What it means to be part of the Conservative Resistance

Friday, November 28, 2008

I think that it is very important for all disenfranchised conservatives to network with some organizations (like the ones on the blog roll to the left, and this website) to become informed, unified and empowered. Even just glancing at the far left column on this site every visit will keep you informed on the latest news and activist activities. As outcast conservatives, unifying our views and power is our only hope of bringing some sense back to our government. I am not interested in donating them money, but this site gives the following good suggestions for us to fight for:

The Resistance States:

As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.

Specifically, I Resist:

  • Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.

  • Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
  • Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.

  • Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
  • Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament.

  • Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.
  • Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.

  • Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
  • Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax, undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on oil exploration.

  • Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves.

More on Obama's Phony Birth Certificate

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Another expert on forgeries has come forward with striking evidence that even the "Certificate of Live Birth" (which is not proof that Obama was born in Hawaii) that the Obama camp has posted online is a forgery. From Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery

The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama's website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged.

  1. The problem of the pixels: When you have a green patterned document such as this, there should be a lot of green pixels from the background showing up between the letters that appear on the certification. But in this case, instead of green pixels, there are white and grey pixels between the letters, which result when you replace existing text with other text.

  2. There is no second fold line. The pictures show two folds – necessary to fit any COLB into an envelope for mailing, but the document itself shows only one fold. This is another indication of document alteration.

  3. There's a blurred border. The border has a lower resolution than the rest of the document, which is another indication that it has been altered.

  4. The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. That is fine except for the problem that …

  5. The seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year!

Like with Rathergate, when you're creating documents, make sure you use only a typewriter that was invented at the time you report the document was manufactured. When posting a "Certification of Live Birth," make sure you "borrow" only from documents used in the same year!

Be sure to sign the petition demanding evidence of Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications.

Perhaps this explains Obama's attitude that the Constitution is an "experiment" that can be changed from time to time as politicians wish. It appears that even in his very eligibility to be president, Obama is side-stepping the requirements of the Constitution and his supporters are turning a blind eye!

Proper Judicial Authority and the War on Terror: Attorney General Michael Mukasey's "Fainting" Speech

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Before the ailing, 67 year-old Attorney General Michael Mukasey was loudly heckled by a liberal state judge and fainted during his speech to the Federalist society last Thursday, he was giving a wonderful point-by-point argument about the necessity of judicial restraint in matters of policy and why the Bush administration's policies regarding the War on Terror, Judicial Activism and detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be retained. His full speech is reproduced here (I have bolded the important parts for those who like to skim):

[(I took out the beginning pleasantries)...]

As we near the end of this Administration, and we approach the first transition that our government has seen since the attacks of September 11th 2001, I would like to focus on the successes of this Administration that relate to matters that concern this Society, the legacy that will remain when this Administration leaves office, and on a matter relating to our national security that I think should continue to receive the attention of this Society.

Perhaps of most obvious interest to the members of the Federalist Society are the judges and justices whom the President has appointed to the federal bench. As the President recently explained to the Cincinnati chapter of this Society, he has sought out, as he put it, "judges who would faithfully interpret the Constitution - and not use the courts to invent laws or dictate social policy." With the help of many in this room, the President has succeeded in this effort and appointed many well-qualified and accomplished judges who understand their role in interpreting -- not writing -- the laws.

Most notably, the President has appointed two members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. These men are no strangers to the people in this room -- indeed, they both spoke to this Society last year. Both of these remarkably accomplished justices will continue to serve the Nation for many years to come, and we are grateful not only for their service, but also for their approach to the difficult questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation that the Court faces each term. The President is rightfully proud of his selection of both of these men, and the Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting their nominations.

The President also has nominated - and the Senate has confirmed - many other well-qualified judges throughout the Federal courts. Unfortunately, still other good and well-qualified people were denied the same opportunity. We have seen the nominations of skilled, experienced, and well-respected candidates delayed or frustrated through procedural tactics. Quite frequently, it has been hard for these nominees to receive a vote in the Senate or even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. For those who never received a vote, or even a hearing, I offer my profound regret -- you deserved better.

Tonight, however, we should take note of our successes. Indeed, this Administration's judicial legacy includes 61 judges appointed to the courts of appeals and 261 judges appointed to the district courts. The President and the members of his Administration will leave office in January, but these good judges will remain in place, many for decades to come.

The Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting these judges, but it also should be proud of the basis on which it did so. As the members of this Society recognize, the core meaning of judicial independence is independence from the political pressures and fashions of the moment. Otherwise, judges become simply politicians who are independent only in the sense that they have life tenure and so are not subject to the discipline of the political process -- namely, elections. Although judges are appointed through a political process, once they take the oath, they are confined to exercising a power that is, under Article III, judicial only. Which is to say, one that should involve a faithful, not a fanciful, reading of the laws and the Constitution.

I want to turn to another subject, which I have taken from Day One to be my most solemn responsibility as Attorney General. That is ensuring that we put into place the institutions we need to keep our country safe from the continuing threat posed by Al Qaeda and other international terrorists.

On September 11th, 2001, nineteen terrorists inflicted the most catastrophic attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor. What made that attack so devastating was not simply the toll inflicted upon our country, but the idea that nineteen lightly armed terrorists could murder nearly 3,000 Americans. The reality of such asymmetric warfare required us to dramatically reconsider how we should confront the threat of international terrorism.

When the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, when Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States deployed the FBI to the scene to collect evidence, pursue leads and; ultimately, indict and prosecute at least some of those responsible.

Following the September 11th attacks, however, it no longer seemed prudent to treat international terrorism solely as a criminal matter where suspects are pursued and prosecuted only after they have perpetrated a crime. Indeed, at the time of the September 11th attacks, Osama bin Laden was already under criminal indictment for his role in the embassy bombings. Instead, the United States recognized the attack of September 11th to be what it was: an act of war -- a war that had been declared years earlier by enemies of the United States, and indeed of civilized people everywhere. In response, this Nation, under our President, committed to a comprehensive offensive strategy against the terrorists abroad using every resource at our disposal -- military, intelligence, financial and law enforcement.

