A REPUBLIC, IF WE CAN KEEP IT

Congresswoman Absurdly Claims that Lack of Dental Care Constitutes a Denial of Constitutional Rights

2011-03-31T10:11:00.000-07:00

Our Constitution guarantees us government subsidized cavity treatment, root canals, and teeth cleaning…At least, that is what Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would have us believe. One would expect her to provide her colleagues with a more reasoned analysis of constitutional law. After all, the congresswoman’s website trumpets her B.A. in Political Science from Yale University—with honors. In addition, she earned her law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. A significant regimen of constitutional law is required to graduate. Yet, instead of defending the Constitution with her extensive legal education, the congresswoman chose to rhetorically desecrate our founding document on the floor of the House of Representatives recently.

During House debate on legislation aiming to repeal the Orwellian named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee argued that such repeal would violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

According to the congresswoman, “The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process. That is what HR 2 does… In my own county, Harris County, this bill will allow some 800,000 uninsured…citizens…to be insured... Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law? I know that Mr. Land who suffers from schizophrenia with his family, Miss Betty who had to go to the ER room in Texas because of no insurance…or Mrs. Fields, whose mother couldn’t get dental care…would question why we’re taking away their rights.”

Does the Constitution really guarantee us the right to cavity fillings, root canals, and teeth cleaning? Does the Constitution guarantee us any government health assistance at all? Let's take a brief look at the amendments of the Constitution which Representative Sheila Jackson Lee spoke so passionately about.Rather than follow her lead in taking a few words out of context, take a few moments to review the relevant portions of both amendments.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The concept of "due process of law" encompasses both substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process protects the citizen against government actions that would encroach upon rights guaranteed in the first eight amendments of the Constitution-- such as freedom of religion, speech, the press, and keeping arms-- along with protections against other fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are those rights which government has neither the power to grant nor the power to take away. Neither our founders nor Supreme Court precedent suggests that welfare or government programs constitute "fundamental rights".

Procedural due process ensures that the law will be followed and applied fairly before life (capital punishment), deprivation of liberty (including imprisonment), or property forfeiture results from law enforcement proceedings. In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court extended these procedural "due process" protections to some government actions which deprive an individual citizen of access to a government program--such as jobless benefits, disability benefits, or a public education.

This procedural due process analysis has NEVER been applied to legislation which restricts access to a program to the general population. Rather, procedural due process in regards to government programs involves determinations regarding whether a person meets a guideline requirement for a program. For instance, suppose a person is receiving Social Security Disability Insurance. "Due process" must be followed when the government makes a determination that the recipient no longer meets the guidelines for such assistance.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson's Lee's suggestion that repeal of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” would result in the deprivation of property without due process finds NO support in Supreme Court precedent or in historic constitutional law analysis. This newly established entitlement benefit does not fit the constitutional definition of "property". Therefore, Fifth Amendment "due process" is not required in passing legislation repealing the entitlement.

During the same House session, the congresswoman also proclaimed, “I really want to refer to the 14^thAmendment that allows and guarantees you equal protection under the law. If this bill is repealed…a hemophiliac will probably be questionable because he would have lifetime caps…maybe he would not be guaranteed equal protection of the law…the Constitution needs to be protected …maybe they would not be able to withstand this onslaught of their rights because the Constitution guarantees them equal protection and some who have insurance and some do not are not treated equally.”

Once again, let's consult the Constitution. The relevant portion of Amendment 14 states

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection Clause enshrined in our Constitution the founding principle that "all men are created equal" under the law. The law must be applied equally to each individual regardless of economic class, race, gender, religion, or ethnicity. The congresswoman cannot point to any Supreme Court case which suggests "equal protection under the law" is related to equal consumption of goods or services. Yet, she brazenly stated on the floor of the House that because people are not "treated equally" in insurance coverage, the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is violated. Her views may align with Karl Marx on this matter; but they certainly don't align with our Constitution.

The congresswoman took an oath of office that: “I...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same... So help me God.” Should we give the congresswoman the benefit of the doubt? Is she merely ignorant of the clear meaning of these foundational constitutional protections? Sadly, her legal education suggests a deliberate contortion of the Constitution. If so, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee stands in violation of her oath of office.

Like Esau of the Bible, she chooses to exchange our birthright—the Constitution-- for a cup of porridge. She exchanges our rights of equal protection of the law and due process for government subsidized dental care.

Wisconsin Senate Republicans did not Violate the Open Meetings Law

2011-03-14T12:47:00.001-07:00

On March 7, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill reforming the public sector union bargaining process. For weeks, the Senate remained at an impasse on the issue as absent Senate Democrats denied the quorum required to move forward. By redrafting the bill to exclude certain fiscal items, a 2/3 quorum was no longer required to vote on the legislation. The Senate promptly approved the bill 18-1.

After passage of the bill by the Senate, the Joint Committee of Conference then received the bill. This committee’s responsibility is to make changes to similar pieces of legislation passed in both the Senate and House. Once these changes are approved by the Joint Committee of Conference, the legislation is then submitted for approval by the legislative chambers. For a bill to be submitted to the governor for his signature — and thereby enacted into law– the language in the bill passed by the Senate and the House must be identical. In this case, the Joint Committee of Conference approved the language of the bill passed by the Senate verbatim, submitting this to the House for Approval.

Typically, consideration of legislation by this committee for the mark-up process takes weeks. However, the committee completed its work on this public sector union bill just hours after posting notice of its upcoming meeting.

Much criticism has been levied at the Wisconsin Republicans for the actions of the Joint Committee Meeting. In a dramatic outburst, Representative Peter Barca proclaimed, “This is a violation of the Open Meetings Law!” What does the law say? The portion which the Democrats claim is being violated is Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, in particular §19.84 of the statute.

§19.84 (1) Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner:….(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”

At first glance, it appears that due to the lack of a 24 hours notice to the public, the Joint Committee of Conference violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. However, there is much more to this statute. We must also take into consideration §19.87 regarding the notice required by legislative meetings.

§19.87(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

Is there is a rule senate or assembly or joint rule which qualifies for this exception to the general Wisconsin Open Meetings Law notice requirements? To determine this, we simply need to take a look at the Wisconsin rules for the legislature.

Joint Rule 27. Committee hearings open to public. Unless otherwise provided by law, every committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be open to the public. If time permits, advance notice of every regularly scheduled committee hearing, executive session, or other meeting shall be published as provided in joint rule 75.

Since this was not a regularly scheduled meeting, so Joint Rule 75 does not apply. Joint Rule 27 requires only that such a non-regularly scheduled meeting be open to the public, without proscribing a time requirement.

In addition, the Senate Rules clearly agree with this analysis.

Senate Rule 93

(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

Senate Rule 93 (3)

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.

The Senate clerk indeed posted notice of this committee meeting on the legislative bulletin board. The Senate rules require no notice of a committee meeting besides such a posting. This requirement is far less than the 24 hour notice guidelines specified §19.84 (1) of the Open Meetings Law. However, we saw in §19.87(2) of the same statute, that a senate, assembly, or joint rule does in fact trump this much more stringent notice requirement!

Accusations that the Wisconsin Republicans violated this law are incongruent with reality, distort the law, and qualify as demagoguery.

CALLS TO VIOLENCE BY SOME ACTIVISTS ARE REPREHENSIBLE

2011-03-04T08:37:00.000-08:00

Demonstrations, rallies, and protests are all valid exercises of our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

In a democratic republic, such political speech must never include violence or threats of violence!

Unfortunately, it appears that some attendees of the upcoming March 10 "Coming Out of the Shadows: Undocumented, Unafraid, Unapologetic" rally in Chicago don't seem to agree with this important principle of our republic.

One planned attendee stated "Its time people to be prepared... let them feel your presence... make random hits back... let them know what its like to live in fear".... "those egyptians used rocks.... molotovs... etc; hit and run... even the watts riots and rodney king riots and the mardi gras gets willd...step it up people take it to em..."

Note the complete absence of criticism of this call to violence from ANY of the more than 1300 attendees of this rally throughout the course of an entire day.

RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

2011-02-01T18:20:00.000-08:00

RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

By Joel Griffith

On January 31st, US District Judge Robert Vinson ruled that the health care "reform" act’s insurance purchase mandate is unconstitutional. In fact, due to the lack of a severability clause in the bill, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire bill is "void.”

Just hours later, the Obama administration announced that despite the clear ruling, states will not be permitted to halt implementation of the act. In explanation of the Administration’s odd response, Administration officials stated that the ruling "does not in any way fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis."

This explanation shows a stunning disregard for the Constitution. First, judicial review of legislation is firmly established under Marbury v. Madison. Since 1803, this case has been the cornerstone for every constitutional challenge to legislative acts. Regardless of whether Judge Vinson’s ruling indeed fails to "fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis", the Administration must respect the judiciary's role in determining the constitutionality of legislation. The appeals process is the proper route by which to challenge the ruling of a court on this matter! Instead, the Administration chose to usurp the authority of the federal courts based on its own interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

In addition to obscuring the role of judicial review, the Administration asserts that Judge Vinson's ruling fell outside "traditional Commerce Clause analysis." This accusation blatantly distorts the truth. Let's take a look at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (known as the Commerce Clause) states, "[The United States Congress shall have the power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In short, Judge Vinson ruled that this Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power of mandating that citizens purchase certain goods or services. This legislation, which for the first time includes such a mandate, is what truly falls far outside the mainstream of Commerce Clause analysis.

The Administration deliberately chooses to project an altered image of reality.

2011-02-01T12:48:00.001-08:00

Politicizing Tragedy

2011-01-10T15:33:00.000-08:00

The Left quickly assigned blame for this weekend’s tragic shooting in Arizona to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, conservative talk radio, and Fox News. Left-wing pundits are screaming for an end to the “heated rhetoric” surrounding immigration reform, tax policy, and health policy. According to the Left, this weekend’s mayhem is symbolic of the “culture of violence” the “right” inculcates.

Quite surprising to the Left must be the revelation by a former classmate of Jarod Loughner that he is actually “left-wing” and “quite liberal.” In fact, the would-be assassin’s Youtube page lists several diverse literary influences including George Orwell (socialist), Adolph Hitler (Nazi), Ayn Rand (objectivist), Aldous Huxley (humanist), Karl Marx (Communist), and Lewis Carroll (Christian). This list hardly reads like a library of one steeped in conservative political theory. From the initial evidence gathered, It turns out this killer wasn’t a young man motivated to act out on his bizarre fantasies by conservative thinkers. Rather, this tragedy appears to have been committed by a mentally unstable young man with somewhat Leftist political views juxtaposed with wild conspiracy theories.

Now let’s take a look at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The congresswoman is not the liberal Democrat the media are portraying her to be. In fact, she belongs to the Blue Dog Coalition which seeks to restrain the more radical Leftist elements within the Democratic Party. Congresswoman Gifford’s moderate and conservative stances so enraged the extreme Left, that the Left-wing blog site DailyKos actually insisted a “bullseye” be painted on her district, marking her as an incumbent worthy of defeat in this past Democratic primary. After winning re-election, Rep. Giffords was one of just nineteen Democrat representatives to oppose Pelosi election as minority leader in the House vote earlier this month. Far from a liberal Democrat, Congresswoman is one of the most conservative elected officials in her Democratic Party!

Considering a mentally unstable young man with mostly unknown, but possibly "liberal", views attempted to assassinate a Democrat so conservative that liberal activists attempted to defeat her in the Democratic primary, why are the media so intent on blaming conservative thinkers and speakers for motivating the killer to commit this heinous crime?

According to the Left the “heated rhetoric” must stop because such rhetoric is responsible for this madman’s heinous actions. While the evidence contradicts their analysis of this situation, let’s pause for a moment to reflect on who is actually guilty of morphing rational dialogue into incendiary rhetoric. Consider Keith Olberman’s daily "Worst Person in the World" segment where he launches personal attacks on those who oppose his political agenda. Of course, who can forget how Democratic Representative Alan Grayson shockingly compared his Republican congressional opponent to the Taliban? Grayson even delivered a stunning speech which summarized the Republican health plan for the poor as “die quickly.” How can we ignore the exchange on Journolist where an NPR affiliate producer joked about her fantasy of watching Rush Limbaugh die in torment? Then again, our President recently stated regarding his political opponents, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” How’s that for “violent rhetoric”?

If you actually take a moment to listen to just a few hours of conservative talk radio, read an issue of National Review, or process a few editorials in the Wall Street Journal, you’ll find that the alleged “rhetoric” on the right focuses on policy and constitutional issues. On the other hand, Left-wing blogs, MSNBC commentators, and Leftist speakers on the House floor often personalize their attacks. The harsh reality is that Left often replaces logic with passionate emotion.

In no way am I suggesting any leftist pundits are responsible for the attack. In addition, the information regarding this madman's views and motivation is sparse. However, these pundits should be ashamed for blaming this tragedy on conservative thinkers-- especially when the initial facts suggest this killer's political views were anything but conservative! It's disingenuous and misleading to insist otherwise.

I trust this killer will face the severest of punishments for this crime. He not only committed murder; he also tore the fabric of our republic. Let’s not dampen the exercise of our First Amendment freedom of political discourse in the righteous goal of seeking justice for the victims.

NURSING HOME VOTING HELP: FAILING THE SMELL TEST

2010-11-07T15:43:00.000-08:00

Ensuring that every person may exercise his right to vote is a noble government function. Absentee voting enables those with time or geographic limitations to make their voices heard. Here in Illinois, the state provides special early voting procedures in certain assisted living centers. I had the opportunity to observe the early ballot casting in such a facility this past week.

The majority of residents at this particular health facility are incapable of traveling even short distances unaided. Their lives demand constant care and supervision. Many of the residents suffer from dementia or other psychological ailments affecting their daily judgment and social interactions.

Each election, the State of Illinois sets up early voting in the cafeteria here. Election judges arrive, voting booths are set up, and ballots are cast. Our elders should have an opportunity, regardless of physical condition, to engage in our democracy. However, some events this morning truly disturbed me.

In ordinary precincts, the secretary of state provides the poll workers with a list of registered voters in that precinct. Each voter signs next to his name in the registry and is then granted a ballot. At this facility, the election judge encouraged facility workers to gather residents who were not yet present in the cafeteria. Providing assistance to someone lacking mobility is proper; however, in this precinct, the aim seemed to be simply increasing turnout rather than providing necessary assistance. Further observations justify this conclusion.

In the minutes leading up to the official opening, I observed the crowd which gathered. One gentleman in all sincerity informed me his name was Bill…and that he recently “traveled on a flying saucer.” Another woman walked into the cafeteria, loudly stating, “I don’t know how to vote, and I know nothing about Quinn.” Two older men in wheelchairs began antagonizing each other until a resident assistant drew them apart. A lady on the other side of the room began arguing and nearly overturned her table.

As the polling place officially opened, the election workers began calling the residents by name to the front of the room. Many of the residents failed to respond when called; these residents were then “assisted” by the health workers to the registry desk. Here, poll workers guided these barely coherent residents through the process.

Rather than allowing the resident to request assistance in the booth, as state law requires for assistance to be granted, the poll workers often would suggest that the voter obtain assistance. The residents who truly were incapable of acting alone often seemed not to understand they were casting a ballot and could not even clearly request assistance! Even residents who showed no desire to vote where encouraged to take a ballot. One lady insisted she did not wish to cast a ballot. She distinctly inquired, “Are you going to make me vote?” In the end, she too cast a ballot with the help of a nursing home worker inside the voting booth.

Strangely enough, even residents who denied the need for assistance at the ballot box were still repeatedly offered it. When an election judge agreed with a resident that no help was necessary, the facility worker looked incredulously at the judge, saying, “You’re going to let HIM vote without my help?” This pointed protest by the young health worker surprised me as this particular voter seemed exceptionally coherent and emphatic that he could vote unassisted. Another resident who denied he needed help was cajoled into changing his initial response and taking the assistance within the voting booth.

Consider that the majority nursing home workers in Chicago are part of service union organizations which overwhelmingly support Leftist candidates, the intense desire to “help” people cast their ballots becomes much more understandable. These special interests certainly may benefit from “aiding” such people at the ballot box.
When an aid worker departs with a barely cognizant voter to a ballot box, it is nearly impossible to know what is being said—if anything—at that box. A poll watcher, such as myself, must stay five feet away.

