nChrist
|
 |
« on: June 28, 2010, 09:47:09 PM » |
|
________________________________________ The Patriot Post Brief 6-28-2010 From The Federalist Patriot Free Email Subscription ________________________________________
The Foundation
"Judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men." --John Adams
Hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan begin this week Re: The Left
"Pursuant to Elena Kagan's expressed enthusiasm for confirmation hearings that feature intellectual snap, crackle and pop, here are some questions the Senate Judiciary Committee can elate her by asking: -- Regarding campaign finance 'reforms': If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem? -- If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that? -- If the problem is the 'appearance' of corruption, how do you square the First Amendment with Congress restricting speech in order to regulate how things 'appear' to unspecified people? -- Incumbent legislators are constantly tinkering with the rules regulating campaigns that could cost them their jobs. Does this present an appearance of corruption? -- Some persons argue that our nation has a 'living' Constitution; the court has spoken of 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against 'changeability' and stressing 'the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution,' says 'its whole purpose is to prevent change -- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress,' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot.' Is he wrong?" --columnist George Will
For the Record
"I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- less crime. How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news. This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly. But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives. ... Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels. What happened? John Lott, in 'More Guns, Less Crime,' explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed. A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed. ... McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that [this] week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it. If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America. ... Striking down those laws will probably save lives." --columnist John Stossel
Liberty
"Remember the popular motto 'What would Jesus do?' which was invoked by many Christians as a moral guidepost for daily living? President Barack Obama more likely adheres to 'What would Saul Alinsky do?' as most recently evidenced by his apparent defiance of a federal court order on his moratorium on offshore drilling. Politico reports that the drilling companies who secured the court order blocking the moratorium say the administration indeed is going to defy the court order. I'm quite sure that Alinsky would applaud this move: If at first you don't succeed through proper legal channels, proceed anyway, because nothing is more important than the radical ends you seek, including the means that must be trampled in the process. Of course, shrewd Alinskyites like Obama will always have a plausible excuse for their deceitful tactics. In this case, they are alleging newly discovered facts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he intends to reimpose the drilling moratorium based on information that wasn't 'fully developed' in May, when the six-month moratorium was imposed. Quite convenient." --columnist David Limbaugh
Government
"Our government is supposed to be 'a government of laws and not of men.' If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it. But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without 'due process of law.' Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution. If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government." --economist Thomas Sowell
Reader Comments
"I just made a small donation to your wonderful organization, and I just wanted to tell you how it saddens me that I am unable to give you a much larger amount. We, like many other American families are suffering the monetary effects from the Obama Hope 'n' Change catastrophe. Please know that I will continue to pray for you, your families, and your organization through these difficult times. I pray that God will supply your every need." --Paul
"I am a United States Marine currently serving in Afghanistan. Please allow me to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to EVERY MEMBER of your staff for the hard work and diligence in protecting the country for generations to come. We'll take care of fighting the enemy out here on the front; you take care of fighting on the home front, and together we will restore our nation. May God bless you and yours!" --Semper Fidelis, Michael
|