The U.S. military deployed to Afghanistan where Al Qaeda had found a safe haven within the confines of the brutal and inhumane regime of the Taliban. When our forces, or those of allies, captured members of the enemy, we detained them so that they could not simply return to the battlefield and, where we thought it appropriate, transferred them for detention to the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay.

At home, the Administration sought to reorganize and modernize our government to reflect the new priorities of the War on Terror. We brought domestic security agencies, which historically had been scattered throughout the Executive Branch, under the umbrella of a Department of Homeland Security, and we established a Director of National Intelligence to ensure that our intelligence agencies would work together in tracking terrorist threats and preventing new attacks.

Within the Department of Justice, the FBI made preventing terrorism its top priority and restructured its resources accordingly. Since September 11th, the FBI has transformed itself into a world-class intelligence agency, designed to detect and prevent attacks before they occur, rather than simply investigating them afterwards. The FBI has doubled the number of intelligence analysts and translators in its ranks, and opened 16 new offices overseas, including in Kabul and Baghdad. We created the FBI's new National Security Branch to bring together divisions responsible for counterterrorism and intelligence and counterespionage, and we made similar institutional reforms in establishing the National Security Division at the Department of Justice.

The Administration worked with Congress in reorganizing our government and with passing new laws to promote the collection and dissemination of critically important intelligence. Shortly after September 11th, Congress passed the Patriot Act to ensure that analysts and investigators could access the information they needed to protect our Nation, work together to "connect the dots," and pursue a strategy of prevention. And this year, Congress did the same for our intelligence professionals, passing bi-partisan legislation that modernizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the intelligence community to quickly and effectively monitor terrorists' communications while ensuring respect for our civil liberties.

Taken together, the Administration's policies in the War on Terror represent nothing less than a fundamental reorganization of our government and will ensure that the next President has the tools he needs to continue to defend the country.

The Administration's strategy in defending the Nation from terrorist threats has not only been comprehensive, but has also been successful based on what matters the most: Since September 11th, Al Qaeda has not managed to launch a single act of terrorism in the United States. This is a remarkable achievement that no one could have predicted in the days following the September 11th attacks. The credit for that goes to many people, including many brave men and women in our armed forces, and many brave men and women in law enforcement and intelligence services, who put their lives at risk routinely in parts of the world most Americans, to their great comfort, will never encounter. Much of that credit also goes to the President; in this area, as in many others, leadership and resolve matter.

As the end of this Administration draws near, you would expect to hear broad praise for this success at keeping our Nation safe. Instead, I am afraid what we hear is a chorus with a rather more dissonant refrain. Instead of appreciation, or even a fair appraisal, of the Administration's accomplishments, we have heard relentless criticism of the very policies that have helped keep us safe. We have seen this in the media, we have seen this in the Congress, and we have heard it from the legal academy as well.

In some measure, those criticisms rest on a very dangerous form of amnesia that views the success of our counterterrorism efforts as something that undermines the justification for continuing them. In an odd way, we have become victims of our own success. In the eyes of these critics, if Al Qaeda has not struck our homeland for seven years, then perhaps it never posed much of a threat after all and we didn't need these counterterrorism policies.

Other critics question the premise -- almost universally accepted following the September 11th attacks -- that the United States is engaged in a war against Al Qaeda and other groups. Even more common is the casual assumption among many in media, political, and legal circles that the Administration's counterterrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law. I am quite familiar with these criticisms, having heard them myself during my tenure as Attorney General.

Now it is hardly surprising that the questions of how we confront the terrorism threat should generate vigorous debate. These questions are among the most complex and consequential that a democratic government can face. There is, understandably, passionate debate about where the legal lines are drawn in this new and very difficult conflict and, as a matter of policy, how close to those legal lines we should go.

As the members of this Society know, however, answering legal questions often involves a close reading and a critical analysis of a text -- the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, and the like. Regrettably, this point is much too often lost in the public discourse on the subject. Newspapers, commentators, and even prominent lawyers often discuss critical questions about national security policies with barely any acknowledgement that the answers may depend on the language of, say, the Constitution or a statute. And critics of this Administration's policies rarely draw distinctions between whether a course of action is permitted as a matter of law, and whether that course of action is prudent as a matter of policy.

For example, earlier this year, the head of a legal organization that prides itself on what it calls its "nonpartisan approach to the law" gave a speech condemning what he called "the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty." According to this person, we live now in a -- "time of repression" where the "word 'Patriot' names a statute that stifles liberty," and where we face "assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions." You can practically hear the rumble of tanks in the background.

It is interesting -- and telling -- that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things -- provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read -- but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.

Also completely absent from these remarks, and from many remarks like it, is any fair appraisal of the legal issues actually involved or an acknowledgement of the difficulty or novelty of the legal questions confronted by the Administration lawyers who made these decisions. Nor was there any discussion of the atmosphere in which these decisions were made. I was in New York City when the two planes hit the Twin Towers, and I know what it was like to be in the city at that time. But I cannot speak from any experience of my own to what it was like to be a lawyer in the Justice Department at that time. There must have been almost unimaginable pressure, without the academic luxury of endless time for debate. The lawyers called on to make critical legal judgments at that time - and in real time - certainly had no time to consult the New York Review of Books when looking for answers to these difficult and pressing questions.

If you listen only to the critics, you might assume, for example, that this Administration, by asserting that habeas corpus did not apply to alien enemy combatants, had tried to deprive the judiciary of a time-honored role in second-guessing our military commanders' decisions concerning whom to detain on foreign battlefields. Of course, before this armed conflict, federal judges have never asserted the authority to afford habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants captured and detained abroad.