By law, the person aiding a voter is supposed to simply read the ballot and then assist the voter in marking the ballot as he makes his choices known. Why should we assume that a person who does not choose to approach the registry desk, cannot provide his full name to the poll worker, and lacks the cognizance to request assistance suddenly gains the capability to understand a ballot when read to him by an assistant at the ballot box? Why should we assume that such an assistant at the ballot box is miraculously capable of discerning this voter’s choices when poll workers are incapable of understanding the voter at the registry table?

I am in no way suggesting that ignorance, mental incapacity, or other handicap should disqualify someone from voting! I’m simply suggesting our voting system is susceptible to fraud when a person who seems to not even want a ballot, who cannot give his name to a poll worker, or who lacks the ability to even ask for assistance is given a ballot and assigned an “assistant” at the booth…an assistant who most likely aligns himself with the Democratic Party’s union interests.

For the sake of election integrity, we must rewrite the laws for voter assistance. A voter’s intent must be clear! The voter must know he is requesting such assistance and we must be able to discern such a request. If we can’t discern the request, how can an assistant in the voting booth discern the voter’s ballot choice?

It doesn’t pass the smell test.

THE VOTERS ARE THINKING CLEARLY, MR. PRESIDENT

2010-10-23T12:38:00.000-07:00

This past week, the President explained that because voters “don’t think clearly when scared” the electorate seems poised to defeat dozens of Democratic lawmakers next month. Can you recall a leader of this republic ever accusing the majority of voters of not thinking clearly? What arrogance! What condescension! More importantly, what a misjudgment.

In actuality, those who “think clearly” are the ones leading the opposition to the President’s policies. Can we obtain higher quality health care for less cost through more government regulation and price controls? Does confiscating wealth from the productive, taxing carbon dioxide emissions, printing billions, and borrowing trillions lead to economic prosperity? Should the government bail out irresponsible corporations ? Should the rule of law be abandoned to aid corrupt union bosses? Should the leader of the free world apologize for our country’s past endeavors? Should our President humiliate our staunchest of allies, Israel? Should his Justice Department sue a state for enforcing immigration laws? Tens of millions of clear thinkers respond with a resounding “NO” to each of these questions.

Overwhelming opposition to the President from millions of citizens this fall is not due to lack of clear thinking, the administration’s lack of communication capabilities, or an electorate who can’t understand “complicated” [in the word’s of VP Biden] legislation. We are simply evaluating the policies of this administration. We are realizing that a day of reckoning approaches for our that our nation.

In the words of Rudyard Kipling in his poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”:

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

We are thinking clearly.

MOCKERY INSTEAD IF DISCOURSE ON THE 14th AMENDMENT

2010-10-22T14:43:00.001-07:00

This week, liberal Bill Press derided Senator Jeff Sessions (R, Alabama) for suggesting the14th Amendment of the Constitution does not extend citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born within the United States. Rather than explain why he disagreed with this alternative interpretation of this important amendment, Mr. Press proceeded to mock southerners and all others who dared analyze this situation differently. http:// http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnzuzkUVr

With banjos in the background, a mock Southern accent, and substandard English, Mr. Press implied that proponents of this alternative viewpoint are similar to those who believe in UFO's and alien encounters. To further back up his opinion, Bill Press stated his opponents were "mean-spirited".

Why would an intelligent commentator resort to stereotypes and name-calling in place of sound logic? Why do Leftists resort to emotionalism over objectivism? Why do the leading "thinkers" of the Left hesitate to use reason rather than bumper-sticker insults?

Let's take a look at the Constitution and the history behind the 14th Amendment to understand just why there is disagreement regarding its meaning. Amendment 14, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."

Bill Press claims that Amendment 14 provides that all people born within the United States are citizens. Read it again for yourself. Don't take someone else's word for it. The Constitution clearly states that being born or naturalized in the United States is insufficient on its own to be considered a citizen. A person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country. Words are important! While the word "and" might seem insignificant, functioning without this conjunction would be quite difficult.

It should be evident to all that the citizenship is dependent on the following two conditions being met: (1) a person being "born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) being "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country. So, the debate should be centered on which people born in the United States are subject to United States jurisdiction.

Understanding the history behind the 14th Amendment helps us put the question in context. Contrary to what Senator Sessions stated, the founders did not draft this amendment. The 14th Amendment, in fact, codified portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States--- with one caveat. This caveat was that any such person could not be subject to a foreign power. Granting full citizenship to former slaves was the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866! These former slaves and their offspring were indeed subject to this country's jurisdiction. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States was a limiting clause placed on the granting of citizenship to people born within the United States.

Are the children of illegal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of this country? The author of the clause, Senator Jacob Howard, stated the clause excluded aliens and foreigners. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Other supporters of the amendment viewed the amendment differently. A diversity of opinions on the meaning of this amendment existed then, as they do now.

I am NOT proposing citizenship should be denied to the children of illegal immigrants! I'm simply suggesting that before hurling accusations at those who disagree with our point of view on this topic, we should consider the rationale behind their opinion. Discourse and civility, rather than Bill Press's impassioned rhetoric, should prevail. Too often, journalists and commentators choose to inflame passions rather instead of informing the public and searching for truth.

Praise of Narcissistic Fools?

2010-10-16T00:08:00.000-07:00

Some pundits this week expressed admiration for the stunt the "Imperial Stars" pulled. On October 12, the band maneuvered their large truck across the 101 in Southern California, parked it across several lanes, then "performed" on top of it in front of their captive freeway audience. According to the band, they intended to draw attention to the problem of child hunger.

Speaking out about a cause is one of the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights -- the freedom of speech. However, this right in no way permits an individual from blocking a freeway thereby hindering people from doctor's appointments, job interviews, work committments, family, and other aspects of daily life.

Whether profit, publicity, or sympathy for starving children motivated this collection of narcissistic fools is irrelevant! Earning a profit can be perfectly moral-- so can gaining publicity or solving world hunger. However, stealing from someone elses pocket or stealing time from someone else's life is immoral, even if that thief's intent is "noble".

This band deserves incarceration and condemnation, not praise, for this disturbing behavior.

LETTING THE HOUSE BURN: The right decision?

2010-10-15T15:06:00.001-07:00

LETTING THE HOUSE BURN: The right decision?

By Joel Griffith

On September 29, 2010 Gene Cranick's grandson decided to start a trash fire outside his grandpa's house. The fire soon grew out of control, spreading to Gene's home. Frantically Gene dialed 911. Shortly thereafter, a fire engine arrived. Yet, to his chagrin, the department refused to extinguish the flames because Gene had not paid $75 in advance to warrant such services. The fire department squad remained just off his property, watching the flames completely consume Gene's house.

Following this incident, pundits criticized the department for its refusal to act over a mere $75. Emotions were high, accusations ran wild, and judgments were instantly made. We all agree that such an horrific loss so easily avoidable is a tragedy. Yet, in our rush to assign blame, we have neglected a thoughtful analysis of the situation.

Rather than enact a property tax pay the costs of a county fire department, the residents of Obion County purchase such protection individually from the city of South Fulton. If a particular resident in a rural location chooses to forgo protection, the impact on surrounding neighbors is minimal. Obviously, such a choice cannot be rationally permitted in an urban setting as one person's refusal to subscribe to such a service may have dire consequences on a neighbor!

By choosing to simply pay for such fire services from ANOTHER government entity, the residents of Obion County and South Fulton save money! Like any other organization, maintaining a fire department requires a significant amount of overhead costs. Through economies of scale, the cost to each end-user of a this service is reduced. The citizens of South Fulton benefit from this agreement as part of its fire department is funded by the citizens of Obion County. The citizens of Obion County benefit by paying less money yearly than they would if they had to maintain their own fire department.

What would happen if the city of South Fulton decided to make an exception and extend its services to someone who had not paid the fees? The immediate result would possibly be a rescued home. However, many other homeowners would possibly decide not to renew their $75 agreements with the city the following year. Why pay the fee if their house will be saved anyway in the event of an emergency?

If more county residents refused to pay the yearly protection fees, South Fulton could either (1) decide to halt service to Obion County or (2) subsidize the county costs with higher fees to city residents. If South Fulton choose to halt service, Obion County could either (1) institute it's own fire department at a cost to each homeowner significantly higher than the $75 yearly fee or (2) simply do without fire protection.

Each option negatively affects the general populaces of South Fulton and greater Obion County. Why should the residents of the city of South Fulton be forced to extend services paid for with their tax dollars to those of another locale? Why should responsible homeowners be forced to subsidize the negligence of a neighbor? Why should the citizens of Obion County be forced to fund their own fire department through unnecessary property taxes? Why should an entire county be forced to do without fire protection due to unnecessarily high costs?

All of these negative outcomes are avoided by respecting the decisions of the citizens of Obion County and the city of South Fulton. They have clearly spoken.

WHAT ZIONISM MEANS TO ME

2010-10-15T08:14:00.000-07:00

To me, Zionism is passion about the Jewish homeland, a symbol of the enduring Jewish spirit, and a fortress for Jewish cultural integrity.

Inseparable from the Zionist idea is the geographic location of the land of Israel. Zion specifically referred to a particular mountain just outside Jerusalem. King David himself conquered the fortress that stood on this hill! 3000 years after David’s victory, modern Zionism cannot be separated from the Promised Land. When Theodore Hertzl began his life’s work of securing a homeland for the Jewish people, he discovered that only the Holy Land could renew the hopes and dreams of Jews dispersed across the globe to once again live as a nation. Spirited rejection met every suggestion of obtaining land in the Americas and elsewhere for the purpose of a Jewish homeland.

As Zionists, we must continue the tradition of boldly proclaiming the Jewish people hold legitimate title to the “Holy Land.” The land that our patriarch Abraham claimed after leaving his societal bonds in Ur is the same land that his descendants settled following their miraculous escape from Egypt. And this land is the same land to which Jews from all across the globe are gathering and thriving after millennia of dispersion.

Our eternal capital must always be an undivided Jerusalem, our settlements must grow and thrive, and defenses against intruders must continue, whether sanctioned by the international community or not. And Israel must be recognized as a "Jewish" state.

Zionism is also a symbol of fortitude of the Jewish spirit. Consider the events our people witnesses in ages past. The Romans completely extinguished our political autonomy, Christianity and Islam co-opted our religious traditions, and the ruling powers forcibly dispersed our communities to remote regions of the globe. Over the next 1500 years, a myriad of forces conspired to restrict economic opportunities, persecute our intellectual leaders, and deny us our religious heritage. Then, finally we suffered the atrocities in Europe last century to annihilate not only our identity but our very physical presence from the face of the earth. Yet, the Jewish people have survived! Our traditions endure and in 1948 the state of Israel emerged after over 2000 years of banishment. This narrative is a testament to our God-given spirit!

Lastly, Zionism represents a fortress. Surviving myriads of evil and at last inhabiting our Promised Land, is not the complete essence of Zionism. There is a grander climax! We are now free to live as more than just an oppressed minority or as an emancipated ethnic group. The Zionist ideal allows Jewish people within a Jewish society within the entire nation of Israel. Zionism is the fortress within which to thrive uninhibited. Freed from the corrosive assimilating forces within and secure from the explosive campaigns of violence without, self-determination at last is possible for the Jewish people!

This is what Zionism means to me.

TRULY CONNECTING WITH MY JEWISH HERITAGE FOR THE FIRST TIME

2010-10-15T08:11:00.000-07:00

TRULY CONNECTING WITH MY JEWISH HERITAGE FOR THE FIRST TIME

I wasn’t the type of Jewish young adult you might expect to be interested in a trip to Israel. I grew up estranged from the Jewish heritage of my mother. And estranged may be a mild word. You see, my family had more than simply assimilated into a generic suburban Ohio culture—my Jewish mother married a fundamentalist Baptist minister, my father—and my belief system as a child and even into the college years reflected this upbringing.

During my 17 years of childhood in Ohio, and throughout the following four years attending a Baptist college, I never met a single peer who identified with the Jewish culture or who practiced Judaism.

Then, as a 25 year old 1L in lawschool, I quickly developed a friendship with one particular Jewish law student. For the first time, I heard about the birthright program-- a free trip to Israel for Jewish young adults. Eager to visit the place which was the focal point of so many memorable stories learned of in my Christian Sunday School and where I knew my ancestors lived many centuries ago, I—along with one of my younger brothers- applied to the program. –In fact, we were the first of our ten Jewish cousins to do so.

THE FLIGHT

Several months later, the journey was underway via a flight from NYC to TelAviv. Somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, most of the passengers around me still sleeping, one of the Hassidic men onboard approached my seat, politely asking whether I would accompany him for morning prayers, including applying the tefillin. When I informed the man of my unfamiliarity with the practice, he offered to guide me through the Ve-haya Im Shamoa — for the first time.

As I bound the teffilin repeating, out loud, those words in the 13^th chapter of Deuteronomy, an incredible emotion took took hold of me “Put these words of Mine on your heart and on your soul, tie them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be 'totafot' between your eyes….”

While I am not particularly religious in practice, the importance of my spiritual experiences on this trip cannot be understated. As a child, my religious indoctrination taught that the only way to spiritual peace was through my particular religion. This limited view of the world constricted my exposure to other thought—and left me with an impression of Jewish people (whom I did not spend time with) as “lost” and the intellectual leaders as “blinded.” Nearly everything on this trip, beginning with that El-Al flight, exposed me to a different view.

DISCUSSION WITH THE RABBI/ SYNAGOGUE

For Shabbat, the first I’d ever experienced, a rabbi stayed with our group. Several of us read and discussed the Sabbath’s Torah portion with the rabbi that evening. Unlike many of the religious education classes I’d attended, in this one debate was encouraged, arguing allowed, questions permitted, and critical thinking unfettered!

The following morning, I attended synagogue for the first time in my life. Sitting by the wall in the back row, I observed the hundreds of worshippers singing and praying. Then, the rabbi delivered a thunderous sermon. I remain inspired by his articulate and powerful plea that we never shy away from being a force to confront evil.

Rather than finding confusion, blindness, and despair in the Judaic religious tradition, my first experiences revealed certainty, enlightenment, and confidence!

At Masada, we walked through the ruins of the fortress and I heard the story of the Jewish patriots who chose to forfeit their lives at the top of that rock rather than surrender their heritage and freedom. A young IDF soldier, rifle by his side, reading a prayer book after applying teffilin seemed to me a living tribute to their bravery. .

Thoughts and emotions from these experiences and many more fermented within me as my brother Joshua and I stood overlooking the valley next to the Golan Heights. With our arms around each others’ shoulders, I thought back to the traditional idea of God’s promise to Abraham thousands of years ago….

I was home..

I’m happy to say, that my personal transformation continued. My experience in Israel encouraged me to continue to discover Judaism. I was now emotionally able to relinquish the faith of my childhood which had caused so much intellectual conflict. I realized that as I was losing one community of shared but sometimes forced religious belief, at last I was free to embrace the heritage, the faith, and the culture that has been forgotten by many in my family…and which had lain dormant within my soul.

My brother relocated to Chicago – partially to spend time with me-- but more importantly to develop relationships with the large Jewish community here. We are enjoying Shabbat dinners, studying with several rabbis, and immersing ourselves in traditions long forgotten by our family.

I hold immense gratitude in my heart for those people whose generosity made it possible for my brother Joshua and me to discover the beauty and uniqueness of their Jewish heritage. I left for Israel thinking I was a young man whose mother had Jewish parents. Today, I know that I too am a Jew.

The Ongoing Bull Market in Commodities

2010-10-14T11:38:00.001-07:00

Why Commodities Are Still In a Bull Market

The price of commodities has risen moderately over the past year. While speculation had a significant impact on the volatility that occurred in the market the past three years, this multi-year move in the commodity markets was not simply a byproduct of speculation. The fundamentals still point to a continued bull market in commodities.

A Look Back

The surge in oil prices to $147 per barrel in 2008 best illustrates the past commodity boom. Global economic growth, tensions in global hot spots pertinent to oil production provided the conditions necessary to see the steepest 6 month rise in oil prices in 35 years. Of course, following the peak in the summer of 2008, commodity prices fell at a record pace. One again, oil best illustrates this with a 75% decline as the "bubble" deflated. The UBS Bloomberg CMCI gauge of 26 raw materials fell by 53% from July 2008 to April 2009.

Market fundamentals were largely responsible for this decline in commodities prices, as the economies of the developed world weathered recession and the growth rate of developing countries slowed. Demand for oil and also other raw materials weakened significantly in the near term. Such a drastic deterioration of economic conditions took many market participants by surprise, fueling the velocity of decline from the peak of the 2008 bull market.

The exit of speculators bullish on these commodities exacerbated the speed of the fall, but the decline simply mirrored economic realties. For example, the global recession resulted in oil demand declining in 2008 for the first time since 1983. Demand in 2009 diminished as well.

PRICE LEVELS ARE INCREASING ONCE AGAIN FOR SEVERAL REASONS

Commodities are still in the midst of a historic bull market. The price decline is only a temporary pause. I believe that the resumption of global economic growth, the continued maturation of the developing world, the finite nature of many commodities, and prospects for a falling dollar will provide the impetus for a bull market continuation.

Resumption of economic growth

As countries emerged from recession in 2010, demand once again increased across the developed world. Although the prudence of the TARP and TALF programs is questionable, the programs are beginning to unthaw the credit markets. This improved access to credit by businesses is an essential component to economic recovery.

Rapid economic growth within developing countries

More important to long term demand than the developed world's resumption of economic growth is the impact of the developing world. For decades, Europe and the United States have dominated global economic output, both in absolute value and on a per capita basis. However, this dominance is fading.

Since 1978, China has experienced approximately a 1000% increase in GDP, to $7.8 trillion. However, even after this rapid expansion, China remains a lower middle-income country with per capita income of $6,000. This rapid economic growth has not affected commodities demand on the same level as a similar expansion within a developed country.

However, after decades of torrid growth, China is now the second largest economy in the world. As China continues to close the gap between its per capita GDP and that of the developed world, China will require an even greater share of global commodities output. In fact, according to Barclays Capital, China already accounts for more than 60% of the global growth in demand for copper, coal, and aluminum. According to the Wall Street Journal, Chinese demand for raw materials is once again increasing, with crude oil imports and iron ore imports at record levels.

Another developing country which will have long term impact on commodities demand is India. India's per capita GDP is just $2,800, compared with $6.000 in China. Currently, industry employs just 12% of the labor force in India compared to 25% of the labor force in China. As India transitions from an economy dominated by agriculture to one dominated by industry, this gap should close.

The forces of rapid economic expansion in China, India, and across the developing world will provide increased demands for commodities. China, with a population equal to 400% of the US, consumes just 38% of the amount of oil used by the US and just 11% of the amount of natural gas used by the US. As this large gap will continues to close, the increased demand will contribute to rising commodity prices.

Infrastructure construction in the developing world

Directly related to raw materials demand is the fact that much of the infrastructure required for industrialization within the developing world has not been completed. The roads, electrical grids, transportation networks, and modern housing all require concrete, copper, steel, and other raw materials.

As an example, consider the differences between China and the US. While China occupies a geographic area nearly identical in size to the US, it contains just 3% of the number of airports with paved runways, 25% the number of kilometers of paved roads, and 33% the number of kilometers of railroad tracks. The comparison between the state of infrastructure within India and the US is even more stark. Of course, these statistics only encompass some of the vital infrastructure needs of an industrialized country.

Specific examples of improvements include construction of nineteen additional nuclear power plants and waste treatment plants. China also contracted with Alstom, a French firm, for sixty electric regional trains which travel at 200 kilometers per hour. The regional transportation systems alone are growing rapidly, with 1,400 Metropolis cars already sold to China from Alstom. In April of this year, China announced an initiative to construct infrastructure in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities. These projects involve providing access to schools, drinking water, and electricity to the villages. Ethnic minority groups alone have a total population of over 100 million.

Providing this foundation for continued economic growth involves consumption of an enormous amount of raw materials. Quite simply, the demands of these much more populous countries will dwarf the amount of raw materials used in the prior industrialization of the developed world-in a much more condensed period of time.

Population growth

The developing world will experience a rapid increase in population growth. The US Census Bureau estimates the world population to be 6.7 billion currently. The United Nations predicts that this will increase to 8.9 billion by 2050. Nearly all of this increase will come from the developing world. The demands of an additional population equal to four times that of the EU and US combined will impact the demand on both raw materials and food commodities.

Finite resources for agricultural production and raw materials

Agricultural products, while renewable, face constraints of yield and acreage. The slower advancement in yield increases on crops along with the increased urbanization of available land should limit supply as a growing global population demands more food.

Raw materials will face even greater upward pressure for a myriad of reasons. These reasons are in addition to population growth, resumption of economic growth, and industrialization which were already discussed. The supply of raw materials is finite. New deposit discoveries and increased technological efficiency have allowed production increase possibilities to exceed increases in demand until recently. However, this may be difficult in the future. Discoveries on the scale of years past are not likely to happen as much of the world has been mapped out geologically. In addition, many of the most accessible and easily extractible areas are currently producing or already completely extracted. Furthermore, across areas of North America where many areas are known to contain materials, environmental restrictions and invasive government regulations will inhibit production into the indefinite future.

In regards to oil, the OPEC cartel controlling nationalized oil companies has shown a significant reluctance to purchase the equipment required to increase capacity or to open new wells. While private companies would likely divert resources towards increased production, the countries in control of production have a dual need to transfer the funds for social welfare programs and to diversify their economies away from energy production. In addition, refinery capacity has not kept up with either the increased energy demands or petroleum extraction. Environmental restrictions are a major reason for this lack of increase. Such a situation provides further upward pressure on pricing.

In short, the most basic economic concept is the supply and demand curve. As demand increases, an increase in prices and/or increase in supply can be expected. When supply cannot be adequately increased, a sharper increase in prices is required to cause an equilibrium in the supply and demand curve. Finite materials constricting supply with growing demand will cause prices to increase.

