ChristiansUnite Forums

THE FOUNDATION

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”  — Samuel Adams http://PatriotPost.US/fqd/

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE


There is yet another ideological contest brewing in our nation’s capitol, this one between two distinctively different groups in the federal judiciary: constitutional constructionists
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=487 , who render decisions based on the “original intent” of our nation’s founding document, and judicial despots, who endorse the dangerously errant notion of a “Living Constitution.”
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=330

This is no trivial contest, however, and the outcome will have significant consequences across the nation.

The subject of this dispute is Washington, DC’s “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which prohibits residents from owning handguns, ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.”

Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem”
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=300  ignores the real problem — that of socio-pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott
http://PatriotPost.US/news/scott.asp , father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.)

In 1960 the frequency of violent crime in the District was 554/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 10/100,000. In 2006, the frequency of violent crime in the District was 1,512/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 29/100,000. That is a 200 percent increase, and according to the latest data from Washington Metro Police, violent crime is up 12 percent thus far this year.

Fact is, firearm restrictions on law-abiding citizens in Washington, and other urban centers, have created more victims while protecting offenders. There is nothing new about this correlation. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Simply put, violent predators prefer victims who have no means of self defense.

Most pro and con arguments about firearms are constructed around the crime debate, including excellent research by John Lott, whose book More Guns, Less Crime, clearly establishes that restrictive gun policies lead to higher crime rates.

The arguments from both sides in the current case in Washington are also constructed around the crime issue. However, the Second Amendment debate is not about crime, but about the rule of law — constitutional law. Fortunately, the appellate court for DC is making this distinction.
____________________________________

In March of this year, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down that federal jurisdiction’s restrictions on gun ownership, finding that the District is violating the Second Amendment’s
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=559  prohibition on government infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and should the High Court accept the case, its ruling would be the first substantial decision on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939.

At issue: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on the individual rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, or does it restrict the central government from infringing on the rights of the several states to maintain well-armed militias?

The intent of the Second Amendment, however, was abundantly clear to our Founders.

Indeed, in the most authoritative explication of our Constitution, The Federalist Papers
http://PatriotPost.US/fedpapers/ , its principal author, James Madison, wrote in No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any...”

Alexander Hamilton was equally unambiguous on the importance of arms to a republic, writing in Federalist No. 28, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...”

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In other words, the right of the people to bear arms is the most essential of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, because it ensures the preservation of all other rights.

Accordingly, the appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government... The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.”

Additionally, the majority opinion notes, “The activities [the amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

The dissenting judge’s conclusion did not dispute the plain language of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government, but he insists that the District is not a state, and is, thus, not subject to the prohibition.

This is ridiculous, of course, since such a conclusion would imply, by extension, that District residents are not subject to any protection under the Constitution.

The real contest here is one between activist judges, those who amend the Constitution by judicial diktat rather than its clearly prescribed method stipulated in Article V, and constructionist judges, those who properly render legal interpretation based on the Constitution’s “original intent.”

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...” In other words, nothing in the Constitution gives judges the right to declare the Constitution means anything beyond the scope of its plain language.
__________________________________

However, activist judges, including those among generations of High Court justices, have historically construed the Second Amendment through a pinhole, while viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens.

For example, though the First Amendment plainly says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” judicial activists interpret this plain language to mean a public school coach can’t offer a simple prayer before a game.

Equally absurd, they argue that the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause means burning the American flag, exploiting women for “adult entertainment,” or using taxpayer dollars to fund works of “art” such as a crucifix immersed in a glass of human waste.

If these same judicial despots misconstrued the Second Amendment as broadly as they do the first, Americans would have nukes to defend themselves from noisy neighbors.

The appeals case regarding the constitutionality of DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is not about crime prevention, or whether the District is subject to prohibitions in the Bill of Rights. It is about the essence of our Constitution’s most important assurance that all Americans have the right to defend themselves against both predatory criminals and tyrannical governments. It is about the need for the High Court to reaffirm this right and stop the incremental encroachment of said right by infringements like that in the District, or more egregious encroachments like those found within the Feinstein-Schumer gun-control act
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=270 .

Of self-government’s “important principles,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is [the peoples’] right and duty to be at all times armed.” Indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Legacy of the Reagan Revolution

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan comments on The Patriot Post: “I want to tell you how grateful I am for all you have done for our nation. Ronnie felt, as do I, that much of his administration’s success at home and abroad was due, in part, to your efforts. The President was, and all Americans remain, deeply indebted to you.”


GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

News from the Swamp: Open season on spending

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) recently opined that the country could never afford all of her ideas should she — heaven forbid — be elected President. Indeed, it is estimated that ideas (from healthcare to college-tuition subsidies) floated by the various Socialist, er, Democrat candidates for president could cost about $700 billion over four years and raise top tax rates to 50 percent or more. That would put the tax burden for Americans at seventh in the developed world, up from 21st, according to the Tax Foundation. The worst part is, all Democrats have to do is let President Bush’s tax cuts expire for a large portion of this economic nightmare to become reality.

Meanwhile, after nearly a year in control of Congress, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate don’t have much to show for their “leadership.” They cry that President Bush is standing in the way of their high-priced legislation. President Bush, for his part, seems to have suddenly found his backbone when it comes to slowing spending. As Democrats have repeatedly passed bills for billions more than requested, the President has issued several vetoes, including his most recent one that killed a $606-billion bill funding education, health and labor programs, as usual, loaded with pork. He’s insisting that spending bills get to his desk one at a time and not be over budget. It’s too bad that the President didn’t play hardball when his own GOP was spending money hand over fist, but better late than never. As we move closer to the presidential election, his newfound fiscal discipline will be fresh in the voters’ minds, offering a stark contrast to the tax-and-spend liberals who seek to redistribute our hard-earned income.
_________________________________

In the House: AMT quick fix

By a 216-193 margin, the House passed a $78-billion bill to protect families from falling into the clutches of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) this year. Class warfare was bitterly waged during the debate as Democrats worked to offset the tax break with higher taxes for hedge-fund and private-equity investors. By liberal definition, these are Americans who can “afford” to have their income confiscated for redistribution. In the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) changed course to push a one-year patch with no offsets, but it looks as though that will fail. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) noted that he is uncomfortable with the offsetting tax hikes being levied so heavily on one industry. In the House, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is offering to end the AMT entirely
http://archive.PatriotPost.US/pub/07-44_Digest/page-4.php , but he plans to slip in a $1-trillion tax hike on corporations and financiers. After all, simply scrapping the AMT would leave the government with less revenue and liberals with less of taxpayers’ money to waste on social-engineering programs.

New & notable legislation

Lobbyists for major drug manufacturers racked up a $19-million tab in the last 12 months, with much of that money going toward quashing legislation that would speed generic drugs to market. Currently, major drug manufacturers offer producers of generics lucrative licensing arrangements and large payoffs to keep generic drugs off the market for a time. A bill in the Senate would ban this practice, known as “reverse payments,” but the legislation is now stalled. Legislators now are trying to come up with a solution that will ban anticompetitive settlements without putting a stop to the kinds of arrangements that benefit consumers.

An energy bill has been stalled in conference over differences in how the House and Senate view ethanol. The House version taxes oil to subsidize ethanol production, while the Senate version mandates an increase in production to 30 billion gallons annually by 2020, and neither chamber likes the other’s approach. What is really a mystery, though, is why they all can’t just agree that ethanol is already wreaking havoc on corn prices and water supplies (ethanol production requires massive amounts of water). On top of that, ethanol doesn’t exactly live up to its billing for performance. For this bill to stall permanently would be a blessing.

From the Left: Clinton’s rough campaign week

Sen. Hillary Clinton has eclipsed her rivals for the White House in terms of earmark spending, totaling over $500 million in successful requests. She has attached her name to more spending amendments than even Joe Biden (D-DE) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), fellow big spenders with decades of seniority over Clinton. She even outspent Barack Obama (D-IL), whose $40 million in earmarks seems a bit puzzling since his Illinois colleague and supporter Dick Durbin sits on the Appropriations Committee. Clinton’s haul comes in part from her incessant networking and involving herself in as many pieces of legislation as she can. Her being a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn’t hurt either.

Hillary Clinton has other problems too: A college sophomore admitted to asking a planted question at a Clinton campaign event. The student, an undecided voter, was approached by Clinton handlers before the event and told to ask a question about the environment. The student told CNN that she was not the only person who asked a planted question. Of course, Clinton expressed shock and dismay about the arranged questions, no one in her campaign admitted to knowing about the practice and no one went on record to say that it would not happen again. Classic Clinton.

