Category: government

Know what you’re buying: Judges who have empathy vs. rule of law

TBLeave a comment

Lady JusticeFrom Thomas Sowell in National Review Online:

That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much farther the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the Left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B, and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y, or Z? Nothing could be farther from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans. 

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law becomes meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship, or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people.”

When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.

President Obama is not into cutting. Big talk yes, big cuts no.

TBLeave a comment

This is also the same guy, by the way, who spent $150 million on his inauguration.

The euphemism of ‘choice’ and why it’s something else

TB1 Comment

Kevin DeYoung writes a great post today, “Lincoln’s Legacy and the Unborn,” in which he discusses how America’s most popular (arguably) president was not a fan of ‘popular sovereignty,’ which would have allowed each state as it entered the union the choice of whether it would be a slave state or a free state. DeYoung writes:

The connections with the pro-slavery argument and the pro-abortion argument should be obvious. Both argue for choice. Both, at least in their more civilized forms, pretend moral neutrality. And both rely for their inner logic on strikingly similar propositions: blacks are not human persons with unalienable rights; and neither are the unborn. To quote from Lincon’s 1864 speech in Baltimore with only a slight tweak, subsituting ‘choice’ for ‘liberty’: “We all declare for choice; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word choice may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. While with others the same word may mean for some men [and women] to do as they please with others, and with other men’s labors. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name–choice. And it follws that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names–choice and tyranny.”

Hysteria about torture answered soberly

TB1 Comment

Porter Goss, who served as director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006 and was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004, wrote Saturday in the Washington Post about the current political climate concerning perceived torture by U.S. interrogators dealing with al-Qaeda suspects:

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation’s intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA’s “High Value Terrorist Program,” including the development of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

  •  The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.
  • We understood what the CIA was doing.
  • We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.
  • We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.                              
  •  On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed “memorandums for the record” suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately — to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president’s national security adviser — and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Related to that, in the video below, Liz Cheney absolutely destroys MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell as O’Donnell tries to feed more slop about the whole torture debate. Watch as Cheney uses sound argument to head off hysterical bluster.

Liz Cheney
Click on image to view video

This is what compassionate liberalism looks like

TBLeave a comment

From an earlier post, we talked about how the White House — the Obama White House — stayed silent to help kill a D.C. program that helped poor kids — 90 percent black and 9 percent Hispanic — go to decent schools. Just recently the president talked about cutting wasteful programs. George Will talks about how that happens:

The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars (“or so” is today’s shorthand for “give or take a few hundreds of billions”) hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 D.C. children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the District’s failing public schools and enroll in private schools.

The District’s mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that “don’t work.” He has looked high and low and — lo and behold — has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year.

Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago’s school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than in the District, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism.

After Congress debated the program, the Education Department released — on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery — a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the District’s program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation’s report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools.

The Senate voted 58 to 39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved.

And you thought Republicans were the mean, uncaring people.

Spread the wealth doesn’t work: Why socialism is a failure

TB1 Comment

Pat Lenconi, writing at The Simple Wisdom Project, answers the question “What’s so bad about socialism?” especially in light of the fact that the Bible points to ideals like caring for one another , sharing with those in need and avoiding materialism. I think his answer is helpful:

I must admit that, as a youngster, I often wondered why people were so down on socialism, and its cousin, communism. In fact, I thought those sounded like the best ways to run a society because sharing and caring and compassion are the right ways to live.

As I became a young adult, I began to understand how the reality of socialism radically differs from the theory, and that even the theory itself has fatal flaws. When it comes right down to it, I think there are two big reasons why socialism is a really, really bad idea.

First, it just doesn’t work. At least not for very long. That’s because people are flawed and, outside of a family, a religious order, or a small group of friends, they will not continually work hard for the ‘greater good’ if they do not receive the fruits of that work themselves. As an economics major in college, I learned that this theory had a name: ‘the free-loader effect’. It is the natural tendency of people to do less and less work when they realize that they won’t see a proportionate decrease in what they can get for it.

Over time—and this is an inevitable consequence of the free-loader effect—socialist societies experience decreasing productivity, risk-taking, and innovation, along with increasing tax rates, promises of government programs, and expectations from citizens about what they can get from those programs. When the economy inevitably falters under its own weight, those expectations cannot be met.

Unfortunately, by the time enough citizens realize this is happening it is often too late for them to go back and try a different approach because there are more people in society who expect benefits from the government than there are people who pay for them. And thus begins the long, gradual descent to economic and motivational malaise. Ironically, the class of people who socialism is supposed to help—the poor—only grows because they are joined by more and more people who drop out of the shrinking middle class.

Go here to read the rest of his article.

 

HT: Matt Perman

The numbers ‘speak for themselves’ but aren’t part of the agenda

TBLeave a comment

Thomas Sowell, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, wrote this past week about how numbers are used by busybodies in politics and the media to advance an agenda which is often disastrous. What they don’t do, however, is report numbers that don’t fit their plan: From his article in National Review Online:

Statistics played a key role in creating the housing boom and bust that led to the current economic crisis. Back in the 1990s, politicians, the media, community activists like Jesse Jackson and others all made a lot of noise about statistical studies showing that non-whites (1) had lower rates of home-ownership than whites, (2) were turned down for mortgage loans more often than whites, and (3) resorted to more expensive subprime mortgage loans than whites.

All this led to pressure, and even quotas, for banks to lend to more low-income and minority applicants. That in turn led to lower mortgage lending standards, more risky mortgages, higher default rates, and the collapse of financial institutions that bought these more risky mortgages or securities based on them.