Lower valuation of the US dollar

Currently, prices for commodities are denominated in dollars. As such, the value of the dollar impacts the pricing of those commodities. All things being equal, the value of a currency in relation to goods can expect remain relatively stable only if the increase in monetary supply does not exceed the growth in an economy. Into the foreseeable future, the growth in the "number" of dollars in existence will exceed US economic growth. Not only is the Federal Reserve recapitalizing banks with new funds, but it is also purchasing US debt directly from the Treasury in an amount of approximately $1 trillion in the next year alone.

This results in an increase in money so great that it in effect devalues the currency. Such currency devaluation will have a direct impact on commodities in general as the dollar is worth less.

Theodore Herzl- 150th Birthday of the Zionist Leader Responsible for the Founding of the Modern Nation of Israel

2010-10-14T11:31:00.000-07:00

This 150th anniversary of Theodore Herzl's birth is cause for celebration. As a people, we have come along way towards accomplishing the Zionist ideal. Just reflect for a moment on the successes the modern day nation of Israel has enjoyed in its infancy. We've all heard of American exceptionalism...In many ways, Israeli exceptionalism is even more unique. Over the past century, millions of Jews from Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union, Iraq, Europe, South Africa and the Western Hemisphere have returned to the land of our ancestors after centuries of absence. Individual liberty in Israel is nearly unparalleled. And Israel's ability to strike a balance between economic liberty and caring for others has resulted in a strong economy without losing it's soul to pure materialism. Where else in the Mideast do women, minority ethnic populations, and distinct religious groups have so much protection by the State? Nowhere else...

As stunning as our achievements have been...as much freedom has been granted to all Israeli citizens... an array of opposition to Zionism confronts us today. Disconcertingly, this opposition is coming from alarming places...and from people who have no excuse to be blinded by ignorance.

Can any of us forget how media portrayed the Gaza flotilla incident this summer? Although blocking the flotilla was clearly permitted under UN resolutions and international law, although there is a history of arms smuggling through the ports, although Israel offered to allow the aid into the country subject to search, mainstream media sided with the wrongdoers before and after the debacle onboard the ships.

Unfortunately, even in this country-- in mainstream media-- those with an anti-Zionist bias draft the headlines which shape public opinion. How many of us remember the anchor of CNN's Mideast Affairs director- Octavia Nasr- who recently said this about one of the leaders of Hezbollah-- "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah...One of Hezbollah's giants I respect alot."

Of course, we all know that CNN fired this senior editor. However, we should all be asking serious questions. How did Octavia's biases affect the stories covered and the manner in which they were covered? Was CNN aware of her sympathies towards terrorist leaders prior to this event? If CNN were aware, why did she remain responsible for the Mideast reporting department? What does this say about the values at this leading news organization? Just as we would expect a member of the KKK to provided a perverted perspective on race relations, we can conjecture that Octavia did the same on issues regarding Israel. She was on the record as sympathizing with a terrorist.

This anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist bias is far more pervasive than we wish to admit. Think of another CNN anchor-- Rick Sanchez-- who was fired this last week for some interesting remarks to the effect that Jewish people are not an oppressed minority and in fact control much of this country...He came dangerously close to expressing belief in the Protocols of the elders of Zion...He too was fired-- but only after such bigotry was made public. We must remember that far more damage is done by opinion shapers who disguise their biased bigotry underneath a sheen of intellectualism.

Then-- we had the case of Helen Thomas-- the most senior of all White House press correspondents. In the words of Helen Thomas to the Jews "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine". Lest we think she was referring merely to the settlements- or territories-- she clarified her statement- "Remember these people are occupied and its there land..not Germany's or Poland's" They should go "home" to Poland and Germany and America and everywhere else."

Are we so naive to think that this is the first time the views of these leaders of journalism ever expressed such sentiments to their colleagues" Are we so naive enough to presume that this bias has not contaminated the reporting at our news organizations? Are we so naive to believe that this reporting has not brainwashed an millions of people against Zionism?

We must become alert to the subtle way in which Zionism is being slandered. World leaders and the media figures cloud the debate and shift public opinion by changing the definitions of words and promoting the fraud of moral equivalency. For instance, Palestinian leaders talk about recognition of Israel, yet when pressed insist such recognition will not be of Israel as a Jewish state. The UN-- and even our country-- discuss the Palestinian refugee problem as if it were analogous to other similar crises. Yet, this crises is one caused by and perpetuated by the very countries using the crises as an excuse not to make peace with Israel. And most importantly, it's the engagement by many leaders-- and even some within our own Jewish community-- to insist that Zionism is responsible for the strife in the Mideast.

We must especially be cognizant of those who claim to be on our side while undermining the Zionist ideal. A "Jewish advocacy" group which we're all familiar with-- J Street-- promotes positions criticizing the Israeli government, Israeli security precautions, and legitimate Israeli settlement construction. We should have all been wary of a Jewish lobbying organization channeling its energy against Israeli policy at a time when Islamic radicalism threatens to annihilate our security in the West and the existence of the state of Israel. In starting recent revelations, it turns out that the co-founder of J-Street, Daniel Levy, believes that Israel's creation was "an act that was wrong" and that there's "no reason for a Palestinian should think there was justice" in Israel's founding.

If we are to "Reclaim Zionism" as the American Zionist Mission seeks to do-- we must discuss these issues with our associates, write letters to editors, and lobby our representatives. We have tremendous power to undo the damage by disseminating objective information through personal blogs, facebook, twitter, emails, and conversations. Providing information to others has never been so easy! We must reclaim Zionism from the historical revisionists and the opinionated--and often ignorant-- commentators who have such control over the public perception.

We have much to be proud of..much to celebrate..and much work left to do!