring in still more weapons and fighters from Iran through Egypt.
Once the ceasefire agreement is finalized, Hamas and Fatah will immediately reunify their forces. Since Israel has now accepted Hamas as a legitimate force, it will have no call for arguing against Fatah doing the same. Through the new Hamas-Fatah government, Hamas will maintain its military control over Gaza and expand its control over Judea and Samaria and the US-trained and armed PA militias. With Hamas formally ensconced in power, Western states will line up to recognize it and remove it from their terror lists. Israel will be forced to continue provide food, water, fuel, medical care, electricity, jobs and consumer markets for the Palestinians.
Hamas's great leap forward on Monday and Tuesday would have been enough to put a smile on Assad's face but then along came Wednesday and turned that smile into a glow of unqualified delight. For on Wednesday, Syria regained effective control over Lebanon and was restored to its position of honor in the Arab world. Washington too, was compelled to forego its legitimate hostility.
Syria's road to Beirut was paved Wednesday by the Saniora government's official surrender of power to Hizbullah. In the "agreement" mediated by Qatar - one of Iran's Persian Gulf affiliates - Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora ceded control over the Lebanese government to Hizbullah, which now has a cabinet majority. This couldn't be better news for Syria.
Hizbullah has acted as Damascus's chief defender in Lebanon since Lebanon's now defeated March 14 democracy movement forced Syrian troops out of the country in March 2005 after Damascus masterminded the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Hizbullah's takeover of the Lebanese government will enable Syria to again treat Lebanon as its colony. Hizbullah's control of the Lebanese government has also guaranteed that Beirut will stop supporting the UN's investigation of Hariri's murder and this is deeply significant for Damascus.
With the termination of the UN inquiry comes the termination of Damascus's international isolation. Since the regime in Damascus is no longer in danger of being convicted of murder, it will be impossible for Western governments to argue that it should be overthrown or even sanctioned for its criminal behavior. The Olmert-Livni-Barak(nee Peretz) government is at least partially to blame for Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon.
By refusing to fight the 2006 war with Hizbullah to victory, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government paved the way for the Iranian proxy group's takeover of Lebanon. Last week the Olmert-Livni-Barak government had the option of acting to prevent Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon. In deciding to do nothing, it enabled Hizbullah's putsch in Western Beirut and Tripoli and through them, its assertion of control over the whole of Lebanon.
So between Monday and Wednesday, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government enabled Iran's proxies and Syria's terror clients to entrench their control along its northern and southern borders. And that isn't all it did. Just as the Saniora government was signing its unconditional surrender to Hizbullah in Doha, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office released its announcement that Israel is negotiating the surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria through Turkish mediators.
Ankara and Damascus released identical announcements of the talks at the same time as Jerusalem. Although the official scripts were serious in tone, once they were out, Syrian spokesmen could not restrain their glee. Members of Assad's ruling clique rightly bragged that Israel's acceptance of Assad as a legitimate negotiating partner makes it impossible for the Sunni Arab states and the US to boycott Damascus.
So just two months after the Lebanese, Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians boycotted the Arab League summit in Damascus as a sign of their rejection of Syria's Iranian controllers and of Damascus's support for the Hizbullah takeover of Lebanon, thanks to the Olmert-Livni-Barak government, Syria is again a full-fledged and respectable member of the international community. The US and Iran's Arab foes have no choice but to accept Syria now.
Israelis like retired generals Amnon Lipkin Shahak and Uri Saguy have close personal relations with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Barak and have been pushing for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights for some 15 years. Their argument for moving ahead in recent years has been that by offering the Golan Heights to Syria, Israel will pull Syria out of Iran's sphere of influence. Opponents of negotiations like Mossad chief Meir Dagan have argued that such negotiations will have just the opposite effect.
As Syria's ecstatic reaction to Israel's announcement demonstrated, the Saguy-Shahak-Barak-Ashkenazi crowd is completely wrong and Dagan is completely right. By negotiating with Syria while it is firmly entrenched in the Iranian axis, Israel has not moderated the regime. It has legitimized Syria's presence in the Iranian axis.
