Archive for October, 2009

Breitbart
Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.
Oct 15 04:00 PM US/Eastern

HAMMOND, La. (AP) – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.

“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. “The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”

The ACLU was preparing a letter for the Louisiana Supreme Court, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and see if they can remove him from office, Schwartzman said.

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzman said.

According to the clerk of court’s office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk’s office.

Okay, so if he’s not a racist, what is he? Well, apparently an idiot. Here’s part of the problem I have with race relation is the south. It takes the ACLU, RevAl, and others to create a stink before anyone speaks out against these morons. Where are the people telling this guy, “c’mon Keith, that’s not right?”  Folks in the south wear the confederate flag with the words “Heritage not Hate,” and yet, where was/is the outrage from those same folks when it is used for hate? It IS racism, otherwise it would be a man and a women, not a black man and a white woman. Welcome to the post-segregation America!

Forsooth!

Now there’s a perfectly good English word with a clear, concise meaning. When was the last time you heard it used in everyday conversation? No doubt you recognize the term as one which people once used but the definition is insignificant. The word no longer conveys anything that matters. With a heavy heart I submit two more words which fit the category “Meaningless.” Democrat and Republican have ceased to convey anything meaningful! Their replacements are and ought to be respectively Liberal and Conservative.

Whatever Democrat used to mean clearly no longer matters and the same goes for Republican. These once venerable terms have degenerated into nothing more than a cloak behind which political parasites regularly and systematically hide. Ah, but the solution is simple in conception and implementation! The polarizing point is our very own founding document, the Constitution.

The people of this great nation must demand all holders and seekers of public office declare regarding their stance on the Constitution. Liberal or Conservative?

Liberal: Viewing the Constitution as a “living” document, subject to interpretation and changeable outside the established provisions for amendment and ratification by the states.

Conservative: Viewing the Constitution as being a “literal” document to be followed and enforced. Changes are to follow the established procedure of amendment and ratification by the states.

Remember…the Constitution places no constraint on the citizen, only on the government. In effect we are demanding our representatives to declare whether they believe the citizen is free and sovereign or does the governing authority have final say? Did the founding Fathers forge a guide for the nation or merely a suggestion? I confess my great fear to be that words like “freedom, civility and sovereignty” are becoming themselves “meaningless words.”

I pray not!

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Where have the liberties gone? Did we ever really have them?

We are legally required to where a seatbelt while driving, we can’t talk on the phone, and my four-year-old son must now be in a booster seat until he’s eight. Okay, perhaps those laws are for my safety, but isn’t my safety my business. How about this, in some areas we can’t fly our own flag, we can’t speak our minds, we can’t where a particular shirt, because we might offend someone. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t being offended a personal thing. When was “unless found to be offensive” added to the First Amendment?! Aren’t I entitled to my opinion? No, not anymore; being offensive is a matter of interpretation, but it’s also apparently illegal.

James Madison said, “It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.“ Do we control the government?

We are being force fed a healthcare bill that at the least is unwanted by the majority of Americans, and at the most unconstitutional; we will be required to carry health insurance or pay a tax! Isn’t that my choice? I seem to remember another tax many years ago that taxed my choice – the poll tax! Oh, but the government cares, it wants to help us, it’s its duty to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Remember Hillary Clinton’s, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Truthfully, it takes a family to raise a child, and a village to raise a village idiot. Government doesn’t want to help us; it wants to rob us. Alright, yes we elect our representatives every so often, and they campaign proposing to represent the electorate, but after taking the oath, it’s not about constituents anymore, it’s about staying in office. We don’t control the government, it controls us!   

Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Wow, would Tommy be mad now. “Spending money to be paid by posterity” is the standard operating procedure for Congress today; everything has a ten or 20 year plan. How does the bill affect the deficit in 10 years; we will balance the budget by 2012; whatever. The problem is that each new session of Congress extends the “posterity.” The national debt is approaching $12 trillion; I would say we’ve been swindled on a large scale. What did Jefferson mean? Borrow it today, pay it back before the next election; anything is else is crooked accounting. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is serving time for crooked accounting.

Thomas Jefferson also said, “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?” I wonder where the “angry [tea party] mob’; the “manufactured outrage” at town hall meetings, and Take Back American got their ideas? And, yet our rise in rebellion was squashed, silenced, or at least ignored by our representation.

John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” It’s obvious to me we don’t live in a republic any more, and the democracy (majority rule) is only in DC. We can all hope that suicide transpires on November 2, 2010.

crossposted at ConservativeNC.

Are we doing this again?! And, why I am not surprised. I remember sending an open letter to the UC-Santa Barbara student body president after 9/11, because he requested the large flag be taken out of the student dining hall. If you’re offended, I hate it. You can try to return the favor with you’re legally protected FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION…

For what it’s worth, we’re still in a war (Obamaniacs want to call it a “legal matter“), and th0se people still want to kill you, even if you don’t fly the flag. (although It’s still time to pick a side.

This from KATU…

An Oregon apartment complex is banning its residents from flying American flags, not only from their dwellings but also their vehicles, KATU in Portland reported.

