Romney's Sins

In no particular order. Just making my list . . . and checking it twice.

• thinks the 1st Amendment is first
• wants to index the minimum wage to inflation
• supports ethanol subsidies
• flipped on abortion at least 3 times
• supported Obama's murder of an American citizen
• supports TARP
• has a weird religion
• thinks W prevented a depression
• believes in the individual mandate in principle
• was soft on public unions in Ohio
• thinks government coercion in healthcare is conservative
• believes in progressive income taxation
• reassures liberals by pledging to soften up conservatives
• reassures liberals that Republicans like him can make liberal extremism seem almost mainstream
• supports domestic partner benefits
• thinks it's a good idea to shift away from fossil fuels
• he's way too rich to lead the charge to abolish the progressive tax code even if he wanted to
• the world's getting warmer and humans contribute to that
• farm subsidies are a national security issue
• supports No Child Left Behind
• agrees with Milos Forman: Obama's no socialist
• Bain Capital bailed out companies just like Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler
• corporate restructuring is job creation
• "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern"
• "ObamaCare is not worth getting angry about"
• "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush"
• "Fox is watched by the true believers"
• spending cuts will cause a recession or even a depression
• gladly accepts support of John McCain in 2012 even though McCain said in 2010 that Obama's was a left-wing crusade to bankrupt America
• won't light his hair on fire for that angry mob, the Republican base

Liberal Massachusetts Town Institutes Fines For Public Swearing

The move actually de-criminalizes public swearing in order to remove it from the penumbra of First Amendment applications, as reported here:

Middleborough, a town of about 20,000 residents perhaps best known for its rich cranberry bogs, has had a bylaw against public profanity since 1968. But because that bylaw essentially makes cursing a crime, it has rarely if ever been enforced, officials said, because it simply would not merit the time and expense to pursue a case through the courts.

The ordinance would decriminalize public profanity, allowing police to write tickets as they would for a traffic violation. It would also decriminalize certain types of disorderly conduct, public drinking and marijuana use, and dumping snow on a roadway.

Just another expression of the reactionary impulse and not really a bona fide idea, an irritable mental gesture which only resembles an idea, right?

Gov. Romney Repeats the Myth of First Amendment Priority

Quoted here:

"We must have a President who is willing to protect America's first right, our right to worship God," he added.

The First Amendment was originally the Third Amendment. If religious liberty had really held priority in the founders' minds, this would not have been the case.

So what did pre-occupy their minds? The issue of adequate representation.

No one today can argue that we have it.

Obama's Attack on Roman Catholicism Evokes Charges of Tyranny, Fascism, Totalitarianism

From one Mark Judge, here:

The New Comstockery is a metastasizing liberal cancer not just of intolerance, but of hatred for those who disagree. ...

The New Comstockery is fascist. ...

[L]iberal tyranny ... has become evident recently in both the Obama administration[']s violation of the First Amendment in forcing Catholic institutions to sell birth control, and the reaction to the Susan Komen Foundation's attempt to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. ...

[S]omething ... in our time has become a terrible reality: the totalitarian impulse of liberalism, particularly when it comes to sexual matters.

Pace Mark Judge, the consequences of the relaxation of morals in the West produced a horrific 20th century on both sides of the Atlantic. It makes no difference that the tens of millions killed here in America have been faceless. Their blood cries out no less than the millions of Stalin's and Hitler's victims.

Nor has the impulse to liberal tyranny been only just recently evident.

It was evident to many of us much earlier, especially in ObamaCare in 2010 and in the fascist bailouts of 2009, which gave rise to the Tea Party. George Bush's liberalism which ended with TARP at home was just the kinder, gentler Republican version of it, trampling out the vintage for the most part in foreign fields.

But Obama has brought the grapes of wrath back home.

Few have been the voices decrying the expansion of the national security state in 2011. The Department of Homeland Security and the TSA have been hard at work implementing nationwide checkpoint programs, using scanners and military surveillance technology, particularly drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) to "patrol the borders," hunt down cattle rustlers and execute without trial (admittedly noxious) American citizens in foreign lands.

In 2012 the Republican House is actually cooperating by passing legislation which routinizes the domestic integration of UAVs under the control of the FAA. And Republicans think Mitt Romney is going to make a difference?

