The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
To
subscribe, see note below
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
More idiotic distractions - Bloomberg: If sparklers are
legal, the terrorists will win
Citing
national security concerns and the war on terror, New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg asked New York Gov. Michael Cuomo to ban the sale of children’s
fireworks. City officials worried that sparklers — handheld fireworks that emit
colorful sparks and are often waved through the air by kids on the Fourth of
July — could be used in terrorist attacks, according to The New York Post. “A
recent attempt to harm innocent lives provides a frightening example of how
legally purchased… Fireworks can cause dramatic harm and even kill,” said Joseph
Garba, Bloomberg’s state legislative director, in a statement. Garba was
referring to the case of the failed 2010 Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad,
who used a legally-purchased firecracker to trigger his car bomb. The ignition
device failed, however, and the bombing was unsuccessful. Although firecrackers
contain gunpowder, sparklers do not. The state legislature recently approved a
bill that would permit the sale of sparklers for the weeks of Fourth of July
and Christmas only. The legislation exempted New York City, where sparklers
will remain illegal. But Bloomberg’s office fears that would be terrorists
could purchase sparklers elsewhere, and sneak them into the city to use them in
their nefarious plots. Bloomberg wants Cuomo to veto the bill. If signed into
law, the bill would “open the floodgates to a frightening new world of
sparkler-wielding terrorism,” the Gothamist’s John Del Signore noted sarcastically.
NOTE: Many states ban fireworks for many reasons, from safety to fire hazards. But, terrorists?
~~~~~~~
What about that Pesky 47%? by
Geoffrey G. Fisher
Think
about it – a future of active engagement in the public policy process, with all
Americans participating. This is a future of true compassion for our neediest
neighbors, and most importantly the end of the era of the YAWN. The road to
this de Tocquevillian future is long and bumpy. We need go no further than the
secret and illegal Mother Jones video tape (last September) of candidate Romney
at a private Florida Fundraiser saying: “…there are 47 percent who are with him
(Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims,
who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe
that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.
That that’s an entitlement…(t)hese are people who pay no income tax.
Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.
This
tape more than any ad or event during the 2012 election sunk Mitt Romney – and
now that the dust has settled, much of the problem was Mitt Romney’s own doing.
Every candidate should assume that someone is recording their every word, so
what was Mr. Romney thinking?
The only part of this quote that was true was the last phrase, yes, 47% of
Americans pay no income tax. This by itself is an outrageous fact and no
one paid any credence to it because Mr. Romney called nearly ½ of the country
dead beats, his statement became a political flashbang. The result was
predictable condemnation by the media and disorientation by the electorate. Team
Obama made the most of the confusion yet the fact still remains that 47% of our
country pays no income tax. Given
the tax and spending dilemma we find ourselves in now, the U.S. is $17 Trillion
in debt; it is finally time to put the appropriate spot light on this 47% who
pay no income tax. A quick review of the IRS figures from 2008 (the
most recent tax year) is illuminating. The top 1% paid more than 38% of the
federal personal income tax for the nation. The top 5% paid more than 58% of
the federal income tax. The top 10% paid 70%. And what of the bottom 47%?
Again, they paid nothing. In short, nearly ½ of the people of the United States
paid no federal income tax at all. This situation needs to be addressed. More than 52 years ago President John F.
Kennedy challenged the nation to resist the self-indulgent wining that was in
it’s infancy in the nation. On that freezing Friday morning of January 20, 1961
he proclaimed: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for
your country.”
Either
this proclamation was just another platitude destined for the trash heap of
political rhetoric or it was a national call to arms lived by the young
president himself – a man who sought front-line duty in the pacific theater
during World War II and suffered dearly from his experiences. From General
Washington leading his men across the ice clogged Delaware River to rout the
Hessians at Trenton in 1776, to the first responders entering the towers of the
World Trade Pavilion on September 11, 2001, Americans have always carried their
fair share. Paying nothing is not fair, it is shameful. In 1961, a laborer
might have stopped into the neighborhood pub on his way home on a Friday to
enjoy a couple of hard earned beers. While the hops filtered through his taste
buds and into his nostrils, he would have looked at his hands – hands swollen
from a full day of manual labor in the cold. This working man, most likely a
Democrat, would have thought of his wife and children, and felt a strong smile
coming over his face, a smile of pride and belonging to the national fabric of
the USA. He and Kennedy were both Americans, both fought the Axis powers in
WWII and equally proud of their ties to their nation. No one is asking
the poor or the working poor to empty their bank accounts today but rather to
pay something to the national income tax coffers. With a US population of nearly
315 million and 245 million potential taxpayers that equates to more than 115
million Americans who currently do not pay federal income taxes. If
each were to pay $1,000 per year on average the total would be at least $115
Billion per year or in nine years over $1 Trillion. Some of the 47% could pay
as little as $70 in Federal Income Taxes while other members of this group
might pay closer to $2,000. The point is that this 47% would BELONG to
the national fabric of America rather than being a spectator and the derivative
effect, and the more important effect would be more taxpayers actively
concerned with the growth of government – this would have an immediate effect
on slowing the growth of government helping to rein in our national debt rather
than today’s ethos where income taxes going up causes a collective yawn from
half of the country. The days of yawn would be over. The members of Congress
need to understand that the true way out of this fiscal mess is to increase the
number of Americans with a direct stake in our fiscal health. Rather than just
increasing the tax rate on the 53% – start by having the 47% pay something.
~~~~~~
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton: Abortion is a
"Constitutional Right"
Another Political Class
idiot that obviously does not understand the Constitution she swore to uphold.
The Constitution apparently protects Americans’ right to bear arms,
freedom of speech and right to have an abortion, according to Rep. Eleanor
Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). The non-voting delegate to the U.S. House
of Representatives was a guest on PBS‘ ‘To the Contrary‘
this week, where the women discussed Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster
of the 20-week abortion ban bill. Holmes Norton spoke out against the polling
data that shows a majority of Texans support the proposed legislation.
“It’s
very interesting for you to tell me, or to tell the world, that 62 percent of
this or that are for or against somebody’s constitutional rights,” she told the
other panelists. She stressed that abortion was not subject to public
opinion, since the matter was already decided with Roe v. Wade. Holmes
Norton then stated again that the 1973 Supreme Court case ”declared that
the right to an abortion…is a constitutional right.” But one doesn’t
have to be a constitutional scholar to know that Holmes Norton is completely
wrong.
~~~~~~
SCOTUS gay marriage rulings: what should we think?
by Lita
Cosner
On
26 June, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered two rulings
regarding laws regulating same-sex unions:
·
The
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which stated that couples in same-sex unions
could not receive federal marriage benefits, even if they were legally married
in their state, was overturned. This means that homosexual couples who are
recognized as married in their state will also receive federal marriage
benefits such as tax benefits.
·
The
court refused to reconsider Proposition 8, the California state law banning
same-sex marriages. The state refused to appeal its loss at a lower level
court, and the SCOTUS ruled that the private parties who attempted to bring it
to the Supreme Court did not have the constitutional authority or standing to
do so. This decision was carefully written so as not to invalidate the laws of
other states banning same-sex marriage.
It
is easy to become discouraged when the culture heads increasingly away from a
biblical understanding of morality, and the redefining of marriage in America
is one of the more visible indications that society no longer accepts a
Christian consensus.
However,
we can be thankful for several things:
·
In
striking down DOMA, the Supreme Court affirmed the states’ rights to decide the
issue. This could make it more difficult to impose gay marriage on a federal
level, because the justices more inclined to affirm same-sex marriage have now
argued strongly that it is an area for the states to decide. More conservative
states have already passed bans on gay marriage, so these appear to be safe,
for now.
·
The
dissenting justices in the DOMA case gave excellent summaries of the history of
affirming heterosexual marriage as a society. They also reveal the ideological
motivations that could be behind the majority ruling.
·
Nothing
in the rulings affects Christian freedoms regarding our ability to follow
Scripture or clearly teach the biblical view of marriage However, there is a
danger that could follow from the fallacious reasoning behind the decision, as
Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent pointed out:
·
But
to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those
who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution
of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.
To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the
majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of
reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a
presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose
to “disparage”, “injure”, “degrade”, “demean”, and “humiliate” our fellow human
beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting
an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been
unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been
unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It
is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to
impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis,
enemies of the human race.”
·
The
term hostis humani generis used by Scalia (in the plural) has
historically been used for criminals like pirates and more recently terrorists
who were operating outside national boundaries. So they were declared to be
enemies of the whole human race, not just of a country, so not deserving of any
protection by law and subject to summary execution if caught. It’s conceivable
that pro–gay-marriage politicians and judges could exploit the SCOTUS ruling to
argue that any opponents are bigots trying to hurt homosexuals, so deserve
legal punishments like fines or imprisonment. This has happened in other countries
where gay ‘marriage’ has been legalized.
How
should we respond?
·
We
should remember that God works through His people. We should be active in
lovingly sharing the truth of the Gospel, starting in creation, with all
unbelievers, including homosexuals. Would homosexuals be able to paint as
convincing a portrait of hateful Christians as they do if Christians were more
intentional about building relationships with gay men and women, and simply
treating them as they would anyone else?
·
The
Gospel overcomes every sin—not through laws and court cases, but through
changing the heart of one person at a time.
·
As
counterintuitive as it may sound, gay marriage is not the issue—sin is.
The difference is that homosexual sin in particular is celebrated in the
mainstream culture today, so people who have an inclination toward that sin are
encouraged, and even protected regarding their right to practice it. The
question isn’t whether sexual desires can be restricted in the law—we already
do that with regard to pedophilia, incest, and polygamy (the latter two are
better examples because they regulate relationships even between consenting
adults who love each other). Rather, homosexuality is no longer seen as
something abnormal or unhealthy, but something equal to a heterosexual
relationship.