That is, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government's embrace of Syria as a credible negotiating partner and Olmert's statement Wednesday evening that he supports giving Syria the Golan Heights even as the Assad regime hosts Hamas and a dozen other genocidal jihadist groups; as Syria acts as Hizbullah's partner and logistical base and the main entry point for jihadists into Iraq; and with Damascus having effectively rendered itself Iran's Arab colony means that Israel has legitimized Syria's behavior. Now that Syria has received Israel's stamp of approval, the other Arabs and the US have no excuse for continuing to oppose it.
In Israel, news of Olmert's embrace of Syria was greeted with derision by the public. According to a Channel 2 poll conducted after Olmert's office announced its negotiations with Syria, 70 percent of Israelis oppose surrendering the Golan to Syria in exchange for peace. 58 percent of Israelis believe that Olmert is only conducting negotiations to divert the public's attention away from the corruption probe being carried out against him.
It is deeply frustrating that Olmert, who led Israel to defeat in war in 2006 at the hands of Hizbullah; who has allowed southern Israel to become a free fire zone for Hamas; who is under 5 separate criminal investigations for financial corruption and influence peddling; and who is conducting talks with the powerless Fatah terror group towards the surrender of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Hamas, now is pushing an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights to Syria. And all the more depressing is the fact that he is getting away with it.
Many supporters of Israel cannot understand how it is that Olmert and his colleagues - principally Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni - have managed to stay in power. Throughout their two year tenure in office, Olmert and his colleagues have displayed nothing but incompetence bordering on idiocy in their conduct of Israel's foreign affairs. They have caused enormous damage to Israel's strategic ties with the US by refusing to contend with Iran's Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian clients and proxies or with Iran itself. Why, these supporters of Israel ask, is the Olmert-Livni-Barak government still in power?
The Olmert-Livni-Barak government has three main assets that make it all but impossible to topple and set a date for new general elections. The first asset is Olmert's complete and utter lack of shame and coupled with his unbridled opportunism. Olmert is a man who will stop at nothing to remain in power. He will lose the war with Hizbullah and refrain from defending southern Israel. He will imperil the north by facilitating Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon and its rearmament. He will imperil Jerusalem and the center of the country by negotiating the surrender of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. He will do all of this and more if that is what it takes to stay in power. And by his estimation that is what needs to be done because to stay in power he needs to maintain the support of the post-Zionists who control the media, the Labor party and the state prosecution. All these make up the government's second asset.
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon exposed and exacerbated the underlying corruption of Israel's political classes by doctrinaire leftists who control the media and the state prosecution when in late 2003 he responded to the corruption probe being carried out against him and his sons by announcing that he would expel all Israelis from Gaza and hand the area over to the Palestinians. For his efforts on behalf of the radical Left, Sharon received a Get Out of Jail Free card and was hailed as a visionary leader.
Already on Sunday - after Ramon announced the government's negotiations with Hamas - Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said that the current probe of suspicions that Olmert received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from American businessman Morris Talansky will take months to conclude. The implication was clear: Olmert is free to go ahead with all negotiations toward land giveaways.
The fact that Olmert's announcement of his talks with Syria was synchronized with the release of new details of his alleged criminal activities made a lot of reporters snort. The opportunism was too blatant to ignore. And yet, the heavyweights at Ha'aretz and their water carriers at state television didn't bat a lash as they launched into impassioned defenses of Olmert. Ignoring the general glee in Damascus, Channel 1's diplomatic reporter and Olmert cheerleader Ayala Hasson said the announcement couldn't be spin since Syria released its announcement of the talks the same time Olmert's office did. And of course, Hasson explained sagely, Syria wouldn't want to do Olmert any favors.
Labor ministers like Peace Now founders Education Minister Yuli Tamir said that obviously Labor will be compelled to stay in the government now because the "peace process" must not be sacrificed for anything - even if it means that a crook remains in charge.
The Olmert-Livni-Barak government's final asset is the fact that the Right was decimated in the 2006 elections. Without Shas and some breakaways from Kadima, there is simply no way to bring down the government. The votes aren't there. And Shas isn't going anywhere. Olmert made sure of that by approving 286 building permits for new homes for Shas voters in Beitar Illit on Wednesday afternoon.
So Olmert and his cadres remain in power and all of Israel suffers. But at least Syria's happy. And so is Iran. And so is Hizbullah. And so is Hamas.
By Caroline B. Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
A Presidential Power not designated by the Constitution
By Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States (emphasis added), which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." When the Constitution was proposed, those opposed to a strong central government, the anti-Federalists, argued that there was no Bill of Rights to protect the people and that a centralized government would become too powerful, usurping the rights of the individual States.
At the time of its formation, the Constitution was created in secrecy and in direct contradiction to the mandate of the Congress, which was to amend the Articles of Confederation that were governing the infant nation since the end of the American revolution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the President of the United States was known as the President of the United States in Congress Assembled. The one-year Presidency was very limited in its scope, responsibility and authority. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, established a strong four-year Presidency, but still only providing extremely limited powers to the office.
The greatest fear the founders of this nation had was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They no longer wanted kings, potentates or czars, they wanted a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States and not from the central government. (emphasis added)
John Adams advocated that a good government consists of three balancing powers, the legislative, executive and the judicial, that would produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. It was Adams' theory that the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare was to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies (legislative and executive) in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third (judicial).
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed the Bills of Rights to the new Congress. Its eventual creation was the outcropping of arguments made in the respective State legislatures debating ratification of the new Constitution. Madison had previously been opposed to the establishment of the Bill of Rights, but the treatises of Thomas Jefferson convinced him of the necessity of such Constitutional amendments. The concept was simple, according to Madison, "That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."
He further advocated, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor for applying to the legislature by petitions or remonstrances for redress of their grievances...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The framework of this nation is embodied in the Bill of Rights, unequaled in its time, and surpassed by none to date. Madison also stated, "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." He added, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN TIME OF WAR
Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.
President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened. Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.
THE NEW DANGERS
A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
(emphasis added)
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.
Many of the Executive Orders cited here have been on the books for over a quarter of a century and have not been applied. Therefore, what makes them more dangerous today than yesteryear? There has been a steady, consistent series of new Executive Orders, originating from President Richard Nixon and added to by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush that provide an ominous Orwellian portrait, the portrait of George Orwell's 1984.
THE EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially. These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, "I hereby declare a national emergency," thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.
The crisis that changed the direction of governmental thinking was the anti-Vietnam protests. Fear that such demonstrations might explode into civil unrest, Executive Orders began to be created to allow extreme measures to be implemented to curtail the demonstrations. The recent Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King jury verdict only reinforced the government's concern about potential civil unrest and the need to have an effective mechanism to curtail such demonstrations.
Here are the later Executive Orders: (emphasis added)
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a "drug crisis". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas. This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House. The power provided by these "laws" allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.
When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.
Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."
Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
------------
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
THE MEDIA KEEP REMINDING US OF THE ISSUES THAT DIVIDE us as a nation: Iraq, different approaches about reviving the economy, socialized medicine, the role of mankind in global warming, gay marriage, social issues, and many others. As Ted Kennedy’s recently diagnosed brain tumor demonstrated, Right and Left are also divided based on whether they display basic human decency when misfortunes befall a member of the other side. The American people seem to be fundamentally cleft about how they treat news of an opponent’s impending death in a conservative manner – with prayer – or a leftist one – with champagne and hate mail.
Immediately upon learning of the diagnosis, Kathryn Lopez posted a blog on National Review Online headlined “Oh No,” adding, “Our prayers obviously...” The May 19 edition of National Review Online carried an article entitled, “Praying for Senator Kennedy.” As of early yesterday morning, the post on Little Green Footballs announcing his illness had 1,036 comments. Here are a few representative samples:
“Well I wish him the best. If a cure is not possible, then as many quality months with his family as are possible.”
“I disagree with Senator Kennedy's politics, but he is a fellow American and a fellow human being so I sincerely pray for his recovery and wish his family well.”
“Prayers for the Ted and Kennedy family. Much strength and peace for them in the coming days.”
The Soros-funded Media Matters, try as it might to find evil right-wingers celebrating, found only a clip from Michael Savage. The average conservative, however much he disagreed with Ted Kennedy, wished him well.
Not "Rest In Peace": "Rot In Hell"
This could be contrasted to the hatred the Left has vented toward so many of those who opposed its agenda. One could begin with its reaction to the death of Kennedy – the Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy. The late minister of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was one of the least political of all national Christian spokesmen, but when he passed away last September, the DailyKos announced: “Another Hate Merchant Meets His Maker.” “This won't be a long diary, but another of the first wave of Mega-church hate peddlers has died,” the diarist stated. “He and Jerry [Falwell] and Ron [Reagan] should have plenty to talk about for eternity, [sic.] comparing notes and anecdotes. I won't even get into where, since I'm basically a Humanist.” Naturally, the Left had similar thoughts about the death of Jerry Falwell almost exactly one year ago. Amanda Marcotte, a former employee of the John Edwards presidential campaign, immediately blogged: “The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son. Jerry Falwell's dead. Guess god [sic] — notice the small 'g' — liked the ACLU better after all.” Ms. Marcotte was far from alone.
Hating More Than “Religious Right Pharisees”
The humanists didn’t show much humanity at the passing of Charlton Heston last month, either. The loving Left at Democratic Underground wrote such epitaphs as:
If “liberal” means giving every mean-spirited bastard in the world a break solely on the account that they are a fellow homo sapien?… feeling any sense of loss that some sorry piece of shithumanity such as C Heston has checked out? Then sign me out. I am glad that he is no longer breathing the same air that you and I share. Just tell me the address to where I need to mail my “Liberal” card.
Can’t say I feel sorry for Charlton Heston. From all I heard he was as rightwing as they come.
So glad to hear some good news for a change. - I hope that spreader of misery spends all his glory days around the eternal flames of hell with ol’ Raygun talkin’ ’bout how they really fucked this country - oh they probably won’t even remember, lol. How about we quit glorifying someone just because they had the good sense to DIE.
NOW will somebody pry his cold, dead hands from that frickin’ penis substitute?
he had it coming. - I had no empathy for the aging Nazis, either.
One did not have to actually do anything offensive to the Left to incur its wrath. After 9/11, NFL star Pat Tillman gave up his salary to defend the United States in Afghanistan – the War on Terror that leftists claim to support. He was killed there. Learning this, the Urbana, Illinois, chapter of Indymedia wrote, “Pat Tillman is gone good riddance.” The Portland Indymedia site ran the headline, “Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan.”
Ted Rall: The Worst of the Worst
The execrable cartoonist Ted Rall has made a career of slurring the dead. Shortly after Reagan’s death, Rall told a reporter Reagan was in Hell “turning crispy brown right about now.” Rall called Pat Tillman an “idiot.” He also berated the victims of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre and their families as Nazis, and portrayed the grieving wives left behind after 9/11 as money-grubbing media hounds in his cartoon “Terror Widows.”
We, the Living
Leftists are not always content to wait for the targets of their hatred to die. Often, they wish – and occasionally, pray – for it when conservatives take ill. (Undoubtedly, one of the few times leftists glance heavenward.) When Dick Cheney’s heart began acting up in November 2006, Huffington Post columnist Tony Hendra offered “A Thanksgiving Prayer for Dick Cheney’s Heart – and a Few Other Favorite Things.” The blasphemous entry begins:
I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about. O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.
Cheney had to have his heart electrically shocked to correct an abnormal rhythm days later.
Fun and Giggles About a Dying Pope
The New York Press published a cover story in March 2005 entitled, “The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope,” which included such knee-slappers as, “In his last days, the Pope was in tremendous pain”; “Beetles eating Pope's dead brains”; and “Pope pisses himself just before the end; gets all over nurse.”
An Avalanche of Hatred for Snow
Left-wingers are aware of their limitless ill-will for others and have sometimes attempted to cover for themselves. When former White House Spokesman Tony Snow revealed the return of his cancer in last March, one DailyKoster announced the Left’s clean hands and put the shoe on the other foot:
I know I don't have to tell you all this, but for the occassional [sic.] troller - We at Dailykos do not swim in the Rush Limbaugh pool of scum. We do not wish ill-health on our political opponents or their families. We at Dailykos give our whole-hearted best wishes and prayers to Tony Snow and his family.
His fellow bloggers quickly proved him a liar. The same day, another diarist argued that since Snow had opposed medical marijuana and euthanasia, his cancer was:
not just coincidental. IRONIC. And, frankly, maybe just a little Karmic. Because Tony Snow didn't just wish suffering on terminally ill patients, he promoted policy positions that ACTUALLY CAUSED SUFFERING for those patients. Big difference.
A year later, after another downturn, the DK klan wrote: “Fuck Tony Snow. Not to wish ill of his cancer or anything, but perhaps it is Karma.” And again, “Tony Snow is a cancer upon our culture.” And yet more:
He deserves whatever is in his future. Karma indicates that where he is going is not
good.
Perhaps as he dies he will consider the 4000 plus of our soldiers who have died needlessly in Iraq for a policy that he supported…Tony Snow is scum. It pains me and makes me feel a little guilty to say that about another being...I won't say human being...but he embodies evil as do those neocons he has supported.
Others, who could not gin up the courage to publicly wish him dead, declared their ambivalence. Another Kos diary entry asked, “Should I Care That Tony Snow Has Cancer?”
“John Hinckley Jr. – Where Are You Now That We Need You?”
…And often the Left cannot wait even for conservatives to get ill before wishing them pain, suffering, and death.
NPR’s Nina Totenberg, who covers politics at taxpayer expense, wished Jesse Helms would contract AIDS and publicly hoped Gen. Jerry Boykin “is not long for this world.” Columnist Julianne Malveaux publicly cast a pox on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, saying, “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease.” Air America’s Randi Rhodes has repeatedly “joked” about doing in President Bush. A foreign leftist even produced the film “Death of a President” to bring this vision to life.
In October 2004, UK Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker asked, “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you?” While protesting the War on Terror, some leftists carried signs proclaiming, “Bush is the disease. Death is the cure.”
Anonymous Anti-American Bloodlust
As the Pat Tillman episode demonstrated, the Left need not have any personal knowledge whatever of its subjects to wish them dead. U.S. soldiers – in leftist cant an “occupational force” waging an “illegal, immoral, and unjust war” – deserve to die for their role in oppressing the world’s poor. Columbia University anthropology professor Nicholas DeGenova openly pined for “a million Mogadishus.” And before and during the war, self-proclaimed peaceniks carried signs spouting such loving slogans as “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot their Officers.”
Why They Hate
Few know the inner psychology of the Left like FrontPage Magazine’s contributors – and they have given away the secrets of the inner temple. Former NOW activist Tammy Bruce reminisced in her book The Death of Right and Wrong (and here on FrontPageMag.com) about a friend who, upon seeing Nancy Reagan’s heartbroken interview about her husband’s deteriorating mental state, called Tammy:
cheering. “Woo hoo! It looks like we might be opening up that champagne sooner than later! I hope you were watching the Dragon Lady on ‘60 Minutes’ tonight. I suppose with Alzheimer’s, he’s not suffering anymore, but it sure looks like she is! There is a God after all.”
I had never thought of my friend as an indecent person, just as I never thought of myself as one. But he really hates those two people and wishes them awful things. He believes he’s in the right and they’re wrong. He also believes that the questions that divide them are moral issues about life and death. The difference, however, is that I think it’s safe to say neither Nancy nor Ronald Reagan ever had a bottle of champagne in the fridge waiting for a gay man or a feminist to die. The Reagans, I’ll bet, don’t hoot and holler at someone else’s pain.
Mrs. Reagan’s humanity illustrated by counterpoint the soullessness of the Left.
A Secular Demonology
Tammy’s last sentence points at the Left’s true problem: a defective cosmology. In his autobiography Radical Son, David Horowitz reproduces a letter he wrote to a one-time comrade, who took his political change-of-heart as a personal betrayal:
How could it be otherwise for people like us, for whom politics (despite our claim to be social realists) was less a matter of practical decisions than moral choices? We were partisans of a cause that confirmed our humanity, even as it denied humanity to those who opposed us. (Emphasis added.)
Although Tammy Bruce showed the Left to be soulless, in their eyes they alone possess the gift of humanity. Leftists lack the religious grounding to recognize everyone as a divine soul and a tradition that teaches them to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” The faith of the Left is a political faith, not a religious one, their politics The Politics of Bad Faith, their God The God that Failed. As they share a secular religion, they promote a secular demonology: those who fight for The Cause are not “on the side of the angels” – they are the angels. For all their charges that President Bush is a Manichean, it is they who stand at the Battle of Armageddon and fight for the Lord. Those who stand in their way are not good people misled; they are Beelzebub in gray suits. “Progressives” can no more offer quarter to such people in death than in life. Their opponents’ deaths are not a tragic diminishment of humanity; the bell only tolls to signal the end of a round. Their opponents’ deaths simply clear the battlefield of hostile infantrymen. This goes beyond a divide of “Red States” and “Blue States” but literally divides the soul from the spirit, human from inhuman or sub-human, cherub from gargoyle. Their fighting faith estranges them from that full portion of humanity (and it is not inconsequential) which does not share it as surely as Islam separates the righteous from the Dar al-Harb.
Ted Kennedy, for all his misguided beliefs and actions, will soon pass from one side of this mortal divide to another. As he goes, the prayers of those of goodwill go with him. (Emphasis added)
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/22/2008
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B9F4C4D5-E52E-4932-9866-2EF5966294C9
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
If John McCain were truly a maverick, he would publicly break from the politically correct culture that demands obedience to its global warming narrative. But sadly, he continues to do the opposite.
Liberals have denominated McCain a maverick because he has taken so many positions contradictory to his party's platform and to the conservative ideology that undergirds it. Now that he is the putative Republican nominee, you don't hear much about his maverick nature, but it's certainly not because he's changed his ways in opposing his party.
Last week, he affirmed his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, even though earlier he stepped back from it to curry favor with conservatives. One wonders what other shoes will inevitably drop should he win the presidency, especially because he has indicated he would most likely be a one-termer.
Will he revert to his visceral revulsion to the Bush supply-side tax cuts? Many supply-siders, after taking McCain to the woodshed on the issue, assure us he can be trusted on it.
If so, their efforts will redound to the benefit of the economy and nation should McCain win the election. But some of these same supply-side advocates insist we shouldn't expect him to move rightward on too many other issues.
Sorry, but I reject that zero-sum thinking, as should my fellow supply-siders; they certainly do in the realm of tax policy. While I will vote for McCain against either Democratic opponent, I don't believe we should abandon efforts to reform the "reformer" on other issues besides taxes. Are we supposed to declare a moratorium on the expression of our principles for fear it could damage his electability?
If conservatives don't make an effort to hold McCain accountable for his liberal proclivities, then no one will, to the guaranteed detriment of the national interest. In fact, pushing him to the right while we still have a chance will enhance his electability.
Which brings me back to the subject that inspired this column: McCain's regrettable upcoming speech outlining his vision to combat global warming.
In a preview of the speech, CNN reports that McCain will say: "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."
No, Sen. McCain, the most relevant question is whether political leaders will have the diligence to study this issue and the integrity and courage to stand up to the propaganda of the enviro-bullies. The question is whether you can be a maverick where it counts.
It is not Earth's ecosystem that hangs in the balance, but America's future. Those whose vision isn't blurred by green-colored glasses and the temptation to win accolades from the leftist-dominated culture can see that the global push to "save the planet" is more about destroying capitalism, private property and Western culture than sound, science-based environmental stewardship. Never mind the staggering contradiction that free market economies produce cleaner environs.
Indeed, I hate to break it to some of my fellow evangelical Christians who are falling into the trap along with McCain, but the global warming proselytes don't share your worldview. Do you realize you are jumping in bed with those who are promoting a pantheistic deification of the environment and a diminution of the dignity of human beings created in God's image?
Contrary to the mandated script from the warming zealots, there is plenty of credible dissent in the scientific community about global warming, particularly man's role in it. Much of this dissent comes from scientists in fields related to weather studies. Imagine that.
The fact that the enviro-church fathers have "outlawed" dissenting opinion and slander those offering it tells us something fishy is afoot.
And for you McCain supporters who think the only issues that matter are the war and taxes, not to mention abortion and immigration — all of which are incalculably important — I urge you not to underestimate the gravity of the global warming issue and the potentially devastating consequences of rolling over on it.
If Republicans also acquiesce to this false religion and its required "good works," we are headed toward a path of economic and societal destruction in the name of saving the planet.
It's time for Newt Gingrich to get off that couch with Nancy Pelosi and for John McCain to jump off this insidious global warming train that might as well be armed with enemy bombs and aimed at the heart of this nation and its economy.
David Limbaugh
May 13, 2008
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
The media have been telling us to watch the gun-control case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, where we await a decision about Americans' Second Amendment rights. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals just handed down an equally important gun decision that has additional implications against judicial supremacy.
The Second Circuit, which convenes in New York City, shot down the liberals' longtime dream of achieving gun control by suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed by firearms. In a remarkable decision, this federal appellate court dismissed City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (pdf) and protected gun corporations against frivolous lawsuits in state and federal courts.
The lawsuit was brought by the City of New York in order to seek control over gun suppliers. At stake was not merely money but also whether the liberals would obtain from judicial activists the gun control which the liberals could not get from legislatures.
This decision provides a roadmap for how Congress should withdraw jurisdiction from judicial supremacists in other fields, too. The Second Circuit decision is a sweeping affirmation of Congress's power to stop future and pending lawsuits in federal and state courts.
This ruling broke an alarming trend of judicial supremacy and stopped outrageous lawsuits that tried to impede the sale of guns because of illegal acts committed by New York City residents and others. Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg was left empty-handed in his attempt to sue businesses concerning crimes committed by residents of his city.
The lawsuit cited the harm from gun sales while ignoring evidence that the benefits far outweigh the harm. The trial court sided with Bloomberg, but the appellate court said "no" and put an end to the nonsense.
Congress had legislated the basis for this decision by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. The PLCAA protects against a "qualified civil liability action," defined broadly to include almost any lawsuit brought against a gun manufacturer or seller based on "the criminal or unlawful misuse" of a firearm distributed in interstate commerce. On the day it was signed into law by President Bush, gun manufacturers moved to dismiss this case, and the Second Circuit has now enforced the law.
The appellate court rejected an argument that this law denied access to the courts. New York City can and does sue all the time, but Congress properly rejected the ridiculous notion that the city could sue businesses over a typically beneficial product that was later used illegally.
Should General Motors and Ford be held liable for crimes committed by drunk drivers, or baseball bat suppliers be sued for criminal beatings inflicted with their products? Of course not, and it was an outrage that courts even entertained such actions against gun manufacturers and suppliers.
If Congress had not effectively withdrawn jurisdiction, gun manufacturers would be reluctant to produce guns and many might go out of business. This intimidation would deter the lawful sale of guns.
That's exactly what the gun-control advocates have long wanted: legislation from the bench that they could not persuade real legislatures to pass. A majority of legislators, who are elected, see the absurdity of gun control and recognize the valuable self-defense function of guns.
The role of judges should be (as Chief Justice Roberts repeated in his confirmation hearings) like that of baseball umpires: calling the balls and strikes, but not changing how many strikes constitute a strike-out. Judges should interpret ambiguous laws fairly but not legislate from the bench.
Gun control has become so unpopular that not even the Democratic presidential candidates dare brag about their views. Instead the anti-gun crowd hopes to get what it wants from supremacist judges.
The misuse of the courts to obtain a result contrary to the will of the American people should not be allowed on other vital issues. Congress should also take away from judges issues such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, and the definition of marriage.
Take another example. Federal courts should not entertain lawsuits by illegal aliens against local ordinances that enforce our immigration laws.
This refreshing gun decision by the Second Circuit signals the way for Congress to return the judiciary to its proper place in our constitutional separation of powers system. In the previous Congress, the House did pass bills to curb court mischief about the Pledge of Allegiance and the definition of marriage, and now it's time for the Senate to step up to the plate and take action against judicial supremacists.
May 21, 2008
by Phyllis Schlafly
http://mail.hughes.net/cp/ps/Main/login/Authenticate?s=1211409060068&v=1211409060068
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman turned social philosopher who wrote newspaper columns and nine books. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983 after winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, “The True Believer” published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. Here is one of his newspaper columns from 1968. Take note that this article was written 38 years ago and that Eric Hoffer was not Jewish.
ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
by Eric Hoffer
Los Angeles Times
May 26, 1968
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all.
Hat tip: Suzanne R.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
From Audacity of Hope:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' --- Barak (blessed in Arabic) Hussein (son-in-law of Mohammed, founder of the Shiite's) Obama.
Hat tip: David R.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
If you ask me, there's no greater threat to the country's well being than the virus of illegal immigration. (emphasis added)
You've read my rants on this topic before. But I heard something on the radio the other day that really set me off. It was a story on NPR. Apparently, last year, the US Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) deported 20,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador, compared to just 3,400 in 2004. If you ask me, that fact alone is cause for celebration! After all, when was the last time a government agency increased its output by more than five times! If USCIS could do the same for illegals of other national origins, our troubles would be over very quickly!