The revolution has been measured, taking off one obstacle at a time so as not to cause widespread alarm, but its objectives are indeed totalist.  Dismissing religious freedom now in 2012 almost comes as an afterthought, a mere by-product of ObamaCare.

The spider weaves its web, and soon we will all be caught it in, if we aren't already.

It's good that Mark Judge is finally paying attention.

Is anyone else?

"There is no contradiction between economic Liberalism and Socialism."

                               -- Oswald Spengler, 1933 

How About 10,000 US Representatives Instead of 435?

Many people, rightly in my opinion, point to the decline of religious faith, traditional morality and constitutional respect for both as a leading cause of our current discontents. In making this argument, however, some fall prey to an ahistorical understanding of the priority of the 1st Amendment, and miss an important remedy which animated the founding generation just as much did the principle of religious freedom.

The latest example of the myth of the priority of our 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is repeated by none other than John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, for The Baltimore Sun (link), whose other observations I otherwise find wholly unobjectionable:

[T]he right to religious freedom — the first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights — was of great importance to the framers of our Constitution.

Mr. Garvey operates under the common misapprehension that the 1st Amendment is somehow first because of James Madison's statements in various places about the priority of religious liberty as an unalienable right whose basis is in the creator. Accordingly Garvey quotes Madison, "This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society," as if this proves why The Bill of Rights starts the way it does and that we should therefore insist more urgently that 1st Amendment considerations somehow take the lead in our civil deliberations over contentious issues, especially as affecting institutions of The Church. It is to some extent an appeal to the authority of what has primacy, which one might expect of a Roman Catholic.

If Madison could hear this, however, he would no doubt laugh, because he himself authored what was the original first amendment, and it had nothing to do with freedom of the press, the free exercise of religion, etc.

Mr. Garvey's ignorance of the historical situation is not unusual, inasmuch as most of us, if we are familiar at all with even the basic facts of history, are children of the federalists who prevailed at the founding and wrote the constitution. We do not remember the arguments of their opponents, the anti-federalists, nor the issues which animated them, probably because we were never taught them.

The short version of a part of this very complicated history is that there was a list of at least twelve amendments proposed in 1789, and what we call our 1st Amendment was actually third in that list, which, with numbers four through twelve, was ultimately ratified while the two preceding were not. These go largely unremarked today, which is a pity because they reveal that if anything animated the minds of the founders as a matter of first importance, it was the idea of adequate representation. And it was this which was a chief pre-occupation of the anti-federalists, who viewed the constitution as a federalist conception of a defective republicanism which co-opted and undermined local constituencies and state governments. To the men of the anti-federalist camp, the more the representation, the less the chance of despotism.

As an historical phenomenon, representation's importance in the founding era formed a unity with taxation, as in "no taxation without representation."

This is why the first article of the constitution concerns itself with establishing the legislative authority, which the founders considered the predominating power in the new government, and its power to tax, both of which were to be apportioned to the states by population. Hence the census. But the constitution failed to delimit the maximum size of legislative representation, only that the number of representatives should not exceed one for every 30,000, and thus amendments were proposed.

The original amendments 1 and 2 read as follows:

Article I:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article II:

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Because Article I was not ratified, the deficiency of the original constitution's provisions for representation, though hotly debated at the time, was never successfully remedied. The deficiency is that the constitution does not specify the "maximum district size", in the words of thirty-thousand.org (link), which happens to be a veritable cornucopia of scholarship on this problem. Its author points out that our US House of Representatives, if it followed the constitution's original intent, would now consist of 10,000 representatives instead of just 435, a number fixed by the Congress in 1929:

Because this part of the Constitution is still “defective”, Congress can choose to grant its constituents virtually any number of Representatives it deems appropriate. In fact, Congress can choose both the number of Representatives and the algorithm by which they are allocated among the states. In contrast, the role of the Census Bureau is limited to conducting the decennial census and applying, to that result, the apportionment algorithm specified by Congress in order to calculate the allocation of House memberships. 

No one alive today who takes politics seriously can say with a straight face that he feels adequately represented by any politician of any party. Gallup would not report polls indicating the extreme low esteem for Congress that it does were it otherwise. Congressmen are remote and aloof, unresponsive even to their erstwhile supporters. Senators are even worse, to say nothing of the president. This was precisely the future predicted by the anti-federalists.

