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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
World War II veteran, 88, 'who was randomly beaten to
death by two teens died because he tried to defend himself'
By James Nye
·
Delbert Belton was set upon in the parking lot of
the Eagles Lodge in Spokane, Washington on Wednesday night
·
He died on Thursday morning in hospital after being
admitted with serious head injuries
·
Kenan Adams Kinard, 16, was arrested on Monday
morning for the murder after a day's long manhunt
·
Demetrius Glenn, 16, was charged with first degree
murder with bail set at $2 million
Senseless: Delbert Belton an 88-year-old veteran of
World War II was beaten to death outside the Eagles Lodge in Spokane, and
police have arrested two teens in connection with the murder
The 88-year-old World War II veteran who was
randomly beaten to death Wednesday likely died because he tried to fend off his
attackers. Two teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton
outside a Spokane, Washington ice
skating rink and investigators are now suggesting the soldier—who took a bullet
in the Battle of Okinawa—tried to stop the apparent robbery.
Police say that enraged
the teens and turned their petty theft into full-blown murder as they continued
to beat him into submission with ‘big, heavy flashlights.’ ‘Our information is
that the individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse
situation,’ said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub in a Monday press
conference. Straub was
quick to maintain Belton’s innocence in the matter. ‘I'm not being critical of
Mr. Belton,’ he clarified. ‘We certainly encourage individuals to fight back,
and he should have. But it shouldn't have happened to begin with.’ The second
fugitive teenager wanted in connection with the brutal murder was arrested
morning after a four-day man-hunt. Kenan Adams-Kinard, 16, was the second teen
to be arrested for the murder of Belton. The teen was arrested on a 1st degree
robbery and 1st degree murder warrant and was brought into custody by Spokane
police to join fellow suspect, 16-year-old Demetrius Glenn, who was arrested on
Thursday.
Glenn's bail was set at an eyebrow-raising $2
million. District Judge Richard Leland,
presiding over a packed courtroom, said the brutality of the attack and
vulnerability of the victim make the high bail proper.
Several other people found with Adams-Kinard have
been arrested for rendering criminal assistance to the teen during his time in
hiding.
~~~~~~
MLK: ‘Whatever We Do, We Must Keep God in the Forefront’ by Terry Jeffery
Americans today are celebrating the 50th Anniversary
of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech," which he
delivered on Aug. 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial. That speech echoed themes
King, a Baptist clergyman, had been sounding since he had emerged as a leader
of the Civil Rights Movement eight years before. On Dec. 5, 1955, four days
after Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Ala., for refusing to give up her
bus seat to a white person, King spoke in Montgomery’s Holt Baptist Church at
the end of the first day of a boycott he had been elected to lead against
Montgomery’s bus system.
King stressed that the
boycott movement’s foundation was the Christian religion. “Whatever we do, we
must keep God in the forefront,” he said. “I want it to be known throughout
Montgomery and throughout this nation that we are Christian people,” he said.
“We believe in the Christian religion. We believe in the teachings of Jesus.
The only weapon that we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of
protest. That’s all.” He also
expressed his conviction that God would judge nations by whether they obeyed
Him or not. “He’s also the God that
stands up before the nations and said: ‘Be still and know that I’m God, that if
you don’t obey me I will break the backbone of your power and slap you out of
the orbits of your international and national relationships,” said King.
Additionally, he
stressed the movement’s reverence for the Constitution and the free system of
government that made peaceful protest possible. “There will be nobody amid,
among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation,” said
King.
“Certainly, certainly,
this is the glory of America, with all of its faults,” said King. “This is the
glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a
Communistic nation we couldn’t do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a
totalitarian regime we couldn’t do this. But the great glory of American
democracy is the right to protest for right.” King said
that if the Montgomery police were going to unjustly arrest anyone for merely
sitting on a bus, he was happy that the person they arrested was Rosa Parks.
This, he said, was because of Parks’s integrity, her character and her
Christian faith. “Mrs. Rosa Parks is a
fine person. And, since it had to happen, I’m happy that it happened to a
person like Mrs. Parks, for nobody can doubt the boundless outreach of her
integrity,” said King. “Nobody can
doubt the height of her character nobody can doubt the depth of her Christian
commitment and devotion to the teachings of Jesus. And I’m happy since it had
to happen, it happened to a person that nobody can call a disturbing factor in
the community. Mrs. Parks is a fine Christian person, unassuming, and yet there
is integrity and character there. And just because she refused to get up, she
was arrested.”
Finally, King expressed his conviction that God
would judge nations by whether they obeyed Him or not. “The Almighty God himself is not the only, not the, not the God just
standing out saying through Hosea, ‘I love you, Israel,’” said King. “He’s also
the God that stands up before the nations and said: ‘Be still and know that I’m
God, that if you don’t obey me I will break the backbone of your power and slap
you out of the orbits of your international and national relationships.’ King
called for those joining the movement to boycott Montgomery’s busses to “be
Christian in all our actions.”
“May I say to you my
friends, as I come to a close, and just giving some idea of why we are
assembled here, that we must keep—and I want to stress this, in all of our
doings, in all of our deliberations here this evening and all of the week and
while—whatever we do, we must keep God in the forefront,” said King. “Let us be
Christian in all of our actions.”