As even the majority in Boumediene acknowledged, the Supreme Court had "never held that noncitizens detained by our Government" outside the United States had "any rights under our Constitution." Indeed, following World War II, the Court had specifically rejected that habeas corpus would apply in that context. The Administration's position in Boumediene thus was at least arguably justified by text, history, and precedent. A majority of the Supreme Court may have disagreed, but the Administration's position hardly constitutes the attack on habeas corpus asserted, but not explained, by its critics like the author I quoted.

And when people denounce a purported assault on the "Geneva Conventions," you might expect some level of specificity in the charges. One cannot "assault" a treaty as an abstract concept; one can only violate the treaty by acting contrary to its words. The Geneva Conventions contain 319 articles, of which 315 are plainly addressed to armed conflicts among the nations that signed the Conventions. It is hardly surprising that the United States concluded that those provisions would not apply to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda, an international terrorist group and not, the last time I checked, a signatory to the Conventions.

One common article appearing in each of the four conventions, Article 3, provides rules that govern "conflicts not of an international character," such as civil wars. The President concluded early on that the global war against Al Qaeda had a decidedly "international character." In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. This narrow legal dispute -- again turning on an Administration interpretation that was both reasonable and, indeed consistent with text, history and precedent -- hardly warrants the sweeping, dismissive, and entirely conclusory criticisms so frequently heard.

I focus on these types of criticisms not because they are so extraordinary, but because they are unfortunately so typical of people who substitute their policy views for any serious legal analysis and who would turn a good-faith legal disagreement into a battle over the purported existence or non-existence of the rule of law. The irony, of course, is that the law requires a serious analysis of text, precedent, and history, and it does not serve the rule of law to substitute a smug sense of outrage for that kind of analysis.

In fact, this Administration has displayed a strong commitment to the rule of law, with all that entails and I suspect, and I admit it is a suspicion tinged with hope, that the next Administration will maintain far more of this Administration's legal architecture than the intemperate rhetoric in some quarters would seem to suggest. I remain concerned, however, when relentless criticism of this Administration's policies moves beyond simply disagreement into a realm where critics, and even public officials, seek to invoke the criminal justice system to vindicate their policy views. For instance, in June of this year, 56 Members of Congress sent me a letter requesting that I appoint a special counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of the actions of the President, members of his cabinet, and other national security lawyers and intelligence professionals into the CIA's interrogation of captured members of Al Qaeda.

The Members who signed this letter offered no evidence that these government officials acted based on any motive other than a good-faith desire to protect the citizens of our Nation from a future terrorist attack. Nor did they provide any evidence or indication that these government officials sought to authorize any policy that violated our laws. Quite the contrary: as has become well-known, before conducting interrogations, the CIA officials sought the advice of the Department of Justice, and I am aware of no evidence that these DOJ attorneys provided anything other than their best judgment of what the law required.

Casual requests for criminal investigations, as well as the even more prolific conflation of legal disagreements with policy disagreements, reflect a broader trend whose institutional effects may outlast the current Administration and could well endanger our future national security.

I have spoken in more detail about these concerns in several recent speeches, in which I drew substantially on former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith's book, The Terror Presidency.

Let's all remember what Professor Goldsmith has said about what he saw during his time in the Administration. Although he may have disagreed with some of the legal reasoning employed in making those decisions, he made it perfectly clear that despite his disagreement he saw no evidence that those who provided that advice did so in bad faith, for any reason other than to protect the country during a time of war, or with the belief that what they were doing was in any way contrary to the law. It is important for those who are so quick to condemn the attorneys who were working nearly around the clock, for months on end, in the wake of September 11th, to keep that in mind.

In his book, Professor Goldsmith describes what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" among political leaders and commentators in their attitudes towards the intelligence community. These cycles have played out before - from the 1960s through the 1990s, but those past cycles are now mainly of historic interest. The most recent cycle is of much more than historic interest. As Professor Goldsmith explains, following the September 11th attacks, "The consistent refrain from the [9/11] Commission, Congress, and pundits of all stripes was that the government must be more forward-leaning against the terrorist threat: more imaginative, more aggressive, less risk-averse."

After going seven years without another terrorist attack, our intelligence professionals and national security lawyers now hear quite a different message. When 56 Members of Congress request a criminal investigation of the professionals and lawyers, they should have no doubt that those lawyers, and certainly their successors, will get the message: if they support an aggressive counterterrorism policy based on their good faith belief that such a policy is lawful, they may one day be prosecuted for it.

The competing imperatives to protect the nation and to safeguard our civil liberties are worthy of public debate and discussion, and congressional oversight and review of our intelligence activities is vitally important. But it is equally important that such scrutiny be conducted responsibly, with appreciation of its institutional implications. We want lawyers to give their best advice to those who must act, and we want those who must act to know that they can rely on that advice.

As this Society knows, the rule of law is not undermined by stating with clarity and precision exactly what the law requires. To the contrary, both our law, and our democracy, gain strength when we separate legal disputes from policy disputes, and when we permit our policy disputes to be aired in good faith.

In a democracy, of course, the appropriate way to resolve policy disputes is through the ballot box. We have just had an election, and a new Administration will soon take the reins in Washington. What I have done as Attorney General has been to try, along with others in our government, to make sure that our counterterrorism efforts stand on sound institutional and legal footing so that the next Attorney General and the new Administration have what they need to assure the safety of the Nation.

The next Administration will have the opportunity to review the institutions and the legal structures that this Administration has relied upon in keeping the nation safe over the past seven years. I am neither so proud as to think that the next Administration will be unable to make improvements, nor so naive as to think that the policy choices, or even the legal judgments, that they make will be identical to ours.

What I do hope, however, is that the next Administration understands the threat that we continue to face and that it shares the priority we have placed on remaining on the offense to prevent future terrorist attacks. Remaining on the offense includes not simply relying on the tools that we have established, but also encouraging a climate in which both legal and policy issues are debated responsibly, in a way that does not chill the intelligence community and deter national security lawyers from making the decisions necessary to protect us.

And I am hopeful that some time from now, after the next Administration has had the chance to review the decisions made and the legal advice provided, it will acknowledge that despite any policy differences, the national security lawyers in this Administration acted professionally and in good faith and that the country was safer as a result.

The loyal opposition, of course, remains as important a part of democracy as the majority in power. In that regard, I take comfort in the fact that whether in office or not, many members of this Society will remain a part of the public debate and will help ensure that the next Administration acts responsibly and effectively to protect our country and to protect the ideals on which it is based. For that, and for your support based on the principles that support this Society, I am grateful, and I can say with certainty that the Nation is grateful.

Democracy In China: What It Will Take

It's amazing what China gets away with. Thousands of Tibetans are still missing, presumably in concentration camps. Christians have joined the list of minorities who have their organs harvested in Chinese prisons. China's spies computer-hack anyone who so much as polishes a US Government doorknob. Peasant uprisings over government unjustice are brutally suppressed. But we don't hear about it.

Is it because Americans don't care? Or is it a media cover-up? Both. China holds the majority of our skyrocketing debt and the American elite enjoy outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. We've got a good little thing going: China gives us cheap plastic toys and we give them lots of money. Nevermind the nuclear submarine and space technology they've stolen, or their poisoned fish that end up on our dinner plates. It's easy to cover these things up when the American people think these foreign events have no effect on us.

But of course these things effect us. There's no doubt China is a rising star even as we are falling. Their malevolent words and actions have proven they would love to see us crushed. Anyone paying attention knows we are no ally. What will the same communist country that slaughters anyone who preaches democracy do when it has risen to the top?

We should intently look at those persecuted champions of freedom of speech and religion inside China. These people are the key to our problem with China. It isn't coincidence that the founder of China's New Democracy Party was finally locked away for a seemingly paltry offense: criticizing China's internet firewalls. This “great wall of China” blocks billions of people from free information. If the common Chinese citizen could freely access information, find out about the Tianenman Square massacre, about the massive government corruption, about what democratic countries really are, if they could freely converse with people around the globe, imagine how empowering this would be. People are controlled by removing their freedoms of speech and religion, but this is impossible if they have freedom of information. Victor Hugo declared, “The printing press will destroy the church.” New technological means for communication have been the means of shrugging off the dictator throughout history.

So why not hack China? They've already given us an excuse to. They wouldn't dare react harshly, for if our economy gets a cough they get a cold. Indeed Beijing's stock market is worth less than half what it was preceding the Olympics. We have Al Gore who invented the internet; how hard would it be to crack the great wall? Which brings us back to my first point: American public's apathetic attitude and corporate America's complicity. How do we crack that? Boycott Walmart?

Tariffs on imports would go a long way, but the simple solution, before we go about emancipating China, is to emancipate ourselves. Are we really so knowledgeable? Are we so democratic? Do we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?


“Fairness Doctrine” = Conservative Censorship

Friday, November 21, 2008

Obama’s administration is currently vetting for a suitable politician to sit on the five-person FCC board and tip its majority to favor his policies. Once that is accomplished, the FCC is expected to reinstate the unfair “Fairness Doctrine” that many say will wipe out talk radio as we now know it, silencing one of the only forums for conservative views left.

The “Fairness Doctrine” was originally created in 1949 to protect freedom of speech and encourage discussion of controversial subjects by preventing the limited radio bandwidths available at that time from being monopolized by a viewpoint and ignoring the others. It instead required all stations that aired political commentary to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” This usually meant that a station had to either invite one guest on to briefly discuss their opposing point of view or to air a short segment doing the same. A station failing to do so could be shut down by the revocation of that outlet’s broadcast license.

As the decades passed, however, the “Fairness Doctrine” started to show three major flaws that actually prevented its very purpose of ensuring freedom of speech and the equal airing of viewpoints:

All political viewpoints are already equally available today. When the “Fairness Doctrine” was created there were very few radio and television channels available. If these stations all showed only one viewpoint, it was next to impossible for the other viewpoints to be heard. Today, however, with the advent of advanced television, radio, satellite, internet and even cell phone technology, there are millions if not billions of media channels available for all imaginable viewpoints to be accessed. Thus, the original argument for the “Fairness Doctrine” has become moot in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

Giving the government power to judge what can be said in the media opens the door to unconstitutional censorship of viewpoints contrary to them. When a party is given power to determine what can and cannot be said in the media with the only criteria that it must be “fair and balanced,” it does not take them long to begin to abuse that power and use it to silence those media outlets critical to their policies. This happened several times during the 48 years that the “Fairness Doctrine” was in effect. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett revealed that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) Former Kennedy Administration official Bill Ruder admitted "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

Because of its arbitrary enforcement, the “Fairness Doctrine” actually inhibits free speech and discussion of controversial subjects. As time went on, broadcast journalists began to see that the “Fairness Doctrine” was not only being used to violate the First Amendment rights of free speech/free press (which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories), but actually had the “chilling effect” of silencing media coverage of controversial topics altogether: In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find all contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, many journalists simply avoided any covering it. It was much safer to steer clear than to risk the arbitrary enforcement and punishments of the FCC.