Residents’ outrage started when Jim Clausen, whose son is in the military and on his way back to Iraq, was told he couldn’t fly an American flag from the back of his motorcycle.

If he didn’t take the flag down, he was told he’d face eviction, the station reported.

“It floored me,” Clausen told the station. “I can’t believe she was saying what she was saying. It [the flag] stands for the people that can no longer stand – who died in wars. That’s why I fly the flag.”

Sharron White, a long-time resident, was told by management to take down the flag she’s flown on her car for eight years because “someone might get offended.”

“I just said to her, ‘They’ll just have to get over it,’” White told the station.

The ban also applies to flag stickers on cars, as well as sports flags.

KATU attempted to contact management at the apartment complex, but no one returned their calls.

Do you remember prop 187? In 1994 a ballot initiative was put to the California electorate to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, government schools, etc. It passed the 59%/41%, BUT was later deemed to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And, should the new health care bill include a public option, illegals would not be prohibited from using it, here’s why… the equal protection clause and case precedent.

According to Fox New’s Andrew Napolitano, who suggested that illegals will be covered because of the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. “The last time the Supreme Court looked at this,” Napolitano said, “is when Texas tried to prevent municipalities from educating the children of illegals. The Supreme Court said the government can’t do that because the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ when it comes to education or health care. The court will invalidate any provision that tries to punish people.” Constitutional attorney Shannon Goessling agreed with Napolitano’s, and said, “Here you have the President of the United States, a graduate of Harvard Law School, suggesting that he doesn’t know the consequences of the public option. President Obama is playing politics and the public should be forewarned.” Obama… playing politics? Imagine that…

For what it’s worth Constitution didn’t distinguish between “slave and free” until 1865.

Fox News – Bill O’Reilly

Religious authority for physical violence against women, legal mutilation, execution for homosexuality, death to critics of the state religion, forced marriages at age nine, outlaw of drinking and gambling, exact legal revenge for the injured, execution for sex before marriage…

While appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group, President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, explained how the United States and other western countries have an “oversimplified” view of Sharia Law, and how most women “around the world associate it with ‘gender justice.’ The show, which aired this week on London based Islam Channel, was hosted by representatives of Hizb ut Tahrir, an extremist group that promotes the destruction of western capitalism and the introduction of Sharia Law worldwide.

During the discussion Mogahed listened to 45 minutes of the panel dumping on the US and western liberty. And, while the group called for Sharia Law to be the “source of [all] legislation,” and the removal of women from positions of leadership, she did not challenge the rhetoric, but instead, in Obama-like fashioned apologized for the misconception of Sharia in the western media, added that “promiscuity and the breakdown of traditional values” were sources of the Islamic disapproval. Mogahed did suggest that “many Muslims associated Sharia with ‘maximum criminal punishments’ and ‘laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,’ but added, ‘part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

James Arlandson of American Thinker wrote an article two months ago about what westerners believe are the problems with Sharia law. He cited ten examples, each with references to the Quran or hadith; here are a few:

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

Back in February, Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo, NY man was charged with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce. Ironically, he was the founder of  a cabletelevision channel created counter anti-Muslim stereotypes.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

Here’s what I understand, Sharia Law is an ancient oppressive legal system that degrades and dehumanizes woman, promotes violence, hatred, and intolerance, limits or eliminates personal freedoms. What is “misunderstood” about that?

from the Telegraph

Assumptions are a risky business. They involve the unknown and, therefore, the potentially dangerous. But not all assumptions are created equal, because not all assumptions are unreasonable. Some suppositions are more reasonable than others. Consider, you assume the bed on which you sleep, the chair on which you sit, and the floor on which you walk will not collapse. Experience has convinced you the risk, although real, is minimal, and so you operate on this reasonable assumption.

Enter the politician.

Whenever the power of government is used to foster “change,” lawmakers are tempted to make very unreasonable assumptions. The problem for the politicos comes down to this: People have brains and actually use them from time to time. But the politician assumes citizens will not react to having their wealth confiscated, or that people won’t make short sighted decisions in order to qualify for the government dole. Neither scenario is at all reasonable, but the assumption is dangerous!

Moral hazard describes the idea that behavior is affected when people are shielded from risk. Insulate them and they act differently. So it’s not that political programs are bad or good in and of themselves. They are simply powerless to make changes in isolation. In other words, people have brains and act in their best interest. There is absolutely nothing any lawmaker can do to change this fundamental aspect of human nature. It is completely unreasonable to assume otherwise.

On my way to work I cross over a bridge and, yes, I assume it will bear the weight of all the traffic. Were it to fail, my assumption would prove to be unfortunate but not unreasonable. But, what if the bridge were known to fail 10 percent of the time? How about 20, 30 or 50percent of the time? Notice how the nature of the risk does not change but the reasonableness does. The fact is that NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAM HAS EVER avoided the moral hazard of unintended consequences. Not one. At what point does it become unreasonable to assume the next one will actually work?

I have a wild idea…let’s try actually following the Constitution of the United States of America. Does that sound reasonable to you?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to think. For yourself. On a regular basis.

Okay, so I borrowed a line from the Declaration of Independence. I‘ll put it back when I’m finished.

