Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College I’ve gotten some very interesting emails regarding President Obama’s mandate commanding Roman Catholics (and many evangelical Protestants) to violate their consciences by providing mandatory contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The emailers noted that Obama’s action will force Catholics to challenge the president in court, particularly given that bishops are saying they will not comply with the law. It could mean another constitutional showdown over “ Obama-care ,” one that could likewise end up in the Supreme Court. Imagine: “ The Catholic Bishops v. Obama .” What a fitting capstone to the Obama presidency . And imagine that a majority of professing Roman Catholics elected this man in November 2008 . If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama, even with the two new “pro-choice,” pro- Roe liberals he added to the bench: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most “progressive” Supreme Court justice cannot avoid that old freedom-of-religion thing in the First Amendment. All of that is remarkable enough. But I find it especially ironic given two other fascinating current news item relating to the Constitution: Last week, President Obama did an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer. Obama expressed frustration at his inability to be the “transformational political figure” Americans elected. The “change agent” lamented that this was the fault of the American Founders—who Obama refers to as “men of property and wealth”—and their Constitution. Obama told Lauer: What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent. Ah, that old Constitution again. Obama is quite correct. His primary obstacle is the Founders’ system of separation of powers and checks and balances. His problem is a Congress and Supreme Court that is empowered to say, “No, Mr. President, that isn’t constitutional. You can’t do that in America.” Well, Obama’s mandate to the Catholic Church could be the next such challenge, again impeding his self-perceived rise to transcendent political greatness. A Democrat-controlled Congress approved Obama-care, but the Supreme Court now must scrutinize its provisions. That’s the court’s duty. That brings me to the second news item: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to Egyptian television. Ginsburg will likely be the next justice to step down. Once Obama replaces her with a much younger pro- Roe judge, this nation will have Roe v. Wade for another 39 years. In the interview, Ginsburg advised Middle East democrats on drafting a constitution. She did not, however, recommend the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg stated: I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation; and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world… I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? Actually, why not take advantage of what’s in the U.S. Constitution? The paradox in Ginsburg’s statement is her dismissal of the U.S. Constitution because it’s “rather old;” in fact, “the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.” Well, why is it so old and still in force? Because it was done right. It is based on timeless values and virtues and universal rights that work; that are true. It has been amended less than 30 times in 220-some years. It is the most stable, successful, remarkable constitution in history, bringing together a vast array of peoples and assimilating them into history’s most prosperous, awe-inspiring nation—a nation that spent the 20th century winning freedom for other nations, so those nations could produce democracies and constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is the perfect model, at once both beautifully broad and specific. And among the things it got right are separation of powers and checks in balances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama may be learning that again very soon—compliments of Obama-care and its constitutional assault on the consciences of religious believers. Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values , and author of the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century . His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and God and Ronald Reagan .
Go here to read the rest:
The Catholic Bishops v. Obama? President Obama and Justice Ginsburg on America’s ‘Rather Old Constitution’
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’ by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up. When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling. As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “ hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities ” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services. Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.” In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.” Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors : “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.” Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “ (I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks. Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed. Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised. What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror , where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau. City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why? The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist. Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.” Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.
Follow this link:
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
AP – The White House is lauding a rosier election-year economic forecast, predicting the economy could add two million jobs this year. But the upbeat projection is based partly on the shaky premise that Congress will sign off on President Barack Obama’s jobs agenda.
The rest is here:
White House to promote more positive jobs outlook
(AP)
Rep. Myrick first came to Congress in the “Gingrich Class” of 1994, serving the solidly Republican 9th District of North Carolina.
Original post:
Sue Myrick 15th House Republican member to retire
Rep. Heath Shuler announces his retirement from Congress; 20 Democratic-held seats are now open.