Under the Regan administration (and in accordance with his deregulation policies), the FCC began to rethink the “Fairness Doctrine,” finding that it "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Former FCC Chairman James Quello stated that "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech." (Doug Halonen, "Twelve to Watch in 1993," Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) Even the liberal Washington Post agreed:

“The truth is…that this is no ‘fairness’ whatsoever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include….The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism—substituting government dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive.”
(Washington Post editorial, June 24, 1987)

Democrats are openly calling for a return of the “Fairness Doctrine” so that conservative talk radio can be silenced. Months after the “Fairness Doctrine” was repealed in 1987, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show took off to a phenomenal success that is credited with saving the AM band. Many other conservative talk shows have also found a broad and lucrative base eager for their views. While some liberal shows have been attempted (Air America, Jim Hightower, Ed Schultz, etc.) few have been able to find much support. Meanwhile, the TV news shows, who were already decidedly liberal in their spin as the “Fairness Doctrine” went away, have grown even more bold in their shameless liberal-agenda spun reporting of the news (with the notable exception of Fox News). With the evident power conservative radio and the slow demise of the network TV news stations (again, with the notable exception of Fox News), several Democrat politicians have been calling for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” so that they can silence their opposition from spreading its views.
  • Al Gore called it a “protection” that was removed during the Reagan years.

  • Democrat Senator Jeff Bingham says he wants us to return to the “Fairness Doctrine” which will ensure talk radio will be “at a higher level and more intelligent” (ie: more in support of his views).

  • When Senator Dianne Feinstein’s liberal immigration bill was defeated in 2007, she vindictively called for a return of the doctrine, stating “talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”

  • Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (affectionately known as “Schmucky”) had the nerve to say “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

  • Other supporters of censuring conservative talk radio include Senators Richard Durbin, John Kerry and of course Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

These politicians are not calling for the same regulations as before, however. They want equal time for each viewpoint, a demand that not only will force stations to air unpopular liberal programs that will jeopardize their survival, but a demand that is unreasonable given the infinite possible sides of an issue. Such a demand is sure to drive our talk radio stations to either run out of business or switch to playing music all day. Both outcomes would please the supporters of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Media Censorship of opposing opinions is a totalitarian institution and has no place in a democracy. Perhaps the most distressing thing about the proposed reincarnation of the "Fairness Doctrine" is the public and main-stream media's ignorance (or, in many cases, complicit silence) in recognizing it for what it really is: totalitarian censorship of of views opposing the party currently in power. One of the first things Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and other totalitarian leaders did to ensure their political power was place strict restrictions on all media outlets against any press critical of their regimes. Our founding fathers, knowing that the media contained the power to shape public perception and opinions, placed freedom of speech and freedom of press as the first and most important right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This wise foresight has kept America as one of the very few homes of freedom and liberty throughout the world's last two and a half centuries. Some liberal politicians, in their push for socialist power, are completely willing to give up our nation's heritage of free markets and press in their blind thirst for power.

Once again, as part of the few that actually understand and appreciate our Constitution and system of government and society, it rests upon us to cut through the "newspeak" of our socialist-seeking media and politicians and reveal to our family, friends and neighbors what is actually going on. The "Fairness Doctrine" is not about "fairness and balance" but about censurship. You can be sure that should the "Fairness Doctrine" return, we will not see "equal time and treatment" given to conservative viewpoints on CNN or the New York Times. How long will it take before individual citizens sharing their views with their neighors will be cited by the government for being "biased and unfair"? How long until our freedom of demostration will be infrindged upon in the name of "fairness and balance"? Americans! Take back crontrol of your government and demand that they uphold the Constitution!

When 'fairness' means 'censorship'
The Fairness Doctrine at Work
Blackout of Left’s “Fairness” Doctrine Push

What Gay Marriage Will Do to our Society

Thursday, November 20, 2008

This article is very enlightening about the future effects our society will undoubtedly experience if those three judges in San Francisco decide to overrule the will of the public again and redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. Scary. The original posting can be found here

A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

Unlike most libertarians, I don't have an opinion on gay marriage, and I'm not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I had an interesting discussion last night with another libertarian about it, which devolved into an argument about a certain kind of liberal/libertarian argument about gay marriage that I find really unconvincing.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. "Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual"

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one's masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies "That's ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!"

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!" This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can't justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he's only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened in America just the same.

This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn't. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

Let me take three major legal innovations, one of them general, two specific to marriage.

The first, the general one, is well known to most hard-core libertarians, but let me reprise it anyway. When the income tax was initially being debated, there was a suggestion to put in a mandatory cap; I believe the level was 10 percent.

Don't be ridiculous, the Senator's colleagues told him. Americans would never allow an income tax rate as high as ten percent. They would revolt! It is an outrage to even suggest it!

Many actually fought the cap on the grounds that it would encourage taxes to grow too high, towards the cap. The American people, they asserted, could be well counted on to keep income taxes in the range of a few percentage points.


Now, I'm not a tax-crazy libertarian; I don't expect you to be horrified that we have income taxes higher than ten percent, as I'm not. But the point is that the Senators were completely right--at that time. However, the existance of the income tax allowed for a slow creep that eroded the American resistance to income taxation. External changes--from the Great Depression, to the technical ability to manage withholding rather than lump payments, also facilitated the rise, but they could not have without a cultural sea change in feelings about taxation. That "ridiculous" cap would have done a much, much better job holding down tax rates than the culture these Senators erroneously relied upon. Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.

Another example is welfare. To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as "Widows and orphans pensions", which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be--and was--a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who's spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant's meeting: housewives, don't shake your dustcloths out of the windows--other wives don't want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don't walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.

Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C'mon said the activists. That's just silly. I just can't imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.


Of course, change didn't happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in "the negro family" (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Possibly one of the most moving moments in Jason de Parle's absolutely wonderful book, American Dream, which follows three welfare mothers through welfare reform, is when he reveals that none of these three women, all in their late thirties, had ever been to a wedding.

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakeable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred--they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.

How did people go so badly wrong? Well, to start with, they fell into the basic fallacy that economists are so well acquainted with: they thought about themselves instead of the marginal case. For another, they completely failed to realise that each additional illegitimate birth would, in effect, slightly destigmatise the next one. They assigned men very little agency, failing to predict that women willing to forgo marriage would essentially become unwelcome competition for women who weren't, and that as the numbers changed, that competition might push the marriage market towards unwelcome outcomes. They failed to forsee the confounding effect that the birth control pill would have on sexual mores.

But I think the core problems are two. The first is that they looked only at individuals, and took instititutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn't a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against eachother; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other.

The second is that they didn't assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorial values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter.

(Now, I am not arguing in favor of stigmatising unwed mothers the way the Victorians did. I'm just pointing out that the stigma did not exist merely, as many mid-century reformers seem to have believed, because of some dark Freudian excesses on the part of our ancestors.)

But all the reformers saw was the terrible pain--and it was terrible--inflicted on unwed mothers. They saw the terrible unfairness--and it was terribly unfair--of punishing the mother, and not the father. They saw the inherent injustice--and need I add, it was indeed unjust--of treating American citizens differently because of their marital status.

But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Now, of course, this can turn into a sort of precautionary principle that prevents reform from ever happening. That would be bad; all sorts of things need changing all the time, because society and our environment change. But as a matter of principle, it is probably a bad idea to let someone go mucking around with social arrangements, such as the way we treat unwed parenthood, if their idea about that institution is that "it just growed". You don't have to be a rock-ribbed conservative to recognise that there is something of an evolutionary process in society: institutional features are not necessarily the best possible arrangement, but they have been selected for a certain amount of fitness.

It might also be, of course, that the feature is what evolutionary biologists call a spandrel. It's a term taken from architecture; spandrels are the pretty little spaces between vaulted arches. They are not designed for; they are a useless, but pretty, side effect of the physical properties of arches. In evolutionary biology, spandrel is some feature which is not selected for, but appears as a byproduct of other traits that are selected for. Belly buttons are a neat place to put piercings, but they're not there because of that; they're a byproduct of mammalian reproduction.

However, and architect will be happy to tell you that if you try to rip out the spandrel, you might easily bring down the building.

The third example I'll give is of changes to the marriage laws, specifically the radical relaxation of divorce statutes during the twentieth century.

Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband's last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.

There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn't have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?

Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.

That's ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!

Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.

There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when "no fault" divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.

What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.

A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment; you're making a lifetime committment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn't mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice.

Three laws. Three well-meaning reformers who were genuinely, sincerely incapable of imagining that their changes would wreak such institutional havoc. Three sets of utterly logical and convincing, and wrong arguments about how people would behave after a major change.

So what does this mean? That we shouldn't enact gay marriage because of some sort of social Precautionary Principle

No. I have no such grand advice.

My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

Is this post going to convince anyone? I doubt it; everyone but me seems to already know all the answers, so why listen to such a hedging, doubting bore? I myself am trying to draw a very fine line between being humble about making big changes to big social institutions, and telling people (which I am not trying to do) that they can't make those changes because other people have been wrong in the past. In the end, our judgement is all we have; everyone will have to rely on their judgement of whether gay marriage is, on net, a good or a bad idea. All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision. I realise that this probably falls on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces, and I'm sorry, but I can't help that. This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I'm asking it from my side too, in approaching social ones. I think the approach is consistent, if not exactly popular.

Lawsuits claim Obama is Constitutionally Inelligible for President

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Across the nation, citizens are suing Obama to prove he is eligible for president or to be blocked from taking office. The plaintiffs claim that he has failed to prove the constitutional requirement for president that is a "natural born citizen" through the submission of a valid birth certificate backing up his claim of being born in Hawaii. Though Obama's camp has made public a "certification of live birth" from Hawaii, the Department of Homeland Security claims that this does not necessarily mean he was born in Hawaii.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
The governor of Hawaii claims that a valid birth certificate exists, but has refused to release it. All of this is more than a little suspect given Obama's well documented youth citizenship in Indonesia (which does not allow dual citizenship). Add to this Obama's sister at different times giving two different hospitals for Obama's birth and a video of Obama's Kenyan grandmother saying that Obama was born in Kenya and you have a serious constitutional crisis looming.

Though Obama's camp is calling the allegations "pure garbage," and despite judge after judge throwing out cases (not due to being proven wrong but due to their "lack of jurisdiction") the lawsuits keep coming, one particular one from Allan Keyes, former presidential candidate.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

The petition is a request for the Superior Court of California in Sacramento County to issue a peremptory writ barring Secretary of State Debra Bowen "from both certifying to the governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain."

Will the citizens (and courts) of the United States care enough about our constitution to demand that it be followed in the case of Obama, or will their love for "the Messiah" him cause them to turn a blind eye?

[Link 1] [Link 2]

California Politicians Threaten Overruling of Prop 8, Citizens Threaten Recall

Friday, November 14, 2008

Members of the executive (Gov. Schwarzenegger), legislative (44 state senators and councilmen) and judicial (the 4 activist judges that originally struck down the will of the people) have expressed their strong desire for the recently passed constitutional amendment that bans gay marriages in California to be thrown out by the state supreme court.

Meanwhile, citizens are preparing for a massive effort to exercise their constitutional right to recall those judges who are abusing their powers. [link]

Email Governor Schwarzenegger and demand that he take a stand in defending the will of the people of California!