As you may have guessed, the lefties at NPR didn't see things quite the same way. Incredibly, the story focused on the "struggles" of the Salvadoran government and its economy as they wrestled with the vastly increased numbers of their own citizens being forcibly repatriated. That's right: NPR wants you to feel bad that poor little El Salvador is having a hard time dealing with this influx of its own citizens.
Typically, NPR sees the world through red-tinted, Marxist glasses; the poor and downtrodden must be helped and given every possible advantage, whether or not they legally deserve it or not. And NPR will shamelessly pluck at your heart-strings until your heart bleeds as much as theirs does. I was so incensed about this story that I went to the NPR website to find out more (glutton for punishment that I am) and discovered that the story I'd heard was actually just the first of a three-part series!
Part two of the story told of one Salvadoran deportee's "near-death trip" to the U.S. The hombre in question was "Julio," a 45-year-old diabetic. His story is littered with all the well-worn clichés you've come to expect from an illegal immigrant story. He was cheated by the smuggler he paid to get him to the States; he spent two days in the desert without food or shelter - blah, blah, blah. Well, I'm as compassionate as the next guy, but if Julio had stayed at home where he belonged, or better yet, TRIED TO ENTER THE U.S. THE LEGAL WAY, he wouldn't have experienced any of the "horrors" of his "near-death trip."
I appreciate that Julio and others like him are seeking a better life. And I hope they find it. But I refuse to believe that it's incumbent upon the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer to pick up the tab. Clearly, the immigrants that come here are not averse to hard work; I implore them to stay in their respective homelands and put their efforts into bettering the future of their native countries.
And as for the folks at NPR, all I have to say to them is, what are you thinking? You're as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head about where you stand on all this. You think only compassionless meanies would deny people like Julio their shot at the American Dream?
But then, what can I expect from a bunch of people who work on a non-profit radio station? People who've never had to compete for listenership, and who can spew their liberal tripe without even one thought to needing to make it profitable. Naturally, they believe that you should be free to do whatever you want and let the government pick up the tab: the taxpayers have been footing the bill for over a third of NPR's annual operating costs for decades.
NPR's thought process goes something like this: while you're taking out your checkbook to pay taxes to keep NPR in the black, why not include some more of your hard-earned cash so that Julio can have his insulin taken care of, decent healthcare for his family, an education for his kids, and everything else that a citizen of the United States can have. The fact that Julio isn't citizen shouldn't matter, should it?
Well, I'm here to say it should. It matters a lot. U.S. citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It's not something you give away like care packages. It's something that has to be earned. Legally.
Publicly calling out what's wrong with National Public Radio.
(If that were not enough,) with disturbing regularity, I seem to be telling you about more and more third world diseases and ailments that are popping up right here in the U.S. This is not good. I believe that these increases of tropical diseases are directly related to the increased number of illegal immigrants here in the States from all manner of unhygienic parts of the globe.
The parasitic worm disease called schistosomiasis is yet another example. Like many of these third world diseases, schistosomiasis is actually one of the most common parasitic infections in the whole world, infecting 207 million every year. Of course, the majority of these people are in the Asia, South America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean (and no, I don't mean Club Med).
Schistosomiasis is caused by flatworms that live in snail-infested fresh water; this water is contaminated by worm eggs when infected people urinate or defecate into it. Schistosomiasis is contracted when people swim, bathe, fish or rice farm in the contaminated water.
"This is a disease of poverty," McGarvey said. "If you had proper sewage disposal systems for humans and animals, you wouldn't be contaminating the environment with the [worm] eggs."
The good news if there is good news in a story like this is that the disease has merely increased worldwide; there's been no mention of a significant uptick here in the States .yet. But I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief. Researchers say we need more resources allocated to beating it back. One of the authors of the study, Steven McGarvey, director of the International Health Institute at Brown University, said, "We're basically ringing the bell; attention must be paid."
In other words, if we're not careful, this parasite could be coming to a town near you.
Yet another reason to build that fence!!
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
http://www.douglassreport.com
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