Speaking of which, what is independence? Or more importantly, why did we, as Americans, declare it in our actions, explain it in our writings, and demand it in our government over 200 years ago? Were we entitled to it? Had we earned the right to it?

At the time, some labeled it rebellion when a motley lot of self-taught intellects, die-hard patriots, and independent thinkers known as the Continental Congress initiated divorce proceedings against that frumpy old despot living across the pond who felt he had a right to boss us around simply because he wore a crown.

Was it? Was it rebellion? And if so, why? If not, what’s the difference?

According to Daniel Webster, rebellion is the defiance of authority. Independence, on the other hand, is defined as freedom from control. So which was it? Were our founding fathers rebellious or independent? I think they were both. And for countless common sensical reasons.
I’m not going to attack your time and intelligence, not to mention my wrist muscles by detailing the details of that famous document born of our rebellious independence but I will say this: Had King George been a lot less oppressive and a little more democratic, the folks in Washington, D.C. today would all be wearing powered wigs and there would be no president.

Now before you call me a loyalist, know this, I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. So much so, I would have an unfurled image of Old Glory brazenly tattooed across my… my…forehead if my husband would let me. I LOVE THIS COUNTRY. My hat goes off to Oliver Wolcott, Thomas Jefferson, and Button Gwinnett (yes, his real name). These men risked harsh persecution and physical endangerment for believing in something and then acting accordingly.

Political persecution is nothing new!

Those of us who oppose what the current crew up there in Washington is doing and then have the audacity to speak out against it are no different from the “fanatical, ungrateful extremists” of yesteryear our country now calls heroes. Who knows? In a thousand years or so, the marble likeness of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity may be perched atop Honest Abe’s lap-one on each knee- as a lauded addition to the Lincoln Memorial.
Or maybe not. But you get the point.

I suppose what I am trying to say is this, don’t cower to anyone who attacks your freedom to complain about the government. It’s your constitutional right. But first, KNOW what your government is doing. Make it your business to find out. Contact your congressional and senatorial representatives because THEY WORK FOR YOU! And for heaven’s sake, don’t let any of the news outlets do your thinking.

Lastly, don’t believe everything you hear anyone on either side of the aisle say, because talk is cheap, except when it’s coming from politicians, and then it’s costly.

The Congressional Budget Office released a new number on the revamped (rehashed) health care bill, and it will not increase the budget deficit one red penny. So, the committee vote is supposed to be tomorrow, and the floor vote could be Tuesday. I’m turning blue with anticipation…

But, what the headlines don’t say is that the $829 billion plan will increase in the deficit, BUT the increases will be offset with a ” series of fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and other sectors of the health industry,” including 40% tax hike on high premium insurance plans which will inevitably be passed on the plan participants, and additional reductions in Medicare. Oh, and those “fees” (code for taxes), according to the report, would begin essentially immediately, and the plan wouldn’t begin until 2013 – two full years of tax revenues before the plan takes place. And, there are additional revenues made available through the individual mandate – everyone will be required to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

Like I said… blue with anticipation.

Download the report here (PDF).

High five to Michael Tanner.

The rule of law is the very fabric of a free and civil society. Lev Rex is Latin for “law is king” and represents a fundamental principle upon which the American experiment rests. Central to our consideration is the stability conferred to the general public by the rule of law. For it is the absence of arbitrary law that enables individuals to make rational decisions regarding their futures and fortunes. Lex Rex is the sure foundation upon which a free and civil society can be and has been built.

But reverse the order, make “king is law” the rule and what results is the personification of arbitrariness!  If the ruler makes, rather than follows and enforces the law, then freedom and civility are destroyed. The random, unsure nature of this type system provides no certain principles upon which to base rational decisions. This presents businesses with incalculable risks, discourages investment and job creation. (Not to mention the deleterious effects of the rulers now being the focus of business rather than the customer.) Clearly, the common man benefits under the rule of law.

Now, for the really uncomfortable part.

President Barack Hussein Obama has appointed dozens of so called “czars” accountable only to himself. Neither the voters nor their elected representatives have had any voice in their selection, confirmation or, indeed, in whether the positions even ought to exist! This is the act of a Sovereign, a King and not a president. A president’s job is to act as chief protector of the citizen’s freedom by enforcing the particulars laid down in the constitution of the U.S.A.

F. A Hayek in his classic “The Road To Serfdom” describes how a free democratic people become enslaved. First a “crises” is seized upon to make political capitol. Then come the inevitable debates resulting in political stalemate. Finally a leader emerges promising to “change” the state of affairs if given enough power (temporarily, of course.) Authority is gradually concentrated until all opposition is squelched. The fact that this sounds like today’s headlines should be cause for alarm and action!

What can possibly result from appointing czars but an administration and governance reflective wholly of the president’s personal will? Where are the representatives of the people? The congress is being marginalized and the will of the citizen is becoming less and less relevant.

There is no easy or politically correct way to state it so I’ll just be blunt. Our free and civil society cannot survive the consolidation of power now taking place under Barack Hussein Obama. This situation represents nothing short of Rex Lex. The king is law. Only America doesn’t have a king…or do we?