In a humorous campaign moment, as Hillary turned to leave a news conference in Iowa on Saturday, the row of U.S. flags behind her started to fall. Several staffers and the senator herself reached to grab them before they hit the ground. Clinton’s brilliant analysis was, “I think that the bases are not weighted enough.” Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh quipped, “This is either an omen for her or for us. I’m not sure which.”

Nepotism becoming the American way

The Founding Fathers were quite proud of eschewing the trappings of hereditary monarchy, but political dynasties are rather common on the American scene these days, and a fair number of voters don’t seem to mind or care. Had John and Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, it is possible that Robert also would have served in the White House. There has been either a Bush or a Dole on every GOP presidential ticket since 1976. If Hillary Clinton were to win two terms in the White House (perish the thought), America would face 28 straight years of being run by either a Bush or a Clinton.

Grover Norquist, leader of Americans for Tax Reform, is about to propose a constitutional amendment that would prevent family members from succeeding each other to elected or appointed office. Although Hillary Clinton would not be affected by this amendment if it were ratified because she is not technically succeeding her husband, it is Norquist’s intention to stir a debate about her candidacy.
___________________________________

Campaign watch: Socialist Security

Lately, Democrats have taken to showcasing the hallmark courage overflowing their party’s ranks. For instance, Senator Clinton has boldly unveiled her plan to fix the looming train wreck that is Social Security — namely, to dodge unveiling a plan to fix Social Security. Who knew? One-upping this bawdy exhibition of true grit, Senator Obama, presented his own daring strategy. His plan? “Tax the rich!” Brilliant! Of course, by “rich” he means you, through raising the payroll tax cap to get at even more of your income. How “innovative.” An added bonus: deepening the eventual crisis by reducing tax receipts, but that’s a story for another day. Looks like this is shaping up to be yet another election cycle where Democrats show up with knives to an intellectual gunfight.

In contrast, wielding a belt-fed minigun at that gunfight is former Senator Fred Thompson
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=550 , whose multifaceted plan to overhaul Social Security leaves intact benefits for those currently nearing retirement (age 57 and older), while indexing benefits to inflation for younger workers. These workers would also have the opportunity to contribute up to two percent of their monthly wages into a government-matched personal retirement account (similar to a 401k plan). The idea is to give American workers at least some measure of personal control over an otherwise socialized retirement system. As for displays of courage, since Thompson is the first contender offering a detailed game plan to fix Social Security, he gets our nod for actual bravery.

McCain’s campaign reform

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tangled with the regulation of free speech this week on the presidential campaign trail. McCain, as readers will recall, crafted the unconstitutional Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 as a means of getting undue money and influence out of politics. As we predicted, this ill-conceived legislation amounts to little more than incumbent protection. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America ran a TV ad campaign on the senator’s behalf in South Carolina, which triggered predictable (and much-deserved) cries of hypocrisy from all corners, including Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. McCain has asked the Foundation to stop running the South Carolina ads, despite the free exercise of speech involved and despite the benefit to his struggling campaign. After all, McCain can’t have any undue influence coming from “the shadows.” Somehow, this strikes us as poetic justice.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: Al-Qa’ida skedaddles

As we reported last week, an unusual silence has fallen across the front pages and airwaves of the Leftmedia as the news from Iraq continues to improve and American troops continue to rout the enemy. Ignored or buried by the MSM are reports of improving conditions all across Iraq since the start of the U.S. troop surge, such as U.S. military fatalities falling more than 60 percent from June to October, as did Iraqi civilian deaths. Mortar and small arms attacks by insurgents on coalition forces in October were the lowest in almost two years. Additionally, due to the improving security situation, Iraqi officials plan to reduce checkpoints and ease curfews around Baghdad, where street life and public markets are once again beginning to bustle. Most important, in the once volatile Anbar province, Sunni leaders say that al-Qa’ida is “almost defeated.”

While not yet complete victory, and with much work yet to be done, the winds of war have indeed started blowing in a direction favorable to the U.S. , much to the consternation of the Surrender-crats who would, treasonously, rather see U.S. troops lose than acknowledge any kind of victory led by this particular Commander in Chief.

Warfront with Democratistan

The Democrat-controlled Congress, which swept into power a year ago with dreams of losing the Iraq war, has now seen 40 — that’s right, forty — bills aimed at limiting the President’s ability to direct the war go down in flames. Only one of the 40 made it out of Congress to the President’s desk, where it died a quick death by veto. You might think that even liberals could learn eventually, but on Thursday Nancy Pelosi (D-Code Pink) and friends passed yet another bill linking war funding to a December 2008 “end of combat operations”  — or in plain language, surrender. Democrats in the Senate plan to force an actual filibuster if Republicans don’t cooperate.

The Democrats can thank their “leadership” that tied them to the most vocal, irrational and over-estimated force in modern American politics — the Net Nuts of MoveOn.org, DailyKos, et al.  — for their current unhappy situation. Faced on one side with a howling mob that will settle for nothing less than the President’s head on a spear, and on the other by an American population that will not countenance abject surrender, the Demos are left to continue making impotent gestures that will appease the Angry Left while achieving nothing. Apparently, Pelosi and crew haven’t noticed that we are winning.
____________________________________

To throw another monkey wrench in the war effort, Democrats put out a report this week with the ridiculous claim that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would cost $3.5 trillion. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. H. James Saxton (R-NJ) both attacked the report for its methodology and factual errors. To date, $804 billion has been appropriated.

Profiles of valor: Navy Corpsman Chiarini

On 10 February 2006, Navy Hospital Corpsman Joshua Chiarini was serving his third tour of duty in Iraq with the 1st Platoon, 2nd Marine Division when a roadside bomb hit the lead Humvee in his convoy. The Marines in the convoy immediately took up defensive positions, dodging heavy small-arms fire and enduring another bomb blast. Chiarini left the protection of his Humvee, the third in the convoy, and, dodging enemy fire, raced to care for injured Marines, often with only one arm as he returned fire with the other. After ensuring the safety of the whole team, Chiarini fully joined the battle, using M-16 fire to eliminate numerous jihadis.

Chiarini was a member of 30 convoys struck by roadside bombs and suicide bombers during his time in Iraq. He treated 100 wounded Marines, losing not a single one. For his service, he received the Silver Star on 22 October 2007.

Immigration front: Spitzer gives up

New York Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer has thrown in the towel on his plan to issue drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens
http://archive.PatriotPost.US/pub/07-44_Digest/page-3.php . Not that he actually admitted it was a bad idea. Instead he played the blame game. “Nothing reflects the results of hyper-partisanship more than the current immigration debate, which has become so toxic that any time a practical proposal is put forward, it is shot down before it even can be weighed on its merits. The consequences of this fearmongering is paralysis,” he moaned. Lest there be any confusion, the only folks who Spitzer finds to be “hyper-partisan” are conservatives who want border security and no amnesty
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=534 . We will grant Spitzer one point, however: “The federal government has lost control of its borders. It has allowed millions of undocumented immigrants to enter our country and now has no solution to deal with it.”

Finally, after Hillary Clinton supported the idea and then opposed it all in the same debate, her campaign clarified the next day by supporting Gov. Spitzer. After the Governor canned the idea this week, Hillary announced that she supported him. Barack Obama’s campaign is taking full advantage of Hillary’s missteps, with a spokesman saying, “When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easy to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them.” Ouch.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Income Redistribution: Countering class warfare

Defying the unending political rhetoric bemoaning American economic inequality, a recent study by the U.S. Treasury Department found upward economic mobility to be alive and well in the United States. After tracking the changes in income levels on 96,700 income-tax returns from 1996-2005 for individuals over the age of 25, the study found that 58 percent of Americans who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had, by 2005, advanced to a higher income group. Almost 25 percent had moved into a middle- or upper-middle income group, and more than five percent had actually made the leap to the highest income group. Furthermore, almost 50 percent of those in the second-lowest income group advanced at least to a middle-income group, while only 17 percent dropped to a lower group. So since 1996, more than half of Americans in the lower-income bracket have experienced upward economic mobility. Finally, the group that experienced the greatest growth in income was the lowest quintile — income grew by 90 percent. By contrast, the highest quintile grew by only ten percent.

This report comes while another study focusing on income mobility between generations and race was released by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The Pew study, which followed 2,367 people since 1968, including 730 blacks, maintains that while two thirds of Americans are upwardly mobile, many blacks actually dropped from middle class to poor. Interestingly, this drop closely coincides with the federal War on Poverty — i.e., the government’s “salvation plan” for poor black Americans. It seems that while the free market allows all Americans to pursue and achieve the American dream, the government has proven to be the greatest barrier to equal opportunity for all.
_______________________________________

Oil: Textbook case of supply and demand

Americans face a jump in average gasoline prices of over 20 cents per gallon in the coming weeks. Prices are already 80 cents higher than a year ago and have gone up 25 cents since October as the prices of crude oil (about half the cost of delivering gasoline to your car) approached $100 per barrel. The Saudis have been reluctant to allow OPEC to increase output, even as demand is likely to increase from the United States for the holiday travel season. The real story, of course, is the exponential increase in demand from developing countries such as China and India.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may very well increase output in the near future, easing some of our pain at the pump, but OPEC isn’t the only source of increased supply. Hillary Clinton recently urged the President to lessen the effect of higher oil prices on the American economy by tapping into the U.S. petroleum stockpile. She apparently doesn’t join her leftist comrades in believing, as one commentator put it, that the law of supply and demand is “some right-wing fantasy.”

Of course, she seems to be forgetting the fact that her party has worked tirelessly to reduce our supply of domestic oil. An estimated total of 131 billion barrels of oil lie ready for use in our country — but countless federal regulations prevent their use, mostly for misguided environmental concerns. Oil companies have shown that they are able to drill for oil in environmentally sensitive ways. The federal government should authorize drilling in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska rather than depending upon the whims of OPEC or worse, Hillary Clinton.

Regulatory Commissars: CO2 limits for all

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sounded eerily like a Democrat (again) this week when he threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency until it grants a waiver under the Clean Air Act for California’s clean-air laws that limit CO2 emissions from automobiles. “Our future depends on us taking action against global warming right now,” the governor declared. “We sue again, and sue again, and sue again until we get it.” California already has been given nearly 40 waivers under the Clean Air Act in order to enact air-quality measures that are stricter than national standards. Schwarzenegger’s move would go one step further: It would require that automobiles have to meet even higher fuel-efficiency standards than the feds stipulate. In other words, Detroit would have to make all its automobiles comply with California’s standards, even those that would not be sold or driven there. Now don’t get us wrong — we’re all for federalism, but Schwarzenegger would have all Americans pay for California’s wacko-environmentalist schemes. If he really wanted to clean up the air in California, he could just raise the gasoline tax. But that wouldn’t make him very popular with his constituents, would it?

Also on the Left Coast, the Ninth Circus Court struck down the new fuel standards for light trucks and SUVs released in 2006 — because they weren’t stringent enough. Apparently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration failed to assess greenhouse-gas emissions sufficiently or pacify environmentalists’ concerns that trucks are treated differently from cars.

Government healthcare costs money

Under the rubric of “figures lie and liars figure,” supporters of a massive government takeover of the healthcare system now suggest elimination of private profits and insurer administrative expenses will somehow pay for the cost of covering all the uninsured. These phantom savings are based on a distortion created by the tax code, which requires private companies to include indirect costs in their reporting while the government excludes them. As demonstrated in a new study by Benjamin Zycher from the Manhattan Institute, the real economic costs of moving everyone to government coverage may be more than twice those of today’s private markets, not to mention the crucial fact that government healthcare contains no substantive costs-limits on over-consumerism, which may result in a $61-billion shortage (assuming the cost of medical goods and services do not rise) unless the government substantially raises taxes.

Under socialized healthcare, society’s productive wage earners will eventually tire of paying for the free-lunch healthcare promised by politicians just as they have tired of paying for other failed government programs. The smarter choice is to avoid government healthcare and its attendant lack of investment in advanced medical technologies, chronic underpayments to providers, rationing of services-driven intrusiveness into private health information based on select demographics, epidemic waiting lists, and widespread lack of provider availability. By disingenuously citing misleading statistics, liberal advocates of socialized medicine citing economic non-sequiturs once again have failed to contribute meaningfully to the healthcare debate.
________________________________

