Law vs. Morality

 Liberty-loving Patriots Have a Duty to Disobey Unconstitutional Laws

By: Walter E. Williams
(One of my Heros & favorite Limbaugh fill-in host)

Let’s think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a law — and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional — requiring American families to attend church services at least three times a month. Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress, acting under the Constitution’s commerce clause, enacted a law requiring motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents and accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the 1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?

A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, “Williams, you’re wrong this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.” That court decision, as well as some others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Soon, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, euphemistically titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There is absolutely no constitutional authority for Congress to force any American to enter into a contract to buy any good or service. But if the court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, what should we do?

State governors and legislators ought to summon up the courage of our Founding Fathers in response to the 5th Congress’ Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Led by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 were drafted where legislatures took the position that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. They said, “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government … (and) whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The 10th Amendment to our Constitution supports that vision: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In a word, if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, citizens should press their state governors and legislatures to nullify the law. You say, “Williams, the last time states got into this nullification business, it led to a war that cost 600,000 lives.” Two things are different this time. First, most Americans are against Obamacare, and secondly, I don’t believe that you could find a U.S. soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot down fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.

Congress has already gone far beyond the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In Federalist No. 45, Madison explained: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” That vision has been turned on its head; it’s the federal government whose powers are numerous and indefinite, and those of the state are now few and defined.

Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

No Gold at the End of This Moonbeam

Predictably, California has gone from bad (Governor  Schwarzenegger, the Governator) to worse (Gerry Brown, Governor Moonbeam). Who could have predicted this?

How long will it be before California comes to Washington, hat in hand, for a bailout?

Even the NY Times can’t sugar coat this one.

LOS ANGELES — The state budget shortfall in California has increased dramatically in the last six months, forcing state officials to assemble a series of new spending cuts that are likely to mean further reductions to schools, health care and other social programs already battered by nearly five years of budget retrenchment, state officials announced on Saturday.

Gov. Gerry Brown, disclosing the development in a video posted on YouTube, said that California’s shortfall was now projected to be $16 billion, up from $9.2 billion in January. Mr. Brown said that he would propose a revised budget on Monday to deal with it.

“We are now facing a $16 billion hole, not the $9 billion we thought in January,” Mr. Brown said. “This means we will have to go much further and make cuts far greater than I asked for at the beginning of the year.”

Mr. Brown disclosed the news in a video that had all the trappings of a campaign announcement. In it, he aggressively accounted for the steps he said he had taken to try to scale back a $26 billion deficit he found upon taking office. And he urged viewers to back an initiative he is putting on the November ballot that would increase sales taxes by 0.25 percent and impose an income tax surcharge on wealthy Californians to try to stave off more cuts.

State officials said Mr. Brown’s proposal would include a package of immediate cuts, as well as others that would be triggered only if voters failed to approve his tax plan. The sales tax increase would expire after four years, while the income tax surcharge would last for seven years.

State officials said the shortfall was a result of disappointing revenue collections in April as California continued to struggle to pull out of the recession. “We are still recovering from the worst recession since the 1930s,” Mr. Brown said.

Still, the state controller reported that the state had exceeded spending by $2.1 billion as well, though Mr. Brown said court rulings and other actions that restricted California from making the cuts were at least partly to blame.

At the same time, the deficit projections — which have been increasing since Mr. Brown and the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a budget last summer — suggest that the state may have been overly optimistic in estimating what kind of revenue it would take in. That has been a repeated problem in Sacramento as officials have struggled over the past five years with the state’s worst financial crisis since the Depression. Mr. Brown, in taking office last year, pledged to end what he said were the tricks lawmakers regularly used to paper over budget shortfalls.

Attgribution: NY Times

The Blame Game

 From: Tim Brown at FrontPorch Politics

According to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who appeared on Fox News’ ‘Hannity’ on Friday, Barack Obama drafted a memo to protect himself from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. This would have allowed Obama to then place the blame of the failure of the mission on General William H. McRaven.

Mukasey wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal this week.

He told Sean Hannity,

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

Michael Mukasey then went on to contrast Barack Obama’s “blame game” with Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. In doing so he contrasted the way Barack Obama calculates to take credit for himself and place blame on others.

 
 

When it came to Lincoln and the failures attributed to General George McClellan and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Lincoln took the blame stating, “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower was very similar. In the famous statement penned before the Normandy invasion, in anticipation of failure, Eisenhower wrote, “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Once the invasion had been successful, Eisenhower didn’t take credit, but rather gave credit where it was due. “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes. I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.”