It might come as something of a surprise, perhaps, to thirty-thousand.org, that the anti-federalists were none too happy even with the constitution's idea that "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." Some of them could not imagine that one man could adequately represent so many people even as that.

Madison's attempt to set the representation progressively, stopping at one per fifty thousand, indicates something of his federalist sympathies, as well the limits of his imagination as to the potential growth of the American population.

In either eventuality, it must be said, Americans today would be better represented with more representatives than the few we currently have, whose nearly impenetrable incumbency makes them a veritable hereditary aristocracy of power and indeed tyranny over the lives of the Americans the founders intended them to represent.

What we have today is representation without representation, which is why Mr. Garvey rightly feels The Church to be under attack. Too much power is concentrated in too few hands, which is just the way the opponents of all that is good, true and beautiful like it.

The last thing they want is a US House of Representatives populated with 2300 Catholics.

Switch Hitters Nullify Softball Victory

"U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled Tuesday that the organization [North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance] has a First Amendment right to limit the number of heterosexual players, much as the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays."

More here. 

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, will she recuse herself?

Hutaree Militia Update: Big Talk, No Plot?

All behind the scenes stuff about what is and is not evidence in the case:

Defense lawyers have spent the past year arguing over evidentiary issues and trying to frame the case as a First Amendment fight.

There was no plan and no target identified by the Hutaree members, said lawyer Todd Shanker of the Federal Defender Office, who represents the Hutaree leader's stepson, David Stone Jr.

"A few of the people talked a lot and talked big in front of their friends and fellow militia members," Shanker told The Detroit News.

"But everybody, I think, was there for different reasons."

There's more here at The Detroit News.

George Will, National Treasure, Font of American Wisdom

Some excerpts from his address to The CATO Institute in May:

We are not Europeans. We are not, in Orwell's phrase, a "state-broken people."

It is a principle of liberal social legislation that a program for the poor is a poor program.

[D]ependency is the agenda of the other side.

I believe that today, as has been the case for 100 years, and as will be the case for the foreseeable future, the American political argument is an argument between two Princetonians: James Madison of the class of 1771, and Thomas Woodrow Wilson of the class of 1879.

The very virtue of a constitution is that it's not changeable. It exists to prevent change, to embed certain rights so that they cannot easily be taken away.

Madison said rights pre-exist government. Wilson said government exists to dispense whatever agenda of rights suits its fancy, and to annihilate, regulate, attenuate, or dilute others.

We are going to come to a time when America is going to have to revisit Madison's Federalist Paper no. 45, and his statement, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

Gridlock is not an American problem, it is an American achievement!

[W]e always have more to fear from government speed than government tardiness.

We are told that one must not be a "Party of No." To "No," I say an emphatic "Yes!"

[T]he most beautiful five words in the English language are the first five words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law."

The Bill of Rights is a litany of "No's."

The American people are, I think, healthier than they are given credit for. They have only one defect. They have nothing to fear, right now, but an insufficiency of their fear itself. It is time for a wholesome fear of what people with a dependency agenda are trying to do. We have few allies. We don't have Hollywood, we don't have academia, and we don't have the mainstream media. But we have two things. First, we have arithmetic. The numbers do not add up, and cannot be made to do so. Second, we have the Cato Institute. The people in this room are what the Keynesians call "a multiplier." And, for once, they are right!

Don't miss the rest at the link!

CONSERVATIVE PLEBEIANS

"While we will continue to strive to eliminate expletives from live broadcasts, the inherent challenges broadcasters face with live television, coupled with the human element required for monitoring, must allow for the unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through," Fox said in a statement.

Go here for more on News Corp.'s suit against the FCC in defense of your First Amendment right to hear the language of the gutter on television.

College Education Does Almost Nothing To Improve Knowledge of American Civics

From Joe Wolverton, II at the New American:

Report Finds College Students Fail Basic Civics Test

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

Friday, 26 February 2010

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it” is one of the most oft-quoted aphorisms of Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish-born member of the British Parliament and fearless friend of liberty. Judging from the results of a recent survey conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), most of the 14,000 college students who participated sadly will be repeating history.

