The ACLU is not only right in this case, they deserve congratulations for being willing to take a real civil liberties case, not just a controversial headline-grabber that has little to do with the cause of freedom. If the ACLU would fight more cases such as the harassment law, they'd get a great deal more in the way of public support in a more conservative State like our own.
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam showed on Tuesday that, contrary to what some people inside his own party believed when he ran for the State's executive position, that he isn't necessarily afraid to wade into controversial social questions as a consequence of his office. Haslam signed into law a bill that forbids localities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances which are stricter than the laws in place at the State level designed to combat discrimination. In practical terms, this legislation overturns a Nashville Metro ordinance which says that workplaces, and especially those businesses which have a contract with the Nashville/Davidson County Metro Government, cannot "discriminate based on sexual orientation." The State of Tennessee, of course, has no such provision in its anti-discrimination laws, which is the genesis of the new law.
"It is important that our anti-discrimination laws should be uniform throughout the State, and that is why I support this legislation," Senator Mike Faulk (R-Kingsport) said on the floor of the Tennessee Senate during debate over the legislation before the General Assembly adjourned. Faulk has previously served on the Tennessee Human Rights Commission as its Vice Chairman. Proponents of the legislation fear that without it, some business owners and even churches may be forced to act in a manner which contradicts their deeply-held religious beliefs in the name of combating discrimination. Many of those opposed to the law say that it is undue State interference in local affairs, and that argument alone has turned our State's traditional political spectrum on its head, because many of the people who are making it are the same people who are normally all too willing to interfere in local affairs when its suits them to do so. Arguments can be made that in the case of House Bill 600, there has been little in the way of ideological consistency on either side of the debate.
The Tennessee Attorney General's legal opinions are important, but our legislators should not govern based on those opinions because the Attorney General is not the Supreme Court:
The great problem with Attorney General's opinions in the past is that previous Tennessee General Assemblies have treated the personal legal opinions of the Attorney General as though they were the Law of Moses given by the Almighty at Sinai. "Thus saith the Attorney General, so thus saith the Lord." We can reasonably assume that our State's chief lawyer has a very good legal opinion, and that his opinion should be given when he is called upon. The Attorney General, however, is not a court of law, and he (or as the future case might be, she) is most certainly not the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The latest proposal to thwart so-called ObamaCare, sponsored by State Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mount Juliet), would mandate that Tennessee join a group of participating States demanding a wavier from the federal health care law so that each State may have the health care system of its choice. Such an idea is a kind of "collective nullification" by virtue of States joining in force.
The so-called "Obamacare" Health Care law is flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that in the end it will undo many of the changes that have been made in Tennessee to TennCare to make it more cost-effective and save the State budget from TennCare causing it to collapse on itself. The legislation mandates greater coverage for the poor, elderly, and disabled, but it does nothing to address health care costs within the bounds of the federal Constitution, and that will lead to the truly helpless receiving rationed care, and even encouraged in the so-called "right to die."
Illegal immigration isn't just a border issue anymore. As many as a third of children who are new public school registrants in some East Tennessee counties are entering school speaking no English, and must learn it as a second language. This is the case in places like Hamblen County, where there is as much Spanish spoken as English in Morristown's South Cumberland neighborhood. Some might say "now Oatney, aren't you just being bigoted because the presence of so many Hispanics in your community makes you uncomfortable..." Actually, I have no problem with a general increase in the Hispanic population so long as it is a legal increase, as I generally believe that this trend is good to reform people's attitudes, enhance our part of the country, and enrich our lives as members of society.
The problem lies not with the Hispanic community as a whole, but with the flood of illegal aliens (many of which are coming across the Mexican border) who are in the country, some of which are in East Tennessee. There is a reason that we have immigration laws, and that is to insure that our country is not overrun with people it cannot support and who sponge off of the taxes of citizens and legal resident aliens of all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds. When the number of illegals becomes so great that States cannot support them, and the federal government refuses to take the necessary action to secure our borders and protect both citizens and legal residents from the flood of illegals, the States are forced to act to protect their own people.
As is predictable, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is throwing a ring-eyed fit, saying that this legislation will lead to "racial profiling." Forget the fact that people aren't checked until they are actually incarcerated-and that means that they've been placed under arrest. It has long been assumed in law that police do have the authority to verify someone is who they say they are when they are placed under arrest. If someone is in the United States illegally, then that means that they have already committed and continue committing a crime. If someone is under arrest, whether they are guilty of the crime they are charged with or not, it is perfectly acceptable for the police to investigate whether they might have committed other crimes if they are reasonably suspected of doing so.