CULTURE

Around the nation: Massachusetts v. free speech

Last week, the Massachusetts legislature took another chunk out of free speech by requiring that abortion protesters stand at least 35 feet from the target clinic, making the new law the toughest restriction in the country. Such “buffer zones” came in vogue after a man killed two women and wounded five at two abortion clinics in Massachusetts in 1994. Colorado, Montana and several cities have similar laws. “The basic goal of the bill is to make sure patients and staff can enter reproductive-health facilities without being obstructed, intimidated and harassed,” said state rep. Carl Sciortino, Jr. , a Democrat sponsor of the bill. “Current law is completely unenforceable and did not protect patients and staff the way it intended.” Current law required that protesters could not get within six feet of a person in an 18-foot zone outside the clinic. The New York Times reports, “The authorities said it was difficult to enforce.” You don’t say. Apparently, 35 feet will be easier to measure than 18. And not only that, but there’s no possible way anyone could harm another person from 35 feet away. No, this bill is simply another effort to silence pro-life advocates who often want nothing more than to communicate love and sympathy for a woman about to make a terrible choice
http://PatriotShop.US/product_info.php?cPath=45&products_id=84 .

Faith and Family: Express divorce

Las Vegas has its drive-through wedding chapels. Now Broward County, Florida, has its own online divorce court... almost. A new “service” by the Broward County Clerk of Courts allows residents to start the paperwork to file for divorce without leaving their homes. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “The self-service system is intended for people who can’t afford an attorney or don’t want to spend the money on one.” Furthermore, as Kris Mazzeo, director of the circuit/civil family division of the Clerk of Courts, explains, “People come downtown and it’s expensive to park. [Oh, the humanity!] If we can keep them from making extra trips to the courthouse, it would be great for them.”

In reality, what would be “great” is a culture that holds marriage “in honor” (Hebrews 13:4), treats the marriage vows made before God as something more serious than a pinky swear, and views the violation of the marriage covenant as infinitely more complex, and incalculably more consequential, than paying a parking ticket.

’Non Compos Mentis’: Criminal negligence?

Climate changes, poor hardest hit. Or so warns the UN’s top climate officer, Yvo de Boer. Because global warming hurts poor people first and foremost, “Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible,” de Boer adds. He made the charges at the UN’s latest global-warming confab, where the fourth and final report this year was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore
http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=564 . The goal, of course, is to craft a new “global strategy” beginning in 2012 with the expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Surely, Kyoto would have been a smashing success if only the U.S. had signed on. Apparently, however, things are only getting worse, so the obvious solution to the global-warming alarmists is simply more of the same.

Frontiers of Junk Science: Cloning

Scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, working with Chinese colleagues, cloned 100 embryos from an adult male rhesus monkey, transferring them into 50 females using the same technique used to produce Dolly the sheep in 1996. An unfertilized egg’s nucleus was removed and replaced with another from an adult’s skin cell. Using electrical pulses, an embryonic clone of the skin-tissue donor was produced. Although successful on non-primate species, no one until now has been able to produce cloned embryos from adult-primate cells. The researchers will also demonstrate in the laboratory that stem cells have been extracted from these cloned embryos and developed into mature heart cells and brain neurons. Although no pregnancy has gone full-term, the research will be reported in the journal Nature.

Some fear that new techniques to improve cloning efficiency may increase attempts to create (and destroy) human embryos for research purposes, or result in adult skin cells being used to clone humans. A recent UN study recommended banning human cloning except for therapeutic research to treat diseases. Although most governments oppose human cloning, negotiations collapsed in 2005 due to disagreements over therapeutic research.
___________________________________

And last...

“Paris Hilton is being praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India.” So gushed the Associated Press story that, of course, made the front page of celebrity-infatuated FoxNews.com this week. Hilton was quoted as saying, “The elephants get drunk all the time. It is becoming really dangerous. We need to stop making alcohol available to them.” The media ate this up, of course — what better way to get Hilton’s picture back on TV than to say she’s concerned about this issue? And she is somewhat of an expert on binge drinking. Alas, in a corrective, the AP reported, “Lori Berk, a publicist for Hilton, said she never made any comments about helping drunken elephants in India.”

The problem of drunken elephants is evidently a rather serious problem in India, however, with these partying pachyderms somehow acquiring access to homemade rice beer and rampaging through villages. Environmentalists blame the elephants’ boorish behavior on the lack of habitat “due to wanton destruction of forests.” That, or it’s George Bush’s fault
http://PatriotPost.US/humor/blamebush.asp .

Veritas vos Liberabit — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)