Collectivists’ Goal Is To Dilute Our Concept Of Individualism

By GEORGE F. WILL
Posted 10/05/2011 06:05 PM ET

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor and former Obama administration regulator (for consumer protection), is modern liberalism incarnate. As she seeks the Senate seat Democrats held for 57 years before 2010, when Scott Brown impertinently won it, she clarifies the liberal project and the stakes of contemporary politics.

The project is to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual’s zone of sovereignty. The regulatory state, liberalism’s instrument, constantly tries to contract that zone — for the individual’s own good, it says. Warren says:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you.

“But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. … You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts. (more…)

 Christie’s ‘Crazies’

Congress should act under Article III of the Constitution, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” …to define allowable subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts to exclude the authority of Sharia Law.

Pushed by a well funded and vocal monitory of Muslims, lower courts are picking away at this issue to steadily expand the influence of Sharia Law in American jurisprudence. Congress should act at the federal level to shut down the entire movement. Our laws are murky enough without incorporating this cult of religious law.

There are plenty of countries the U.S. can study in the world, such as Malaysia, to satisfy any judicial curiosities about Sharia Law. We don’t need to corrupt our own law to find those answers. Justice will not be served with Sharia Law in America.

This Time Magazine article is a frontal assault on the legitimacy and gravity of the Constitution in a news opinion article titled to alarm people over our Constitution “Under Siege.”  Time Magazine is perpetrating a “Siege” on the Constitution while warning about it at the same time.  This is a classic propaganda construct. (more…)

Youtube Video of winning essay speeches

(Note: All 6 winning speeches — 3 Middle School and 3 High School — are contained in the video.)

Oklahoma citizens had it right when they voted to prevent Oklahoma judges from using Sharia law to decide Oklahoma cases.  Sharia law contradicts rights granted to Americans in the Declaration of Independence and rights protected from government encroachment in the Constitution.  When Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants CAIR’s claim that the practice of Sharia law is a constitutional right, she demonstrates ignorance of either the Constitution or Sharia law or both.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind (Robert Reilly) (more…)

WikiLeaks and a fragile community - David Brooks NYT Opinion

Consider the effect computers have had on the insurance industry, and consequentially, on all of the risks (health, life, fire, accident, loss) funded by the insurance industry.  Prior to computers, the historical price for an insurance provider to cover a beneficiary was the product of static market conditions.  Insurance is a financial service product based on knowledge of risk, and the knowledge of various risks to beneficiaries had been stable for many years.  With the advent of computerization, beneficiaries and risk could be correlated in the machine so that insurers could now choose which beneficiaries were least likely to cost them benefits.  Computer correlation of beneficiary data fundamentally shifted the bargaining power between insurers and beneficiaries, and as we can see with health insurance, the consequences to this radical shift are still playing out in a myriad of market and government reactions. (more…)

It is passing strange, to use one of George Will’s expressions, that so many voices trumpet the rule of law with espionage charges against WikiLeaks, while remaining silent on the constitutional 1st Am. protection of the free press to publish in America.  Their silence on the fundamental constitutional question speaks more loudly than their proposed enforcement of the rule of law over the very narrow espionage charge.

The taboo lies in the unsubstantiated conclusion that America’s interests have been harmed by these leaks. This is not a proven conclusion. It is unsubstantiated fear mongering. Sure, diplomats feelings have been hurt. America’s true interest lies with informed citizens who now have an opportunity to see the world their unfettered executive branch diplomats have been screwing around with overseas. Diplomats are embarrassed by this disclosure and they should be. The solution is not to censor the internet, as the executive branch has now begun doing. It is not to fortify and further enable a secret domain where unelected functionaries pursue their personal prescriptions for America’s interests, as this Post article calls for. The solution is to raise the bar - the standard against which diplomacy is measured, and hold the executive branch to that higher standard in all diplomatic matters.

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

Awad vs. Oklahoma State Board of Elections

Islam is a religion, a political system, and a legal system.  These three Muslim domains are intertwined and inseparable.

Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that Muslims require a Sharia legal system in order to practice their religion.  American law cannot incorporate a Sharia legal system into its jurisprudence since doing so would also incorporate Islamic political and religious tenants into its constitutional common law.  This would plainly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Therefore this claim pleads for an unconstitutional remedy on its face and should be denied.

From:    Mountain States Legal Foundation - Perry Pendley
Sent:      Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 AM
Subject:    Opportunity to battle Obama’s attempt to invalidate Arizona’s illegal immigration statue

I want to tell you of a unique opportunity to participate in the battle by Arizona, assisted by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), against attempts by the Obama Administration to invalidate Arizona’s illegal immigration statute, S.B. 1070.

On Monday, November 1, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Savings Time, C-SPAN will broadcast LIVE, oral  arguments before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Arizona.  The three judges include:  Richard Paez (appointed by Bill Clinton), John Noonan (appointed by Ronald Reagan), and Carlos Bea (appointed by George W. Bush).

I will be watching.  If you watch, I would be interested in learning what you think. (more…)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner v Obama

The threat to petitioners’ life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration of Independence recognizes these rights as “unalienable” and as having been endowed upon an individual by his or her “Creator.” The Constitution recognizes these rights not as being abstract or theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and needing protection from government abuses. It recognizes these rights as the essence of a person’s being. Petitioners sued Obama after he assumed the great and singular powers of the Executive. Obama was not a mere candidate with no power. Obama has had and continues to have executive and military power to harm the petitioners. He actually exercises those powers on a daily basis. Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect them as a “natural born Citizen” would. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the problems presented by dual nationality and has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that a person with such dual nationality “may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952). But because Obama has yet to and because he cannot conclusively prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his conflicting natural allegiance and loyalty, plaintiffs are not constitutionally expected to nor do they trust him to protect their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property as would a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is a “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners must therefore be allowed to challenge Obama in order to protect these concrete rights.

CONCLUSION

The United States faced a heavy burden in establishing its entitlement to a preliminary injunction enjoining Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070. The United States fell far short of meeting that burden. The district court’s finding that the United States is likely to prevail on its claims that sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070 are preempted failed to apply the correct standard for the United States’ facial challenge to these provisions, failed in its analysis of Congress’ intent, and erroneously accepted at face value all of the United States’ factual assertions. The serious errors in the district court’s preliminary injunction order require that the order be vacated.

US v Arizona SB 1070 Appellant Brief

In The Grand Jihad, Andrew McCarthy writes,

“Defending ourselves will require flushing out the Islamists: identifying them and imposing on them the burden of defending their totalitarian ideology against the positive case for liberty and human reason.  Doing so will undeniably burden true moderate Muslims as well: Given the prevalence of anti-Constitutional beliefs in Islam, foreign Muslims should not be permitted to reside in America unless they can demonstrate their acceptance of American constitutional principles.  But those who satisfy this burden should be welcomed, encouraged, and given the space necessary to seek reform.”

Well said.

“Little wonder that Americans find the Obama Administration’s Census Bureau’s emphasis on race a little off-putting, perhaps even worrisome.  Fortunately, Mark Krikorian provided a possible remedy.  Noting the words of Justice Antonin Scalia in the famous Adarand ruling—“In the eyes of government, we are just one race here.  It is American.”—Krikorian suggested answering “Question 9 by checking the last option — ‘Some other race’ — and writing in ‘American’.”  He argued, not only is it “a truthful answer” but it is also a way for “ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes.”  Until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final, binding ruling on the subject, that will have to do.”  (From Mountain States Legal Foundation)