Why We Need to Elect the Tennessee Attorney General
The Tennessee Attorney General has given us the best case for electing that post:
Is Attorney General Cooper telling us that theAttorneys General of 13 States are all mad? To listen to some people talk about this legislation and about attempts by various States to fight the federal health care boondoggle in court, one would think that opposition to the health care bill is treasonous and that some cataclysm is imminent whereby the nation will be plunged into the abyss if the offending States are not brought into line.
The Tennessee Health Freedom Act is stalled in committee because the Attorney General of Tennessee writeth upon the stone tablets:
It may be true, of course, that some federal court will take it upon themselves to intrude into Tennessee's internal affairs by telling us that we must fall in line like lemmings and support the President's health care boondoggle. Until such time, however, it has already been established that the legal opinions of the Tennessee Attorney General have about as much force of law as anything I might write in this space. Indeed, the opinions of the Attorney General are worth about as much in law as a broom is worth without a handle. The people of Knox and Shelby Countyare well aware of how worthless it is to assume that the Attorney General's opinion has any valuebeyond his or her office door. Since the Attorney General's opinions havepreviously been provento be just that in the eyes of present law, why should this State continue to make law based solely upon those opinions?
With that said, asdemonstrated by the actions of some people on Capitol Hill in Nashvilleyesterday, people are almost irrationally angry, and the folks who are demonstrating this anger are not crazed lunatics agitated by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, but are ordinary everyday Tennesseans and Americans who feel as though their voices have for too long been ignored, and now decisions are being taken which impact them very directly and they see their governmentcompletely ignoring their wishes and doing so insuch a public and arrogantly unrepentant fashion. Anger can lead to irrational and completely inappropriate activity, and as Hannity and Limbaugh would both be keen to remind all of us, we have a local election in May, a State Primary in August, and a General Election in November in which to send the one message all politicians understand-removal from their posts by free votes of the people.
History is written by the victors however, and at some point after the outbreak of the American Revolution, the founders of our Republic went from being brigands, rioters, and rustic rebels to being revolutionary freedom fighters. There was a moment in history when there was no other option but grapeshot and powder, because talk and writing and begging and pleading did no good. Our leaders would do well to remember this, because Congress has shown that they are unwilling to listen to the protests and pleadings of their constituents, so if the ballot box later proves to also be of no correction to their ridiculous and tyrannical behavior, one fears that they may learn that the founders armed the citizenry for a reason that had nothing to do with hunting.
Liberals talk all the time about defending civil liberties, but as we have seen from the present order of things, they really have a double standard:
A fair judgment of history will render the reality that many on the Left will only defend the Constitution when it suits them and when their rights are in danger, not when the rights of their opposition are under threat (usually by people they support). As an example of this, we heard many liberals bemoan the evils of the PATRIOT Act during the Bush years, and make great political hay over its abuses and its potential for trampling on the Constitution. Yet we have since learned that the Obama Administration wants to renew the most controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including warrantless roving wiretaps, and the so-called library provision, which would allow authorities to inquire what books we've been borrowing from the local library.
So the policy of the national Democrats (and not a few in Tennessee) would seem to be "let it be true for me, but not for thee."
So why don't more States stand up for their rights, since the States are the creators of the federal government, and without them, the federal apparatus has no historical or constitutional reason to exist? Largely because the federal bohemoth has become far greator than its creators, the child, as it were, lording its authority over its parents.
Unlike certain liberals and Washington elites, a few of us have come to understand that the idea of States' rights and true federalism help preserve all of that diversity in America that our friends on the Left are so fond of chiming on and on about.
Lamar Alexander decided yesterday to break with the Republican Party, and likely with the wishes of many constituents yesterday in announcing his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:
"Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"In 2005, I said on this Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the Democratic Senators to vote against John Roberts - a superbly qualified nominee - solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts' 'overarching political philosophy' and 'his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's office' that 'consistently sided' with 'the strong in opposition to the weak.' Today, it would be equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not 'on my side' on some issues.
The problem with Lamar's logic in this situation is not his consistency. He is quite correct in presuming that it would be right to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Lamar is extending a courtesy to the Democrats that they have not extended to any of us, however. These same sorts are the very ones who destroyed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork-who like both Roberts and Sotomayor was highly qualified-for no other reason than politics. Barack Obama voted against John Roberts because he didn't like his judicial philosophy. Yes, elections have consequences, but political turnabout is also fair play.