We have seen and heard the same kinds of things when statistics about other racial differences have been cited in the same strident voices when other statistics showed blacks laid off more than whites during economic downturns or the children of black women having higher infant-mortality rates than the children of white women.

What we have very seldom seen or heard in such parading of statistics are other statistics — which are readily available — showing that (1) whites are turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans, (2) whites resort to subprime loans more often than Asian Americans, (3) whites have been laid off more in a downturn than Asian Americans, and (3) the children of white mothers have higher infant-mortality rates than the children of mothers of Filipino or Mexican ancestry, even though these mothers receive less prenatal care than white mothers.

In other words, numbers do not “speak for themselves.” Politicians, the media and others speak for them — very loudly, very cleverly, and often very wrongly.

Kids come last: What’s best for our unions

TB1 Comment

Because young black children — whether they are born or not — don’t vote or give big money to candidates or parties, it is perhaps not surprising that President Obama and the Democrats have blocked what was a successful school voucher program in Washington, D.C. Instead they sided with teachers unions that have historically opposed school voucher programs and, more importantly, been big backers of Democrat candidates.

According to Deroy Murdock, in a National Review Online article:

These 1,714 children — 90 percent black and 9 percent Hispanic — enjoy the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. They each receive up to $7,500 for private or parochial schools outside Washington, D.C.’s dismal government-education system. This is especially valuable given that a 2007 federal report discovered that the “average household at the time of application had almost three children supported by an annual income of $17,356.” Since its 2004 launch, 7,852 students have applied for these grants, or more than four children per voucher.

This program’s popularity notwithstanding, Obama stayed silent as Congress scheduled this initiative’s demise after the 2009–2010 academic year. Both a Democratic Congress and D.C. authorities must reauthorize the program — not likely.

Now it emerges that Obama’s Department of Education (DOE) possessed peer-reviewed, congressionally mandated, federally financed research proving this program’s success. Though it demonstrates “what works for the kids,” DOE hid this study until Congress squelched these children’s dreams.

From a Wall Street Journal editorial, we see how that happened:

It’s bad enough that Democrats are killing a program that parents love and is closing the achievement gap between poor minorities and whites. But as scandalous is that the Education Department almost certainly knew the results of this evaluation for months.

Voucher recipients were tested last spring. The scores were analyzed in the late summer and early fall, and in November preliminary results were presented to a team of advisers who work with the Education Department to produce the annual evaluation. Since Education officials are intimately involved in this process, they had to know what was in this evaluation even as Democrats passed (and Mr. Obama signed) language that ends the program after next year.

So, when candidate Obama said as he did last year that he would “not allow my predisposition to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn . . . You do what works for the kids,” he apparently meant “as long as it doesn’t go against what the teachers unions want.” Apparently change only goes so far.

The children in the video below, hopeful for a chance to be heard, have instead had their voices ignored who would rather keep the status quo rather than promote change for the better.

Voices of School Choice

Millions protest abortion. News? What news?

TBLeave a comment

Red Envelope Project World Net Daily got the scoop on The Associated Press and countless other “big” news organizations with this story which you probably didn’t hear about:

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a “deluge” of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years.

White House mail worker “Steve” has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.

Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.

“Uh, yes,” he said emphatically. “Believe me, they made it here.”

Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.

“Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through,” he laughed. “I had to handle them all.”

“I’ve been here 35 years, so I’ve seen presidents come and go,” Steve told WND. “This campaign ranks up there with the big ones.”

The Red Envelope Project is an idea sparked in the mind and prayers of a Massachusetts man, Christ Otto, who envisioned in January thousands of red envelopes sent to the White House, a visual expression of moral outrage over the president’s position on abortion.

On the backs of the envelopes, senders wrote a message Otto composed: “This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.”

Time is running out to make your voice heard

TBLeave a comment

From Deirdre McQuade of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops comes this urgent message:

Doctors practice medicine to diagnose, treat, and prevent illness for their patients. They pledge to “do no harm.” Yet many face tremendous pressure to participate in abortion and sterilization.

Informed Catholic health professionals understand that such procedures are not authentic medicine. They are not therapeutic, as they treat no disease or pathological condition. An unborn child is not a disease to be “cured” through abortion; and sterilization stops a healthy reproductive system from functioning properly.

Medical personnel, like all citizens, have the right not to be forced to participate in practices that offend their deeply held moral and religious convictions. This is a fundamental human right long recognized in our democracy.

But the right of conscience is under serious attack. Pro-abortion groups are pushing hard to undermine conscience rights in health care so nothing will stand in the way of maximum access to abortion. They call abortion a “free choice” — but what is more coercive than forcing people to perform or refer for an act they find morally abhorrent? Such coercion strikes at the heart of medicine’s healing mission.

Existing federal laws forbid government bodies and federally-funded hospitals, medical schools and research programs to discriminate against health care providers for exercising their conscience rights on abortion and sterilization. Unfortunately, these protective laws are widely unknown and unevenly enforced. Those who experience discrimination often do not know where to turn. To protect medical personnel, health care institutions must be held accountable to existing law.

The Obama Administration has issued a proposal to weaken current legal protection of conscience in health care, rescinding a recent Bush Administration regulation that helps implement the protective laws. The public has until Thursday, April 9 to write to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) urging it to retain the regulation.

Our voice is needed right now! But what can we do? Go to www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection to get informed, take action, and spread the word.

To send your e-mail, go to the above link. Otherwise, you can send your message directly by e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov or go online to www.Regulations.gov (check “Select to find documents” and then enter “Rescission Proposal”). Comments also can be mailed. See instructions in the March 10 Federal Register . In all comments, refer to “Rescission Proposal.”

 

Conscience Protection