View original post here:
Shuler retirement a sign that GOP will hold onto U.S. House
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Targeting Iran’s economy, the U.S. ordered tough new penalties Monday to further pinch the country’s financial system and encourage Israel to give sanctions more time before any military action against Iran’s nuclear program. The new, stricter sanctions, authorized in legislation that President Barack Obama signed in December, will be enforced under an order he signed only now. They give U.S. banks new powers to freeze assets linked to the Iranian government and close loopholes that officials say Iran has used to move money despite earlier restrictions imposed by the U.S. and Europe. The action against the Central Bank of Iran is more significant for its timing than its immediate effect. It comes as the United States and its allies are arguing that tough sanctions can still persuade Iran to back off what the West contends is a drive to build a nuclear bomb. The U.S. and Europe want to deprive Iran of the oil income it needs to run its government and pay for the nuclear program. But many experts believe Iran will be able to find other buyers outside Europe. The European Union announced last month it would ban the import of Iranian crude oil starting in July. The U.S. doesn’t buy Iranian oil, but last month it placed sanctions on Iran’s banks to make it harder for the nation to sell crude. The U.S., however, has delayed implementing those sanctions for at least six months because it is worried about sending oil prices higher at a time when the world economy is struggling. Iran exports about 3 percent of the world’s oil The faster and more painfully sanctions can be seen to work, the better the case to shelve any plan by Israel to bomb Iran, a pre-emptory move that could ignite a new Mideast war. Taking this initial step against the Central Bank, the first time the U.S. has directly gone after that major institution, is one way the Obama administration can show momentum now. Israel, meanwhile, has been increasingly open about its worry that Iran could be on the brink of a bomb by this summer and that this spring offers the last window to destroy bomb-related facilities. Many Israeli officials believe that sanctions only give time for Iran to move its nuclear program underground, out of reach of Israeli military strikes. White House spokesman Jay Carney denied that Monday’s unexpected announcement of new banking sanctions was a sign of heightened worry about an Israeli attack. “There has been a steady increase in our sanctions activity and this is part of that escalation,” he said. Carney said U.S. sanctions on Iran are already squeezing Iran’s economy and have exacerbated tensions within the Iranian leadership. “There is no question that the impact of the isolation on Iran and the economic sanctions on Iran have caused added turmoil within Iran,” he said. Iran is the world’s third-largest exporter of crude oil, giving its leaders financial resources and leverage to withstand outside pressure. Last year, Iran generated $100 billion in revenue from oil, up from $20 billion a decade ago, according to IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm. If Iranian oil is prevented from getting to market, other suppliers could make up the difference. The U.S. has been pressuring other Middle East and African nations to step up production for sale to Europe. Saudi Arabia has said it could increase production to make up for any lost Iranian crude. Iran’s disputed nuclear program became a global concern more than five years ago, when the extent of the country’s research and uranium enrichment began to be known. Since then a web of international economic and other sanctions have failed to stop Iran’s progress toward a point when it could build one or more nuclear devices. U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran is indeed close to that ability but has not yet decided to go ahead. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and denounces sanctions as aggression. The new U.S. penalties were unexpected now. The sanctions were included as an amendment in the wide-ranging defense bill the president signed in late December, though when and how they were to be levied on Iran was unclear. The White House had previously said it would take months to evaluate the likely effect on the fragile global economy before taking the next large steps, including new penalties on the Central Bank. Now, U.S. institutions are required to seize Iranian state assets they come across, rather than rejecting the transaction involved. The value of Iranian assets affected by the new order was not clear. Iran does almost no direct business with the United States after three decades of enmity, but its money moves through the world financial system and its oil is sold in dollars. In a letter to Congress, Obama said more sanctions were warranted, “particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks.” He cited the hiding of transactions of people or institutions and other loopholes. In an interview Sunday with NBC, Obama said the U.S. has “a very good estimate” of when Iran could complete a nuclear weapon, and he spoke favorably of the effect of sanctions and diplomacy to resolve the impasse. Obama addressed the concern about Israel but suggested there is still time. “I don’t think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do,” Obama said. He did not answer a question about whether Israel has promised to notify the United States before any pre-emptory strike. Republican presidential candidates have accused Obama of being too timid in his dealings with Iran, and while U.S. officials reject that characterization they acknowledge they are stepping cautiously because of fear of upsetting the global economy.
Original post:
U.S. Imposes Tougher Sanctions on Iran, But Will it Ease Israeli Fears?
So, we can see the majority of the elements Democrats will use to attempt to get the Most Incompetent President Ever re-elected. Class warfare led by a rich guy who doesn’t pay his fair share? Check. Redistributive rhetoric led by rich guys who won’t give up their own money? Check. Blaming Congress, half of which
Read the original:
And The Race Card Rises Again
AP – President Barack Obama’s call to shrink the military, shut bases and cancel weapons to meet the demand for budget cuts tests the resolve of lawmakers who came to Washington determined to slash the deficit.
Go here to see the original:
Defense cuts test lawmakers’ resolve on deficits
(AP)
Anger against Congress, federal bureaucrats, lobbyists and all that is Washington has been boiling over across America.
Excerpt from:
Top 10 ways Washington annoys the Heartland