·
We
can also pray for our political leaders as Scripture commands us to—that God
will both enable them to legislate for the good of the country (and no law that
contradicts Scripture can ever be good for the country), and also prevent them from
immoral rulings.
·
We
are not the first Christians to live in a sexually immoral culture—the first
Christians were. The Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day was full of sexual
immorality; one can get an idea simply by reading 1 Corinthians the sorts of
issues the Church had to deal with. Homosexuality, prostitution, unfaithfulness
in marriage, and all sorts of other problems were common. But Paul simply
proclaimed the Gospel that overcomes every sin—not through laws and court
cases, but through changing the heart of one person at a time. That Gospel
hasn’t changed; it is as powerful today as it was in Paul’s day. So we should
be tremendously encouraged as we share it in our culture.
Don’t
disengage from the battle
·
We
have always believed that the way to change a culture is to change hearts and
minds towards Christ—this is the nature of the Gospel. It could be argued that
one of the reasons courts and political leaders actually support gay marriage
is because (wrongly or rightly) they perceive that this is a discriminated
group, and so they act to defend them.
·
God
has demonstrated His love to all sinners, including you and me. The
transforming power of Christ’s love changes lives. We need to be mindful to
ensure our arguments do not attack the individuals and that we too are loving
in pointing out the issues.
~~~~~~~
Obama's global-warming claims demolished; President
'cherry-picks' facts 'with the same relentless care as Al Gore' Bob Unruh
Dubbed
the “high priest of climate skepticism,” former Margaret Thatcher adviser
Christopher Monckton has become a formidable foe of the movement claiming
mankind is causing catastrophic “global warming,” noting that the average
worldwide temperature has not risen in nearly two decades. So when President
Obama recently announced his plan to bypass Congress and use his executive
power to “fight climate change,” targeting the coal-energy industry, Monckton
responded. Some of what Obama said was simply copied from Al Gore’s writings on
global warming, he said, and virtually everything was incomplete, misleading –
or wrong. Obama’s declarations
included:
·
“Science
… tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts
on all of humankind.”
·
“The
12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. …
these are facts.”
·
The
“sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are (sic) now a foot higher than a
century ago.”
·
“The
question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.”
It
was too much for Monckton. “The
‘image of Earth from space’ intro is lifted from Gore’s sci-fi movie ‘An
Inconvenient Truth.’ Gore may well have written much of the speech,” Monckton
said. “The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is also lifted from Gore. It occurs 30
times in the text of the speech. “One imagines he means ‘carbon dioxide
pollution.’ But CO2 is not a pollutant and is not listed as one on the U.S.
national inventory of pollutants. It is a naturally occurring trace gas,
harmlessly present in the air we breathe out, and in the bubbles in bread,
Coca-Cola, and (more importantly) champagne.”
Then
Monckton launched into a point-by-point demolition of Obama’s claims:
·
The
“worry that rising levels [of CO2] might someday disrupt the fragile balance
that makes our planet so hospitable” is scientifically unfounded. CO2
concentrations, at almost 400 μatm, are almost as low as they have ever been in
geological time. In the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, CO2 concentration
was about 6000 μatm; in the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, it was 8000
μatm; and in the Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago, it was 30,000 μatm,
or 75 times today’s concentration. Yet the planet survived and throve.
·
The
statement that “the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the
last 15 years” is no big deal. Recorded history, as far as global temperatures are
concerned, only goes back to 1850. The weather was warmer than today in
the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Old Kingdom, and Holocene Warm Periods, the
last of which endured for 4000 years (8000-4000 BC) and was 3 Cº warmer than
the present.
·
Obama
says, “Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record
highs.” Welcome to our variable climate, which, like the baseball scores, is a
chaotic object where new records will tend to be set all the time. Yet
the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans
since 2006 show very little ocean warming overall, so that – according to the
now-failed ENVISAT satellite, sea level in the 8 years 2004-2012 rose at a rate
equivalent to just 1.3 inches per
century.
·
His
moan about ice in the Arctic shrinking to its smallest size on record is also
little to worry about: for the Arctic ice record only goes back a
third of a century. It is likely that there was a lot less ice in the
Arctic in 1922 and again in the mid-1930s than there is today, but we cannot
demonstrate that definitively.
·
The
statement that sea level is a foot higher than a century ago should also be put
in context. In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age sea level has
risen by 400 feet – a rate of getting on for 4 feet a century. So 1 foot a
century is no big deal (and the 1.3 inches/century equivalent warming rate from
2004-2012 is still less of a big deal).
·
He
whines on: “2012 was the warmest year in our history.” That may or may not have
been true for the U.S. (there is good reason to suppose that 1934 was warmer):
but it is certainly not true globally:
It
would be nice if a President would keep his mouth shut when tempted to talk
about something for which he knows nothing.
However, for this president, accurate facts do not deter his political demagoguery!
No comments:
Post a Comment