Look how far we have come from the days when a man took responsibility for his decisions instead of blaming others.

Must be Sunspots

A unbelievably large sunspot has appeared in the past few days, which could mean the Earth is about to be blasted by powerful solar storms.

Known as AR 1476, it was spotted by Nasa’s Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft, which launched in 2010.

Its diameter of 60,000 miles is many times that of the Earth, which measures just under 8,000 miles across.

The sunspot is so enormous that it’s possible to view with home telescopes – though experts warn that these must be fitted with sun filters to prevent permanent eye damage.

In a tweet, the SDO mission described the sunspot as a ‘monster’ and predicted that a huge solar flare – or coronal mass ejection – could erupt as a result, meaning the Earth would be hosed by radiation travelling at up to 5million mph.

Sunspots often travel in pairs and are darker than the surrounding area because they are slightly cooler, which makes them less luminous. They are caused by the sun’s magnetic field becoming twisted – and it’s this twisting dynamic that can produce coronal mass ejections. These contain billions of tons of gases bursting with X-rays and ultraviolet radiation. They are mind-bogglingly hot – around 100,000,0000C.

The Earth is occasionally hit by these ejections, leading to amazing shimmering light shows. They are the result of ionized solar particles becoming imprisoned by Earth’s magnetic field, exciting the gases in the atmosphere and emitting bursts of energy in the form of light.

However, these particles can also cause magnetic storms, which in extreme cases have been known to disrupt satellites and electrical grids. In 1989, a CME was responsible for leaving six million people in Quebec, Canada, without power.

Solar activity runs in 11-year cycles, with the current one peaking in 2013, so more violent space weather is on the horizon.

Dr Matthew Penn, of the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, said recently, ‘Because the sun is becoming more active, it will have an impact on millions of people. Sunspots can cause the biggest and most damaging space storms that occur.

He added, ‘During the next two years, we are expecting the number of sunspots visible on the sun to reach a maximum. We know that sunspots are the source of a lot of space weather and solar storms, so we expect a larger number of solar storms here at the Earth.’

The Real War on Women

Recently the left has tried to advance the notion that there is a war on women being waged by the Republican Party and members of the right.

It turns out that this got very little traction and has all but fizzled out. The left may try to resurrect it as the general election heats up, but I doubt it will achieve any traction or be a deciding factor in the election one way or the other.

There is, however, a real war on women being waged daily and has been going on for centuries.

I speak, of course, of Islam and countries that use Sharia as the law of the land.

In Islamic society, a woman or girl is subjugated to, at best, a second-class citizen, or more appropriately, enslaved.

In Islam, marriage for the woman is not a happy experience.

In Islam, the wife is a slave to her husband. The Islamic traditions stress that a woman should obey her husband’s commands. The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women” (Q 4.34).

In addition to absolute obedience, a woman should revere her husband because Islam teaches that, “If a woman knew the right of a husband, she would not sit at his lunch and supper time until he finishes.” One time, a woman came to the Prophet of Islam to ask about her obligations to her husband. He said, “If he had pus from his hair part to his foot (from head to toe) and you licked him, you would not have shown him enough gratitude.”

The Quran gives the husband the right to punish his wife if she goes outside the parameters that he draws for her. It provides men with instructions: “But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then you do not seek a way against them.” (Q 4.34).

In reading the verse above one will notice that these instructions were given to the husband concerning a wife whom he only fears disloyalty, not a wife that actually committed a disloyal act.

At the beginning of marriage, the husband reminds his wife about the rights that are given to him by Sharia Law. He can say to her, “Fear Allah! I have rights due to me from you. Repent from what you’re doing. Know that obedience to me is one of your obligations.” If the wife refuses to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband, that he should remind her of his rights over her body.

According to Islamic teaching, if the wife remains “disobedient”, her husband should ignore her. This means he abstains from sexual intercourse with her as part of this phase of the punishment.

The word hajr is interpreted to mean, “to refuse to share their beds”. The word hajr actually has several meanings. One of these meanings indicates the hajr of the camel when the owner binds the animal with a hijar, or rope. This rather disturbing interpretation means that the term used in Q 4.34, “refuse to share their beds”, can actually mean to bind the wife and force her to have sexual intercourse.

The Quranic principle of a man’s right to a woman’s body is not open for discussion. Regardless of her psychological or physical state, she has to obey the man’s command to lie in bed and have sexual relations with him.

