Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for January, 2013

Interpreting President Obama’s Inaugual Address


The President Obama Inaugural Address

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 by Dennis Prager

To understand leftism, the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, you have to understand how the left thinks. The 2013 inaugural address of President Barack Obama provides one such opportunity.

–“What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'”

What American does not resonate to a president reaffirming this magnificent statement from our Declaration of Independence?

But here’s the intellectual sleight of hand: “What makes us exceptional — what makes us American” is indeed the belief that rights come from God.

But this seminal idea is not mentioned again in the entire inaugural address. This was most unfortunate. An inaugural address that would concentrate on the decreasing significance of God in American life — one of the left’s proudest accomplishments — would address what may well be the single most important development in the last half-century of American life.

–“We learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

If there is one word that most excites progressives, it is “new.” (“Old” turns the left off: Judeo-Christian religions and the Constitution are two such examples.) The fact is that Americans did not make “themselves anew” after the Civil War. What they did was finally affirm what was old — the Founders’ belief that “all men are created equal.”

So why did the president say this? Because what he and the left want to do is to make America anew — by making it a left-wing country.

–“Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.”

The president used the word “together” four times in his speech. In no instance, did it make sense. What he meant each time is government. In the mind of the left, together and government are one.

Moreover, the point is meaningless. We determined that “a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce”? Isn’t that utterly self-evident? Isn’t it as meaningless as saying that “together, we determined that jets are faster than propeller planes?

–“Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

Again, “together” — meaning the government.

And, again, this is an intellectual sleight of hand in order to make his case for more government. The free market “only thrives” when individuals have the freedom to take risks. Too large a government and too many rules choke the free market. Look at Europe and every other society with too many rules governing the marketplace.

–“Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

This is pure leftism: Individual freedom will be preserved by an ever-expanding state.

The whole American experiment in individual freedom has been predicated on as small a government as possible.

–“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need … or build the roads and networks and research labs …

Who, pray tell, has ever said that a single person can train all teachers, build the roads, etc.? The point he is making, once again, is that only the government can do all these things.

–“The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

This is either a non-sequitur or a falsehood. Huge government programs do not increase risk taking, and, yes, they often do make “a nation of takers.” Again, look at Europe. If such programs encouraged entrepreneurial risk-taking, European countries would have the most such risk-takers in the Western world. Instead, Europe has indeed become a continent of takers.

–“We will respond to the threat of climate change … Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

“The overwhelming judgment of science.” Just as the left has changed global warming to “climate change,” the president has now changed scientists to “science.” To differ with the environmentalist left on the sources of whatever global warming there is, or whether to impede the economic growth of the Western democracies in the name of reducing carbon emissions is now to deny “science” itself, not merely to differ with some scientists.

Moreover, all three claims of the president are false.

As the Danish environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that there is global warming and that that it is caused primarily by carbon emissions, wrote about the president’s claims:

On fires: “Analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15 percent” (italics in original).

On drought: “The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.'”

On storms: “Hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century.”

–“That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

Finally God is mentioned — on behalf of solar panels and windmills! The god of the left is the god of environmentalism.

–“We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

The president’s favorite American — the Straw Man. Who exactly believes in “perpetual war?” Perhaps the president confuses perpetual strength with perpetual war.

Had he not been a leftist, he could have said: “We the people still believe that enduring security and lasting peace require perpetual American strength.”

–“But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war.”

Whatever peace we have won has been won as a result of war and/or being militarily prepared for war. But acknowledging that would mean abandoning leftist doctrine.

–“We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are na?ve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

“Not because we are na?ve?” The entire sentence is an ode to the left’s naivet? regarding evil.

–“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

The president didn’t say what would create more security in children than anything else — a father in their lives. Why didn’t he? Because the left doesn’t talk about the need for fathers. Such talk is deemed sexist, anti-women, anti-single mothers and anti-same-sex marriage.

But the left does talk utopian. In what universe are children “always safe from harm?” The answer is in the utopian imagination of the left, which then passes law after law and uproots centuries of values in order to create their utopia.

–“Being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.”

That’s more left-wing ideology: Liberty means what you want it mean. As does marriage, art, family, truth and good and evil.

–“We cannot … substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

No conservative could agree more with that. They are, after all, two of the most prominent features of left-wing political life.

–“Let us … carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

The president began his address citing Creator-given rights, but never mentioned either the Creator or Creator-given rights in what followed. So, too, he ended his address with a call to freedom that had nothing to do with anything he said preceding it. The address was about climate change, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, and mostly, expanding the power of the state – not freedom.

The speech was not inspiring. But it did have one important value: It illuminated how the left thinks.

Purposely Vague Language


by

Purposely Vague Language in New Gun Rules Could Outlaw all Guns

PistolThe best way to get what you want out of a law is to make it vague. A vague law is a law that needs to be interpreted. Since no one is devoid of presuppositions, the person or persons interpreting the law will interpret it in terms of his or her worldview.

Look what our politicians have done with the phrase “general welfare.” Even though the Constitution is specific about what constitutes general welfare (there’s a semicolon after the phrase with a list that follows defining the meaning of the phrase), lawmakers have turned it into a wax nose to be shaped by wealth confiscation and wealth redistribution policies.

Now we come to the Dianne Feinstein bill that would allow numerous firearms. The descriptions of these guns, if interpreted by judges who are anti-Second Amendment advocates, could spell disaster for gun ownership.

Consider this from WND:

“Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

“He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, ‘any semiautomatic firearm which uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned.’”

What is a “semiautomatic firearm”? A semiautomatic firearm is a weapon that requires the shooter to squeeze the trigger in order to fire a bullet. One trigger pull equals one bullet fired. A full automatic weapon shoots in burst of bullets that are fired by a single squeeze of the trigger.

A rifle that shoots a single bullet with a single squeeze of the trigger is a semiautomatic weapon, and so is one that looks like an “assault weapon.” They each require the same action. One just looks more ominous than the other.

Pistols are semi-automatic weapons. A clip that holds 7 bullets requires 7 pulls of the trigger to fire all 7 bullets.

If a single shot gun is a semiautomatic weapon, then this would include pistols. Since pistols have, by definition, a “pistol grip,” then it’s possible that handguns could be banned by some court based on the planned vagaries of the law.

We know that Dianne Feinstein and other liberals would like to ban all weapons. They know they can’t do it at the present time. They are long-term strategists. They’ve been pushing for universal health care for nearly 100 years, and they finally got it. The 16th Amendment was sold as a tax only on the wealthiest among us. You’ve seen where that got us. It’s no different on gun legislation.

A Story The Main Stream Media WON’T Tell


 

An Irishman’s American Dream

Posted on January 29, 2013 in Featured, OPINION

Waiting in Line

I’m a citizen of Ireland and have been attempting to get a green card for over 9 years.

Once again, America faces the popular discussion of immigration – trying to find the best way forward for America and its 11 million illegals.

One of the greatest conservatives of modern time, Mark Levin, had two great guests on tonight’s show – Jeff Sessions arguing against the current ideas, and Marco Rubio, who is part of the group of eight who are trying to come up with legislation to deal with this problem.

Because this is an issue that affects me greatly, I had to call in and I was very lucky to be able to discuss a few points with the Great One – Mr. Levin, himself. I personally have a massive problem with granting an illegal worker a permanent visa because America has laws and those laws need to be respected. The biggest issue, to me, is the fact that 11 million people will skip the line in front of people like me who have waited 9 years to get a visa… and still waiting. To put that number in perspective, the American government awards 50,000 DV visas every year. I could wait a lifetime and still never get to achieve my dream, but someone who has broken the law gets to live the dream every day.

While Rubio insists that we will all be on the same level, the law of possession will come into play. Does anyone really believe that the US government is going to deport someone illegal just so I can come into the country? That will never work.

The other issue I addressed on Levin’s show was the message conservatives need to communicate going forward. Republicans like John McCain keep saying Republicans need this reform to win another election. THEY ARE WRONG. Three little words will lead to a win: THE AMERICAN DREAM!

When was the last time you heard this mentioned? The country where if you worked hard, you could become anything you wanted and could achieve anything. No one could stop you or get in the way.

The answer to tyranny is not less tyranny – its Liberty and Freedom.

Reagan summed up my feelings about America perfectly in his “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964, where he told the story of a Cuban talking to two Americans, telling them everything he ran away from. The two Americans looked at each other and realized how lucky they were. But the Cuban insisted he was the lucky one because he had somewhere to run to…..