Considering that most of the 14,000 students who completed the exam (7,000 seniors and 7,000 freshmen) scored an F on the portion of the test covering basic American history and institutions, not only will they be repeating history, but with test scores like that, they’ll be repeating history class, as well.

ISI, a conservative non-profit educational organization, has recently published the results of this sweeping survey in a 32-page report entitled “The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree and Civic Learning on American Beliefs.” Sit down before you read this report because the data will knock you off your feet.

In 2007, ISI administered a 60-question test to 14,000 students at 50 colleges nationwide. The questions were designed to measure the students’ aptitude in four areas: basic American history, government, foreign affairs, and economics. In a companion study, in 2008 ISI administered a shorter exam (33 questions) to a random sample of 2,508 Americans without a college degree in order to have a standard level against which the impact of a college education on a threshold level of familiarity with basic American institutions could be determined.

Here are a few frightening figures certain to keep you up at night:

71% of Americans failed the civics knowledge test;

51% of Americans could not name the three branches of government;

The average score for college seniors on the civics knowledge test was 54.2% (an “F” by any standard);

The average student’s test score improved only 3.8 points from freshman to senior year;

Freshmen at Cornell, Yale, Princeton, and Duke scored better than seniors on the civics knowledge test;

79% of elected officials that took the civics knowledge quiz did not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from establishing a religion;

30% of office holders did not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence;

27% of politicians could not name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment;

43% did not know the purpose of the Electoral College;

39% of lawmakers believe the power of declaring war belongs to the president;

The average score for college professors who took the civics knowledge quiz was 55%.

So, while our nation’s most elite colleges are not imbuing our children with a knowledge of our history and our government, the study makes it clear that those universities are becoming round the clock factories churning out poorly instructed liberals with little civic knowledge and even less faith and less devotion to principles of liberty than those Americans who didn’t go to college.

It’s not just ignorance of the founding and the structure of government that is being fostered at these so-called institutions of higher learning. The classrooms are becoming hothouses of left-wing opinions, as well. For example, according to the findings published by ISI, college graduates are more likely than non-graduates to favor legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. By contrast, college graduates are less likely to believe that the Bible is the word of God and that hard work and perseverance can make the American Dream come true.

Similarly, the study’s findings revealed that regardless of one’s formal education, one’s knowledge of basic American civics determined one’s faith in America and trust in the tenets of liberty upon which it was established. This shift is evident in the fact that non-college graduates who scored higher on the civics knowledge quiz than college graduates were less likely to believe that “America’s founding documents are obsolete.” Furthermore, the learned, though not college educated respondents are correspondingly less likely to agree that “the Ten Commandments are irrelevant” to the world today.

This research is, according to the organization’s website, the fourth such study conducted by ISI in an attempt to scientifically measure the impact of a college education on civic knowledge and citizenship. Unremarkably, the results have not changed much over the years and once the numbers are crunched it is irrefutable that having a college education does almost nothing to buttress one’s overall knowledge of the fundamental history and composition of American government.

In contrast, what a formal education at one of America’s university does so effectively, however, is engender doubt in the American way of life, incubate irreverence for the pillars of liberty upon which the nation was built, and perhaps most disturbingly, sap the faith in God and the institutions of religious worship.

The various interesting findings of the study, including the questions asked and the results, as well as the scientific analysis thereof, can be found here.

And, if you’re brave, test your own knowledge of America’s history, government, foreign policy, and economics by taking the quiz posted online here. Good luck! And remember, eyes on your own paper. Judging by the results of this study, many of you college graduates might be tempted to cheat!

The Original "Party of No"

The Bill of Rights:

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . ..

Second Amendment: . . . the right . . . shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment: No soldier shall . . ..

Fourth Amendment: The right . . . shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue . . ..

Fifth Amendment: No person shall . . ., nor shall any person be subject . . ., nor shall be compelled . . ., nor be deprived . . ., nor shall private property . . ..

Seventh Amendment: . . . no fact tried . . . shall . . ..

Eighth Amendment: . . . shall not be required . . . nor . . . imposed . . . nor . . . inflicted.

Ninth Amendment: . . . shall not be construed . . ..

Eleventh Amendment: . . . shall not be construed . . ..

Twelfth Amendment: But no person . . . ineligible . . . shall be eligible . . ..

No doubt written by "nattering nabobs of negativism".