|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: August 26, 2013, 12:29:41 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Monday Brief 8-26-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
MLK's 'Dream' at 50
August 26, 2013
THE FOUNDATION
"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit." --James Madison
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
MLK's 'Dream' at 50
Tens of thousands of people descended on the National Mall Saturday for the coming 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream1" speech. In King's 1963 speech, he eloquently declared, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Unfortunately, that day has not yet come.
The biggest reason for that is the professional race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who arose from MLK's socialist ranks2 to keep the embers of racial animosity burning. Martin Luther King III, MLK's grandson, shamefully pointed to Trayvon Martin's death as evidence that "the task is not done." King also decried the Supreme Court's June ruling striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which the Court did because the law's formula for federal intervention in state election law hasn't been revised in 40 years. In many ways, that's the essence of the movement today -- it's still living in 1963.
Further evidence of that arrested development comes from Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department filed suit against Texas last week for allegedly violating the Constitution and the VRA through recently passed voter ID and redistricting laws. Holder justifies the suit under Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits any voting qualification that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizens of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Pursuant to Holder's hostility toward voter ID laws, the Justice Department claims Section 5 authority to reimpose preclearance on Texas for the next decade.
Fortunately for Texas, the Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana's similar voter ID law, and a lower court likewise upheld Georgia's. Neither law suppressed minority turnout, which certainly makes Holder's discrimination claim on that count difficult to prove. Voter fraud favors Democrats, which is why they oppose voter ID. It's also clear that Holder and the miscreants marching on the mall have turned King's dream on its head.
NATIONAL SECURITY
No Accountability for Benghazi
Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry ordered the four State Department employees who had been suspended for their role in the mishandling of the Benghazi attack to return to work. These four officials were the only State employees to receive any disciplinary action as the result of a complete security breakdown that led to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans during a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, placed them on leave after an internal review, but Kerry determined no further disciplinary action was necessary, and according to a State Department spokeswoman, we can't punish them "just to make us all feel better." How about punishing them because they screwed up and Americans died as a result?
If it wasn't already, it's now abundantly clear there will be no accountability for State's gross negligence. And Clinton's status as presumptive front-runner in the 2016 presidential race remains undiminished despite her politically desperate lies about the cause of the attack and her appalling "what difference does it make?" attitude.
Meanwhile, the man whose YouTube video Clinton and others blamed for "inciting" the "riots" that supposedly led to the attack has been released from jail. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula served nearly a year in jail for an unrelated parole violation that became known when the video surfaced, but few doubt he was jailed as punishment for the video itself. The Obama campaign narrative blaming the video never held water, despite the media's complete lack of interest in learning the real reasons behind the attack or holding anyone accountable for mishandling it.
ECONOMY
Around the Nation: High-Speed California
Rules? Who needs those? That was the unwavering response from Democrat California Gov. Jerry Brown after a ruling last week on the Golden State's high-speed rail boondoggle. Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney determined that the project had exceeded the boundaries set through Proposition 1A -- the 2008 ballot initiative in which voters allocated $10 billion in funding through bonds.
"To wit, the authority didn't identify funding sources for the $31 billion required to build the 290-mile 'initial usable segment' from Madera to the San Fernando Valley," reports3 The Wall Street Journal. "Nor did the authority obtain necessary environmental clearances." In his ruling, Judge Kenney opined4, "This discussion makes it clear that funding from these sources cannot reasonably be expected to be available without significant further work and legislative advocacy," further adding, "in reality, there were no anticipated or expected commitments, authorizations, agreements, allocations, or other means of receiving such funds at the time the Authority approved the funding plan." Say what? Government officials failed to secure funding before going ahead with a massive project destined for failure? Shocking.
Gov. Brown is vowing to press on with the project, anyway. "It's not a setback," declared the governor. "As we speak we're spending money, we're moving ahead." While it's true, as the Journal contends, "The Judge didn't go so far as to issue a writ of mandamus stopping the appropriation of state funds," the decision does mean that officials will need to be a little more specific about how they plan on paying for the project. We expect that to be a rather difficult feat for California officials.
CULTURE
New Mexico Photographer Loses First Amendment Case
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian photographer did not have the right, First Amendment or otherwise, to decline to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography, declined the request in 2006. New Mexico does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions, and there were other Albuquerque photographers willing to handle the ceremony, but the couple sued anyway.
In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that Huguenin had illegally discriminated against the couple based on sexual orientation. But Huguenin has argued all along -- and rightly so in our estimation -- that her business constitutes speech, and is therefore protected on that as well as religious grounds under the First Amendment.
The state Supreme Court didn't see it that way, however. Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote in concurrence that the case "provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice." Furthermore, "at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation's strengths, demands no less." That "compromise" is increasingly being demanded of only one side in this debate. |