For me, while I don’t face the same oppression or anything like it, I still long for the American Dream and I hope and pray every day that I will get the chance to achieve it.

*Hear Jonathon on The Mark Levin Show

(Start at 56 minute mark)

President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’


Bret BART

Sunstein: President Obama Wants ‘Second Bill of Rights’

Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.

Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.

Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights–not a list of constitutional amendments, but policy goals–was as follows:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Sunstein points out Roosevelt was not a socialist–and yet many of the “rights” he proposed were inspired by socialist policies. The Soviet constitution of 1936, too, included the right to work, among other guarantees.

In addition, Sunstein argues that Obama has made progress on least one of these rights: the right to health care, through the highly controversial Obamacare–whose costs will begin to be felt this year in earnest.

The analogy is not perfect: one “right” on which Roosevelt would not have agreed with Obama, for example, is the “right” of public sector workers to bargain collectively and to strike, which Roosevelt opposed.

Regardless, both conservatives and liberals may agree: Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.

Arizona High School Graduates to Swear Oath to Constitution?


by

Arizona High School Graduates to Swear Oath to Constitution?

loyalty oathScandal is once again rocking the streets and social media pages of Arizona where a group of Republican legislators are asking for the unthinkable.  They have proposed a bill that would require all graduating seniors to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Worse yet, the end of the oath has them, oh this is almost too scandalous to say out loud, but it says, ‘So help me God.’

Bob Thorpe (R-District 6 in northern Arizona) along with 5 other Republican state representative and one state senator, have sponsored HB 2467.  This bill would require all high school graduates in the state of Arizona to take an oath of loyalty to support and defend the US Constitution, similar to the oath taken by public officials and law enforcement personnel.  Once each student has taken the oath, the school principal or head teacher would have to issue a signed certification that the student successfully fulfilled that task.

The oath states:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.”

To add to the horrificness of the matter, Steve Smith (R- District 23 – central Arizona) has introduced HB 2284 that would require all public school students, grades 1st through 12th, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school.

Immediately, the liberals went into an uproar claiming that Thorpe had gone too far and that his bill was unconstitutional and would not be held up by any court.  Anjali Abraham of the America Communist Lawyers Union, err, that’s the American Civil Liberties Union, told the local media:

“Both bills are clearly unconstitutional, ironically enough.  You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

How dare anyone ask US citizens to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school and then have to swear a loyalty oath to the US Constitution?

Before anyone can swear an oath to the Constitution, don’t they have to know what it says first?  So that means that every high school student should have to take a class on the US Constitution so they know what it says.  Sadly, many law schools today don’t even do that.  There are hundreds of people graduating from law schools that have never read the Constitution or have any idea what it actually says.  They only know what their liberal professors have told them.

Personally, I think it’s a great idea.  I know I had to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school through the 8th grade.  I felt that doing that made me a part of this country and something to be proud of.  How can saying the Pledge of Allegiance or swearing an oath of loyalty to the governing document of your country be considered unconstitutional?  A violation of the First Amendment – bull pucky!

Is it unconstitutional to teach our children to be patriotic and loyal to our country?  What I don’t understand is why would any citizen object to saying the Pledge of Allegiance or swearing an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.  If they refuse to, then perhaps they should consider finding another county that would better suit their views.

I know some people say they won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or swear a loyalty oath because of their religious beliefs about not being able to serve two masters, but they are taking that out of context in this case.  Saying the Pledge or taking the loyalty oath is not asking anyone to give up their loyalty and obedience to Christ, rather they are intended to support and uphold the freedoms and rights that God granted to this great nation over 230 years ago.  By saying the Pledge and taking such an oath should cause one to strive uphold our Christian values, morals, and biblical laws and to fight against those like Barack Obama who are actively trying to take them away from us.

I know it’s an old cliché, but I firmly believe it’s true and represents the efforts of Reps. Smith and Thorpe: ‘America – Love It or Leave It!’

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.

One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”

They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.

“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.

Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.

This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.

Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?

The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.

That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.

Read More:  http://www.politico.com/

‘Tyranny By Executive Order’


RED FLAG

http://redflagnews.com/

EXCLUSIVE: What the hell just happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ |

by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone as a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: