The Obama administration is in the process of preparing gun safety measures, just six months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The proposal is expected to anger both gun advocates and gun opponents, the latter of whom will likely assert that the measures are not bold enough. The White House has been unspecific about the details, but according to White House spokesman Jay Carney, the new safety rules will be made public “in the near future.” The Blaze explains, “What is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
Unnamed White House and U.S. Treasury sources told MoneyNews.com that options to handle the government’s debts in the event no debt ceiling deal is reached are being explored, despite official protestations to the contrary. Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, is in charge of paying the government’s bills, and on June 21 she repeated the party line in London to bankers holding substantial American debt that there is no "Plan B," assuring them that the debt limit would be raised before August 2. Official Treasury spokeswoman Colleen Murray expressed practically the same thing:
There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation. Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College."
It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not. Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words. The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on "the rich," is a classic example of talking points versus reality.
Americans know the term "stagflation"; the decline in economic activity accompanied by an artificially inflated money supply is what Europe is presently experiencing. On Thursday, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet announced that the ECB had raised its interest rates 1.5 points and suggested that this action, intended to contract the money supply, might be pursued more aggressively in the future — even though the so-called "PIGS" nations of Europe (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) need influxes of money in order to prevent default. While Trichet recognized that this hike in interest rates might slow down the world economy, he stated that controlling inflation remained the bank’s most important task at present. He hinted that another raise might be in store in future months, noting that the bank would “monitor very closely” price developments, which has been a code for suggesting that interest rates would not be raised the next month. “Our monetary policy stance remains accommodative," he assured. "It is essential [that] recent price developments do not give rise to broad based inflation pressures over the medium term.” Marc Ostvald, an market strategist at Monument Securities, advised: "A further quarter point rate hike probably in October or November still appears to be the central scenario."
Seemingly unaware of the nation’s debt crisis, the federal government is attempting to revamp its foreclosure-prevention program to make it easier for out-of-work homeowners to keep their homes. On August 1, the Federal Housing Administration plans to extend the amount of time homeowners will be permitted to miss mortgage payments from four months or less to a full year. At that point, the full foreclosure process would begin, if necessary. The foreclosure program began in 2009 to assist those at risk of foreclosure by reducing their monthly payments. Borrowers were permitted to make lower payments on a trial basis, but thus far, the program has been unable to convert them into permanent loan modifications. In the beginning, nearly two million homeowners were receiving the trial modifications, but since then, a large majority of the homeowners dropped out of the program entirely.
With more and more Americans becoming pro-life and states across the nation enacting new laws aimed at restricting abortion while ending tax subsidies for abortionists, the question of Roe vs. Wade and federal courts continues to plague the debate.  Some of the avenues pursued to have government protect the unborn include efforts to pass a constitutional amendment, place pro-life judges on the Supreme Court, or enact various types of legislation. Those remedies, however, have been sought for decades with nothing to show for it but billions of tax dollars showered on Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and pro-abortion lobbying groups.  
In 2009, in the middle of the automobile industry bailout controversy, White House advisor Ron Bloom, then “car czar,” told reporters, “I did this all for the unions.” When asked to clarify that statement recently, Bloom denied ever making it. Unfortunately for Bloom, however, credible sources indicate that the remark was in fact made by him. On June 22, the Congressional Oversight Committee held a hearing to address a number of concerns regarding the controversial auto bailout. In the process of the bailout, Bloom apparently took “money from bondholders and handed it directly to the unions,” and also elected to cut salaried employee benefits while “giving strangely deferential benefits to the Unions in the middle of a bankruptcy," reports The Blaze.
Just 12 days after 49 congressmen requested an official inquiry into the involvement of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka ObamaCare) during her tenure as U.S. Solicitor General, the House Judiciary Committee has complied. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sent a July 6 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for “relevant documents and witness interviews in order to properly understand” Kagan’s role with regard to the legislation itself and related litigation. Perhaps the committee will have better luck in wresting those documents from the Justice Department’s clutches than private organizations have had. As the congressmen pointed out in their letter to the committee, “the Justice Department has been uncooperative to date with repeated [Freedom of Information Act] requests that seek the full body of relevant emails from the Office of the Solicitor General that would reveal the scope of Justice Kagan’s involvement in PPACA defense activities.” Both the Media Research Center and Judicial Watch were forced to sue the Justice Department in federal court in order to obtain the documents they sought, and even then only a small number have been made available to them.
Is constitutionalism akin to blind faith? Some statists certainly think so, as they have called the position “constitution-worship.” In light of this, what should we call those who lack that “faith”? Given that they don’t believe in the Constitution, and that the document is the supreme law of the land, can it be said that they don’t believe in law? Are these people, who are often atheists, also “alegalists”? Whatever you call them, they’re more visible and brazen than ever. Writing in Time magazine recently, Richard Stengel insisted that our Constitution “must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.” Georgetown professor Michael Dyson said recently, “When I talk about the document being living and vital, I’m talking about the interpretation of it.” And these appeals are buttressed by the notion that our founding document is fatally flawed. For example, Harvard Law School professor Michael Klarman wrote, “For the most part, the Constitution is irrelevant to the current political design of our nation.” And CNN’s Fareed Zakaria recently opined, “The United States Constitution was … drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows” — which, presumably, is worse than an idea coming out of his cramped head.
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed