Constitutional Convention Confusion

I hate chain emails. They're often nothing more than hastily copied-and-pasted ramblings that are full of inaccuracies and hysteria. A dear friend forwarded one such email to me recently. It was about a proposed 28th amendment to the U. S. Constitution (full text below). The wording of the proposed amendment: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

That's fine, but the rest of the email is fraught with half-truths. Nevertheless, it reminded me of a few constitutional issues currently ongoing. Before we look further at that email, let's remember the 10th Amendment:

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.

The 10th Amendment is all about "states' rights," and is a crucial element of American federalism. Put simply, it guarantees that any powers that are not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved for the states and the citizenry.

The so-called "proposed 28th amendment" seems like a good idea in spirit. After all, we're all supposed to be equal under the law.

The proposed wording in the email, however, is too simple and based on too many assumptions, too few facts and downright errors. For example, the email erroneously says that "Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention." To my knowledge, and according to my research, this is false.

It is true, however, that 21 states are currently enjoined in suing the federal government over last year's health care reform overhaul. They claim it is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, including the infringement of states' rights. (The states will probably lose in this effort.) Not surprisingly, Obama's Justice Department is moving to crush the suit. The 21 states are: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, and WA.

In May 2010, reports FoxNews, "A group of Republican lawmakers launched a task force on Thursday that seeks to reclaim the powers they say the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away from the 50 states. The 10th Amendment Task Force, a project of the Republican Study Committee, will develop and promote proposals that aim to usher in what supporters are calling a 'New Era of Federalism.' 'When federalism is out of balance, people get hurt,' Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, one of the group's 10 co-founding members, said at a news conference Thursday. 'We want to empower state and local governments'." 

Back to the email about "the 28th amendment," (my comments in red):

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. 

NOTE: Not true. There are two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to Lexis Nexis, "Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment." Did you notice the part that says that two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve it? Uh huh. Then it goes to the states. The other method requires "a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states." 

"Two thirds" of 50 state legislatures is 33.33333. Whether that's rounded to 33 or 34 is immaterial: The email falsely claims that "it only takes 38 (of the 50) States" to call a constitutional convention. That's an error of at least five states.

This (proposed amendment) will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

An idea whose time has come

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

NOTE: This is misinformation. Members of Congress do NOT retire with full pay. From FoxNews, December 2007: Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below). Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary. (More at FoxNews. Fox also notes that, since 1983, members of Congress do pay Social Security.)

Snopes.com also notes the falsehood of the claim of lavish pensions for members of Congress. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp) 

Even if Congressional pensions were altered in some way, that would not affect the similarly large pensions enjoyed by many former city council members, state legislators and other elected officials, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of local, county, state and federal bureaucrats. The proponent/s of this amendment also walk the razor's edge of demanding that everyone in America be paid exactly the same wages. Some call that communism. To be frank, I like to think that a member of Congress is paid generously. 

Why? Simple: National security. A well-paid member of Congress is less likely to want or need to take bribes, from lobbyists or agents of foreign nations. Well paid public officials are generally not as inclined to steal as those who are not. Ask any police officer in Tijuana.

Have each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

NOTE: Not true, and it's faulty arithmetic. Let's say you send the email to 20 friends, and each of them send it to 20 people on the first day. That would 20 x 20, or 400 people. On day two, those 400 each send the email to 20 friends. That would be another 8,000. 

On day three, each of those 8,000 people sends it to 20 of their contacts. That's 160,000. Let's go on to day four, where 20 x 160,000 becomes 3,200,000 (about 1/10th of the U.S. population). On day five: 64,000,000. On day six: 1,280,000,000 (that's one billion, two hundred eighty million). Granted, the email could theoretically reach an enormous number of people in a short time. However, the email specifically claimed that it would reach "most people" in the U.S. "in three days." There are just over 300 million people in the U.S. "Most" of them would be just over 150,000,000. As we see, nowhere near that number would be reached in three days, and in reality the email would frequently be either ignored, not forwarded, or lost in spam bins.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

You are one of my 20.

Please: Don't forward this to anybody.

Obama Calls Racist Sonia Sotomayer "Inspiring"

“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Oh, wait a minute, sorry. Sotomayer didn't make that racist statement. She made this racist statement: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She made that blatantly racist remark at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley in 2001, as reported by the New York Times. Sotomayer is the radical leftist judge that radical leftist Barack Obama intends to nominate to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama is currently pretending to be the legal President of the United States (until his hidden Kenyan birth certificate turns up). Obama calls the racist Sotomayer "inspiring." That's nice, isn't it? In 2005, Sotomayer came off sounding like a complete fool when she essentially admitted to believing that appeals courts should take advocacy roles and make law. (Courts are not supposed to make law; they are supposed to enforce laws that are made by legislative bodies.) Watch the video on YouTube. The Sotomayer confirmation hearings will be wicked. Republicans will oppose it enthusiastically. Count on it. Also count on a number of Democrats shying away from defending such an openly bigoted person. A few, that is. Unfortunately, too many of the Democrat party leaders have been compromised by the far Left - or are part and parcel of it. Sadly, the party that once stood for equality now has a titular head who calls a racist like Sotomayer "inspiring." This is a symptom of the Left's hypocrisy on racism. You see, if a liberal or a Democrat makes a racist statement, it's not really racist. Let a conservative make a racist statment and the Left jumps all over them. I don't condone racist statements, but the Left's double standing can be breathtaking. It's not unique to the American Left, either. In Britain, for example, Leftists call the British National Party (BNP) "racist." BNP responds this way: Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people. If the BNP is racist for holding this position, then, we would suggest, all of the following organisations - some of them state funded - are also “racist” because they too address themselves exclusively to the issues and concerns of their respective communities: BNP goes on to list 32 organizations in Britain that are clearly race based and set up for one ethnic or racial group, such as "Operation Black Vote." BNP then asks the question: "Have you noticed how the media NEVER calls any of these organisations “racist” even though they are openly organised along ethnic lines and stand for the rights of their respective communities? It seems as if every group has the right to have an organisation speaking up for its rights - EXCEPT the indigenous British people." (Source) Back to the U.S., where there is a group called the Congressional Black Caucus. Can you imagine the cries of "racism!" if some U.S. Representatives formed a "Congressional White Caucus?" Of course you can, yet the mainstream media, liberals and Democrats kiss the CBC's collective booty. It's a double standard, and that's another way of saying hypocrisy. So, is the Congressional Black Caucus really racist, just because it's oriented toward Black Americans? No, not really, and I'll quote BNP again: In reality, none of these organisations are “racist” — each and every community has the inalienable right to look after its own interests. There you go. The right to associate with whom you wish, which is supported by all conservatives. Not the Left, however, who would scream bloody murder if some enterprising publisher started a magazine called "White Hair." Think about it. RELATED: Leave a Comment on our Guestbook! CommieBama Hats and More - Whoa, cool! Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter Chicago News Bench RSS Feed

States Resisting Obama's Tyranny

One of the most important editorials you will ever read appears in an April 21 post on GetLiberty.org. It discusses the fact that a growing number of states are standing up to Obama, reminding him that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. A number of states have passed resolutions that demand Obama “cease and desist” his gargantuan government expansionism and also call to light a set of federal laws and regulations put into effect by Obama that violate the 10th Amendment - and can therefore be nullified by the states. In other words, governors around the country are telling the Obama Regime to stuff it. Titled "The States Strike Back," the GetLiberty.org editorial discusses a quiet but growing louder revolution among state governors, of which few Americans are yet aware: Last week, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) fired a warning shot across the federal government’s bow with his polite reminder that Texas could always secede from the Union. He also endorsed a resolution affirming the Tenth Amendment that has gained traction in several states, increasing the public momentum in favor of returning power to the states. Full Post... Many Americans seem to forget that, unlike many nations, our is a federal government, not a national government. Or, at least, that's what the Constitution says. Liberals and Democrats have been attacking and chipping away at the federal structure in favor of a national one for many decades now. Why? Simple. States rights allows a patchwork of laws across the nation. If you don't like the set of laws in your state or the culture they help create, you can move to another state where the political, legal and tax environments better suit you. That gives you choice. What the Democrats and Liberals do not like is your ability to choose, for that means they have less control over your lives. Getting rid of states rights only strengthens Washington's ability to dictate the rules. Think Soviet Union: From Stalin's point of view, it would have made little sense to allow Ukraine or others of its slave nations the ability to tell Moscow to go screw itself. They paid dearly for the lack of that right. Stalin, from Moscow, ruled with an iron fist. That's the kind of situation the Founders of this nation wished to avoid by guaranteeing states rights. It is exactly the kind of situation, however, that the radical leftists of the Obama Regime drool over. RELATED: Texas Governor's Secession Talk Stirs Furor Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s Action States Rights, One of the Causes of the Civil War States’ Rights Hypocrites Emerge Tenth Amendment Center The Hill Blog - States Rights Are Rapidly Eroding ... Ron Paul: Secession is American - Democratic Underground Republicans have a better civil rights record than Democrats CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!

Urban League's Declaration of Dependence

Star Parker

Star Parker (photo) is a brilliant columnist on, and the founder and President of, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education (CURE), a 501(c)(3) social policy think tank. She writes what she thinks, and she always thinks carefully about what she writes. 

This week, Parker thought a lot about the National Urban League and their shameful willingness to declare, in effect, that African-Americans are not able to make it on their own, and that Big Government is the only hope for them. Those are my words, not Parker's. She says it a whole lot better than I can: 

The National Urban League has just issued its annual State of Black America report. It provides a troubling statistical snapshot of where blacks stand today in our country. Like Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, I'm concerned. But after concern, we part company. We have very different ideas of what it is we should be concerned about. Morial, I am sure, sees his organization as part of the solution. From what I see, it is a well-funded symptom of the problem. 

Note: If you want a copy of the State of Black America report, the National Urban League will gladly sell you a copy for $19.95. However, you can find a free Executive Summary and free abstracts at no charge on their website.

Parker jumps right into to her declaration that the National Urban League, a suck-up organization in the pocket of the Democrat National Committee, is not part of any solution. The National Urban League, she says, is a big part of the problem: Shouldn't it embarrass black Americans that one the nation's largest and most prestigious civil rights organizations offers a long list of proposals to improve black life in our country, and every single proposal is a government program? Government funded jobs as the answer to unemployment, more government money in public schools, government health care, government business loans, government money for retirement accounts, government programs for counseling homebuyers, government worker training programs, government money for building construction, and on and on. 

Indeed, it should embarrass not just black Americans but all Americans that, in the year 2009, so much of the failed policies of Lyndon Johnson's not-so-"Great Society" are still clung to by race-baiting opportunists. The National Urban League is such an opportunistic organization, eager to take the tax dollars of hard working men and women regardless of race and redistribute it to those who have not earned it. A main motivation of such immoral action: Power. He who controls the gold controls those to whom he doles it. Why do you think 90 percent of black voters, in a typical election, will vote for the Democrat? Because organizations like the Urban League are in a devil's pact with the Democrats and the redistributionists. 

Parker continues: There's not a single proposal that I could find in a several hundred-page report about improving black life that does not start with government. The civil rights movement once was about freedom and liberation. Now it's about government dependency. We should be ashamed. 

Ashamed, yes. Surprised, no, not with reflection and critical thought. One of the most disturbing nightmares for the Democrat Party leadership and groups such as the National Urban League is one in which black people and other minority groups begin to realize that freedom and liberty is killed by dependence. Whether that dependence is that of a child to parent or welfare recipient to government bureaucrat, freedom dies and the recipient is co-opted. Creativity is discouraged, enterprise muted, progress retarded. 

But, you may whimper, blacks and minorities need more help than, you know, the rest of us. That's liberal code for "white people." The Democrat Party and the Urban League don't mind that at all. The notion that one cannot make it with Uncle Sam's hand up one's rear end, as with a ventriloquist and his dummy, is just fine and dandy. The ventriloquist, after all, controls the dummy. What good would it do the ventriloquist if the dummy got off his lap, walked away, and booked his own act? 

Racism still exists, but it can no longer be blamed as a blanket reason for blacks to fail. Too many black Americans are succeeding, thank God, for that to be a valid reason any longer. It is now an shirker's excuse. As Parker writes, "Regarding discrimination, you have to wonder what it will take to get off this convenient excuse. Some 40 million white Americans voted for Barack Obama for president. That is two million more white Americans than voted for John Kerry in 2004." 

It is, perhaps, an ironic statement for Parker to make, considering that Kerry and Obama have been and continue to be part of the cabal that encourages groups like the National Urban League - and the myth that black Americans can't make it without them. 

UPDATED - Obama's Dictatorship Quest Nearly Complete

Obama’s Plan for ‘Brown Shirts’ - Mandatory National Service - The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed. The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.” 

Obama Volunteer Bill Prohibits “Religious Instruction” - The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama. This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it... 

--- Original Post --- 

We've been screaming about H.R. 1388 (the GIVE Act) and how it will help form a national youth corps reminiscent of the Hitler Youth. Paranoid? Me? Read the following, then tell me if you don't feeling a bit paranoid. We are being enslaved goose step by goose step, becoming entrapped in the kind of "soft tyranny" that De Toqueville warned us about. I got an ominous email this morning from a trusted source: It passed last night in the Senate.... all Obama has to do is sign now... and he will..... There are so many others left to fight.... This is so bad.... They are trying to pass a bill removing the limit on the number of terms the president can serve now.... [She refers to H.J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. See GovTrack for full info. This would repeal the 22nd Amendment.] 

I emailed back and asked where she was getting her info: Directly from the senate/house sites.... plus tons of political friends.... I am neck deep in this stuff, and I have decided that I am not going down without a fight.... I will keep you as updated as possible.... This is getting really bad.... 

Keep reading. This is getting really bad indeed. 

H.R. 1388 has a creative title: The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act. 321 representatives of the people voted approval for this legislation which, among many other things, strikes a blow to the rights of people to mount any protests against legislation. 

Listen closely, it outlaws the right to mount protests against proposed legislation. (Source) To all of you Democrats and Liberals out there: You loved to remind us that "dissent is patriotic," and I agree with that wholeheartedly. So where are now that the US Congress, with Obama's urging, has just stepped closer to completely removing your right to dissent? 

Kurt Nimmo explains: On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE (to government), Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people. Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress. Full Post... 

Your precious Obama Change? Here's your "change," folks: Anti-union, anti-free speech, the crushing of civil rights, all accomplished within Obama's first 100 days. In eight years, Bush never managed such a feat, despite all of the lunatic, unfounded fears of the Left. Obama is goose stepping us into a socialist tyranny. 

You still think that's paranoia? In the video here, Obama says "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." 

Ho-lee-shyt. More from Nimmo: In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air notes today that this is not a uniquely Democrat initiative: Again, in fairness, this is neither new nor particular to Democrats. Misguided politicians from both parties have argued for some sort of national service that would encompass a military draft and options for civilian service as substitutes for it. Most of these came shortly after the end of the draft in the early 1970s. Lately, though, the idea seems to come more from Democrats, who used to oppose the notion of compulsory service on grounds of individual liberty. Barack Obama talked about a “civilian national security force” during the campaign, but retreated when he received criticism for it. Variations of this idea have floated around for months, including the creation of an infrastructure labor force that would displace businesses in public-works projects and so on. Full Post... 

Fair enough, but Morrissey reminds us of the danger: Republicans have an opportunity to stand for individual liberty and the limitation of government control over the lives of young people across the nation by opposing GIVE’s new study and all talk of compulsory service. Ask college-age students how they feel about taking two years out of their post-educational lives to dig ditches and build bridges not because they want to do it, but because it will become illegal to refuse. I suspect they will start Google-mapping the best routes to Canada — or stop voting for the people proposing to enslave them. 

Back to Nimmo: GIVE ...will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.” 

Michelle Malkin's column today points out the creepiness of the GIVE act (emphasis added): Especially troublesome to parents’ groups concerned about compulsory volunteerism requirements is a provision in the House version, directing Congress to explore “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.” Those who have watched AmeriCorps from its inception are all-too-familiar with how government voluntarism programs have been used for propaganda and political purposes. AmeriCorps “volunteers” have been put to work lobbying against the voter-approved three-strikes anti-crime initiative in California and protesting Republican political events while working for the already heavily-tax-subsidized liberal advocacy group ACORN. Full column... 

If, after reading all of this, you're still not feeling creeped out and just bit paranoid, you can go back to sleep. But you might not like the nightmare you wake up to, comrade. 

Tea Party Postal Action Today!

America's Tea Party reminds you that "In honor of the 10th Amendment, we Americans can send our representatives in every level of government a simple reminder on March 10th by sending the following e-mail." Check it out. It's very easy to send a letter to your representative/s in Congress. Visit the Tea Party's Grassroots Central... Or, you can just find your representatives here and send your own letters to them. Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Cool Stuff...

ALERT: States Telling Obama To Shove It

Upcoming tea party events: March 10 - Write to your representatives in Congress (more info here) April 1 - Send a tea bag to the White House (more info here) April 15 - Tax Day Tea Party protest events nationwide (more info here) July 4 - Tea Party protest events nationwide (more info here) Secession, anybody? Eleven of the United States have told Washington to keep their "stimulus" money. They've told Barack Obama to shove it where the sun does not shine. With these incredible developments, one cannot help wonder how many more states will wise up, and which of them will be the first to secede from the Union. This startling report from Human Events on Feb. 23 (emphasis added): State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time. In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states. When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: “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." NOW READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE... WHAT ARE YOU DOING THIS FRIDAY? JOIN THE REVOLUTION AGAINST OBAMA'S POWER GRAB AND ATTEND A "TEA PARTY" PROTEST NEAR YOU. FOR INFO SEE "Update: Chicago Tea Party Logistics" and "Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows." CNB RSS Feed

AG Eric Holder, Race Baiter

Our new US Attorney General, a black man in a very high office, called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race and talking about race. Eric Holder, the nation's first African-American attorney general, insulted the entire country today when he spoke to Justice Department employees. The gathering was meant to highlight Black History Month. Would more and honest discussion of race relations be welcome? Sure they would, but what does Eric Holder think of Barack Obama's campaign last year doing back flips to prevent bringing the topic of race into any discussion about the election? He didn't go there. Holder did not acknowledge the fact that it was a whitefolk-controlled Congress that created Black History Month and Martin Luther King Day, and whitefolk-controlled state legislatures that adopted them both as state holidays. He did not mention the fact that a cartoonist is under attack today for showing a dead ape and referring to the author of the stimulus bill; the primary author was Rep. David Obey (D-WI), a white guy, but the lunatic Left is having a spasm of paranoid heebeejeebies by assuming it was a slur against Barack Obama, a white man with some African ancestory. Holder ignored the fact that "political correctness" has had a chilling effect on open and honest discussions of race and race relations. Holder did not mention the fact that there is no "White Congressional Caucus," but there is a "Black Congressional Caucus." Across the country, there are "Black Chambers of Commerce," but nobody dares have a "White Chamber of Commerce." The double standards of the Left are stunning. Holder did not mention that. Nor did he say how he feels about the fact that over 90 percent of Black Americans voted for Barack Obama because of race, and chose to vote agains John McCain because he was white. Whereas, on the other hand, tens of millions of whites and other non-blacks voted for Barack Obama, not caring that he is half black, because they are not obsessed with the race of a candidate - or anybody else, as Eric Holder admitted today that he is. Holders own words, from "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program - Wednesday, February 18, 2009"... Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. Perhaps that's because that vast majority of us are not as obsessed with race as Holder and so many other liberals and Democrats are. I'm a white guy, and when I walk down the street or engage a stranger in conversation, I don't think in terms of race (unless it's thrown in my face by somebody like Eric Holder). Holder and his fellow travelers do, constantly, and they project their own paranoia and onto others. The chip on Holder's shoulder should not be ours to carry, but there he was today, trying to strap it onto our shoulders. The entire speech was an excercise in keeping whatever racial tensions there still are in the United States stirred up. Keep black people convinced that they are all kept down, all victims, and you have a nice constituency that looks to you, the Government Officials, for protection. That gets votes. Holder, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the rest know that if Black Americans realize that Jim Crow is dead, that the Union won the Civil War, and that a black man is the Attorney General under a President who is half black, some might start to also realize that they no longer need to vote for liberals who offend the essentially conservative values of most Black Americans. As Diane Alden wrote, "By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe 'owe' them." (Source) In other words, speeches like Holden's use partial truths to perpetuate a larger lie in order to perpetuate their political grip on minority groups. All of Holder's speech is noteworthy, but I want to highlight a couple of passages for special attention (emphasis added): I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us - the men, and women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the century just past and those others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. Let's pause for a brief comment here. I agree that we must not forget the sad history of slavery and its abuses, and the subsequent sad history of discrimination. But must we constantly drum it up? Not just during Black History Month, either; we get this kind of talk year round. We shouldn't forget the Jewish Holocaust, or the Cambodian Holocaust, or the hundred of years of abuse the Irish took from the English, or any abuse of entire peoples. But for God's sake, do we hear Jews, Cambodians or Irish constantly whining about past abuses? Holder continued (emphasis added): But the names of others of these people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others will some day stand on my more narrow ones. That's good list of American heroes but uhm, would it have killed Eric Holder to include President Abraham Lincoln, or the white abolitionists of the early 1800's? Would it have been too much trouble to mention the thousands upon thousands of white kids in the 1960's who risked brutal attack and even death to march for civil rights? Couldn't Eric Holder have acknowledged the courageous work of white senators and white congressmen and white state legislators around the country who spoke up for civil rights, drafted anti-discrimination laws and passed them, at a time when doing so risked losing elections and even being targeted for violent attack? A mention of the whitefolks who helped the Underground Railroad bring thousands of slaves north to freedom would have been a nice touch. Holder omitted mention of another hero, white guy Salmon P. Chase, known as “the Attorney General of Fugitive Slaves” for defending runaway slaves. No, Holder didn't bother with any of those, although he is undoubtedly aware of all of them. An acknowledgement of those things and those people - those white people - would have diluted his race baiting message and his effort to keep many people believing that Governor George Wallace is still standing in front of the school entrance, arms crossed, vowing to keep out the niggras. What's truly said is that many people swallow that kind of stealth propaganda. A final note: Many of the people who read this post will be upset by my calling Barack Obama a "white man with black ancestry." But that is no less accurate than it is to call Vanessa Williams "black." It is more accurate than simply calling Obama "black." It would be just as accurate as calling him, by the way, a black man with white ancestry. And here's the irony: Liberals like Eric Holder, who demand a more honest dialog about race, get sweaty palms over things like that. The reason is simple: While it's easy to demand an honest, from-the-heart discussion about race, the protocols of the Liberals' own Stalinistic political correctness do not allow it. RELATED: Republicans have a better civil rights record than Democrats Eric Holder: the triumph of tokenism - Skeptical Brotha Black Democrats Vs. Black Republicans (In pictures and deeds) Obama Not Monkey Who Wrote Stimulus Congressional Black Caucus Assesses Its Role Under a Black President Why MLK was a Republican Republicans and Civil Rights The GOP Is the Party of Civil Rights - WSJ.com Washington Times - The 1964 Civil Rights Act The Politically Correct Monster (satire, video) CNB RSS Feed

Pelosi Pisses Off Pope

Hypocritical liar and lapsed Catholic Nancy Pelosi met today with Pope Benedict XVI, her moral opposite, in Vatican City. Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress, is a good candidate for excommunication from the Church for her anti-life views on abortion. She was not excommunicated, but the Pope did give her a diplomatic dissing over the issue of embryocide. The Catholic News Service published this statement from the Vatican (emphasis added): "Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development." Pelosi calls herself a Catholic, but champions abortion "rights." That's a bit like a soccer player who keeps using his hands to handle the ball. It may be against the rules, and by using his hands he is actually not playing soccer, yet he insists that his is the true version of the game. The Pope was clearly not happy to receive Pelosi and her posse. It is unusual for the Pope to not issue photo sessions with visiting dignitaries, but that's how he's treatign the Pelosi encounter. Pelosi gushed (my word) over her visit with Pope Benedict, which should prove annoying to the millions of Democrat sympathizers who viciously mock the Pope and claim to believe that public officials should have no religion in their public lives. The Pelosi statement is astounding: In a statement issued by her office, Pelosi said it was with "great joy" that she and her husband Paul met with Benedict. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel," Pelosi said. (Source: AP) This from Pelosi, who champions causes that fight freedom of religion in public squares and the right of a student to bow her head and silently pray before a test in a public school. The statement continues: "I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family's papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren," said the California congresswoman, who has often expressed pride in her religious heritage. "Pride in her religious heritage?" Really? Remember our hypthetical soccer player, the guy who uses his hands in a clear violation of the rules? He's not really a soccer player, but insists on running around the field, hands on the ball, flags down and whistles blowing. After the game and a good scolding from officials, the player issues a statement telling us how proud he is of his ability to play soccer - with his hands. That's Nancy Pelosi. CNB RSS Feed

Demanding Stimulus Transparency

The so-called "Stimulus" bill is a mashup of confusing items. Do you know what's in it? Do you think all of the member of Congress know what's in it, and have read it carefully? Nah, neither do we. But there are many people out there who would like to know, but as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out, that's more difficult than it sounds. The massive stimulus bill being wrangled through Congress has been making headlines for days. Unfortunately, many have sought to make additions to the bill that raise serious concerns for privacy and free speech online. Because the final text has not yet been made public, we can't be certain what was and wasn't included. But there are two elements in particular we're keeping an eye on: Full Article from EFF... MORE FROM EFF: State Secrets: Keeping Options Open? The Atlantic takes a guess at why the Obama administration has chosen to hold the Bush administration line on state secrets. RELATED: Digital Rights Management Intellectual Property Privacy CNB RSS Feed

Blagojevich Done Getting It!

"Blagojevich Getting It Done!" is the hilarious post by 49th Ward Democratic Committeeman David Fagus. He wrote the piece in October, 2006. By then, most of us knew that Rod Blagojevich is a putz. But not Fagus, no siree. Too busy kissing Rod's butt to see the crack in it, Fagus penned his absurdity, which is - incredibly - still posted on his site as of 6:04 p.m., January 30, 2009. Uhm, someone might want to let Sycophant Fagus know that Blago was removed from office yesterday. Oh, let him know that Nixon resigned, too, and that the Berlin Wall has come down. Rod Blagojevich has been making the kind of changes we had been anticipating for 30 years of Republican governors. With his 2002 victory we realized what life could be like with a Democrat leading the state government. We as Democrats had very high hopes for the Blagojevich administration and he has delivered. He has taken up the cause of many of the concerns we all had including health care, minimum wage, stem cell research, passing GLBT legislation to protect against discrimination, expanding pre-school programs, and funding for the vast array of social services and human rights programs that make the quality of life in Illinois better. Full Suckup from Fagus... (Too bad it couldn't have lasted 1,000 years, eh Dave?) (Rest assured that we have archived this little gem, in case Fagus developes a sense of shame and deletes it. We have no doubt that Fagus patron, Ald. Joe Moore, had an intern print this post off to insert into the "Bench Dossier," which is probably over 100 pages by now.) RELATED: Todd Stroger Turns It On! CNB RSS Feed

EU Hypocritical On Iran Stoning Executions

Iran executed three people by stoning them to death, a painful and barbaric method of killing. The cowardly, hypocritical fools who run the European Union have issued yet another useless condemnation of the practice. The stoning victim is buried to their neck or shoulders, and stones are then thrown at them. The law actually requires that the stones be of a size capable of inflicting pain but not big enough to kill immediately. In other words, Iranian law requires the torture of those being executed. This is part of shariah law, the laws commanded by Islam. The myopic bureaucrats of the European Union are condemning the stoning executions, as well they should. However, even as the EU condemns a barbaric aspect of shariah law, it is allowing shariah to creep into its own culture and society. The "Islamization" of Europe is well under way. For the EU authorities to condemn Iran, while allowing the expansion of shariah law within Europe, is akin to a man scolding his neighbor for beating his wife even as he himself turns a blind eye to his own wife's abuse of their child. Following is part of a report from Iran Visual News Corps (“IranVNC), an independent online multimedia and interactive news agency with content available in both Persian and English. They are based in Washington, D.C. According to official confirmation and reports from other credible sources, three people were subject to execution by stoning in the city of Mashhad in the week beginning 21 December 2008. One of the three is reported to have managed to escape the stoning pit and survived. The other two were less fortunate and were stoned to death. The European Union requests that the central authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran investigate this issue, and ensure that the practice of execution by stoning is effectively and permanently terminated in the country, in compliance with the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights, which the Islamic Republic of Iran has signed and ratified, as well as the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 3452 of December 1975, which Iran has approved. FULL REPORT... Fools. Asking Iran to "investigate this issue" would be like asking a bank robber to please investigate his most recent heist. "Get back to us with the results of your investigation, won't you Mister Bank Robber? Thanks so much." It is Iran's own laws, based on Islamic religioius doctrine from 1,400 years ago. It is Iran's official policy that people be executed in such medieval ways, so to ask Iran to "investigate this issue" of stoning people to death is ignorant stupidity or, at best, empty posturing. The stoning continues in Iran. The EU wrings its collective hands, but the people of Europe had better get used to it. Today Tehran, tomorrow Brussels. RELATED: Iran hangs two murderers in public – Report Dhimmi Watch: Nine Iranians to be stoned to death for adultery (July 2008) Video of Stoning to Death - Islam in action EU has gained nothing by appeasing Iran Europe Reimports Jew Hatred The rapid Islamization of Europe Will Europe Resist Islamization? Daniel Pipes Girl, 13, stoned to death in Somalia as 1,000 watch... 'Adultery' sisters to be stoned to death in Iran (Feb 2008) Fjordman: Islamic law used by secular Swedish court Some stoning okay says Choudhary Sharia in Europe? European Parliament politicians make a stand Sharia in Europe: Islamic Norms in Secular European States Islamization and Cowardice in Scandinavia Shariah Law and Doctrine Europe's Sharia question / ISN Europe’s Jackboot Progressives Taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers Celebrating Our Diversity: AIG Bailout Promotes Shariah Law, Lawsuit Claims Shariah law in Ontario, Canada - Israel Forum Subscribe to Chicago News Bench

The "Fairness" Doctrine and Russian "Treason"

Free speech is under attack everywhere, all the time. Russian lawmakers and their like-minded kin, the Democrat Party in the US, are busy launching the latest salvos against free speech. In Russia, it's a new law dealing with "treason," which is reminiscent of the old days in the Soviet Union. In the US, a proposed revival of the old "Fairness Doctrine," a cynically named piece of legislation that is reminiscent of the old days in the Soviet Union. The Associated Press reports this morning: A new law drafted by [Russian] Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's Cabinet would allow authorities to label any government critic a traitor — a move that leading rights activists condemned Wednesday as a chilling reminder of the times under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin....The draft extends the definition of treason from breaching Russia's external security to damaging the nation's constitutional order, sovereignty or territorial integrity. That would essentially let authorities interpret any act against the interests of the state as treason — a crime prosecutable by up to 20 years in prison....But Putin's proposed bill broadens the term "treason" to include inaction as well as action, includes a breach to internal security and adds international organizations to foreign ones as those forbidden to receive state secrets....In a related move, the upper house of Russia's parliament passed a bill Wednesday that would end jury trials for those facing charges of terrorism and treason....The bill strips defendants charged with some crimes — involvement in illegal armed units, violent seizures of power, armed rebellion and mass riots — of the right to jury trials. Instead they would face judges. (The irony of AP reporting this is rich. For years, AP and other mainstream media outlets have gleefully reported classified information and leaked sensitive items, to the chagrin of the US government and to the glee of our enemies.) Meanwhile, in the US, Democrats in Congress are pushing their agenda for the suppression of free speech. The original Fairness Doctrine, as columnist Bruce Fein recently noted, "suppressed free speech over the airwaves [starting in] 1949 by penalizing the broadcast of controversial issues." In short, it required that a radio or television station which featured a guest who took a particular side of a particular issue had to give "equal time" to somebody with an opposing view. In other words, the Government was messing with the free speech of the show's host and producers, as well as that of the station's management and owners. The Fairness Doctrine, which was not really "fair" at all, was thrown out by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC (1989). Fein notes that "During the ensuing 19 years, not a crumb of evidence has surfaced suggesting that controversial subjects have been shortchanged in the broadcasting marketplace of ideas - the evil that the Fairness Doctrine purported to address." FEIN: Exhuming the fairness doctrine The old Fairness Doctrine did not apply to print media. Newspapers and magazines were still protected by the First Amendment and did not have to kow-tow to Government meddlers. Democrats now, however, want to return us to those days. As noted above by Fein, the old Fairness Doctrine did not improve the "marketplace of ideas." Print media, by and large, tends to be politically oriented either towards the middle (more or less) or outright liberal (in most cases of the big print media, such as the NY Times or Time Magazine). Since 1989, however, a phenomenon known as "talk radio" has exploded in popularity. To the dismay of Democrat leaders, the unfettered freedom of speech in the broadcast media has been dominated by conservative talk show hosts. Liberal shows and hosts have failed miserably. Remember the liberal "Air America?" So, to be "fair," the Democrats argue, we need to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Again, Fein: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, in the 111th Congress is planning to exhume and breathe new life into the doctrine by legislative fiat. She will encounter a friendly Democratic president supportive of her gambit. Her motivation is transparent. The Democratic Party intends to brandish the Fairness Doctrine to marginalize the influence of conservative talk show hosts by making expression of their controversial views cost-prohibitive. Rush Limbaugh is their poster child. Democrats hope to better the instruction of their predecessors in making broadcasters shy from all conservative political viewpoints. All in all, the attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is a tacit admission by Democrats that they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of millions of radio listeners nationwide. To "fix" this "problem," they will impose firm new rules on broadcasters that will "ensure" a "balanced" presentation of "facts." Lenin, Stalin, Putin, oh my. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. RELATED: Fairness Doctrine would kill talk radio - Abilene Reporter-News House minority leader calls on Obama to speak out against Fairness Doctrine - SmartBrief Democrat Says Fairness Doctrine Should Extend to Cable, Satellite TV - CNSNews.com 'Mr. Accountability' - Human Events This Is Not the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ You’re Looking For - Heritage.org Liberals, too, should reject the Fairness Doctrine - Christian Science Monitor Letters: Let the market decide 'fairness' in broadcasting - Orange County Register Obama And The Fairness Doctrine - Forbes Don't Sweat the Fairness Doctrine?The Weekly Standard Chronicles of the Obamanation: If you can't beat 'em, shut them down - Truthbomber

Militant Muslims + Militant Hindus = Trouble

Some people are quite happy about the murder and mayhem in Mumbai this week. It seems to make them giddy and cheerful. Those who feel that way have one thing in common: They are followers of the "religion of peace." Mumbai, 27 Nov. (AKI) - Al-Qaeda websites on Thursday were swamped with messages from people who were celebrating the devastating Mumbai attacks which have left over 100 people dead and 281 injured. "Oh Allah, destroy the Hindus and do it in the worst of ways," was one of the comments that appeared on Islamist forums on the Internet immediately after the attacks. (Source: adnkronos international) Hindus can be just as unpleasantly murderous. To wit: Extremist Hindu groups offered money, food and alcohol to mobs to kill Christians and destroy their homes, according to Christian aid workers in the eastern [Indian] state of Orissa. Orissa has suffered a series of murders and arson attacks in recent months, with at least 67 Christians killed, according to the Roman Catholic Church. Several thousand homes have been razed and hundreds of places of worship destroyed, and crops are now wasting in the fields. In recent weeks the violence has subsided but at least 11,000 Christian refugees remain in camps in Kandhamal, the district worst affected. “They are too scared to go home. They know that if they return to their villages they will be forced to convert to Hinduism,” Father Manoj, who is based at the Archbishop’s office in Bhubaneshwar, the state capital, said. (Source: TimesOnline.co.uk) Free drinks to kill a Christian! Such a deal, eh? What was it that that the unpatriotic American comedian Rosie O'Donnell said about Christians being such dangerous people? Ah, I remember. She said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state." Really, Rosie? Really? RELATED: Hindu Militants Offer Bribes to Hurt Christians, Says Rights Group ... Christian 'Untouchables' describe attacks by Hindu militants in India BBC News South Asia Hindu militants stage lesbian film attacks India Hindu Militants Threaten To "Burn" Pastor And Family ... Suspected Hindu militants burn orphanage, killing nun locked ... Rosie O'Donnell Ratings Disaster: Nemesis Barbara Walters Soars

Reader Writes About Second Amendment

A friend and avid reader writes to disagree with my recent post, "Obama Threatens Our Constitutional Rights." Let's jump right into his note, with my responses per paragraph. I've left you alone for the majority of the last few months, as I know it must've been pretty hard on you, seeing the numerous republican defeats. However, I do want to just raise a few quick questions involving your seeming belief that Obama will single handedly remove your right to bear arms and eventually invade Poland. First off.... I never said that President Obama will "single handedly remove" our right to bear arms. To do it legally, there are two basis approaches he could take. First, he could push a move to amend the constitution to either completely abolish the Second Amendment or modify it. Second, he could, with the cooperation of both houses of Congress, go for federal legislation that would further impinge upon the rights granted under the Second Amendment. In any case, I don't believe a president could do this alone unless he was a despot who declared martial law, and even then he would need a lot of colonels, generals and admirals siding with him. In other words, a coup. A despotic president is one of the reasons why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment. (As for your confusing reference to an invasion of Poland, I'm not sure what you are referring to. You may want to redirect that question to Vladimir Putin of Russia. The last time I checked, the United States helped to free Poland from the old Soviet Union and is currently providing them with defensive weaponry as a response, in part, to the recent Russian aggression toward Georgia.) "Amendment II -- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Under this reading, it seems to me that you're ignoring the first half of the amendment. Are you saying that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with a formally organized system to defend our 'free state'? No, I am not saying that "the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with a formally organized system." However, I would not say that the Second Amendment limits us to a formally organized system, either. While I acknowledge the part about a "well regulated militia," I also see the part that says "the right of the people...." Neither part negates or modifies the other. I do commend you, however, for parsing the words of the amendment. That is exactly how laws should be analyzed. The final part of the amendment, "shall not be infringed," seems fairly unambiguous. It reinforces the first two parts. Now, which part of "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" seems unclear? As well, why are you worried about whether the Obamanatics are going to take away your right to own a measly firearm when our own army is practicing securing towns in our own country for the purpose of imposing martial law? Wow, and people call me paranoid! If you have proof that "our own army" (I assume you mean "military," and not just the army) is getting ready for martial law, please share it with all of us. That's been rumor for decades now. Do I believe that the US military and/or National Guard units train for urban warfare, like we saw in Los Angeles during the "Rodney King Riots?" Sure. So do big city police departments. Frankly, I like knowing that they're ready for violent unrest. But if your question is a reference to President Bush and the Leftist paranoia about him imposing martial law (which has not happened 77 days before Obama is to be sworn in), then I suggest you take your question to George Noory on Coast to Coast AM. Will your .357 really be useful against APC's and battle hardened troops? I don't own a .357, but if I did I guarantee that it would stop one of Joe Moore's goons as they try to come through my window at 3:00 a.m. Here's a little history: The battle hardened troops of the old Soviet Union were held at bay many times by Afghani fighters with greatly inferior weaponry. I'm not going to give you a whole history lesson here, but you must know that there are hundreds of examples in history in which well armed, well supplied, battle hardened units were held off or even defeated by opposing forces with fewer soldiers, inferior weaponry, and poor supplies. So, hypothetically, yes, a few hundred ordinary citizens armed with .357s or .22s could hold off such a force for a while. And mind you, this is not being organized by your beloved democrats. Any reason why I haven't heard anything from you on this topic? Could it be that the 'powers that be' are already moving us towards that old 'New World Order' that we've all seemingly forgotten about? Maybe the last 28 years has really been just an intentional weakening of the USA to make it easier for us to be absorbed by the great amoeba of World Government? Or am I just paranoid? You and I agree, mostly, on this point. There are both Republicans and Democrats who are quietly working for the dissolution of the United States. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), for example. NAFTA, for example. You are not being paranoid in thinking that the US has mortal enemies who would like to divide us, conquer us, and absorb us into The Great Amoeba. For those of you who laugh at such a notion, remember this: The US has, over many decades, spied on other nations. Other nations have spied on us. If it is so easy for some of you to believe that the US is bent on world domination, why is it so difficult to believe that China or Russia could not be similarly inclined? Take that a bit further, to a cooperative effort of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who would love nothing more than to see the US fall and be split apart. But we digress here: Let's get back to the Second Amendment. One last thought, though.... if you're against gun control in our country, how do you feel about Iran's nuclear program? Any reason why you should be able to own a gun for your own 'defense' and they can't have one for theirs? It's a ridiculous leap to go from gun control to a nuclear program, but I'll play with that. I am not entirely against "gun control." I don't believe that people with felony convictions or certain forms of mental illness, for example, should be allowed to own guns. I have no problem with background checks (nor does the National Rifle Association). However, a person who has not been diagnosed with mental illness and has no criminal convictions should be allowed to own a weapon (a rifle, a handgun, no missile launchers). Iran, under its current leadership, is comparable to a person who has been diagnosed with mental illness. The UN even agrees, and has placed sanctions on Iran. Do we, the world community, let the mentally ill Iran have not just any weapon, but nuclear weapons? I don't believe anybody objects to Iran having a strong conventional defense capability. It's the nuclear part that's worrisome. Let me repeat, however, that I think the comparison of Iran's goal of nuclear weaponry to the desire of a little old lady in a bad neighborhood wanting a pistol in her nightstand is absurd. These questions aside, I hope you're doing alright, and congrats for escaping the People's Republic of Rogers Park.

your avid reader,

John

Those questions aside, I hope you are well, too my friend. Please keep writing; it's always good to get your comments. I have indeed escaped the People's Democratic Republic of Rogers Park. However, I am now behind the velvet curtain of the People's Democratic Republic of Evanston. The only difference here is that the locals are more hypocritical about their ideology. And much better dressed, with nicer cars. And better restaurants, cleaner beaches, nicer theaters......

Obama Threatens Our Constitutional Rights

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is part of our Constitution. Obama and his Chicago Mafia, however, don't like the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they don't much like the Constitution as a whole. But let's concentrate here on the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Gun owners - legal, law abiding gun owners - have been under attack by the anti-Constitution crowd for decades. But now, as pointed out by NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the rights of gun owners is in greater danger than ever. (As a historical note, you should know that the first thing that any dictator does when they first take power is to take away the guns away from those they wish to subjugate.) The NRA-ILA states on their web site: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will take oaths to uphold the Constitution, but we know by their deeds and their words that they believe the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must be severely restricted. We know the people Obama will appoint to his cabinet and to other federal offices will be almost universally anti-gun. Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is a perfect example of the hostility the Obama White House will have for gun owners’ rights. Emanuel, now an anti-gun congressman from Illinois, was once described as the Clinton administration’s "point man on gun control." Continued... Back to the dictators and gun control: In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany's freely elected government enacted a "Law on Firearms and Ammunition." This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities....."Proof of need" was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license....As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits....Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared. Full essay... ALSO SEE: Six Things You Should Know About the Second Amendment Jews and "Gun Control" In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Exclusive: The Scene at Obama's Press Conference

CHICAGO, Nov. 8, 2008 (The Bench) - Barack Obama held a press conference at 1:30 p.m. yesterday (Friday, Nov. 7, 2008), his first since becoming the president-elect. The event was held in the Continental Ballroom of the Hilton Chicago at 720 South Michigan Avenue. The hotel is across the street from Grant Park, where on Tuesday night about 250,000 Obama supporters gathered on an unseasonably warm November evening to wait for the election results.

The Bench was there and presents exclusive photos of the scene, inside and outside of the Hilton Chicago. News media and excited Obama admirers waited patiently to catch a glimpse or get a photograph of Obama and his team. See the exclusive slide show here (or click on this link): The weather on Friday, in contrast, was chilly with scattered sleet and rain. Even with the more seasonal weather, however, the small size of the crowd that gathered outside of the Hilton to catch a glimpse of Obama was a surprise. The Bench estimates the crowd at approximately 250, scattered around the block that the hotel fully occupies. The few who were hanging around, however, were all smiles and excited to be there. It was a well-dressed crowd that seemed to be mostly under 40 years old, and nearly everybody had a camera. Some people had expensive, professional grade cameras. Most held up camera phones. Obama’s press conference started late. It was scheduled for 1:30 p.m., but did not get underway until about 1:50 p.m. Television crews outside were unhappy about it, but shrugged their shoulders. After all, Obama has a reputation for being late to Senate hearings and other meetings, so why not his first post-election press conference, too? (See: The Late Mister Obama ) The Hilton Chicago has a lot of history inside and outside of its walls. It has hosted presidents and dignitaries from around the world. During the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago, Hubert Humphrey stayed at the Conrad Hilton, as it was known then.

The violence that broke out in 1968 in Grant Park, across the street, overflowed onto the streets and surrounded the Hilton. There was, at that time, a street-level restaurant with large plate glass windows that gave a nice view of Michigan Avenue and Grant Park. During the rioting, however, the view just outside those windows was mayhem: Police beating rioters, rioters beating police, people going crazy and bent on destruction. At one point, rioters on the sidewalk crashed through the windows and into the restaurant. Back to the present, and another contrast: There were no protesters at the Hilton today, no broken windows, and very few police. A few days ago, Grant Park, the scene of violent anti-government protest 40 years ago, was the scene of peaceful submission to a pro-government cult of personality. Everybody was surprised when the press conference ended around 2:50 p.m. One or two local personalities exited the ballroom and walked into the crowd. Mary Mitchell, a local race-baiting columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, pauses to coo over somebody’s baby. The real VIPs, of course, left via another, more secure portal. I took a few photos of the crowd, then left the building. Walking along the north side of the hotel, on E. Balbo, I tried to find another angle from which to take photos. I heard a sudden outburst of loud – very loud – cheering. A woman with a camera walked near me. She heard the cheering too. “He’s here!” she said, and we both broke into a run toward East 8th Street, on the south side of the hotel. We got to the corner of E. 8th and just in time. Obama’s motorcade drove by, slower than one might expect. Security was lax at the hotel, and was even more lax as the vehicles drove between two columns of onlookers. The Chicago police officers were not numerous, and Secret Service was less so. The cars were literally inches from over a hundred people. No barricade, no line of security people, nothing in the way of security between us and Them. Note to Secret Service: Get with the program. Note to CPD Commander Jody Weis: Get with the program. Had there been a lunatic with a grenade or a .50 caliber rifle under a long trench coat, nobody would have known until it was too late.

Unlike millions of Democrats who still openly wish death on President Bush, I wish no harm to Barack Obama. And so, I hope that his security will be beefed up at future events. The last thing we need is another tragedy - JFK's assassination produced no riots. God forbid, if something happened to President Obama there would be blood in the streets of every large city in the US.

People ran alongside the motorcade vehicles, snapping pictures. After most of the motorcade had passed, one CPD officer seemed (finally) to realize how bad the security situation was. He ran down the street, ready to keep people back and away from the high-carbon footprint vehicles. After running about 20 feet, however, he realized how futile his effort was. He stopped, stared for a moment at the potential security disaster, shook his head, and walked onto the sidewalk. A young man cheerfully said to the officer, “Hey man, you running like that, you’re like a Secret Service agent.” I couldn’t help thinking that, no, that lone cop is better than the Secret Service. The Secret Service agents should be more like that cop, and Commander Weis should take note. I wonder if any of Obama’s people noticed how poorly they were being “protected.” Directly across from the Continental Ballroom, where Obama held his first press conference since being elected President of the United States, is a humble shoe shine stand (photo). The contrast and the significance was not lost on me. Behind me, our first Black president addressed the world. In front of me, as I took a photo of it, was a symbol of the Old Days. Not that shoe shines are passé, mind you, but that so many young black men have for so long operated shoe shine stand just like this one because they had no other opportunity. Barack Obama did not change that; he’s not officially the president until he is sworn to office in January. Democrat Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans in the Congress shoved through the Civil Rights Act in spite of the Congressional Democrats’ objections at the time. Today, young black men have many choices other than shining shoes. I did not support Obama in the election. It had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with his ideology. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the symbolism of a Black person being elected to the presidency, even if I do not rejoice in a neo-Marxist taking the Oval Office. I hope, I truly hope, that the child of the man who operates that shoe shine stand in the Hilton will grow up knowing that – as Republicans are so fond of saying – anybody can become anything they want in this nation, with hard work and the right approach.

I also hope that when that man’s child is grown up, the same respect for the concepts of individualism and personal freedom that made it possible for Obama to achieve what he has still exists. Ironically, Obama’s ascension to power, along with a Congress controlled by a Democrat Party dominated by the far Left, threatens to smother those concepts.