Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Parting Company

Townhall.com ^ | November 28, 2012 | Walter Williams

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

Worried

Welfare State

Qualified?

Full Metal Jackass

Obama Logic

Awesome

For a ride!

Reason I Drink!

Getting the AX

We condemn...

Remember When?

Rice BS

Socialism

Fiscal Cliff

In U.S., Majority Now Against Gov't Healthcare Guarantee...Huh?

Gallup Politics ^ | 11/28/12 | Jeffrey Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to 2009, a majority always felt the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all, though Americans' views have become more divided in recent years. The current results are based on Gallup's annual Health and Healthcare poll, conducted Nov. 15-18 this year. The shift away from the view that the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all began shortly after President Barack Obama's election and has continued the past several years during the discussions and ultimate passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Americans are divided on that legislation today -- 48% approve and 45% disapprove -- as they have been over the last several years.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...

Women Want Conditional Equality in the Military!


Flopping Aces ^ | 11-27-12 | CJ
Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:45:44 AM by Starman417

Except as otherwise provided in this title (sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix) it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.
That is section 453 of the Military Selective Service Act that was passed in 1917 and amended many times over the years, the most recent being in 2003. This will come into play later.

On my way home from work, the news played a clip of a former Army helicopter pilot, Major Mary Jennings Hegar. There was much ado about the fact she served three combat tours in Afghanistan. Along with three other female veterans, she has joined with the ACLU to sue the Department of Defense over the combat exclusion policy that bars females from going into combat specialties. In an op-ed published today, MAJ Hegar made the following comments:

If there is one thing I’ve learned about the differences between us all throughout my years of service, it’s this: putting the right person in the right job has very little to do with one’s gender, race, religion, or other demographic descriptor. It has everything to do with one’s heart, character, ability, determination and dedication. That’s the problem with the military’s combat exclusion policy. It makes it that much harder for people to see someone’s abilities, and instead reinforces stereotypes about gender. The policy creates the pervasive way of thinking in military and civilian populations that women can’t serve in combat roles, even in the face of the reality that servicewomen in all branches of the military are already fighting for their country alongside their male counterparts. They shoot, they return fire, they drag wounded comrades to safety and they engage with the enemy, and they have been doing this for years. They risk their lives for their country, and the combat exclusion policy does them a great disservice.
It's no secret and I don't deny that women have been shot at, shot back, and contributed to direct-fire engagements of the enemy. However, that doesn't mean that these actions equate to being infantry, cavalry, or other combat specialty. As a matter of fact, the Marine Corps recently opened up their Infantry Officers Course to women. Two women volunteered to attend the course...and both women dropped from the program. These women were "to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons, a Marine official told Marine Corps Times. It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill," according to the Marine Corps Times.

Women in the military want to have equal treatment while being treated differently. For example, in order for a male my age to just pass the push-up event with the minimum passing score, he has to correctly perform 34 push-ups. For a female of the same age, she only needs to complete 13. To pass the 2-mile run, I need to run 18:18 or faster while a female my age can take up to 22:42 to complete the same distance.

(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Most-Racial America

WSJ.com ^ | Nov. 26 2012 | James Taranto

"Everytime [sic] I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination," thunders blogger William Jacobson. He's referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice--a passage that in our view is useful for its clarity.

At issue is a Nov. 19 letter to the President Obama, written by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and signed by 97 House Republicans, which declares that the signatories are "deeply troubled" that the president is considering nominating Rice secretary of state, and that they "strongly oppose" such a nomination.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Democrats seek more benefits for jobless!

Washington Times ^ | Monday, November 26, 2012 | Seth McLaughlin

Warning that more than 2 million Americans are poised to lose their long-term unemployment insurance, some Democrats are calling on Congress to extend the “economic lifeline” before it expires next month.

Some Republicans, though, are demanding that an extension of jobless benefits—and any other form of new spending—be offset through savings or spending reductions elsewhere in the federal budget.
In a letter to party leaders last week, Sen. Jeff Sessions said that extending the unemployment benefits another year carries a $26 billion price tag.

Couple that with the cost of keeping the 2 percent payroll tax cut on the books and averting a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients and the Alabama Republican said that the bill for new spending rises to nearly $130 billion. …

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

House GOP plans public push against tax hikes on businesses [Good!]

THE HILL ^ | November 27, 2012 | Russell Berman

President Obama won’t be the only one hitting the campaign trail to push his deficit plan to avert the fiscal cliff.

House Republicans are planning their own campaign-style events to argue against Obama’s insistence on higher tax rates for the wealthy, Speaker John Boehner’s office said Tuesday.

As they have repeatedly, Republicans are targeting their message to small businesses, arguing that an increase in the marginal income rate over $250,000 a year will hit small-business owners who file as individuals.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...