~~~~~~
Leading From Behind in Syria
Turning another page in
his Lead-From-Behind World Tour, President Seven-Iron dithered enough that he
perfected U.S. security strategy regarding Syria: Wait so long that no matter
what side we help, we're on the wrong side. Case in
point: Intervening on Bashar al-Assad's behalf seats us next to a
chemical-weapon-using mass murder and madman; on the opposite side, we're with
a coalition of people who hate and want to destroy the U.S. The
good news is that Mr. Nobel-Peace-Prize-Laureate will no doubt reach deep into
his usual bag of tricks -- ignoring the Constitution, abusing his executive
authority and failing to run any of his plan by Congress even for tacit
approval -- to drag America into yet another war.
Expect a predictable, Clinton-esque fusillade of
cruise missiles, but no actual boots on the ground to ensure no more chemical weapons are used -- it's too close to
mid-term elections for that. Preparation for such attacks is already underway, notwithstanding the fact that despite the
ill-advised artificial "red lines" drawn in the sand by our Dear
Leader, no vital U.S. interests -- even with
confirmed chemical attacks -- are at stake. Yes, Syria is a hotbed;
yes, it could potentially become
a But none of that yet justifies one
boot on the ground, one missile in the air, or one U.S. service member in
harm's way.threat to vital U.S. security interests; and yes, we want it
to end. A few more nagging questions:
What, exactly, would be the objective if we did use military force, how would
we know when we had achieved it, and how would we get out once we got into such
a mess? Finally, a parting thought from
Joe Biden: "[T]he president has
no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're
attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does,
I would move to impeach him." Of course, that was 2007...
~~~~~~
Newly Discovered ‘Orphan Genes’ Defy Evolution by
Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
An important category of “rogue” genetic data that
utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of
taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as “orphan genes.” These are now being discovered in the
sequencing of all genomes. Many
multi-cellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that
perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In
addition to these standard genes, all
organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type
of creature. The authors of a
recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the
subject of orphan genes stated, “Comparative
genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains
10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other
species." These orphan genes are also being found to be
particularly important for specific biological adaptations that correspond with
ecological niches in relation to the creature’s interaction with its
environment. The problem for the
evolutionary model of animal origins is the fact that these DNA sequences
appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry
(DNA sequence precursors in other seemingly related organisms). And several new
studies in both fish and insect genomes are now highlighting this important
fact…..
~~~~~~
The audacity of lawbreaking Obama
by George Will
Barack Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and redlines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.
Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act, he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.” He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law ... it looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”
Journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: Brevity. Because there is no such authority.
Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy: He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”
When was it “normal”? The 1850s? The 1950s? Washington has been the capital for 213 years; Obama has been here less than nine years. Even if he understood “normal” political environments here, the Constitution is not suspended when a president decides the “environment” is abnormal.
Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a “tweak” not involving the law’s “essence.” Anyway, the employer mandate is essential to the ACA.
Twenty-three days before his news conference, the House voted 264-161, with 35 Democrats in the majority, for the rule of law – for, that is, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. It would have done lawfully what Obama did by ukase. He threatened to veto this use of legislation to alter a law. The White House called it “unnecessary,” presumably because he has an uncircumscribed “executive authority” to alter laws.
In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked: “So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation ... and do something illegal?”
Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Frost: “By definition.” Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”
Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.
Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.
The ACA says members of Congress (annual salaries: $174,000) and their staffs (thousands making more than $100,000) must participate in the law’s insurance exchanges. It does not say that when this change goes into effect, the current federal subsidy for this affluent cohort – up to 75 percent of the premium’s cost, perhaps $10,000 for families – should be unchanged.
When Congress awakened to what it enacted, it panicked: This could cause a flight of talent, making Congress less wonderful. So Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management, which has no power to do this, to authorize for the political class special subsidies unavailable for less privileged and less affluent citizens. If the president does it, it’s legal? “Exactly, exactly.”
Barack Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and redlines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.
Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act, he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.” He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law ... it looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”
Journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: Brevity. Because there is no such authority.
Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy: He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”
When was it “normal”? The 1850s? The 1950s? Washington has been the capital for 213 years; Obama has been here less than nine years. Even if he understood “normal” political environments here, the Constitution is not suspended when a president decides the “environment” is abnormal.
Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a “tweak” not involving the law’s “essence.” Anyway, the employer mandate is essential to the ACA.
Twenty-three days before his news conference, the House voted 264-161, with 35 Democrats in the majority, for the rule of law – for, that is, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. It would have done lawfully what Obama did by ukase. He threatened to veto this use of legislation to alter a law. The White House called it “unnecessary,” presumably because he has an uncircumscribed “executive authority” to alter laws.
In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked: “So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation ... and do something illegal?”
Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Frost: “By definition.” Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”
Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.
Obama should be embarrassed that, by ignoring the legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has validated critics who say the ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does not embarrass him is his complicity in effectively rewriting the ACA for the financial advantage of self-dealing members of Congress and their staffs.
The ACA says members of Congress (annual salaries: $174,000) and their staffs (thousands making more than $100,000) must participate in the law’s insurance exchanges. It does not say that when this change goes into effect, the current federal subsidy for this affluent cohort – up to 75 percent of the premium’s cost, perhaps $10,000 for families – should be unchanged.
When Congress awakened to what it enacted, it panicked: This could cause a flight of talent, making Congress less wonderful. So Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management, which has no power to do this, to authorize for the political class special subsidies unavailable for less privileged and less affluent citizens. If the president does it, it’s legal? “Exactly, exactly.”
~~~~~~
"It
is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and
pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant
in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and
inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable
attachment to their own country." --Noah
Webster, On Education of Youth in America, 1790
"The
apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which
seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no
legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a
predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling which they
overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets."
–James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice." –Thomas Paine, Letter Addressed to the Addressers on the Late Proclamation, 1792
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." –Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766
