Two hundred and twenty three years ago, the framers of the Constitution created a document unlike anything that had come before. This people's republic was created so well that not only has it persevered, but has shone the light of freedom on the whole world, and ushered in a new era of achievement.
Was it a perfect document? No...and yes. It had it's flaws, true.. And yet, therein lies the perfection. Those thirty-nine men were fully aware that, as mere men, they were subject to failings of judgement, and so they managed to create a document that was amendable. It is not an easy process, something that is not undertaken lightly - but it can be done. This does not mean it was meant to be a "living document" that is supposed to change with the times. The inherent philosophy, that our rights are inalienable and derived from our maker, is something that simply cannot be changed. That is our fundamental creed.
The results of our Revolution were truly revolutionary. We opened our arms wide and offered our freedom to the world. We have singlehandedly improved humankind's lot in life a thousandfold the world over. Throwing off the yoke of tyranny and giving the people a voice in their future and their very lives brought out the best in us. We innovated. We thrived. We prospered. The world watched our living experiment, and many were inspired by us. Some tried to adopt our way of life; some simply fled the tyranny of their homelands and began anew under the rising sun of our Constitution.
We are truly a blessed country. What other nation can trace it's roots to a document created by a group of men intent not on their own self interest, but in the interest of an entire people? The selflessness, deliberation, honor and integrity that went into that document makes it a one-of-a-kind masterpiece.
And it was created by ordinary men. Men who, plainly speaking, really weren't sure of what they were doing. And yet the result was....magnificent.
The Constitutional awakening we have been experiencing in this country is a welcome thing. We had grown lax, too busy enjoying the fruits of liberty to tend to the tree. But now, where our founders had watered the tree with the blood of patriots, for us, the tree will thrive on tea.
God bless America and the Constitution that makes her great.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
THE COURT OF EMPATHY
Elena Kagan will most likely be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, but is she really what's right for the Court? Is she even what President Obama said he was looking for? Kathleen Parker says:
How can a woman with no real-world experience in her chosen field possibly know how law affects the daily lives of American people? Let alone a woman who was raised on the affluent Upper West Side of NYC and spent her college and working years in elite educational enclaves? How is this woman in tune with, say, some guy in Wyoming who is having his ranch cut in half by the federal government to confiscate for use as nature preserves or wildlife habitats? Perhaps we could start a new form of translation. Instead of different languages, there would be cultural translations
In his eternal quest for social justice, Obama has lumped our Supreme Court in with the lesser courts. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be empathetic, it is supposed to interpret laws to decide if they adhere to the Constitution. They are also not supposed to judge a case based on the benefits or losses to the single party petitioning them - their job is to judge based on the good of the country. The Supreme Court doesn't indulge in case-by-case decisions. That is the task of the lesser courts. The Supreme Court merely keeps the country on a path directed by the Constitution in a rather black and white way. Lesser courts can "tweak" the laws a bit into those grey areas. If they tweak too much, though, the case heads back up to the Supreme Court to be redefined in a constitutional context. Yes, you've strayed too far off the path, or no, you're still heading in the right direction.
His "empathetic court" seems more like a way to discard the Constitional guidelines by ignoring them or not referencing them anymore in favor of case-by-case style decisions. It's an empathetic end run around the constitution.
Let's take the Arizona immigration law, for instance. The odds are pretty good that the Court will find that the law merely allows state authorities to enforce federal laws (with additional corresponding state penalties), and that it's not unconstitutional. Under an "empathetic court" the odds would be pretty fair that a lawsuit filed by an illegal immigrant would be heard and empathy gained on the basis of their "suffering" under the law. Does it count as discrimination if you are discriminated against because of your illegal status? An empathetic court might be inclined to think so.
This sets up an interesting precedence, though. Will we soon be letting other criminals off because, after committing a crime, they suffered such anguish at the thought of being caught that they were somehow traumatized by it? We know you burned down that entire block, Bob, but we feel you've suffered enough having to live as a fugitive from justice for the past ten years, so we're just gonna let you go. Don't forget to sign up for your free healthcare - you might want to get some therapy for that pyromania. In the meantime, have this lovely brick of government cheese!
Should anyone be surprised that there is a history of Mr. Obama opposing former administration nominees for not having enough experience? Finding video/audio of him attacking the former administration for things his own administration is now doing has become fairly routine these days. It seems the only thing this administration is consistent on is hypocrisy:
Yes, Mr. President, absolutely. They all need to be more forthcoming. Including Ms. Kagan and yourself. Selecting a 'blank slate' was unacceptable for Bush, and it is unacceptable for you, too.
We don't need a justice with empathy, we need one with a good, working knowledge not just of the Constitution, but of the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers themselves. This would endow them with a deeper understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution. A justice proficient in those things will be a justice who will serve the Constitution and the country well.
Unfortunately, progressives believe the Constitution is flawed and must be adapted to changing times. The Constitution is NOT an "evolving" thing. It was written to stand the test of time, not just a mere two hundred years. Times change, yes, but that change is merely technology. Human nature is unchanging. The Constitution was written to protect this country and her people from the follies and machinations of man, not technology. Protections that have never been more necessary than they are today. Which is why the progressives are desperate to subvert the Court with empathetic justices like Kagan and Sotomayor. It is our last line of defense against a rapacious government.
Let's not forget that President Obama was, according to the fawning media, a constitutional law professor. As such, he should not only understand the authority of the document, but also how to get around it. After all, isn't that what lawyers are all about? Finding ways around the law?
Obama said he wanted someone with a "keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."
How can a woman with no real-world experience in her chosen field possibly know how law affects the daily lives of American people? Let alone a woman who was raised on the affluent Upper West Side of NYC and spent her college and working years in elite educational enclaves? How is this woman in tune with, say, some guy in Wyoming who is having his ranch cut in half by the federal government to confiscate for use as nature preserves or wildlife habitats? Perhaps we could start a new form of translation. Instead of different languages, there would be cultural translations
In his eternal quest for social justice, Obama has lumped our Supreme Court in with the lesser courts. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be empathetic, it is supposed to interpret laws to decide if they adhere to the Constitution. They are also not supposed to judge a case based on the benefits or losses to the single party petitioning them - their job is to judge based on the good of the country. The Supreme Court doesn't indulge in case-by-case decisions. That is the task of the lesser courts. The Supreme Court merely keeps the country on a path directed by the Constitution in a rather black and white way. Lesser courts can "tweak" the laws a bit into those grey areas. If they tweak too much, though, the case heads back up to the Supreme Court to be redefined in a constitutional context. Yes, you've strayed too far off the path, or no, you're still heading in the right direction.
His "empathetic court" seems more like a way to discard the Constitional guidelines by ignoring them or not referencing them anymore in favor of case-by-case style decisions. It's an empathetic end run around the constitution.
Let's take the Arizona immigration law, for instance. The odds are pretty good that the Court will find that the law merely allows state authorities to enforce federal laws (with additional corresponding state penalties), and that it's not unconstitutional. Under an "empathetic court" the odds would be pretty fair that a lawsuit filed by an illegal immigrant would be heard and empathy gained on the basis of their "suffering" under the law. Does it count as discrimination if you are discriminated against because of your illegal status? An empathetic court might be inclined to think so.
This sets up an interesting precedence, though. Will we soon be letting other criminals off because, after committing a crime, they suffered such anguish at the thought of being caught that they were somehow traumatized by it? We know you burned down that entire block, Bob, but we feel you've suffered enough having to live as a fugitive from justice for the past ten years, so we're just gonna let you go. Don't forget to sign up for your free healthcare - you might want to get some therapy for that pyromania. In the meantime, have this lovely brick of government cheese!
Should anyone be surprised that there is a history of Mr. Obama opposing former administration nominees for not having enough experience? Finding video/audio of him attacking the former administration for things his own administration is now doing has become fairly routine these days. It seems the only thing this administration is consistent on is hypocrisy:
Yes, Mr. President, absolutely. They all need to be more forthcoming. Including Ms. Kagan and yourself. Selecting a 'blank slate' was unacceptable for Bush, and it is unacceptable for you, too.
We don't need a justice with empathy, we need one with a good, working knowledge not just of the Constitution, but of the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers themselves. This would endow them with a deeper understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution. A justice proficient in those things will be a justice who will serve the Constitution and the country well.
Unfortunately, progressives believe the Constitution is flawed and must be adapted to changing times. The Constitution is NOT an "evolving" thing. It was written to stand the test of time, not just a mere two hundred years. Times change, yes, but that change is merely technology. Human nature is unchanging. The Constitution was written to protect this country and her people from the follies and machinations of man, not technology. Protections that have never been more necessary than they are today. Which is why the progressives are desperate to subvert the Court with empathetic justices like Kagan and Sotomayor. It is our last line of defense against a rapacious government.
Let's not forget that President Obama was, according to the fawning media, a constitutional law professor. As such, he should not only understand the authority of the document, but also how to get around it. After all, isn't that what lawyers are all about? Finding ways around the law?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer, has announced that he is attempting to convene a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to protect Americans from Obamacare's individual mandate.
This is a very intriguing development. It takes 34 states to convene a Convention, and whatever comes out of the convention will require 38 states to ratify it. There has never been an amendment ratified through the states - they have all come from the federal government. But just because it has never happened before doesn't mean that it never will - although it's almost guaranteed that will be the left's argument against it. So the big question is, can it be done? Well, conveniently enough, there are 38 states either preparing or actively pursuing lawsuits against the federal government over Obamacare and the individual mandate. Interesting, no?
A Constitutional amendment would ensure that never again would our government try to force us to purchase a good or service that they mandate. The amendment would make Obamacare null and void by making it officially and uncontrovertably unconstitutional. It could take years for the lawsuits to wend their way through the court systems to the Supreme Court and might not even kill the bill altogether, just pieces of it, so a convention might be a faster solution as well as more comprehensive.
The problem with the Obamacare individual mandate is that it opens the door to future mandates, so it needs to be blocked, and soon. If the government is able to tell us not just that we have to buy health insurance, but what level of health insurance we have to buy, where does it end? Let's take, for example, GM. Even with bailouts and government intervention, GM is still in the red. Their prospects in the future aren't very rosy, and the odds of more bailouts are pretty good - after all, the unions are running the show now, and no one does unsustainable quite like the unions. Instead of a bailout next time, what is to stop the government from mandating that all new car purchases must be GM cars? Perhaps multi-car households might be required to own at least one domestic (read: GM) vehicle. Sure, it sounds far-fetched, but stranger things have happened. After all, our government just authorized the IRS to enforce health care. Who would have thought of that just a few years ago?
Here's hoping this idea of a Constitutional Convention gains momentum. It is insanely difficult to dislodge an entitlement - usually the best that can be done is 'reform'. We need more than reform - this legislation is such a mess that there is really no way to fix it - just look at the so-called 'fixes bill' they passed - even at 2,000+ pages, it doesn't seem to really 'fix' anything. The taxes, fees and penalties are threatening to cause serious damage to our economy and overburdening our health care system with an influx of some 30 million new enrollees will cause long waits and rationing. We need to rid ourselves of this albatross around our collective necks and a state convened constitutional convention is just the way to do it. Our federal masters have gone completely mad with their own power - it's time to remind them who really calls the shots.
While they are at it, how about amendments requiring the federal government balance the budget, eliminate the fed, and maybe a national sales tax in lieu of yearly income tax? If they're going to do it, they may as well go big, right?
This is a very intriguing development. It takes 34 states to convene a Convention, and whatever comes out of the convention will require 38 states to ratify it. There has never been an amendment ratified through the states - they have all come from the federal government. But just because it has never happened before doesn't mean that it never will - although it's almost guaranteed that will be the left's argument against it. So the big question is, can it be done? Well, conveniently enough, there are 38 states either preparing or actively pursuing lawsuits against the federal government over Obamacare and the individual mandate. Interesting, no?
A Constitutional amendment would ensure that never again would our government try to force us to purchase a good or service that they mandate. The amendment would make Obamacare null and void by making it officially and uncontrovertably unconstitutional. It could take years for the lawsuits to wend their way through the court systems to the Supreme Court and might not even kill the bill altogether, just pieces of it, so a convention might be a faster solution as well as more comprehensive.
The problem with the Obamacare individual mandate is that it opens the door to future mandates, so it needs to be blocked, and soon. If the government is able to tell us not just that we have to buy health insurance, but what level of health insurance we have to buy, where does it end? Let's take, for example, GM. Even with bailouts and government intervention, GM is still in the red. Their prospects in the future aren't very rosy, and the odds of more bailouts are pretty good - after all, the unions are running the show now, and no one does unsustainable quite like the unions. Instead of a bailout next time, what is to stop the government from mandating that all new car purchases must be GM cars? Perhaps multi-car households might be required to own at least one domestic (read: GM) vehicle. Sure, it sounds far-fetched, but stranger things have happened. After all, our government just authorized the IRS to enforce health care. Who would have thought of that just a few years ago?
Here's hoping this idea of a Constitutional Convention gains momentum. It is insanely difficult to dislodge an entitlement - usually the best that can be done is 'reform'. We need more than reform - this legislation is such a mess that there is really no way to fix it - just look at the so-called 'fixes bill' they passed - even at 2,000+ pages, it doesn't seem to really 'fix' anything. The taxes, fees and penalties are threatening to cause serious damage to our economy and overburdening our health care system with an influx of some 30 million new enrollees will cause long waits and rationing. We need to rid ourselves of this albatross around our collective necks and a state convened constitutional convention is just the way to do it. Our federal masters have gone completely mad with their own power - it's time to remind them who really calls the shots.
While they are at it, how about amendments requiring the federal government balance the budget, eliminate the fed, and maybe a national sales tax in lieu of yearly income tax? If they're going to do it, they may as well go big, right?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION Updated
The left's desperation over ObamaCare is getting to be quite revealing. They are willing to make just about any promise, grease any palm, to get this thing passed.
They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.
Really.
They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause. They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick. If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.
The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma. Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over. At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little. Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line. That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.
In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality.
Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true?
It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done. This goes beyond bending the rules. Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it? Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it.
They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote. In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):
Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote. Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is. Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote. Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.
Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion. He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):
This really is a frightening step. This is in violation of everything this country was founded on.
There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way. There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court. It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever. Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.
Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure. After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.
As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis? What was it they said? Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it? The economy and unemployment can wait. After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list.
The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?
UPDATE: Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):
With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point. The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation.
Aside from that, bravo!
They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.
Really.
They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause. They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick. If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.
The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma. Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over. At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little. Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line. That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.
In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true?
It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done. This goes beyond bending the rules. Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it? Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it.
They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote. In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):
First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.
Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote. Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is. Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote. Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.
Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion. He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.
This really is a frightening step. This is in violation of everything this country was founded on.
There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way. There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court. It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever. Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.
Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure. After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.
As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis? What was it they said? Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it? The economy and unemployment can wait. After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list.
The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?
UPDATE: Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):
The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”
With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point. The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation.
Aside from that, bravo!
Monday, February 15, 2010
PRESIDENT'S DAY Updated
Happy President's Day!
Today has been set aside as a day to remember two of our greatest Presidents. On this day we celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday on Feb. 12th and George Washington's birthday on Feb. 22nd. These two men are inarguably the greatest presidents our nation has ever seen.
One man created the Office and set the bar for being President. The other finished the work of our Founding Fathers in ensuring that all men truly are created equal.
Washington knew that as the first, he would be setting the precedence for the office and would be held up as an example. Luckily for our young country, he was a man of great honor and integrity. He saw the boundless possibilities of the nation and it's people, but saw, too, the potential for grasping men bent on exploiting that greatness. He came from a time when dictatorships were the rule, not the exception. It was his mission to prove that there could be another way.
For Lincoln, the mission was to live up to the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring the Blessings of Liberty to all. He had to practically destroy the country in order to do it, but it needed to be done, and we are stronger for it. The hard choices that he made allowed us to live up to our rhetoric of being a shining beacon of freedom and equality to the rest of the world. His bravery and unswerving devotion to the cause of freedom has made him a revered and beloved icon of American history.
As we celebrate these great men, let us study them and use them to compare and contrast potential leaders of the future. We need people of strong moral fiber who understand that kicking the can down the road is not a good strategy; eventually there is always a price to pay, and someone must step up and make the hard choices, political expediency be damned. We need people who revere the Constitution; those who see it not as a flawed document that needs revision for modern times, but as a magnificent document that has created the greatest country in the world, whose citizens enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity.
We have been a remarkably blessed country. Not just in wealth and freedom, but blessed by the amazing people who have brought us to where we are today.
But we can't just sit around and wait to be saved. If someone can't be found, then perhaps We the People, having learned the lessons of the past from the great men who came before us, can light the path and save ourselves. That means staying awake, alert and vigilant; fulfilling the promise of the Constitution and returning this country to the ideals that made it great. There will be hard choices ahead, and possibly very tough times, but as Washington and Lincoln have taught us, some things are worth the sacrifice.
Our country has been through crises before and survived. I hate to think that people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid can bring us down. They are the types who expect us to crumble before their claims of 'consensus', give in to their engineering, be oblivious to their schemes. That is the problem with revising history - you are changing reality to fit your perspective, and sometimes reality has a nasty little slap to the face in store. They underestimate our intelligence, patriotism and fortitude at their peril. We are made of sterner stuff than that; we can survive anything they dish out and come out the other side victorious and the better for it.
With men like Washington and Lincoln as our models, we can't go wrong.
UPDATE: RealClearPolitics' Jay Cost has a great piece on George Washington.
Today has been set aside as a day to remember two of our greatest Presidents. On this day we celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday on Feb. 12th and George Washington's birthday on Feb. 22nd. These two men are inarguably the greatest presidents our nation has ever seen.
One man created the Office and set the bar for being President. The other finished the work of our Founding Fathers in ensuring that all men truly are created equal.
Washington knew that as the first, he would be setting the precedence for the office and would be held up as an example. Luckily for our young country, he was a man of great honor and integrity. He saw the boundless possibilities of the nation and it's people, but saw, too, the potential for grasping men bent on exploiting that greatness. He came from a time when dictatorships were the rule, not the exception. It was his mission to prove that there could be another way.
For Lincoln, the mission was to live up to the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring the Blessings of Liberty to all. He had to practically destroy the country in order to do it, but it needed to be done, and we are stronger for it. The hard choices that he made allowed us to live up to our rhetoric of being a shining beacon of freedom and equality to the rest of the world. His bravery and unswerving devotion to the cause of freedom has made him a revered and beloved icon of American history.
As we celebrate these great men, let us study them and use them to compare and contrast potential leaders of the future. We need people of strong moral fiber who understand that kicking the can down the road is not a good strategy; eventually there is always a price to pay, and someone must step up and make the hard choices, political expediency be damned. We need people who revere the Constitution; those who see it not as a flawed document that needs revision for modern times, but as a magnificent document that has created the greatest country in the world, whose citizens enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity.
We have been a remarkably blessed country. Not just in wealth and freedom, but blessed by the amazing people who have brought us to where we are today.
But we can't just sit around and wait to be saved. If someone can't be found, then perhaps We the People, having learned the lessons of the past from the great men who came before us, can light the path and save ourselves. That means staying awake, alert and vigilant; fulfilling the promise of the Constitution and returning this country to the ideals that made it great. There will be hard choices ahead, and possibly very tough times, but as Washington and Lincoln have taught us, some things are worth the sacrifice.
Our country has been through crises before and survived. I hate to think that people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid can bring us down. They are the types who expect us to crumble before their claims of 'consensus', give in to their engineering, be oblivious to their schemes. That is the problem with revising history - you are changing reality to fit your perspective, and sometimes reality has a nasty little slap to the face in store. They underestimate our intelligence, patriotism and fortitude at their peril. We are made of sterner stuff than that; we can survive anything they dish out and come out the other side victorious and the better for it.
With men like Washington and Lincoln as our models, we can't go wrong.
UPDATE: RealClearPolitics' Jay Cost has a great piece on George Washington.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
VAN JONES RESIGNS Updated
Hot off the AP wires comes news that Obama's environmental advisor has resigned.
This was just a matter of time. The administration had to separate themselves from him. Every day had new video footage of him saying something incendiary or offensive. Worst of all, this firestorm of controversy started reigniting past blazes - the names Wright and Ayers had started coming up again. Clearly, the man had to go.
The administration are hoping this will play out over the Labor Day weekend and will be forgotten by Tuesday. They will have the school and joint session speeches to hype and distract with. With any luck, Jones will lay low and not pull a Blagojovich, but you just never know these days. There is also the possibility of him becoming a left-wing martyr to the cause over the coming weeks, thanks to the MSM. I'm also betting Glenn Beck will be making some sort of comment over this turn of events come Tuesday. I have to say that his resignation statement certainly leaves plenty to discuss:
""On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.""
He is painting himself as a victim in this - 'They are using lies and distortions...' Really? Weren't those 'lies and distortions' either a)caught on video or b) written in his own words in books and articles? Hardly lies and distortions when they come from his own mouth.
Due to this clown's appearance on the national scene, there are many pundits (not to mention run-of-the-mill Americans) now calling for a review of the many, many 'Czars' that have been given an awful lot of power and money with a frighteningly little amount of oversight. The esteemed Mr. Jones' prolific library of gaffes and agenda-outing has brought public scrutiny of the Czar complex to a head. This may very well signal the end of the czar system - something that is unconstitutional and should not have been allowed to be expanded as radically as it has. And for those who would drag George Bush into the argument (and there are always a few), yes, Bush did appoint some czars - about eight, as far as I can discern - and was soundly criticized for it by the MSM. Mr. Obama has appointed 4x as many as that demon Bush, and yet, nary a peep from the press.
President Obama had a very difficult, embarrassing time trying to appoint Cabinet members and high-ranking officials due to the vetting and congressional approval process. When he was stymied by the legal, constitutional approach, he simply decided to circumvent the process. There are at least 32 czars actively working for the Obama administration. and only 21 Cabinet officials. Many of the czars have powers and responsibilities that overlap cabinet positions, and they all have massive budgets to enact their 'reforms' (Van Jones had a budget of $30 billion). They are answerable only to the president, they do not need to reveal their agenda to Congress for oversight, and the only way to get rid of them is to have them resign or have President Obama remove them from office.
This entire system is unconstitutional. Where are the checks and balances?
It is time to take the administration to task for these czars and demand they all resign or submit to congressional vetting and approval.
It is getting harder and harder to make excuses for the number of radicals, marxists, socialists, and, at least in Jones' case, self-avowed communists infiltrating our government under Obama. It is getting harder and harder to separate President Obama from these radicals and their ideology.
As Van Jones said himself, "Personnel is policy". Either our president is completely clueless to the type of people he is appointing, which I find hard to believe in such a savvy man, or these radical policies are ones he shares. It was allowed, during the campaign, that he sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, oblivious to the man's insane rantings. I'm not sure why it was allowed, as it speaks to Obama's judgement, but allowed it was. Unfortunately, such a gross display of ignorance can only be allowed once, twice at most.
After that, it becomes a pattern, and one that should be used to get a fuller picture of who exactly the 44th President of the United States really is.
Van Jones may very well be the catalyst for that epiphany.
UPDATE: Glenn Beck has issued a statement on Jones' resignation.
UPDATE II: The MSM is managing to drop the ball even more - and boy, does it have ridiculous spin! Bad, BAD internet!!
This was just a matter of time. The administration had to separate themselves from him. Every day had new video footage of him saying something incendiary or offensive. Worst of all, this firestorm of controversy started reigniting past blazes - the names Wright and Ayers had started coming up again. Clearly, the man had to go.
The administration are hoping this will play out over the Labor Day weekend and will be forgotten by Tuesday. They will have the school and joint session speeches to hype and distract with. With any luck, Jones will lay low and not pull a Blagojovich, but you just never know these days. There is also the possibility of him becoming a left-wing martyr to the cause over the coming weeks, thanks to the MSM. I'm also betting Glenn Beck will be making some sort of comment over this turn of events come Tuesday. I have to say that his resignation statement certainly leaves plenty to discuss:
""On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement announcing his resignation just after midnight Saturday. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.""
He is painting himself as a victim in this - 'They are using lies and distortions...' Really? Weren't those 'lies and distortions' either a)caught on video or b) written in his own words in books and articles? Hardly lies and distortions when they come from his own mouth.
Due to this clown's appearance on the national scene, there are many pundits (not to mention run-of-the-mill Americans) now calling for a review of the many, many 'Czars' that have been given an awful lot of power and money with a frighteningly little amount of oversight. The esteemed Mr. Jones' prolific library of gaffes and agenda-outing has brought public scrutiny of the Czar complex to a head. This may very well signal the end of the czar system - something that is unconstitutional and should not have been allowed to be expanded as radically as it has. And for those who would drag George Bush into the argument (and there are always a few), yes, Bush did appoint some czars - about eight, as far as I can discern - and was soundly criticized for it by the MSM. Mr. Obama has appointed 4x as many as that demon Bush, and yet, nary a peep from the press.
President Obama had a very difficult, embarrassing time trying to appoint Cabinet members and high-ranking officials due to the vetting and congressional approval process. When he was stymied by the legal, constitutional approach, he simply decided to circumvent the process. There are at least 32 czars actively working for the Obama administration. and only 21 Cabinet officials. Many of the czars have powers and responsibilities that overlap cabinet positions, and they all have massive budgets to enact their 'reforms' (Van Jones had a budget of $30 billion). They are answerable only to the president, they do not need to reveal their agenda to Congress for oversight, and the only way to get rid of them is to have them resign or have President Obama remove them from office.
This entire system is unconstitutional. Where are the checks and balances?
It is time to take the administration to task for these czars and demand they all resign or submit to congressional vetting and approval.
It is getting harder and harder to make excuses for the number of radicals, marxists, socialists, and, at least in Jones' case, self-avowed communists infiltrating our government under Obama. It is getting harder and harder to separate President Obama from these radicals and their ideology.
As Van Jones said himself, "Personnel is policy". Either our president is completely clueless to the type of people he is appointing, which I find hard to believe in such a savvy man, or these radical policies are ones he shares. It was allowed, during the campaign, that he sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, oblivious to the man's insane rantings. I'm not sure why it was allowed, as it speaks to Obama's judgement, but allowed it was. Unfortunately, such a gross display of ignorance can only be allowed once, twice at most.
After that, it becomes a pattern, and one that should be used to get a fuller picture of who exactly the 44th President of the United States really is.
Van Jones may very well be the catalyst for that epiphany.
UPDATE: Glenn Beck has issued a statement on Jones' resignation.
UPDATE II: The MSM is managing to drop the ball even more - and boy, does it have ridiculous spin! Bad, BAD internet!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)