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

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
The right of the People... shall not be infringed

By Mark Alexander

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is no more important constitutional issue than that of defending the plain language and original intent of the Second Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

It is no small irony that the latest assault on the Second Amendment is taking place in our nation’s capital. The Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in June, and that decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the “interpretation” of our Constitution’s most important provision.

And make no mistake, the newly-emboldened Left, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is gunning for those rights. Obama supports the D.C. regulations because he, “...wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms... The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.”

Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?

Of course, in addition to serving on the Woods Fund board with Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which since 2000, has given more than $15 Million to radical gun control organizations and is closely linked to the Soros Open Society Institute, which advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Indeed, the Second Amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic,” and those who fail to support it as such, and reject detractors like Obama, do so at great peril to themselves and the liberty of future generations of Americans.

The subject of this dispute is the Washington, DC, “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which banned handguns and mandated that all other firearms, including shotguns and rifles, be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock,” ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.” D.C.’s FCRA actually prohibits a person who owns a legal handgun (pre-1976 grandfathered one) from transporting the handgun from one room to another in his or her own home.

Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem - that of socio-pathology and the Leftists who nurture it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.)
______________________________

Will that decision comport with the Constructionist view (original intent) of our Constitution, or will it be another adulterated interpretation of the so-called “Living Constitution”, the ACLU’s perverted distortion of our Constitution by its cadre of judicial activists?

It is our hope that the Court will affirm the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the District’s ordinance banning possession of handguns is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Though every constitutional constructionist knows that the Second Amendment assures an individual right to keep and bear arms, militias being the people, the ACLU’s “Living Constitution” mob argues that “the people” means “the state militia,” as outlined on the ACLU’s website under “Gun Control”: “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias. ... The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns.”

Well, they may believe that, but in the inimitable words of Founder John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It seems the lawyers at the ACLU are always viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens, while they view the Second through a pinhole. Alas, they have it backwards.

In the 1788 Massachusetts Convention debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Founder Samuel Adams stated: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

That same year, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (No. 46), “The ultimate authority... resides in the people alone. ... 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.”

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote: “Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.”

To understand how the right to bear arms was understood in proper context as an individual right, consider some of the earliest state constitutional provisions both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights: Pennsylvania - That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state (1776); Vermont - [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777); Kentucky - [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). Tennessee - [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) and, Connecticut - Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818 ).

These are not references to state guard units as the ACLU insists.

Though the Supreme Court rarely referenced the Second Amendment in the first hundred years of our nation’s existence, because its meaning was understood, in one early reference, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), the Court noted, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union...the full liberty...to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” The implication is that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal right for U.S. citizens.

Of course, Washington, D.C. is not the only major city violating the Second Amendment. New York City has restrictive gun regulations, but consider this comment from Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, from an 1821 commentary on American life: “In both New-England, and New-York, every man is permitted, and in some, if not all the States, is required to possess fire arms.”

Times have indeed changed, and not in the interest of liberty.

If you know some of those Chardonnay-sipping elitists who insist that guns should be banned, get them a few of these “Gun Free Household” stickers for their front and back doors.

Speaking of Chardonnay, here’s an interesting fact: Alcohol-related traffic deaths outnumber homicides with guns by a wide margin. In the latest year of record, there were 12,253 homicides with firearms (many of which involved alcohol) but 16,885 alcohol related highway fatalities. (Perhaps the ACLU should be fighting for a five-day waiting period to purchase alcohol?)
_______________________________

Here’s another inconvenient truth for the Leftist gun-grabbers: The U.S. ranks 41st in the world in homicides but first in the world in private gun ownership (39 percent of households). The firearm homicide rate in the United States was 4.17 per 100,000 in 2005. But Israel, which is awash in so-called “assault weapons,” has a total homicide rate of 2.62 per 100,000.

The National Institute of Justice estimates that Americans use firearms in self-defense approximately 2.73 million times per year. While firearms are used in 67 percent of illegal homicides in the United States, they are used in 99 percent of justifiable homicides. In other words, bad guys use guns sometimes, but good guys use guns almost all the time.

Put another way, smart guys protect their families with “Second Amendment Security”.