There is a larger issue at stake, however, and that is whether President Obama should be allowed to upend the social and political fabric of this nation without any opposition. One Supreme Court nomination is not where the saga of this administration is going to end. Barack Obama is determined to destroy the very foundations of our Republic, and do so with the people allowing it. Our United States Senators should not merely stand idly by while our own President brings this country to ruination. They have a right and a duty to oppose every facet of the President's agenda of evil, taking all appropriate opportunities to do so. If Lamar Alexander believes as I do, and as all truly patriotic Tennesseans believe, that Barack Obama's plan for America is the most wicked scheme ever devised in the 233 year history of this country, Obama must not only be given opposition, but every political chance must be taken when such situations arise to bring his administration to the total and complete political destruction that it so richly deserves.
Evil must be opposed at all costs and in every legal fashion possible. THAT is why Lamar Alexander should not support Sotomayor's nomination. It isn't about Sotomayor, it is about the man who appointed her.
I have waited until now to discuss anything about Sunday's assassination of Dr. George Tiller in his house of worship. The primary reason for the wait was really to collect my own thoughts and not to say anything in a way that was rash or inappropriate, but also to speak freely and honestly about how I feel about Tiller and others like him, and why both sides in this debate will simply never understand the other.
Regardless of my personal feelings toward George Tiller, violence (which is what I believe Tiller engaged in toward the unborn) should not simply begat violence, especially when the violence in question will do nothing to help the pro-life cause. This is no way to advance our movement, a movement that is not rooted in a political party, as some may believe, but in the idea that every human life is precious and has the right to live from conception until natural death.
Even so, I confess to being terribly conflicted in my heart and mind about what has happened to George Tiller. I am, to quote one of my cousins, "sorry for his soul," but I am finding it very difficult to feel sorrow for the man-and I am actually trying. Saying that I feel terrible that George Tiller is gone (and therefore will not be able to murder anymore children) is like saying "how awful, Hitler put a bullet through his head" or "isn't it a shame that Pol Pot is dead." Holding a memorial service for the Son of Sam killer is the rough moral equivalent with which I might memorialize George Tiller.
The other side is angry not merely because George Tiller is dead, but because they do not see what he was doing as murder or killing. Indeed, the so-called pro-choice party feels grief because a champion of their cause is gone. To them, the fewer babies there are in the world, the better off that we all are. What we see as nothing short of murder of a child in the womb-or in Tiller's case, murder of a child about to be born in many cases, they see as merely a matter of choice, and those are just the more reasonable people in the opposite camp.
There is simply no middle ground there, either this is a child or a choice. If you believe that we are dealing with children, George Tiller wasn't just a murderer, but a mass murderer on the scale of minor genocide. If you believe this is a mere matter of personal choice, George Tiller is a martyr and a hero of freedom and liberty.
I am sorry that George Tiller had to die in the way in which he did because someone decided to take the will of God into their own hands. It is God's place to deal with Tiller and no one else's. I pray for his widow and his children, they did not deserve to see the head of their family die in such a way.
I cannot pretend to be sorry that George Tiller will not be working to take the lives of the unborn every day at his abortion mill. I am not sorry in the least about that.
As readers are probably aware, Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested this morning on charges that he has ben attempting to sell the vacant U.S. Senate seat formerly held by President-Elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on Tuesday accused Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of participating in a "political corruption crime spree" that was a blatant effort to sell the state's U.S. Senate seat in the latest "pay-to-play" scheme in Illinois politics.
Fitzgerald described the alleged behavior by Blagojevich, who was arrested Tuesday morning along with his chief of staff, John Harris, as "appalling." He said his "cynical behavior" reached "a truly new low."
"He has been arrested in the middle of what we can only describe as a political corruption crime spree," Fitzgerald said in a news conference to announce the charges against the governor and his chief of staff. "This is a sad day for government. It's a very sad day for Illinois government. Governor Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low."
As if this isn't bad enough, Blagojevich also seemed to believe that the editorial freedom of the press was his to flirt with:
Intercepted calls allegedly show that Blagojevich directed Harris to inform Tribune Owner and an associate, identified as Tribune Financial Advisor, that state financial assistance would be withheld unless members of the Chicago Tribunes editorial board were fired, primarily because Blagojevich viewed them as driving discussion of his possible impeachment. In a November 4 phone call, Blagojevich allegedly told Harris that he should say to Tribune Financial Advisor, Cubs Chairman and Tribune Owner, our recommendation is fire all those [expletive] people, get em the [expletive] out of there and get us some editorial support.
