As the leading left-wing website, some parts of the Huffington Post are becoming concerned that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's message of peace may draw large numbers of Democratic votes.
"Rep. Paul's ideas are so extreme that no sensible voter would give him a second look if it wasn't for the Uncle Fuzzy persona," HuffPo columnist Andrew Reinbach warned his readers in a July 5 article entitled "President Ron Paul? Ron Paul and the John Birch Society." Reinbach then listed some of Rep. Ron Paul's substantial economic libertarian and constitutionalist credentials.
How extreme is Ron Paul? Well, Reinbach claims he's "a very close ally" of The John Birch Society. Reinbach asks: "Where did Rep. Paul get these ideas? Well, mostly from the seed bank of the John Birch Society. While he's not a member, he's been close to it since at least the 1970s."
Vegetable gardens may be popping on abandoned land in Detroit, Michigan, but nearby Oak Park apparently likes broccoli as much as does George H.W. Bush. At least, that is, when it’s growing in a homeowner’s front yard.
Resident Julie Bass is learning this the hard way. After Bass’s lawn was torn up during a sewer line’s replacement, an ambitious green thumb and the price of organic food inspired her to pursue a botanical project a bit more interesting than watching grass grow. The result was five large planter boxes boasting fresh basil, tomatoes, carrots, cabbage, cumbers, and more — all visible from the street. Explains Bass, “We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help.”
But one neighbor wasn’t so helpful. He called the city and complained, prompting a visit from a code enforcement officer. Bass related what happened next to ABC News, stating:
No one is more of a master of political talking points than President Barack Obama. Remember "shovel-ready projects"? These were construction projects where the shovels were supposed to start digging the moment the government gave them the "stimulus" money.
Two years later, Obama can joke about the fact that the shovels were not as ready as he thought. In reality, the shovels were never ready. It can take forever to get all the environmental approvals to build anything in today's political and legal climate.
If Obama didn't know that, his advisers surely did. He can treat it as a joke today but it is no joke for those who are saddled with the debts produced by his runaway spending in the name of "shovel-ready projects."
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."
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.
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.
President Obama's press conference July 5 reveals his thinking on the statutory debt limit, spending and taxes ... if you can read in between the lines.
A federal appeals court has ordered the U.S. government to stop immediately stop enforcing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on homosexuals serving in the military. The three-judge panel from San Francisco’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since Congress has already repealed the policy, a move that came last December, and the Pentagon is actively preparing for an influx of homosexual personnel into the nation’s armed forces, there is no longer a reason to continue with the stay the court had earlier placed on a lower court ruling overturning the ban.
The July 6th ruling “came in response to a motion brought by Log Cabin Republicans, a group for gay GOP members, which last year persuaded a lower court judge to declare the ban unconstitutional,” reported AP News. The Pentagon appealed U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ ruling that the ban on homosexuals should be immediately lifted, and the 9th Circuit agreed to keep the ban in place while it considered the implications.
Casey Anthony, the young woman arrested and tried for having murdered her three-year-old daughter, has just been acquitted of the most serious charges that had been leveled against her. Scores of people who had been following this case closely from the beginning are outraged over the verdict. Like O.J. Simpson 16 years earlier, Anthony, they swear, just got away with murder.
Admittedly, I don’t know nearly as much about the details of this situation as those who are now indignant over how it ended. But it isn’t to the Anthony case itself that I wish to speak but, rather, the notions of justice that it has brought to the surface.
Those who believe that Casey Anthony did indeed murder her daughter view her acquittal as proof that justice, in this case, has not been served. It is hard not to sympathize with this sentiment, for there is nothing easier in the world than to regard justice in terms of results. Yet for as difficult as it may be to refrain from identifying with this conception of justice, it is imperative that we try, for nothing less than our freedom as Americans depends upon it.
Liberty-minded Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced plans this week to re-introduce a bill that would hold Transportation Security Agency (TSA) screeners liable for violating laws on sexual assault, as well as laws on the production of lewd images and potentially causing harm through mass radiation of passengers with so-called “naked body” scanners.
The legislation, called the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” would subject TSA employees to the same system of rules governing everyone else. “It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey,” Paul explained in his July 5 “Texas Straight Talk” report announcing the decision to re-introduce the bill.