Archive for the ‘Government’ Category


Lack Of Civility A Bigger Danger Than Firearms

January 16, 2013
Lack Of Civility A Bigger Danger Than Firearms

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and ‘50s — one didn’t hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that’s become routine today.    Why? It surely wasn’t because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped.

Dr. John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships.    They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice.    Virginia’s rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds.

Often a youngster’s 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Old-Fashioned Values    Today’s level of civility can’t match yesteryear’s.    Many of today’s youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside.    Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools.

There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.    What explains today’s behavior vs. yesteryear’s?    For well over a half-century, the nation’s liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values.    These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what’s moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.    During the ’50s and ’60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as “values clarification.”

So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex.    Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passe and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions.    Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works.    The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching.

What About Civility?   

Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society.    The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price.    What’s worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting “bangbang” produces a school suspension or arrest.

Seeing as we’ve decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers?    After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.


The Little Red Hen

April 20, 2012

The Little Red Hen

– by Doug Smith –

attributed: Summit Sun 8 July 1971

Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about and uncovered some grains of wheat.  She called her barnyard neighbors and said, “If we work together and plant this wheat, we will have some fine bread to eat.  Who will help me plant the wheat?”  “Not I,” said the cow.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Not I,” said the goose.  “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.


The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain.  “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Out of my classification,” said the pig.  “I’d lose my seniority” said the cow.  “I’d lose my unemployment insurance,” said the goose.

Then it came time to bake the bread.  “That’s overtime for me,” said the cow.  I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the duck.  “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the pig.  “If I’m the only one helping, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen.  And she did.

She baked five loaves of fine bread and held them all up for the neighbors to see.  They all wanted some, demanded a share.  But the red hen said, “No, I can rest for a while and eat the five loaves myself.”

“Excess profits,” cried the cow.  “Capitalistic leech,” screamed the duck.  “Company fink,” grunted the pig.  “Equal rights,” yelled the goose.  And they hurriedly painted picket signs and marched around the little red hen singing, “We shall overcome,” and they did.

For when the farmer came, he said, “You must not be greedy, little red hen.  Look at the oppressed cow.  Look at the disadvantaged duck.  Look at the under-privileged pig.  Look at the less fortunate goose.  You are guilty of making second-class citizens of them.”

“But….but,” said the little red hen.  “I earned the bread.”

“Exactly,” said the wise farmer.  “That is the wonderful free enterprise system; anybody in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.  You should be happy to have this freedom.  In other barnyards, you’d have to give all five loaves to the farmer.  Here you give four loaves to your suffering neighbors.” And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked: “I am grateful.  I am grateful.”

But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.


CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders

January 25, 2010


Senator’s call to profile angers ‘Muslim Mafia’

CAIR wants lawmaker to meet with Islamic leaders to explain

Posted: January 23, 2010

By Art Moore


Sen. James Inhofe, R, Okla., at hearing Thursday

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter is calling on Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., to meet with Muslim leaders to discuss his statement during a congressional hearing in favor of using religion and ethnicity as factors in profiling airline passengers.

“It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects,” said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. “Our nation’s leaders have a duty not to exacerbate the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in American society.”

Read the rest of this entry ?


Gitmo North

November 19, 2009

Gitmo North

IBD: 19 Nov. 2009

War On Terror: Sen. Dick Durbin calls a plan to transfer 100 Guantanamo detainees to northwest Illinois “a dream come true.” It would paint a bull’s-eye on America’s heartland in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

It seems the question of where to put the Guantanamo detainees is being settled as we speak, with liberal Democrats in the very blue state of Illinois welcoming them with open arms and outstretched hands for the federal dollars that will come with them.

Federal officials last Friday inspected the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a town of 500 on the Iowa border, with the thought of transferring as many as 100 Gitmo inmates there. The prison, built to house 1,600 prisoners, now holds around 200, and has fallen victim to state budget problems.

At press conferences held in Chicago, Moline and Rockford, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who took over from the disgraced Rod Blagojevich, and Illinois’ senior U.S. senator, Dick Durbin, stumped for the plan, calling it “a dream come true.” We call it a nightmare on Main Street.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Janet Porter: Pink Slip Campaign

November 18, 2009

Finally, our message is being heard

Exclusive: Janet Porter tells of congressmen sharing impact of pink-slip campaign 17 Nov. 09 By Janet Porter

The public has spoken. Nearly 5 million pink slips have already flooded Congress, and today members of both the U.S. House and Senate are standing to acknowledge it. Amidst a backdrop of pink slips, members of Congress will host a press conference at 11 a.m. at the House Triangle outside the U.S. Capitol today.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Steve King, R-Iowa, Tom Price, R-Ga., and Chris Smith, R-N.J., are among those who are planning to be present at this event.

Joseph Farah, CEO of WorldNetDaily, and I will be there as well, standing with Americans against the hostile government takeover of health care, energy and speech.

As Joseph Farah will point out at the press conference: “Placed end to end, the ‘pink slips’ would stretch from the District of Columbia to the Sears Tower in Chicago. If stacked, the pile of pink would be taller than the Sears Tower itself.”

With the government takeover of health care and energy already passed in the House and awaiting votes in the Senate, it’s encouraging to know that our message is finally being heard – and not a moment too soon.

Unfortunately, it’s too late for our freedom of speech, as so-called “hate crimes” legislation already passed Congress and was signed by Barack Obama into law as a part of the defense budget. That is why I stood with pastors like Rick Scarborough of Vision America, Mat Staver and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, Oklahoma Pastor Paul Blair, San Diego Pastor Jim Garlow, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Bishop Earl Jackson of Stand America, and others on the steps of the Department of Justice yesterday afternoon speaking out against the law that has already laid the foundation for the Criminalization of Christianity, as I warned about in my book by that same title.

Rick Scarborough spoke for all of us when he said, “This is a sad day for America. While a small minority of homosexual activists are celebrating, thousands of pastors, priests and rabbis are lamenting their loss of First Amendment freedoms. I for one refuse to bow before this unjust and unconstitutional law, and I intend to continue to preach the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures.”

Why does it matter so much? That’s something that was addressed at the press conference by Grace Hamilton, a former lesbian who was reached by the message of the Gospel and left the homosexual lifestyle, as have thousands like her.

Another speaker was Paul Diamond of the Christian Legal Centre in London, who flew from England at his own expense to communicate how the “hate crimes” law has been used to silence the church in Britain – much like in Canada, where those who quote Bible verses are suffering fines and jail time. Canadian Pastor Stephan Boisson, for example, was fined $5,000, ordered to renounce his faith and banned from expressing the biblical perspective on homosexuality. But this law doesn’t just affect pastors; it will criminalize the beliefs of millions of ordinary people who may now be afraid to speak even their pro-marriage positions lest it spark a federal “hate crime” investigation.

While we did not succeed in stopping the government assault on our free speech, the battle will continue with a legal challenge in the courts. Hopefully, it will be overturned as was the case with the Pennsylvania “hate crimes” law that was responsible for sending 11 people to jail – including two grandmothers who faced 47 years behind bars for the “hate crime” of passing out Gospel tracts on the public streets of Philadelphia. Members of the “Philadelphia 11” were also present at yesterday’s conference. Did you see anything about it on the news? [??]


While the battle for free speech has moved to the courts, there’s still time to act before we lose the ability to receive lifesaving treatment and be forced to pay the largest tax increase in history for heating our homes and driving to work. By forwarding everyone you know the link you will help stand against the other government assaults on our health care and energy and demand an end to the deficit spending.