On this point, I would argue that gun ownership is not only a right, but a duty and obligation of all Patriots. After all, we are the Militia.

(For good reference pages on the Second Amendment, see Sources on the Second Amendment and Brief Amicus Curiae in DC v Heller, both by my colleague Eugene Volokh, Professor, UCLA Law School. Read Charlton Heston’s comments on the Second Amendment, 1997.)

Quote of the week

“For more than two decades, I’ve opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in ‘modern’ America. The Second Amendment isn’t some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers. Self-reliance is the ethic that made America great, and our Founders understood that. They knew there would be circumstances where Americans might need to use firearms to protect themselves and their families... The clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners - and those who make and sell firearms - for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun activists demand yet another restriction on the Second Amendment... After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians ‘cling to guns and religion’ out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama’s derision. ‘She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment,’ he said. ‘Like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday...packin’ a six shooter!’ Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns... The next President will appoint literally hundreds of federal judges, and is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices.”  - John McCain

The BIG lie

“We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions. I think there’s a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier... I am not in favor of concealed weapons. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer... I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.”  - Barack Hussein Obama on “thoughtful” adulteration of our Constitution.

Non-Compos Mentis

“While I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members... I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms.”  - Obama on “common-sense” adulteration of our Constitution.

On cross-examination...

“I knew Obama during the mid-1990s. The first time I introduced myself to him he said ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ I responded ‘Yes, I guess so.’ He simply responded, ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”’  - Professor John Lott, PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
News from the Swamp: McClellan’s book deal

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has attached his name and reputation to a juicy tell-all book about his time serving in the Bush administration. Titled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, it has the Leftmedia goo-goo-eyed at the new DC superstar author when only two years ago he was, to quote one blogger, “the jerk at the podium.” McClellan, previously critical of just this type of book, is now completely high-minded about it. He wants, after all, to “hopefully change Washington for the better.” His primary charge is that the Bush administration waged a “political propaganda campaign” in the lead-up to the Iraq War. It quickly became obvious, however, that McClellan’s “disillusionment” came hand in hand with his book deal. He never complained at the time, though the book probably gives a clue as to why he was fired.

It’s no secret that President Bush is no “Great Communicator.” Convincing the nation of the necessity of the Iraq War, however, is hardly propaganda. After all, he is the commander in chief, charged with defense of the United States.

Lost in the fireworks is the fact that Ari Fleischer, another former Bush administration press secretary, also published a memoir about his time in the White House - Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House. As the Media Research Center points out, “Unlike McClellan, Fleischer did not take pot shots at his former employer, but did include some telling examples of the liberal bias of press. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, while McClellan’s yet-to-be-officially-published book has already become the liberal media’s favorite story of the day... Fleischer’s memoir generated virtually no broadcast or cable news coverage, and no front-page coverage in the nation’s newspapers.”
__________________________________

In the Senate: Broken promises

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) failed to live up to his promise of confirming three judges before the Memorial Day recess. Color us shocked. Not only that, but Reid, in typical Democrat fashion, casts the blame on others, specifically, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell isn’t taking it lying down: “I will be responding appropriately,” he said. “There will be reprisals and they will begin after the recess.” In the last two years of Bill Clinton’s administration, Senate Republicans confirmed 15 judges, including two radical liberals. Foolishly, Republicans made the mistake of expecting Democrats to behave as Republicans this year - again. Democrats thus far have allowed only eight judicial nominees to gain confirmation in the last 18 months. Highly qualified nominees such as Peter Keisler, who received the American Bar Association’s highest rating, are left to twist in the wind. Keisler has been waiting for nearly two years. The question now is, how will McConnell keep his word?

Meanwhile, The Hill newspaper reports that of the 23 Republican Senate seats up for election this November, 11 Democrats are now in the lead or within the margin of error, including the race for Minority Leader McConnell’s seat. If the GOP wants to avoid a 20-seat deficit, they’d better wake up... and fast.

Campaign watch: Hillary’s mouth trips her up (again)

For all their lauded political acumen, the Clintons have a nasty habit of getting tripped up by their own anatomy. For Bill, it’s his roving, er, eye; for Hillary, it’s her mouth. This time she caused a stir by making a comment that was widely interpreted to mean that she’s staying in the presidential race because Barack Obama might get assassinated: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” Kennedy was in fact still campaigning for the nomination when he was assassinated in June 1968, yet her ill-considered remarks were picked up by Obama’s perennially thin-skinned campaign and by the media, which roundly scolded Clinton. While she may have been taken out of context, she should have known better than to bring up Kennedy’s name in the manner that she did. “I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election,” she whined. In at least one respect, there really can be no comparison between this year’s cycle and those of ‘68 or ‘92, because those presidential contests did not start a year-and-a-half early.

Obama’s campaign gaffes continue

Both John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned in New Mexico on Memorial Day, but only McCain could speak to veterans with the sincerity of a life spent honorably in military service as part of a long-standing military tradition. Obama had to lie about the military service of his relatives, or maybe he just got his facts screwed up, in which case he has shamed the memory of his great-uncle. Obama claimed that his uncle was among the troops who liberated Auschwitz in 1945. His handlers corrected the record afterward; Obama was making reference to his great-uncle Charlie Payne. Now we always believed that Obama was a closet communist, but is it really possible that his great-uncle served in the Red Army? It was the Soviets who liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans. It turns out that Payne was part of an American regiment that liberated the Buchenwald labor camp, an action no less heroic or humanitarian. And did Louis Farrakhan know that Barack’s great-uncle was liberating Jews prior to endorsing the Illinois senator? In all seriousness, Payne deserves our respect for his service, and he deserves more respect than his great-nephew has given him. Obama was simply careless in his attempt to connect with a military tradition for which he has no respect or understanding.

Obama’s second gaffe occurred when the freshman senator waxed eloquent about those who have served our country, saying, “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” He saw fallen heroes in the audience? Does Barack understand what Memorial Day means? And if they were dead, are they registered to vote in Chicago?

Demos itchy over unseated delegates

The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democrat National Committee will meet this weekend in Washington, DC, to perhaps decide the fate of Florida and Michigan’s wayward delegates. Open seats for what is generally a dry, by-the-book affair were snatched up in a matter of minutes when they became public, and large demonstrations by Clinton and Obama supporters are expected. Obama is urging his supporters not to make a scene as he tries to play the role of the healer who will bring the party back together. Clinton’s campaign, however, does not intend to play this one quietly. They hope to press the issue that all the delegates of Florida and Michigan should be counted despite the DNC’s earlier decision to count only half of them for those two states’ refusal to adhere to the national primary schedule.

While Bill and Hillary continue to complain that she is being railroaded, DNC attorneys have acknowledged that the committee has the authority to seat half the delegates of each state or seat all the delegates but allow each delegate only half a vote. They believe that Clinton’s wish to have all the delegates seated will not come to pass. If this is the case, then her campaign is truly finished, because the only chance she has of keeping within fighting distance of Obama is to be awarded Florida and Michigan in total.

In a related story, a federal judge tossed out the lawsuit of Florida political consultant Victor DiMaio, who contended that the DNC engaged in discrimination by not counting his primary vote.
___________________________________

The Libertarians are coming!

Former Georgia Republican congressman Bob Barr emerged from a crowded field to become the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president. Like all other Libertarian presidential candidates before him, Barr promises to run to win the White House, despite his remarkably low chance of even making a dent in the popular vote in November. Truth be told, Barr is probably the most recognizable Libertarian candidate in years, having spent four terms as a Republican in the House. Once counted on to provide solid support for conservative causes, Barr denounced many votes he made in Congress to secure the nomination on the fifth ballot for a party known to be more liberal than conservative on many issues. Barr’s renouncing key conservative issues like the federal marriage amendment and the Patriot Act will likely harm his ability to steal conservative votes from McCain in November. Also, Libertarians in general have never done better than one percent of the national vote in a presidential election.

NATIONAL SECURITY
IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear weapons

In news that will surprise no one except Jimmy Carter, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported this week that Iran was not meeting its UN Security Council obligations under Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803, all of which deal with Iran’s nuclear program. UNSCR 1803 gave Iran 90 days to provide additional information about its program and clear up unresolved technical issues. Needless to say, Iran did not exactly meet that requirement. The IAEA report described Iran’s ongoing “willful lack of cooperation” about its nuclear program since 2003. The IAEA’s Board of Governors will convene next week in Vienna to go over Iran’s status and recommend further action to the Security Council.

With oil already topping $130 a barrel, and with China’s huge energy needs and veto power, it is unlikely that the UNSC will call for an oil embargo on Iranian exports. Thus the “international community” will continue stumbling on toward that day - approaching with greater speed than they may wish to acknowledge - when Iran possesses nuclear weapons. On that day, the world will face a new and even more dangerous cold war against an adversary that believes in martyrdom and the cataclysmic return of a hidden Imam. The Europeans, whose soft power was supposed to have so much influence on Iran, will bear much of the blame and, appropriately, face the direst threat. What was that about “never again?”

We have observed before that while the military option should not be the first or only option, it must nonetheless be an option. Iran has now run almost five years off the clock without suffering serious harm. It is virtually a foregone conclusion that the next president will have to make a fateful decision: to stand back and allow Iran to field nuclear weapons, or take the only action that can stop it.

This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ awards

Jimmy Carter, fresh from his meetings with Hamas in April, gave Israel another poke in the eye last weekend, when he publicly stated the number of Israeli nuclear weapons, thereby breaking an unwritten code of silence that has been maintained by U.S. statesmen and diplomats for over 25 years concerning Israel’s nuclear capability. Not satisfied with causing problems for a close ally, Carter then claimed that the United States should talk directly to Iran and persuade the Iranian regime to drop its nuclear ambitions. Of course! Why didn’t we think of that? Carter said, “The United States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a non-military nuclear program. We’ve got to resume trading to show Iran we are friends.” Last time we checked, our Iranian “friends” were arming, training and funding the jihadis in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

This week’s ‘Braying Jackass’ award

“If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization.”  - Barack Obama on his Web site (“Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s first acts was to freeze Tehran’s efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as ‘a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans’.”  - Iranian-born journalist and author Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal)

Military Readiness: Marines cleared

Two Marine unit commanders were recently cleared of wrongdoing following an extensive investigation and a highly unusual Court of Inquiry into their response to a roadside bombing ambush in Afghanistan last year. Nineteen Afghan civilians were killed in the aftermath of the bombing, when the Marines reported being under small-arms fire from both sides of the road and returned fire accordingly. Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland decided not to bring charges after three weeks of testimony. The Court of Inquiry concluded that the Marines “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”

Quite a difference the facts make, especially considering the rush to judgment by the media in the days immediately following the ambush. Media second-guessing and outright perfidy in this war is commonplace - the Haditha Marines’ trial in the court of public opinion being a classic example. What wasn’t expected was the public apology of Colonel John Nicholson, the Army Commander in the area in question, as well as the $2,000 payoffs to the families of “innocent civilians” who were killed (while apparently firing on the Marines, we might add).

We have to ask, is Colonel Nicholson now “deeply, deeply ashamed” about his actions during the event, and is he now being persecuted by his “terrible, terrible mistake” in so rashly accusing the Marines of wrongdoing? We hope not, but we also hope he’s man enough to apologize to all the Marines involved and get back to doing what we pay him to do: namely, attack our enemies and not our own troops.
__________________________________

Profiles of valor: USMC LCpl. Cardenas

U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Moses Cardenas of the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion was on a mission near Rawah, Iraq, when his platoon was assaulted by a suicide bomber, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy fire from machine guns. In the ensuing fight, Cardenas’ sergeant was hit, leaving the Lance Corporal with a choice: Rescue his wounded comrade or wait for reinforcements. “He was my sergeant; I had to do something,” Cardenas recalls, so he ran more than 50 meters through enemy fire to give aid to Sgt. Randy Roedema, and was shot in the neck en route. He continued on in spite of his injury, and managed to administer first aid. He then pulled Roedema back to the convoy’s position, intermittently returning fire along the way. When he made it back to the convoy, Cardenas continued fighting with his fellow Marines until the situation was under control and medics could tend to the wounded. Four days after Roedema’s life was saved, his wife gave birth to their first child. For his outstanding bravery, Cardenas was awarded the Silver Star.

FARC’s leader assumes room temperature

After decades of war, the Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) appear to be on the verge of defeat. A spokesman for the FARC has confirmed the death of Manuel Marulanda, the terrorist organization’s founder and leader. While FARC claims Marulanda died of a heart attack, Colombian military officials believe he might have expired as a result of their bombardments. If that is the case, then Marulanda is the third FARC secretariat member to be killed in one month by Colombian security forces and their allies.

The situation in Colombia is a remarkable turnaround from six years ago, when FARC occupied a vast territory and threatened to overwhelm Bogota, the nation’s capital. The terrorist organization was enjoying an annual budget of $600 million, which came from kidnapping, extortion and narcotic sales. (Talk about windfall profits.) In desperation, Colombians elected law-and-order politician Alvaro Uribe as their president, and who immediately began working with the United States to eliminate FARC by increasing Colombia’s military strength, cutting off FARC finances, and intercepting terrorist communications. Today FARC is a shell of its former self, having been driven back into Colombia’s remote jungles, where fighters are deserting faster than FARC can recruit them. The deaths of three prominent military leaders have only accelerated this trend, and the sense in Colombia is that FARC will not be able to reconstitute itself into a formidable fighting force.

If a lesson can be learned from FARC’s demise, it is that free nations can win the War on Terror one battle at a time; that it takes time and perseverance to win; and that terrorists must be confronted with overwhelming force, not words. It is a lesson our elected officials would do well to remember as the United States military finishes off what is left of al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Court Jesters: Paper money discriminates

On 20 May, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that United States currency illegally discriminates against blind people. Noting the difficulty that blind people face in handling paper money, the court held that the federal Rehabilitation Act requires the federal government to change the currency. The majority discussed several methods of making paper money more readable to the blind, including changing the size of the bills and inserting Braille features to allow the blind to determine the denomination of their bank notes.

The dissent clearly stated what the majority could not grasp: There is no reasonable, effective and feasible method of changing the currency to accommodate the needs of the blind. The majority ignored evidence that its proposed changes do not work well, are prohibitively expensive and create numerous (and expensive) ancillary problems. To make matters worse, the court deliberately disregarded the substantial cost imposed on the private sector of the changes it demanded. Instead, it determined that the effect on vending machines and other such technical equipment is irrelevant.

Without question, the blind face difficulty in handling paper money. However, judges are not currency designers. A court-ordered change in the currency is a solution that is worse than the underlying problem.

Regulatory Commissars: Cap and trade

Is it possible to tax the economy itself? Well, the Left is trying. In a purported effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) have proposed a bill that creates what The Wall Street Journal calls “a new commodity - the right to create CO2”  - and then tax it.

Energy fuels our economy, and approximately 85 percent of this energy generates greenhouse gases, long considered natural byproducts of combustion. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 redefines these emissions as “allowances” to be given and auctioned by the government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the scheme would add as much as $304 billion to Uncle Sam’s coffers by 2013 and $1.9 trillion over the next decade (and both estimates are likely woefully low). Under this cap and trade system, the Feds would control both the number of allowances distributed and their recipients, but companies could sell or trade any spare allowances not used.

Senator Barbara “to the rescue” Boxer (D-CA), seeing but not acknowledging the tax for what it is, introduced an amendment to allocate $800 billion or more through 2050 to consumer tax relief - after all, the cost of the allowances would naturally be passed on to consumers. This relief, however, like the allowances themselves, would be distributed at the discretion of the government.

President Reagan once famously summarized government’s view of the economy thus, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” It seems a new “if” can be added: “If it doesn’t exist yet, create it... and then proceed with all of the above.”
_____________________________________

Michigan’s self-inflicted economic woes

Just a few short months ago, The Patriot predicted that the Michigan state legislature’s decision to raise income taxes and expand the sales tax to bail itself out of a growing budget crisis would backfire by driving jobs and residents out of the state. “This budget agreement is the right solution for Michigan,” Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm crowed at the time. “We prevented massive cuts to public education, healthcare and public safety while also making extensive government reforms and passing new revenue. With the state back on solid financial footing, we can turn our focus to the critical task of jump-starting our economy and creating new jobs.” Indeed, Granholm was so set on the tax hike that she shut down the state government until the legislature approved it.

Now, six months later, Michigan suffers from a 6.9-percent unemployment rate that is far above the national rate of five percent, and the Wolverine State has endured an 18-month recession. Reports are that roughly one third of estimated revenues from the $1.3-billion increase never materialized due to an already weakened economy, and word is there is a $350- to $550-million shortage for next year’s budget. So much for solid financial footing.

Meanwhile, an effort by Michigan voters in Redford Township to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon for his role in the tax hike was derailed last week when the Secretary of State ruled that over 7,000 of the nearly 16,000 signatures obtained on the petition were “invalid,” putting the measure 500 signatures short of what is required for it to be put before voters in August.

CULTURE
Around the nation: CA voters support what?

“Californians Support Gay Marriage: Poll.” So trumpeted a Reuters headline this week in the aftermath of the Supreme Court of California’s recent decision to overturn a voter-approved measure that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Of course, this is little more than Leftmedia Pollaganda - the effort to drive public opinion with opinion polls. To wit, the Reuters story doesn’t exactly reveal that Californians support same-sex marriage: “The Field Poll survey found 51 percent against approving a possible November ballot measure to prohibit gay marriage,” meaning a constitutional amendment. In other words, 51 percent oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but it does not necessarily follow that those same voters support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the poll had a “sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points to 5 percentage points, depending on the question.” Something tells us public policy shouldn’t be steered by polls. The new policy on marriage will take effect 17 June.

Meanwhile, in New York, Democrat Gov. David Paterson issued a directive that all state agencies begin recognizing same-sex marriages from other states - Massachusetts and California stand alone at this point - and Canada.

In Congress, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (H.J.Res. 89), which would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Faith and Family: Adoption report

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York-based nonprofit adoption advocacy and research organization, released a report this week on a federal law regarding adoption of minority children. Over the last decade, the report said, the Multiethnic Placement Act, which requires the downplay of race in adoptions, is not serving minority children well. The law promotes a color-blind approach for agencies receiving federal dollars, but apparently, some think being color-blind isn’t always good. The Institute’s report recommends permitting agencies to consider race when placing children with adoptive parents. “The idea of being color-blind is great, and we’d all like to get there,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Adoption Institute, “but the reality is that we live in a very race-conscious society, and that needs to be addressed. We can’t simply pretend that the problem doesn’t exist and leave it up to the child to cope.” We would suggest that this is a problem of culture, not race. “Black culture” largely has separated itself from mainstream American culture.

As for problems caused by considering race, the primary one is that minority children (particularly blacks) wait longer to be adopted. This reveals another culture problem: There are simply not enough complete black families out there, much less those willing to adopt a child. Black children number about 15 percent of youth, but nearly a third of all children in foster care. Meanwhile, the number of white families adopting black children has gone up each year since 1998.
_______________________________________

Climate change this week: Czech book

In light of skyrocketing energy prices, not to mention simple good stewardship of creation, we’re all in favor of conservation of energy and finding innovative new solutions to the problem. It’s the government control peddled by Al Gore and his minions that colors us “skeptics.” For example, some of Britain’s Members of Parliament are advocating a “carbon ration card” for every adult in the UK to use when paying for gas, airline tickets or household energy. Those who exceed their ration would be forced to buy carbon credits. We think someone had a few too many pints.

We’re not alone in our opposition to the agenda of climate-change alarmists. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has published a new book titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? in which he argues that the great danger facing the human race is the loss of freedom for a hoax. He compares climate alarmism with communism: “Like their [communist] predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality.” He added, “In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet.” Klaus has also extended several invitations to debate Al Gore, to no avail. “I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he’s not too much willing to make such a conversation,” Klaus said. Apparently Klaus hasn’t heard: “The debate is over,” according to Gore. Right.

And last...

The Associated Press reports, “First it was the film and the book. Now the next stop for Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is opera.” Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli was commissioned for the work to premiere at the Milan opera house in 2011. Word on the street is that the name will be modified to “An Inconvenient Aria.” All we can say is that nothing symbolizes Al Gore’s breathless warnings of a “planetary emergency” like a large woman in a Viking helmet belting out a lament. We’re hopeful though, that the climate emergency will indeed be over by the time the fat lady sings.

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.)