The prophet of Islam repeatedly made statements advocating this view:

“If a man calls his woman to his bed, and she does not come, and then he goes to bed angry at her, the Angels will curse her until the morning.”

If the previous methods, including instruction and verbal abuse, failed to correct a wife’s behavior, then the husband is given the right to beat his wife. Even though verse Q 4.34 does not specify the mode or limit of the beating, it is believed that the prophet of Islam but a condition on the beating, classifying it as “not excessive”.

When interpreting the phrase “not excessive beating”, Islamic scholars offer the following guidelines:

Avoid hitting the wife’s face. Do not break any of the wife’s bones. Use nonfatal implements or physical force, such as the use of al-siwak (a twig of the Salvadora persica tree), or shoelaces, etc. and the use of the hand (hitting, slapping, punching the neck and chest, etc.).

The wife may receive a beating for any behavior that incites the anger of her husband or for every act that her husband does not like. Current Islamic literature supports the legitimacy of beating and its benefits for “upbringing”.

The abuse of women under Sharia law extends not only to wives but to all females, regardless of age.

Most are forbidden to work or leave the house without a male escort. They are not allowed to seek medical attention from a male doctor and are forced to cover themselves head to toe, even covering their eyes.

It has been widely publicized in Saudi Arabia, which is most Sharia adherent, that women are not allowed to drive, which is rather immaterial, since, for the most part, they are not allowed to leave the house.

Child marriages are quite common as is giving away girls for simple dispute resolution. Forced isolation in the home, exchange marriage and honor killings are also part of Sharia.

In Afghanistan a number of women have been known to set themselves on fire because they cannot bear their lives. Between 60 and 80% of all marriages in Afghanistan are forced as many as 57% of girls are married off below the age of 16, some as young as six. Girls are a commodity and marriage is essentially just a financial transaction.

Sharia law allows polygamy and only men can acquire easy divorce. Under Sharia, the marriage contract actually has three spaces to be filled in by the groom, with the names and addresses of additional wives should he have any.

The penalty for a woman’s extramarital sexual indiscretion is death by stoning or beheading. Rape is a crime under Sharia law, but the criminal and guilty party is always the female, regardless of age or circumstance.

Women who’ve been raped cannot report the crime because they require 4 males to witness the crime and run the risk of being prosecuted for having sex outside marriage.

Saudi women are denied the right to make even the most trivial decisions for their children and are not permitted to travel without permission from the child’s father.

So the next time you encounter a woman complaining that she can’t afford her contraception or bellyaching over some supposed “glass ceiling”, remind her how blessed she is to be born and raised in this country, where she has the same rights as everyone else.

 Attribution: AL FADI

Squaw no More

By: The Common Constitutionalist

How might you find Elizabeth Warren? Just look for the Trail of Tears. (buh-dum-bum)

Yes, by now we’ve all heard the claim by Massachusetts democrat candidate for Senator, Elizabeth Warren, that, due to her high cheek bones, she was 1/32 Cherokee Indian and thus claimed minority status as a Law Professor.

Joke-A-Hontas

Well it turns out that’s not quite accurate. As a matter of fact, it’s about as inaccurate as one might be, unless she made the claim on that well-known holiday,  “Opposite Day”.

See, one of her ancestors, although not an indian himself was directly involved with the Cherokee…mainly slaughtering them.

Paul Reed, a Utah genealogist who is a fellow at the American Genealogical Society, said he found primary documentation that shows Warren’s great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford served in a Tennessee militia unit that rounded up Cherokees before they were force-marched to Oklahoma in the infamous “Trail of Tears.”

He was Militia member? Did he own a gun? Hope he had a permit. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Thousand of Indians died from exposure and malnutrition on that trail, mandated by the  heartless “Indian removal Act” of 1830, signed by that evil bastard, Andrew Jackson.

“Jonathan H. Crawford did serve in the Indian wars,” said Reed. “He is listed as serving in the company that rounded up Cherokees.”

In my opinion, this is just another example of elitist arrogance. These folks have been protected by the media and housed safely in their academic cocoons for so long, they believe they can do or say anything without ever being questioned. She could have said that she stowed away in the Apollo moon lander and the only question to her might be, “How was the food”? 

When someone finally does question them, they become belligerent and try to deflect attention onto someone else. In this case, her republican opponent, Senator Scott Brown, asking why he keeps on this topic. She complains he should stick to the issues and no one in the media ever bothers to remind her that she was the one who started this whole indian nonsense.