The Truth about the Gay Marriage Issue

The issue of gay and lesbian marriage in California is of such great importance due to the wide scope of its social and legal implications. Just the simple act of the California state government recognizing gay marriages as legal and legitimate would cause a great blow to the constitutional foundation of “law by consent of the governed” through judicial tyranny, infringe upon the rights of one group of citizens by granting an oppressive, illegitimate “right” upon a minority, and destroy the until-now universally protected definition of the institutions of marriage and family. While supporters of gay marriage would have you believe the issue is all about granting fairness and equality, the truth is it is about protecting personal freedoms, constitutional rights, societal wellbeing and the fundamentally stabilizing institution of the family. Far from being “intolerant bigots” for opposing same-gender marriage, we wish to preserve the institutions in our society and government that have proven the test of time to ensure success, happiness and goodness—all aspects of the “American Dream”—from those who would tear it down to justify their immoral behavior. The following points describe the true issues at stake:

Democracy vs. Judicial Tyranny

The most sacrosanct of all rights guaranteed in the Constitution is the right of freedom from tyranny. Tyranny can simply be defined as a group of people being forced to submit to a set of laws or ordinances against their will. Having experienced a healthy dose of tyranny from King George and his parliament, our founding fathers vowed that Americans would never again have to submit to any laws that were not first consented to by a majority of the populous. The framers of our Constitution were very careful to set strict safeguards and boundaries through constitutional procedures and division of power to assure that no small group of rulers could ever impose their will upon the majority.

Unfortunately, one branch of our government has since increased their power to include the ability to “overrule” the constitutionally-protected will of the majority. The state and federal Supreme Courts were constitutionally given the power to interpret laws (and annul them if necessary) to be in accordance with the structure and rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Unfortunately, this branch of government has lately taken to the habit of changing and nullifying laws according to their personal beliefs, effectively overruling the legally determined laws of our land—whether created through ballots or legislation—whenever they “feel like it.” The Constitution never intended our judges to be sovereign rule-makers, they were meant to be protectors of the Constitution.

Few examples will be more blatant of our judicial politicians overstepping their constitutional bounds then if they overrule the recently passed constitutional amendment in California defining marriage to be only between a man and woman. Voters in California passed the very same statute eight years ago but it was overruled by the state Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. Now that it has again been voted by a majority of the populous to be added into the state constitution, there is talk of the state Supreme Court again overruling it. How can you declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional?!! The judges, state lawmakers and the highly activist minority to which they are sympathetic are seriously exploring doing just that.

The Granting of Illegitimate “Rights” That Impose Upon the Rights of Citizens

Now there is a time when the Supreme Court should rule against the will of the majority. The framers of our constitution were aware of the possibility of “tyranny of the majority” over minority groups. For this reason they specified that certain “inalienable rights” must be protected for all citizens of the United States: life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of happiness. While we as a country have not always been perfect at equally securing these rights for all, our country took great strides towards ensuring equal rights for all people regardless of gender, race, religious beliefs, ideology, etc. For the most part, these changes of laws and statutes were done through the ballot box or legislation. A few times, the Supreme Court decided that certain racist laws contradicted these inalienable rights and nullified them. All of these legal actions were within the powers granted by the Constitution.

Proponents of gay and lesbian marriage claim that the issue of “gay rights” is identical to the civil rights that were granted to African Americans in the 1950s and 60s, when the Supreme Court overruled the will of some state majorities to grant the equal rights. They therefore claim that the Supreme Court—of California or the United States, whichever will do it for them—should likewise force all citizens to accept their redefinition of marriage. This is, however, a false argument because the comparison is completely false. Many African Americans were initially enslaved, the exact opposite of the American doctrine that “all men are created equal [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Then, after they were granted their freedom, they still did not enjoy suffrage or equal access to public property and services. Then, even after they were legally guaranteed the right to vote and equal access to school and public institutions, these rights were infringed or even ignored. The federal government took bold steps in forcing state and local governments to enforce equality of rights for African Americans. To a lesser extent, similar freedoms were enabled for women, American Indians and other minority groups. Though they dreamed great, the founders of our nation lived in a still barbaric and feudal world and it has taken our country two centuries to reach the fruition of their ideals. Like other countries, the United States has committed many horrible injustices, but we have progressed to a society where we can in almost every situation enjoy equal rights for all citizens of our great country.

Homosexuals already enjoy the same rights as everybody else. They can vote, own property, attend public schools, go into any public place that anyone else can; they are free to talk about their beliefs just as anyone else. Several states have even created a special legal definition for their committed relationships known as “civil unions” that legally gives them the same rights and privileges as a married couple. If homosexuals enjoy the same rights to life, liberty and happiness like everyone else does—even equal treatment of their committed relationships—, what is it that they are fighting for?

What homosexuals and their sympathizers really want is universal acceptance of their lifestyles. This poses a great challenge since homosexuality is condemned by all of the major religions. Their game plan is to attempt to re-educate all they can to believe that homosexuality is entirely normal and acceptable. They are diligently underway with this plan in making homosexuality appear normal and harmless in the media and coercing and brain-washing children in public schools to accept homosexuality, in spite of the morals taught to them by their parents. In addition, they are diligently active in government and legal forums petitioning to make homosexual relationships appear equal to heterosexual ones.

All of these actions are done under the justification that homosexuals are exploring and securing their “rights.” The problem with these so-called rights is that they infringe upon the rights of non-homosexuals. Why should homosexuals have the “right” to educate our children to accept homosexuality as normal and okay, even if we are opposed to it on religious grounds? Why should homosexuals have the “right” to place indecent objectionable images and literature in public places where our children will be exposed to them? Why should homosexuals have the “right” to take an institution that has been universally honored and set apart as a sacred and fundamentally conservative institution and unit and destroy any of its meaning by including their immoral behavior in it? Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else, but they do not have the right to take away our rights. They do not have the right to redefine and destroy marriage just because they want us to accept their lifestyle choices. They have the right to engage in homosexual activities in the privacy of their own homes, but they do not have the right to force us to accept it as okay.