While the tea parties and town halls seem to have fallen on deaf ears, thankfully, the pink-slip message is starting to be heard. Pink slips amounting to nearly three times the size of the Washington Monument have already been delivered to Congress – that’s about waist high in each office on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Tom Price said, “They’re talking about it, but they’re only talking about it behind closed doors and in the elevators as they go up and down and in very whispered tones. Because, what you hear are people saying, ‘How many of those did you get or how many people came to your office today?’ And ‘what are you going to do and how are you going to vote on this?'”

Sen. DeMint stated that “these pink slips are getting to people right now. It’s the only reason people haven’t passed something [the health care bill] in the Senate. … Keep it up and let’s keep trying to draw attention to it.”

I couldn’t agree more. Once you send Congress a set of pink slips, then, if you don’t see coverage of today’s congressional press conference, call the media outlets and ask them why. You can find the network, newspaper and wire service numbers by clicking on this link provided by the Media Research Center.


Another Radical Judge

November 12, 2009

If you love liberty, help stop this ill-equipped “judge” from going any further.


Another Radical Judge

IBD: 11 Nov. 2009

11 11 09

Federal Bench: Yet another judicial nominee seeks to impose the “empathy” standard on the courts. He thinks judges should base rulings on a plaintiff’s status, legislate from the bench and amend the Constitution.

Indiana federal judge David Hamilton stands poised to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to assume a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals serving Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. He’s a former fundraiser for Acorn and a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

He is also another in a series of activist judges who believe the U.S. Constitution is not etched in stone but made of clay, ready to be molded into anything they want. He shares the beliefs of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Edward Chen, nominee for the Northern District of California, that laws can be made from the bench and that empathy, not original intent, should be a judge’s guide.

“Part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution,” Hamilton says. “We all do that every year in cases large and small.”  [He doesn’t know the Constitution]

And that’s precisely the problem. The law should be applied equally and evenly irrespective of who the plaintiffs or defendants might be. Otherwise, equal protection under the law goes out the window.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hamilton said that “empathy” was “important” in fulfilling a judge’s role. “Empathy is the ability to understand the world from another person’s point of view,” he said.

But the only “point of view” a federal judge needs to understand is that of the Founding Fathers.

According to Hamilton, “A judge needs to empathize with all parties in the case — plaintiff and defendant, crime victim and accused defendant — so that the judge can better understand how the parties came to be before the court and how legal rules affect those parties and others in similar situations.”

And here we thought justice should be blind and not wear its heart on its judicial robes.

Hamilton, who was nominated to the district court bench by President Clinton even though he had no judicial experience and was rated as “not qualified” by the ABA, has a history of overturned rulings and admonishments by colleagues and superiors about exceeding his authority.

After Hamilton blocked the enforcement of Indiana’s informed consent abortion law, the Seventh Circuit disagreed, saying: “No court anywhere in the country … has held any similar law invalid in the years since (the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood vs.) Casey. Indiana is entitled to put the law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.”

Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit scolded Hamilton, noting he was the only judge in the country who had blocked enforcement of a law “materially identical” to laws that the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit had held constitutional. Under Hamilton’s version of the “living Constitution,” even Supreme Court precedent is irrelevant.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has pointed out in a letter to colleagues, Hamilton also has a problem with any expression of religion in the public square — however innocuous — but not with all religion.

Hamilton’s ruling in the 2005 case, Hinrichs v. Bosma, “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ … yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah,” Sessions also noted. We wonder if Hamilton has a problem with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” being uttered as the U.S. Supreme Court enters the courtroom to hear arguments.

Judges such as Hamilton, Chen and Sotomayor believe the courts should be used as instruments of social justice and not to discern the intent of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution. They believe their “life experience” should be the final arbiter of justice.

We don’t believe Hamilton deserves a promotion any more than Chen does or Sotomayor did.


Tom Sowell: Dismantling Of America

October 28, 2009

The Dismantling Of America, Piece By Piece

By THOMAS SOWELL IBD: 28 Oct. 2009

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50% or 90%?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get lifesaving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life-and-death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving schoolchildren material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brownshirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America”; the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “God damn America!”

Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted.

Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed.

That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.