So fire editorial board members critical of the Governor, and get the State assistance you were asking for, otherwise it will be withheld. We already know that the President-Elect would like to reinstitute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to silence his opposition. This is apparently the way the Democratic Party does business in the modern era-if the opposition makes you uncomfortable, just find ways to shut them up. Of course, a familiar name has come up in all of this mess:
The charges include historical allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with others - including previously convicted defendants Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others - since becoming governor in 2002 to obtain and attempt to obtain financial benefits for himself, his family and third parties, including his campaign committee, Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko is the man who bankrolled much of the early political career of the President-Elect of the United States. Did Blagojevich believe he might benefit from Barack Obama's election?
Over the next couple of days - Election Day and the day after - Blagojevich was captured discussing with Deputy Governor A whether he could obtain a cabinet position, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Department of Energy or various ambassadorships. In a conversation with Harris on November 4, Blagojevich analogized his situation to that of a sports agent shopping a potential free agent to the highest bidder.
On November 10, Blagojevich, his wife, Harris, Governor General Counsel, Advisor B and other Washington-based advisors participated at different times in a two-hour phone call in which they allegedly discussed, among other things, a deal involving the Service Employees International Union. Harris said they could work out a deal with the union and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with Blagojevichs appointment of Senate Candidate 1, while Blagojevich would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
Now why would Blagojevich think he could make that kind of deal with Obama?
For the record, the unnamed Senate candidate mentioned removed themself from consideration, probably because they didn't want to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
In the wake of the General Election on Tuesday last, there is little question that in spite of allegations of voter fraud in Ohio and Indiana, Barack Obama fairly won the election in the constitutional sense. However, the latest problem involving Obama's background is his apparent inability to produce an authentic vault copy of his birth certificate with the raised and embossed seal of the sovereign State of Hawaii thereon:
What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:
be a natural born citizen of the United States;
be at least 35 years old;
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).
Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be President of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship cited in an earlier article by WND news editor Drew Zahn:
The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states."Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public.
I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick's outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn't have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
For those not aware, Philip J. Berg, the man who brought the suit Berg v. Obama, and Berg is not a Republican operative, but a life-long Democrat and prominent Pennsylvania party man. An injunction request on the part of Berg to halt the General Election last Tuesday was denied by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. However, in denying Berg's request, Souter also ordered the now-President-Elect to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December 1st:
Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants "are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1.
Legally translated, that means that Barack Obama has until December 1st to produce the authentic copy of his birth certificate, not a facimile from a website which cannot be authentically verified. If he cannot do this, it may force the Court to take up the question of Obama's citizenship.
My money is on Obama ignoring the High Court and hoping the Court will in turn ignore the issue in the name of keeping the peace-something they may in fact do. If the Court does not ignore the matter, however, we have a massive problem on our hands.
The Constitution has for too long been ignored by public figures in both parties in the name of expediency, and this could be a case where our national charter is thrown to the wind by an incoming President before he even swears the oath to support and defend that document. The Court should not ignore the Constitution's clear provisions on the qualifications of a President, it has a duty to enforce them regardless of political consideration or concern over public disorder.
Unlike some conservatives, I do not wish for the President-Elect to be dislodged from office on account of discrepancies over his birthplace. He has won a national election of historic import, and if now we learn that he cannot prove his natural-born status and that, as a result, he cannot be allowed to be sworn in as President, this country may begin a period where there is no social peace for many years to come. The Constitution cannot and should not be ignored in the name of order-we've already seen the present administration do that, and the country is worse off for it.
Barack Obama can end this speculation and prevent a pall of illegitimacy from hanging over his administration by producing the true and correct copy of his birth certificate for the world and the Supreme Court to see. I urge the President-Elect, not as a Republican, but as an American to end this speculation by producing his authentic birth certificate and presenting that document to the world in a press conference. In doing so, President-Elect Obama can not only maintain legitimacy, but he may help keep the peace as well.
A conservative journal of social, cultural, and ecclesiatical affairs grounded in a realistic Catholic Christian worldview. It is my hope that this site will be a reflection of Christ,the teachings of His Holy Church, and of the basic vision of a Christian social morality.