Protecting Our Society from Destruction

At the time of our country’s founding, most of its inhabitants were devoted Christians. While there was a diversity of specific sects, essentially all of them shared the same ideals of religious values and decency. Children were taught high morals both at home and in the classroom. The framers of the Constitution ensured that with this diversity of sects (and later, religions), freedom of conscience was ensured and no one religious view could dominate over another. However, every one of them also knew that religious morals must be taught and followed in their country or it would fall into ruin. Today we have gone absolutely overboard in “protecting” our children and selves from religious views, but we have forgotten the founders’ much more important point: “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” America does not need to be Christian to be great, but it does need to be good.

Due to the diligent efforts of many activists, America is ceasing to be good and accepting the relativist dogma that the designations of good and bad are meaningless. The ironic thing is, the very people to want us to accept this dogma obviously don’t believe it themselves. Most everyone agrees that murder, rape, stealing, etc. are “bad.” In addition to these universal morals, homosexuals clearly believe that our religious beliefs regarding their behavior are bad. In fact, many of them are outright hostile to religion, which is why it has been outlawed from all public places. I’m sure our founding fathers would have been flabbergasted to see the topsy-turvy would we live in today where religion has been limited to private settings and homosexuality has been placed in the schools’ curricula!

But our basis for determining homosexuality as destructive goes beyond religious tradition and teachings. From a Darwinian standpoint, the homosexual behavior inhibits the survival of the human race and therefore should not be encouraged. A large body of research has shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents develop much more emotional and sociological problems than children raised by heterosexual parents. Experience has also shown time after time that individuals who participate in the homosexual lifestyle experience much more unhappiness (not to mention exposure to STDs, drugs, etc.). It stands to reason that we would want to protect our children and others from ever getting involved in such a lifestyle choice.

The jury is still out on the cause or origin of homosexual tendencies, but what does seem true is clear: Certain individuals, whether by genetics or life experiences, experience intense desires to become sexually involved with people of their same gender. We should not condemn them for this desire if they did nothing to encourage it (which is sometimes, though certainly not always the case), but that does not mean that we have to accept the act of homosexuality. If a young man has a strong desire to have sex with a girl but does not act upon it, he is likewise faultless. Such a young man should posses the strength of character to put such selfish, lustful thoughts out of his mind and pursue a morally acceptable and socially beneficial marriage before satisfying his sexual drives. But a youth who indulges in sexual relations outside of marriage, especially with multiple partners, is creating a situation for great sorrow and social destruction about him. Because of its emotionally distorted nature, homosexual inclinations encourage multiple sexual partners, dangerous situations and unstable relationships. Society thrives with monogamous marriages and the families that result from them. Society is destroyed about sexual promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

More Attacks on Our Rights and Constitution

The recent actions of homosexual “rights” activists have shown without a doubt their regard for our constitution and system of government. They are willing to do anything to get what they want, whether legal or not. In addition to their efforts to circumvent the results of a fair and legal election through judicial tyranny, hundreds of them have taken to protesting outside of religious houses of worship, profaning those sacred places with vulgar signs and chants, vandalizing and trespassing. There have also been several reports of individuals being assaulted or attacked by gay rights protesters.

Some gay rights activists, in cooperation with media outlets such as The San Francisco Chronicle and Google, have made available lists of traditional marriage supporters. Already a couple of these individuals, who have not publicly taken a stand but simply followed their consciences in donating money to the side they believed in, have been publicly denounced and humiliated and been forced to resign from their jobs for supporting traditional marriage!!! Opponents of Prop 8 notoriously stole signs, intimidated and used hate slurs against their opponents. On the contrary, I have not heard a single report of the supporters of Prop 8 participating in any harassment, violence or hate speech. For a minority that claims they are abused, intimidated, threatened, attacked, etc. it seems like they’ve got it backwards. They are the ones who are out destroying property, threatening and attempting to hurt the decent people who followed the laws and outlawed same-gender marriage fair and square.

The homosexual-sympathetic media has done their part too by describing the results of the election as “sad and disappointing,” and refusing to report on the actions of the gay protestors. Some of the more extreme media have even started denouncing religious organizations, slandering their members and claiming that they “want to take over the government and install a Taliban-like regime where they can force you to follow their religious dogmas.”

When Good Men Fight for the Right, It Prevails

Clearly, there is much more at stake regarding homosexual marriage than just letting more people into the marriage club. Our individual rights, our Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and family and even our very society are under attack. As I have said before, the reason homosexual activists are so desperate now is because they are terrified. They thought that things were going great, according to their plans. They thought all of California was either sympathetic to their cause, or too scared or apathetic to speak out against it. Never in their wildest nightmares did they imagine that a majority of the electorate opposed their agenda and would actually vote accordingly. So they have stepped up their efforts in an attempt to intimidate their opponents into submission. Their only hope now is that with their noisy protests they will convince us that it is too much trouble to fight them anymore.

But what they will never understand is why we oppose them so strongly. We are all Americans. All of us have had ancestors that sacrificed much so that we might enjoy the fruits of liberty, happiness and peace—some of them even died for it. WE WILL NOT LET ALL OF THAT GO TO WASTE. The good people of California and other states are now doing something many of them have never done before: They are taking a stand for social stability and decency, for their rights and freedoms, for the future of the country that their children will live in. They are making it known, to their friends and family, to their civic and government leaders, that they will not stand for what gay activists would do to our society and country. With all of our power as an electorate, we must take back control of our governments and make it support the principles, laws and institutions that encourage a prosperous society. We must make it support the rights and sovereignty of individuals and families, instead of encroaching upon their rights to try to control them. We must all become patriot activists to counter-balance the propaganda of immorality and liberalism delivered constantly by our media and public schools. Teach your families, your friends, your neighbors the true principles that will bring about happiness and success in our country. If we all do our part, we can turn this country around and once again enjoy the principles of morality, industry and fairness that our founding fathers left for us.


Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.

Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).