Archive for the ‘U.S. Constitutional Issues’ Category
The mass media’s way of communicating war is basically to put fake tough-guy narcissists on your TV screen speaking to the equivalent of a pre-oedipal 2 year old: “There are scary people out there…you need to be terrified…heroic saviors will attack and destroy their bad countries for you so you can maintain your mental fantasy that you’re safe. All you need to do is keep shopping, buying your little toys, while daddy keeps you safe.” You can already see psychology and spirituality issues in that dialogue. But what about economics? One of the Council on Renewal’s tenets is that we currently live in a world where economics reigns supreme over every other dimension of life, including spirituality and psychology.
The executive departments of our federal government read like an alphabet soup of bureaucracies entwining and entangling themselves into every area of our lives. The litany of “on-the-books” divisions and subdivisions does not even count the unaccountable czars, advisors and otherwise nebulous bureaucrats whose only business it is to annoy the American people and to demand of us affiliation and information to which they have no constitutional authority.
After Clinton appointed Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that—for all intents and purposes—Arizona does not have the right to protect itself or its citizens from invading drug cartels and the illegal foreign hordes that are bleeding it dry of its resources, it should have become apparent to even the dimmest that We-the-People no longer exist. We are now living under a tyranny developed, directed, implemented and enforced by the Marxists in power.
Article II, Section I of The Constitution of the United States: The Presidential Oath of Affirmation states “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any federal law that has justly been approved and entered into the United States Code becomes part of the Law of the Land, the Constitution. Therefore, the protection of our country, in any terms from protecting our borders to protecting our environment, is a direct obligation of the President of the United States. Question: When is the President of the United States of America guilty of violating the Law of the Land? Answer: when he willfully violates the Oath of Affirmation.
By Thomas E. Brewton
Corruption can be reduced only by reducing the size of the Federal government.
Much is being written about unsavory political influence exercised by the army of Washington lobbyists, who act as conduits for large amounts of influence money from special interest groups. Those special interest groups range from business and environmental groups, to abortion advocates, and labor unions.
Tom Daschle's exit from nomination as the commissar of a national socialized healthcare system is among the headliners. Another is Leon Panetta, bound for the CIA, coming off large lecture earnings from groups doing millions of dollars worth of business with the CIA. Already fading into the background is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's husband's big-bucks connections with some of the less reputable characters on the international scene, people against whom Secretary Clinton must represent the interests of the United States.
On the other hand, limiting people's opportunity to contribute money to help elect and influence representatives friendly to their interests is, apparently to most everyone outside Congress and the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights.
If we are not to invade First Amendment rights, what then are we to do?
At the most fundamental level, the problem is what lawyers call an attractive nuisance. If you build a swimming pool it is likely to attract small children, with potentially dire consequences.
If we continually enlarge the size and scope of the Federal government, already the largest dispenser of money in the world, it is not rocket science to forecast that every scoundrel in the world will be looking for ways to game the system or to steal money outright. Notorious bank robber Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, is supposed to have answered, "Because that's where the money is."
"The Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People." – General Prologue to the Wycliffe Bible in 1384.
Our country and its laws were established on the fundamental belief that our morality emanates from God. While the Constitution begins with the line, "We the people," it does not contain any religious words. Some people cite this as evidence that America is a secular country. Not so. America has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values.
Many settlers in the 1600s came to what they considered this new promised land seeking religious freedom. They identified with the biblical Jewish Exodus from Egypt because they had left Europe and its values as well. Ours is the only country to identify with many Jewish beliefs, and is why our culture calls itself "Judeo-Christian." These values include the importance of laws, fighting for justice, and a belief in judgment by loving and forgiving God.
The Founders understood there is a divine order that rises above the human order. By the 1770s, they sought our freedom from the British Crown with reliance upon, what the Declaration of Independence calls, "Nature's God," the "Creator," and "the Supreme Judge of the World."
The First Amendment was never intended to exclude all references to God from government institutions and public debate. It simply says, "Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." The word "establish" meant the creation of a state church, as in the Church of England. It is nonsense to say the founders intended the First Amendment to exclude all religious expression in public places.
By Warner Todd Huston
We are certainly used to seeing the MSM causing trouble for conservatives and this one is no different at least on that level. But the interesting thing here is that the trouble a social conservative discovered was as a result of what she wrote in the MSM as opposed to what was written about her by the MSM. It seems that the opinion editorial written by Crystal Dixon for the Toledo Blade got her fired by the University of Toledo because… well, you know how universities are all about free expression and speech, right? Unfortunately for Dixon, though, hers wasn’t the proper, politically correct sort of speech that is officially approved of by the thugs at the University of Toledo.
You see, Crystal Dixon made the mistake of believing that this whole silly idea of “freedom of religion” also applied to our institutions of higher learning. She foolishly asserted in her Toledo Blade op ed that as far as her religious beliefs are concerned, homosexuality is a choice made by the individual instead of some genetic predisposition, that someone chooses to engage in homosexual activities instead of assuming that being gay is forced upon one by “nature.”
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today it is demanding that a community college in New York end its hostility toward a Christian student who has been punished because of her religious beliefs. The ACLJ represents Gina DeLuca, a student at Suffolk County Community College (SCCC), who has received lower grades and has been labeled “closed-minded” by a professor who requires students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a philosophy class. The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit.
“This is another troubling example of how some in the academic world believe it’s acceptable to violate the First Amendment rights afforded to all students – especially students who hold Christian beliefs,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The actions by this professor clearly reflect hostility toward religion. To require students to acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in a class is not only wrong, but clearly violates the constitutional rights of students who hold religious beliefs. Unless this school takes corrective action, we will go to federal court to protect the rights of our client.”
In its letter to Suffolk County Attorney Christine Malafi, the ACLJ explains that the problem began when DeLuca took a philosophy class which is required for graduation.
DeLuca, who has been a student at SCCC for two years, has maintained a 3.9 GPA and has had good relationships with her professors at the school. She received good grades in the philosophy class until her religious beliefs became known.
According to the ACLJ letter, “…the grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent. This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to.” The letter adds that the professor “believes that it is his job to get students to change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct.”
In addition to giving DeLuca lower grades, the ACLJ contends that the professor labeled her “closed-minded,” “uncritical,” “hurtful,” and “blinded by belief” simply because she did not adopt his way of thinking.
“SCCC must take immediate action to correct this problem,” the ACLJ letter states. “While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate—and unconstitutional—for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student’s willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs.”
The ACLJ is asking the school to end this discriminatory action against DeLuca, provide assurances that her constitutional rights will be preserved, and advise the professor about the First Amendment rights of students. The ACLJ is demanding that the school provide these assurances by April 14th or face a federal lawsuit.
The ACLJ defends the constitutional rights of students nationwide and most recently secured a victory for an Arizona college journalism student who faced discrimination – and a failing grade – because of her Christian faith. After the ACLJ intervened on behalf of that student, the school reversed itself and awarded her an occupational journalism certificate in addition to her associate’s degree.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.
Justice is served!
Williamsburg, VA – Gene R. Nichol, president of the College of William and Mary, submitted a resignation letter yesterday after receiving notice that his contract would not be renewed by the college’s Board of Visitors. Several appointees to the board, who were pending reconfirmation, recently appeared at hearings before the Virginia House of Delegates’ Privileges and Elections Committee.
During the hearings, Nichol was strongly criticized for controversial decisions during his short reign as president. Committee Chairman Mark Cole stated that “a set of recent events warranted a more thorough review” of the Board of Visitors. The events cited as concerning were Nichol’s removal of the cross from Wren Chapel, the resulting loss of a $12 million gift and allowing a “Sex Workers’ Art Show.”
The confirmation hearings focused mainly on Nichol’s controversial actions. “If any university president in the Commonwealth has put a bad light on the Commonwealth … it’s Mr. Nichols,” said Del. Jeffrey Frederick. Del. Clarence Phillips asked the appointees for a commitment to ensure the college is known for “all right and good things,” to “do what’s necessary through your leadership and through your good name.” Committee Chairman Cole warned the appointees: “Everything that happens at William and Mary will rest on your shoulders.”
By Warner Todd Huston
The recent outrage against Constitutional liberty by the Boston Police raises some very interesting questions. Can we voluntarily give up our Constitutional rights? Further, can government legally violate our rights even if we ask them to do so? These are questions that we all need to consider before allowing police into our homes, invited or no.
Last week The Boston Globe reported that the Boston police are about to launch a program in "high-crime neighborhoods" where a roving band of policemen will walk door-to-door and ask parents if they have permission to search the home for guns. These police squads intend to conduct searches without warrants, claiming that the invitation by the homeowner is all they need to commence the search.
Like all steps down the road to tyranny, the pavement here is being laid by folks with good intentions, officials who are, after all, only trying to "help" the community. The Commissar of Police, Edward Davis claims that he is giving the folks of Boston "an option" for what to do about gun violence in the city. The cops "ask permission" to enter and supposedly only do so when given the OK. They also target specific homes that have been fingered as troublesome by neighbors and other intelligence sources.
Some community leaders are professing their faith in this new program that is patterned after one instituted, but later abandoned, by the St. Louis police. Boston’s community leaders seem ready to give this a try because the program is supposed to be spurred by community interaction and tips to the Boston PD. It is interesting and instructive, however, to note that some reports about the demise of the St. Louis program claim that one of the reasons they shut it down there was because the St.
Louis PD began to rely more on their own intelligence and less on community tips. Meaning, the community was no longer involved and the police there began to act as if it was solely their own resources Read the rest of this entry »