Sunday, October 25, 2015

Enjoy Your Rights ... But Only One at a Time?


Your State's Constitution protects you from a variety of police and prosecutorial infringements on your natural rights to life, liberty and property. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights -- containing like provisions, many based on then-existing State constitutional provisions -- does the same.

Notice that I did not say that these documents grant rights to you.

Instead, those that drafted them, those that adopted them, those men knew that the source of our rights could not be the shifting and uncertain basis that a grant of permission constitutes. Rather, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Equally important, as the emphasis always seems to make its way to the three rights stated -- life, liberty, pursuit of happiness -- those men did not consider that we are endowed with just those three rights. The text states, "among these are" the particular rights asserted. Odd language indeed if our natural rights were understood by the framers of our Nation to be limited to just the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to seek happiness. Still, even a cramped view of our rights -- an unfortunate perspective too often seemingly held by governments and government agents -- suggests that more is at stake than merely being allowed to remain alive, at large, and in pursuit of happiness.

So, as suggested above, many of these rights are recognized in State Constitutions and in the US Constitution by inclusion of restrictions on the power of government, limitations on what the government and its agents may do to citizens.

For example, if police learn from a "confidential informant" that you are growing marijuana in your basement, they do NOT get to bust down your doors and search for those plants UNLESS THEY FIRST OBTAIN A WARRANT to search. That warrant must be specific as to the places to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. If the police then execute on the warrant, and find 20 pot plants, they will seize them, and likely developments include your arrest and probable indictment for manufacture for sale or distribution of a controlled substance. If you are *****indicted*****, you have the right to counsel, you have the right to confront witnesses against you, you have the right to a jury of your peers.

Now, to get to the point of this post, imagine -- on that first day you appear in court -- if the court asked you to stand up and said the following to you:
Mr Jones, the State and Federal Constitution guarantee you a broad variety of rights in a criminal prosecution. For example, you have the right to an attorney, like Ms. Smith there with you. You have a right to a speedy trial, and if you exercise that right, we'll get you right on the calendar. You have the right to a jury trial, by a jury of your peers. Oddly, though, there is nothing in either the State Constitution or the Federal one that says you get to enjoy all those rights at the same time. So, for purposes of this charge, do you prefer to be represented by an attorney, or do you prefer to have a jury trial?
Sounds improbable, right?

Since when are your rights, you might think, subject to a sort of "one per customer" rule like might be imposed by a department store for any of its Black Friday loss-leader promotions. "Oh yes, we do have a 60" flat screen television for $299.99, but quantities are limited, and only one television set per customer!" Those who framed our Declaration and Constitutions would cringe at the thought that the government could say to you, "Oh yes, we do have constitutional rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and the like, but quantities are limited, and only one per customer."

Yet, the same State and federal constitutions guarantee both the freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly, and press, on one hand, and the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand. So how is it that government agents, particularly police, think that if you are demonstrating -- in other words, exercising your right to freedom of speech, of assembly -- you cannot be armed and, if you're armed, you cannot be demonstrating?

One right at a time? Quantities limited?

Says who?

The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit, public interest legal organization. Thirty years ago, I was a client of theirs.  In one of their recent cases, the Institute defeated a motion to dismiss a lawsuit, in a case that brings to public eye that niggardly approach of government agents toward the existence of, and enjoyment of, "supremely precious" and "important" but "delicate" constitutional rights.

Rutherford attorneys represent Brandon Howard. The Institute's website includes this description of the incident leading to the lawsuit:
On Monday, Aug. 26, 2013, Brandon Howard arrived at an overpass above Interstate 295 in the City of Hopewell, Va., and displayed a 6 foot by 4 foot sign that read “Impeach Obama.” Howard was carrying a DMTS Panther Arms AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder on a strap, and a .380 caliber Bersa Thunder sidearm pistol in a belted holster on his waist. Howard lawfully owned each firearm and did not point or brandish them at any time while engaged in his First Amendment protest activity on the overpass. Howard displayed his protest sign for 30 minutes, but Howard did not directly engage with anyone. 
At about 5:30 p.m., a police officer pulled up to the area, remained in his car and observed Howard. Thereafter, three to five additional police cruisers arrived at the scene with emergency lights engaged.  Approximately eight officers exited these vehicles with their guns drawn and ordered Howard to drop his sign and get on the ground with his hands spread above his head. Howard complied with the officers’ orders. 
Despite the fact that Howard at no time made any threatening action toward the officers or anyone else, one police officer allegedly asked Howard, “What do you think you are doing threatening people on my interstate?” Howard explained that he had not threatened anyone but was simply exercising his First and Second amendment rights. Howard was then handcuffed and transported to the police station, where he was left, handcuffed, in an interrogation room for 90 minutes, after which time he had his firearms returned and was released. 
A month later, the Deputy Chief of Police acknowledged in writing that an internal investigation had concluded that one of the officers violated department policy and would be disciplined and sent to remedial training.

To clarify the ruling recently obtained, the Court refused a request (a motion) by the Defendant, Officer Hunter, to throw Howard's case out on the basis that Howard's lawsuit did not state any legally recognized basis for him to prevail over the police officer. The Institute identified Hunter as the police official that accused Hunter of threatening people, and who asserted that the overpass where Howard demonstrated was, "his overpass."


The Hopewell Police Department, whose officer is the defendant, has publicly acknowledged the error of its officers' conduct, and directed the officer to have remedial training.

Camels might apologize for sticking their nose under your tent flap. It is a hopeful sign when the involved agency quickly acts to rectify wrongs done. But the slap on the nose is the better lesson, and the Rutherford Institute's lawsuit is the better lesson too.

Some reading this post may think Howard was "out of bounds" bringing firepower to his demonstration. They may assert that other incidents of violence at the hands of criminals justifies treating those against whom no reasonable basis of suspicion that they have done wrong, or that they are contemplating doing wrong, as though they too are criminals. For any readers of such mind, I bring this post back to the opening considerations.

There is, no less in the enjoyment of our natural rights than in life, a kind of continuity, a circle, if you will, of rights. Just as the circle of life can be disrupted by ill-motivated actors and ignorant ones, the circle or continuity of our rights is, because it is both "supremely important" and extremely delicate, in want of constant, careful attention. With their representation of Mr. Howard, and their vindication thus far of his rights, the attorneys for the Rutherford Institute are proving themselves diligent and effective advocates for our natural rights.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Arsenic and Old Lies

Growing up, there were a few favorite old movies I remember watching. One, "Arsenic and Old Lace," is a farcical comedy about an elderly pair of aunties who took bachelors in as boarders, and then gave them elderberry wine laced with arsenic, was a favorite. Cary Grant, the loving nephew, begins in the story with no idea of his aunts' proclivities to murder. He does know that his uncle, a bit demented, thought himself to be Teddy Roosevelt, and in that role, he was regularly digging new "locks" for the "Panama Canal" in the aunties' basement. His construction activities conveniently provided burial plots for the poisoned bachelors.

If you haven't seen the play or the movie, you are missing a gem. I am including this excerpted clip to set the stage for this post:



You really should give "Arsenic and Old Lace" a try.

Remember, when I watched the movie as a kid, there was no such thing as John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy or other, now notorious, serial killers, at least not whose mayhem came into our home in the drum beat of the 24 hour news cycle. So two elderly women poisoning lonely bachelors could still be funny, and the play did speak to an audience that could distinguish Teddy Roosevelt from his cousin Franklin.

Today, however, we are living inside the farce. We are under the ministrations of Arsenic and Old Lies.



This notion came to mind as I thought about the recent Democratic Candidates' debate.

Excepting Jim Webb, whose Democratic party credentials are undoubtedly doubted by Democrats (after all, he made out a case during the debate that "an enemy" was someone that was literally trying to kill you with a grenade (an episode from his wartime service in Vietnam), the candidates, answering a question about the enemy of which the candidates were most proud of making, America was treated to a laundry list of American freedom and enterprise, represented by such "enemies" as health insurance companies, the National Rifle Association, Wall Street, the rich, and Republicans.

So the association whose fairly moderate positions regarding the right to keep an bear arms is a worthy enemy for a political candidate to have acquired?

Why?

Why would a candidate for the Nation's highest office take pride in so positioning themselves politically that an organization that supports a clear cut provision of the Constitution -- the Second Amendment -- might be considered by them as an enemy?

And why is it a matter of bragging rights to have exacerbated the economic liberties of health insurance companies or of "Wall Street" (whatever "Wall Street" is supposed to mean in that context, it carries the connotation of American businesses)?

The answer is simple.

Again, setting aside Jim Webb, the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination are not Democrats as John Kennedy was, or as Truman was, or even as Franklin Roosevelt was.

As a group, and as individuals, they are Statists, they are progressives, they are Socialists.

Now we have lived, as a People, long enough to watch the rise of socialism in Europe, the Americas, Asian and Africa. Its collapse, in the Soviet Bloc, we have witnessed too. Were it has not been abandoned, its wreck and ruin continues unabated.

The depredations of socialism are evident in the land of Obama's new best buddies, the Castro brothers. Cuba's organized and planned economy has the been operating inefficiently since Castro's revolution, and the nation's inability to mount a successful domestic and international economic enterprise is well understood. Those very same ideas of central control and management of economy put the Soviet Union in the position of being unable to sustain a long term move-for-move build up in competition with the United States, and ultimately resulted in the USSR collapsing under its own weight. The current terrible economic suffering in Venezuela is the direct result of these same socialistic ideas put in practice.

Yet here we have old lies being fed to us in an unction of elderberry wine. Our old uncle, Bernie Sanders, thinks he can build up the house by digging holes of taxation under the foundation. Old auntie Hillary will "do us good" even if it means killing us.

I prefer the movie to the threatened reality of a farcical America under their poisonous, tired, and disproved old lies.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Lawsuit Attacks California Rule Requiring Churches to Fund Abortions

For years, the State of California has engaged in acts of aggression against Christianity and Christians.

My first experience with those acts of aggression came as an attorney assisting Jordan Lorence​ in his preparations and arguments that imposing a nondiscrimination clause on landlords that barred them from refusing to rent their properties to unmarried couples violated their religious freedom.

Later came the imposition of nondiscrimination clauses by Cities like San Francisco, denying any business that engaged in contractual relations with the City the right to limit health insurance and other benefits to legally married spouses of employees.

Later still came the insistence that businesses provide contraceptives coverage with their health plans.

Blow by blow the State and its People savaged those who clung to faith as a justification for their actions.

Did the People of the State rise in revolt?

No.

Did they punish elected officials with removal at election time, or recall from office?

No.

The consistent refrain from the officials and their policy gadflies amongst the various related interest groups was the same:

  • If you don't want to rent to everyone, get out of the property management business
  • If you don't want to provide benefits to unmarried partners of employees, don't do business with us.
  • If you don't like what's going on in California, the essence of the message was, then get out. 

Our former pastor gave that message once during a "family meeting" of the church. "If you don't like how things are changing," he challenged the "family," "I have a list of 500 other churches in the area you could attend."

It seems to me that neither States, nor churches, should be in the business of telling dissenters that they should shut up or leave (although I do support the right of private associations like churches to engage in such discrimination, I just think that the approach looks alot like the opposite of what Jesus taught).

So the People of California have let their giant melt pot come to a full boil. Now the State is telling churches that they must provide health insurance coverage for elective abortions.

I'm not talking about election abortions, like the campaigns of Rick Perry or Chaffee/O'Malley/Webb. I'm talking about elective abortions.

An elective abortion is one that is not therapeutic in character, from a medical perspective. It is one that is not necessary to the life or health of the mother. [Let's leave aside for now the very notion that killing one's child is necessary to one's health, a notion that would empty most homes during the years in which children make the difficult passage from pre-teen to adult.]

In August, 2014, the director of California's Department of Managed Health Care wrote to several health insurance companies regarding their policies in force in California. The director advised the insurance companies that California prohibits discrimination between pregnancy outcomes (in other words favoring birth over abortion). For that reason, the director instructed the companies to take steps to insure that policies they issued were correctly constructed to insure that abortion, which California considers a "basic health service" be covered in a manner consistent with California law.

Here is a relevant excerpt from the letter:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) that some Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross) contracts contain language that may discriminate against women by limiting or excluding coverage for termination of pregnancies. The DMHC has reviewed the relevant legal authorities and has concluded that it erroneously approved or did not object to such discriminatory language in some evidence of coverage (EOC) filings. [] 
The purpose of this letter is to remind plans that the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox Keene Act) requires the provision of basic health care services and the California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.  
Exclusions and limitations are also incompatible with both the California Reproductive Privacy Act and multiple California judicial decisions that have unambiguously established under the California Constitution that every pregnant woman has the fundamental right to choose to either bear a child or to have a legal abortion. A health plan is not required to cover abortions that would be unlawful under Health & Safety Code § 123468. 
Regardless of existing EOC language, effective as of the date of this letter, Blue Cross must comply with California law with respect to the coverage of legal abortions. 
Required Action 
[] Blue Cross must review all current health plan documents to ensure that they are compliant with the Knox-Keene Act with regard to legal abortion. This includes plan documents previously approved or not objected to by the DMHC.  
In regards to coverage for abortion services, the descriptors cited below are inconsistent with the Knox-Keene Act and the California Constitution. Blue Cross must amend current health plan documents to remove discriminatory coverage exclusions and limitations. These limitations or exclusions include, but are not limited to, any exclusion of coverage for “voluntary” or “elective” abortions and/or any limitation of coverage to only “therapeutic” or “medically necessary” abortions. Blue Cross may, consistent with the law, omit any mention of coverage for abortion services in health plan documents, as abortion is a basic health care service
[]

So California demands that elective abortions, the ones sought to avoid weight gain, the ones sought to insure that classes aren't missed, the ones sought to guarantee that a woman will not have her trip to the glass ceiling disrupted, THOSE ABORTIONS, be covered by health insurance plans. Even when those insurance plans are required to be purchased by employers that are churches. Even when the churches treat the topic of abortion as a moral question, and conclude and teach and believe that abortion is a grievous moral wrong, a sin.

Now, thankfully, Alliance Defending Freedom​ has sued to overturn the application of that state rule to churches. I have attached a link to the complaint filed in federal court last week. It's worth the read to understand the hateful goings on in that State. I suppose it is worth reminding the churches that some aspect of their present suffering reflects a failure of mission in their society, a failure to teach from the pulpit the essential nature of God's design, a proper respect for life, and the duty of those who walk after Jesus to bring their faith to bear on their government.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

A Hell of a Difference Hillary, a Hell of a Difference


In January 2013, two months following the re-election of Barack Obama and four months following the planned, deadly, terrorist attack on America's Benghazi Consulate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the attack, the State Department's security arrangements for the Consulate, and the manner in which the Obama administration represented the attack on television in the immediate aftermath of the attack and in the heated last weeks of Obama's re-election run.

Before going further, here's a link to an excerpt of that testimony. Please watch it again. I know most of you have seen it before. But, please, remind yourself of exactly how Secretary Clinton presented to the Committee her "What difference does it make" rebuke:



A lot of ink has been spilled in pursuit of political agendas and in pursuit of the truth, over the Consulate Benghazi attack. The pursuit of truth, of course, was substantially impeded by the known lie offered by the Obama administration immediately following the attack. You do remember the known lie, yes? That the attack on Benghazi was the result of outrage in the Islamic community over a youtube video that blasphemed that religion?

That was the lie told five times on a Sunday morning five days after the attack by Susan Rice, then the President's National Security Adviser. That lie was not a spontaneous error made once and then forced to be repeated on subsequent talk shows. It was the planned lie. Indeed, it was planned as a deliberate distraction from what the Benghazi attack might really be seen to reveal: the foreign policy failures of the Obama administration.

We know that last fact thanks to the work of Judicial Watch. Its FOIA lawsuits have forced the Obama Administration to produce damning emails.

One of those damning emails came from Ben Rhodes.

Rhodes serves as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting to President Obama. Rhodes has siblings. In a wonderfully delicious coincidence, his brother is the President of CBS News. Given the absolute failure of CBS News to substantively analyze, or question, the agenda-driven (re-elect Obama), completely false narrative she offered on Face the Nation, it leaves one wondering just how cozy the relationship between CBS's Rhodes and the White House's Rhodes is.

Rhodes emailed tips about preparing Rice for her Sunday morning talk show appearances. Among his tips:  "underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." No, no, certainly not a broader failure of policy. We certainly would not want our National Security Adviser to get on the TV Sunday morning shows and say, "Benghazi was a cluster-f#ck of monumental proportions and is the fault of our failed policies." So, what would she say instead?

Apparently whatever lie Rhodes suggested.




In some way, it may seem unfair to require one to answer for the lies of another ... unless one used their position to lend credence and weight to the false narrative. So while you might sympathize with Hillary Clinton, when called to task on Capitol Hill, no sympathy is warranted. Particularly, no sympathy is warranted because she did not come to Capitol Hill to clear the air, resolve ambiguities, or tell the truth.

How do I know that to be the case?

Well, it's all right up there in that video.

Hillary came to Capitol Hill to continue the venerable Democratic (and governmental) practice of telling bald-faced lies.

Here is the transcript of the relevant exchange between Republican Senator Ron Johnson and Secretary Clinton in that video linked above:
Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained? 
Clinton: But, Senator, again— 
Johnson: Within hours, if not days? 
Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one— 
Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse. 
Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown -- 
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that. 
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime. 
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

Do you see the lie?

What does Hillary say?

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans?"

You have to literally take the blow by blow with Hillary to catch the full nuance of complete and utter falsehood she unloads in that statement.

Notice the hands and her gaze toward Senator Johnson:



So far, you would be right to conclude that she had not yet lied.

The next moment, however, she will begin to unload 100% Grade A falsehood. But before I explain, here is a bit more background.

When the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee was beginning its investigation into Benghazi, it sent a letter to Secretary Clinton. That letter details an extended series of attacks on American and other foreign facilities and personnel in Libya in the months leading up to the planned terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate and the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. This chronology showing the increasing danger of circumstances in Benghazi is based on their letter:
  • April 6, 2012, BENGHAZI – IED Attack on Benghazi Consulate
  • April 11, 2012, BENGHAZI – Gun battle, including antiaircraft guns and RPGs, within 5 km of the Benghazi Consulate
  • April 25, 2012, TRIPOLI – A US Embassy diplomatically plated vehicle detained and Embassy-issued radio seized
  • April 26, 2012, BENGHAZI – Fistfight and gunfire while a Foreign Service officer attended a trade-related event at the International Medical University
  • April 27, 2012, BENGHAZI – Two South African contractors kidnapped by armed men while walking through a residential area of Benghazi
  • May 1, 2012, TRIPOLI – The Deputy Commander of Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force carjacked, beaten and detained by a group of armed youth.  
  • May 22, 2012, BENGHAZI – Two RPG rounds were fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), approximately 1 km from Consulate Benghazi
  • June 2012 – In June 2012, a posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page identified Ambassador Stevens daily exercise schedule and directed a threat against the Ambassador with a photo of him
  • June 6, 2012, BENGHAZI – An IED on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi blew a hole in the security perimeter “big enough for forty men to go through” 
  • June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI –June 10, 2012, a convoy carrying the British Ambassador was attacked with an RPG.  
  • Late June 2012, BENGHAZI – The International Committee of the Red Cross building was attacked again, this time in broad daylight while people were inside.  
  • August 6, 2012, TRIPOLI – Armed assailants attempt to carjack vehicle with diplomatic plates driven by US security personnel
  • WEEKS BEFORE September 11, 2012, BENGHAZI – Unarmed Libyan guards were warned by family members to quit guarding Consulate Benghazi due to rumors of an impending attack
No wonder that Ambassador Stevens, along with other federal officials detailed to Libya repeatedly requested that security be enhanced there. Of course, if the chronology alone is insufficient to convince you that these repeated and increasing attacks occurred, try denying the visual evidence. Here are photos showing the aftermath of the attack on the convoy carrying the British Ambassador:






As the chronology above mentioned, there was also an RPG attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross in Benghazi. The photo below shows where the rocket propelled grenade entered the ICRC building:


National Security Adviser Susan Rice took to the airwaves and pushed the administration's lying line, recounting a false narrative, that a video that defamed Islam stirred anti American sentiment. White House Creative Writing expert Ben Rhodes urged the lie so that no one would think the Benghazi attack reflected a more general failure of US policy.

Of course, that is precisely what the attack reflected.

The Obama administration shares responsibility with other nations for supporting the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. What ever ill one may speak of that dictator, he kept the more disruptive and violent components of Libyan society in check. Supporting his removal, and his murder, put us in the position of killing the engineer on a train speeding down a straight track into town, knowing that the track curves precipitously in the downtown area. If you do that, you are agreeing to the mayhem that results. And this administration was warned by human rights groups about the dangers to Libyan minority groups inherent in such destabilization. Yet the administration made removing Gaddafi a key component of its middle eastern strategies.

What followed, then, was the trail of disturbances and violence. Nor was our Benghazi consulate the sole target of the violence, as the chronology above showed. And that chronology does not address the domestic harms of the failed policy of this administration for Libyan minorities and ordinary citizens.

So, when Hillary came to Capitol Hill, and did so after the House Committee's letter, mentioned above, pointed to the intensifying violence and danger, and inquired about security arrangements and requests for enhanced security for the Libyan mission, Secretary Clinton obviously practiced and came prepared ... to lie.

Notice, in the video, she omitted "protest over a video defaming Islam. Now, she simply asks, "Was it because of a protest?"


Remember, when she spoke that phrase, she already knew that it was NOT BECAUSE OF A PROTEST. It never was. Yet, in setting up her counterpoise of two competing narratives -- each of which exonerates the Obama administration for failing to respond to security enhancement requests -- she clings to a part of the narrative, that the attack was "because of a protest."

The answer, as the Secretary knew, was, "No, it wasn't because of a protest."

Then she proceeds immediately to offer the alternative, equally false narrative;


So, having proposed that it might have been the result of a protest, she immediately leaps to the alternative, equally false narrative. "Was it because a group of guys were out walking one night and decided to go kill some Americans?"

Well, again, Secretary Clinton knew that the answer to the question was, "No, it wasn't because a 'group of guys were out walking one night and decided to go kill some Americans.'" That narrative offers a skin of truth: that a group of guys decided to kill Americans. But that skin of truth was stretched overly tightly around a lie of enormous proportions. The lie was the impression left by the question that the attack was an unplanned event isolated in time to the evening when it occurred. One has the sense, from hearing her words, that she is suggesting that a group of radicals were strolling in the park and decided

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It makes the difference that the President and his administration -- in a planned act of direct lies -- told America that the attack on Benghazi was the fault of a video. They knew when they said it that they were lying. Why say it? Because they knew the alternative, truthful, explanation was damning to the President's re-election: a more general failure of policy in the region. Now one of the principal architects of that falsehood, an agent of deception that used flourish and art to spin out two further developed and completely false narratives, would be President.

No, it wasn't a group out for a walk that spontaneously decided to kill Americans.

No, it wasn't a protest against a video that simply spun out of control.

The two previous IED attacks directly on the compound, including one that blew a hole in the compound's fence large enough for forty men to charge through, show that there was deliberation, planning, probing for weaknesses in security taking place in the months leading up to the attack. The Gaddafi regime that Obama toppled was, certainly, troubling. The wreck left in the wake of topping that regime, however, was the failure of Obama's policy. A person of honor would have resigned their post rather than assist in propping up Obama's policy and his lies to the American people. We have seen American political leaders demonstrate that honor.

During the investigation into the break-in of the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, then-President Richard Nixon gave in to pressure and appointed an independent special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. When Cox's investigation discomfitted Nixon, he decided to fire him.

The decision of the President to terminate an official of his administration is nothing new. In our history we had episodic fits between Congress and the President over that power. Ultimately, Congress enacted a law, the Tenure in Office Act, during the administration of Pres. Andrew Johnson.

In 1867, having grown wary with Edwin Stanton's service as secretary of war, Pres. Johnson wrote a telegram to Sec. Stanton advised him that his resignation from office would be accepted. Stanton did not respond and continue to exercise the powers of his office as secretary of war. Stanton, part of the radical Republican wing of the Republican Party, and others believe that Johnson's policies of reconstruction were insufficiently rigorous and disciplinary of a South which had fought against the union. Ultimately, Pres. Johnson ordered Sec. Stanton to suspend the exercise of his office and appointed Ulysses Grant to service Secretary of War in his place.

In response to the president's actions, Congress enacted the Tenure in Office Act over Johnson's veto. The act prohibited the president from discharging any government official whose appointment required the advice and consent of the Senate, without obtaining the consent of the Senate to the discharge. Because Johnson's discharge of Stanton violated the act, the House of Representatives impeached Johnson. Although this Senate failed to convict Johnson it was the first time in our nations history that a president was subjected to a trial for impeachment.

A century later, Pres. Nixon, embattled in the White House over the Watergate break-in, face the rigorous investigation by special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Nixon concluded that Cox should be fired. He directed the Atty. Gen. of the United States, Elliot Richardson, to fire Archibald Cox. Richardson refused.

Rather than fire Cox, Richardson resigned. Nixon then ordered the Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Like Richardson, Ruckelshaus refused. He resigned his office.

In the absence of an Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, the solicitor General of the United States is the acting head of the Department of Justice. At that time Robert Bork was the Solicitor General of the United States. Nixon requested that Bork terminate Archibald Cox has special prosecutor. Bork terminated Cox, in his view the president had the sole prerogative to terminate from employment with the federal government any employee.

Richardson and Ruckelshaus set a clear precedent for a person holding high public office under the government of the United States to resign from office rather than to participate in folly or crime. Clinton, who served as an attorney to the Watergate committee investigating Nixon, knew that Richardson and Ruckelshaus acted honorably in the face of Nixon's demand for the firing of Archibald Cox. Apparently that lesson of history was lost on Secretary Clinton. Hillary Clinton chose poorly.



Instead, Hillary shared in the lying, and offered her own falsehoods. Your decision to support her candidacy grants her your post-hoc absolution, your license to conduct herself in future offices as she did as Secretary: lying to you, to the American people, and to the world, and doing so solely on the ground that the ends -- the re-election of the President free from doubts that his failed policy created the Benghazi bloodbath -- justified the means.

With a Skirt Like that, Of Course She Got Raped

That got your attention, so let me start by clarifying something.

Women don't get raped because they wear skimpy clothing. They get raped because someone else breaks the law, disrespects the integrity and humanity of another, and commits a despicable act of violation.

That being said, this administration likes to blame the short skirted woman for being raped.

More specifically, this administration likes to blame Ambassador Chris Stevens for his own violent murder in Benghazi.

Allow me to explain.

Do you remember the recent brouhaha over Ben Carson's reaction to the shooting at Umpuqua Community College. He said, in that position, he would have attacked and urged others to join in the attack, because "he might get me, but he can't get us all." In essence, the talking heads made this out to be Carson blaming the victims for getting shot.

Some follow up in conservative media noted that the disarmament of Jews left them unable to defend themselves against the Nazis. Again, this remark was criticized for its supposed blaming of the victims.

Well, children, here's a bit of information for you. It's about your current president, the most recent previous Secretary of State, and their decision to BLAME AMBASSADOR STEVENS for his gruesome death in Libya.

You didn't hear in the media about that attack on Ambassador Stevens by the Administration?

I suppose not.

But here's a paragraph from the Accountability Review Board findings on the attack at Benghazi,
Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.
See that last sentence, "Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi." Among sentences that could be written about the attack in Benghazi and the losses incurred, there is the one produced by this administration that indicts Obama and Clinton for playing the "blame the victim" card.

The key difference --when this progressive train wreck of an administration engages in this kind of deliberate attempt to blame shift onto the dead, as opposed to when Ben Carson simply explains what he would do differently in the same circumstances as those recently killed at Umpuqua -- is that the Lap Dance Media is too busy gussying itself up for the White House Correspondents Dinner, or checking the mail for the much vaunted White House Christmas Party invitation to do the job that real muckrakers of journalism once did.

At the end of this administration, when the trash is being cleared, I fully they will find one journal on the shelves of the Oval Office. It will be styled, "Things I Took Responsibility For." When they open the pages, they will, of course, be blank.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Whose Constitution Is It, Anyway?

Here's an experiment: pull up a search window on your device. Once it has loaded, start typing the following:

W h o ' s  l

On both Bing's search engine and Google's, as soon as I type in the letter "l," suggestions narrow to two tops ones. One suggestion is the popular series, "Whose Line is It, Anyway?" The other suggestion is the movie, based on the play, "Whose Life is It, Anyway?" Just one letter makes all the difference in the choices. Choose "Line" and you find a popular improvisational comedy series hosted by Drew Carey. Choose "Life" and you get a maudlin drama about a sculptor rendered quadraplegic who prefers death over paralysis, and who, through conversation with them, wins over the staff of the hospital to the idea of his being allowed the "right" to die.

Whose Life? Whose Line?

Both set the stage to draw us into an escape from present reality.

My question is a bit different, and I hope that I do not draw you into an escape from present reality. Instead, I hope to awaken you to present reality and invite you to change it.

An ongoing conversation about "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship" has been revived in substantial part because Donald Trump has raised the issues as part of his bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency. In a weekend rally, for example, Trump hit hard on "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship" as part of his larger objections to the problems America faces with illegal immigration.Trump's stance has gotten several airings on national news outlets. One of the harder hitting exchanges Trump experienced happened on The O'Reilly Factor:



That Trump would take on the question of "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship" surprises no one that read his 2011 book. In it, he wrote:
Some four million anchor babies are now officially U.S. citizens. This has to stop. The only other major country in the world that issues citizenship based on where one’s mother delivers her child is Canada. The rest of the world bases citizenship on who the kid’s parents are, which is of course the only sane standard.
As an aside, Trump's claim that Canada is the only other nation that recognizes citizenship based on being born within its borders is wrong. Australian law makes any child born in Australia, regardless of the legal status of his or her parents, a citizen. That citizenship settles on the child on their 10th birthday. In addition, historically, every person born within the borders of the United Kingdom was considered a subject of the Crown. That approach has been changed by Parliament since England restructured its relations with the Commonwealth nations (including Canada and Australia). Today, children born in the United Kingdom are automatically citizens of the UK if one of their parents is a citizen, or if one of their parents is lawfully settled in England. Other nations have now, or have had, birthright citizenship in various forms. Those nations include Thailand, which has changed its laws on the subject numerous times since the early 1900s, Brazil, and Argentina.

Trump did set of a firestorm, though, with that early summer observation about the criminal element among illegal immigrants. His observation that illegal immigrants included murderers and rapists was bound to offend many, never mind the obvious truth of his observation. That truth is lived out every day in States like Texas that border Mexico. In a 2014 Breitbart article, then State Senator Dan Patrick is quoted at length from a radio interview:
Hours before Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he would send National Guard troops to the border, Texas state Senator Dan Patrick said there are at least 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state.
On Monday’s The Laura Ingraham Show, Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012, 143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas.
He said these were “hardened criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.” “We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years, just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders,” Patrick said. “We estimate we have 100,000 gang members here illegally.”
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND GANG MEMBERS illegally in the United States, inflicting a HALF MILLION CRIMES in Texas IN JUST FOUR YEARS. The crime wave included MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND RAPES and TWO THOUSAND MURDERS. One wonders why Trump's remarks did not result in his being carried by supporting Texans alone to the White House to dethrone the President that cares not for his country's people.

The news readers and the lap dance media chopped Trump's full remarks, omitting his recognition that many illegal aliens present in our country are not violent criminal offenders of the sort to which he had just referred. The chopping and omission might have been unintentional, but it seemed designed to inflame passions. In his full remarks, he referred to those other illegal aliens as "good people." Of course, as such things go, some commentators wondered how those who violated US borders and migration laws, and consequently moving into a black market or underground economy, could be considered "good people" at all.

Now, at the time of Trump's original remark, no one would have predicted the horrific death of Kathryn Steinle at the hands of a vagrant illegal alien, who found a missing service handgun belonging to an Obama administration employee and shot her to death as she strolled arm and arm with her daddy on San Francisco's Embarcadero. In the aftermath of the murder, Trump's remarks were revealed as seemingly prescient. Trump's foreknowledge that such a thing would happen electrified Americans tired of politicians and commentators who bandy words about on such topics as illegal immigration, but who, ultimately, take no effective steps to address the situation.

While location, they say, is everything in the real estate business, in politics, timing is location. Trump's observations, so close in proximity to Steinle's murder propelled Trump upward and upward in polling and in notice. In fact, as some of the supporters of Trump's nomination competitors were heard to whine, Trump was taking all the oxygen in the room. Even Jeb Bush, whose war chest for the campaign made him the obvious candidate to beat, has been left to wonder just what bus it was that hit him.

In months following, Trump has put some specifics underneath his original remarks. During a Sunday morning appearance on "Meet the Press," Trump proposed specific steps to address America's problems with illegal immigration. Among the steps he proposed, Trump stated his intention to eliminate "birthright citizenship." Of course birthright citizenship brings us to the discussion of "anchor babies."

Then, just yesterday, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), in an editorial titled, "Why We Should Have a Debate on Birthright Citizenship," put forward his view that "anchor baby" status is a fiction of bad constitutional construction. Lamar expressed those views on the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal. and arguing that Congress has the power to interpret the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote:
.... 
Birthright citizenship is based on an erroneous reading of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens[.]” 
Last April, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration held a hearing to determine who should be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Witnesses testified to the fact that historically, Congress never intended to treat all persons born on American soil as citizens. Native Americans and children of foreign diplomats are examples of children born in the United States but who are not subject to its jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Congress is explicitly given the power to interpret the Citizenship Clause by legislation in section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It states that “[t]he Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
....
My intention is not to break Smith's concept up into the broken bits that it actually is, I mention it solely because I share his view that the debate is one we should have. More precisely, the debate is one we should have before folks like Smith and Congressional allies push through potentially unconstitutional legislation stripping citizenship from Americans based on a purported constitutional "power to interpret" the Birthright Citizenship Clause that Smith and others claim Congress has been granted under Section V of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a future post, I take apart the notion of eliminating "birthright citizenship."

Today, however, I am asking you to consider a larger question, one that, once answered by you, should influence your participation in the future pursuit of changes to America's laws on immigration, and on "birthright citizenship." I want you to consider that you have responsibilities and powers in these matters that  -- before you simply allow "solutions" to be thrust on you and the Nation -- you should understand and fulfill.

So Trump has ideas for possible solutions?

He isn't alone. Commentators do too. Mark Levin, the conservative radio host and author, has attacked "birthright citizenship" as a legal concept and has said that Congress could address the problem through legislation. Of course, members of Congress have proposed solutions too. In proof of that point, I ran a search on Congress.gov (the Legislative Branch's website) to see current pending proposals. That search produced over 100 pending legislative proposals.

In a Republic such as ours, our elected representatives should represent our views. So WE are entitled to have our own views, and we have the right and the duty to weigh in on such debates to put our views forward. Of course we have that right and duty. Our right is derived from the nature of our federal Republic.

Look at that Constitution of yours. What are its opening words?

Does it say:

















No, it doesn't. Does it say:

















No, it doesn't. Does it say:


















No, it doesn't. Does it say:



















What it does say, is WE THE PEOPLE.

Now some might think that phrase is a mere superfluity, or a nicety. I think not. It reflects perhaps   never more memorably rephrased than by Abraham Lincoln, in his brief, but beautiful, and stunningly consequential Gettysburg Address:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
There is a tendency to assume that we should defer to the judgment of "experts" on questions about the scope and meaning of our Constitution and our laws. That tendency appeals to the part of us that assumes that government is an implacable force, impervious to citizen impulses for change. It also, unfortunately, appeals to the part of us that cannot be bothered to be engaged in the civic life of the Nation.

We should know better.

Our history as a People teems with stunning examples of how the People of this Nation seized the horns of dilemmas and steered the Nation in new, and often better, directions.

Before the War for Independence, American colonial resistance to the the Stamp Act led to its repeal by the English Parliament. Upon the determination to separate from England and declare independence, citizen soldiers joined in the struggle to cement our Nation's separate and equal status among the Nations of the world.

While abolitionists were broadly perceived as political gadflies, their efforts pricked the conscience of a nation and kept alive the Free States' drive to limit the expansion of slavery in the antebellum South. The underground railroad, of course, was, to each life rescued, indelible proof of the value of citizen action.

The struggle for women's suffrage amply illuminates the significance of citizen activism. The 1964 classic, Mary Poppins, gives us a lighthearted peek at that issue:



Of course, suffragist and tee totaller, Carrie Nation, offers us the reminder that citizen activism can take the Nation farther in a policy direction -- in her case, she was also a Temperance activist -- than we ultimately conclude is wise or warranted.

The civil rights movement of the 1940s-1960s is the most obvious illumination of the power of citizen activism on the national level. Boycotts, marches, sit-ins, these and other appeals to the conscience of a Nation forced us to join in a conversation with the descendants of slaves, and to work to make a reality in their lives, and all ours, that equality of all men stated in the Declaration of Independence.

So, coming back to the question of "Birth Right Citizenship," and particularly the issue of "Anchor Babies," each of us has both the right and the duty as citizens, not simply to watch the ongoing debate, but to join that debate, to insist on a share in the conversation. If you agree with Trump, if you disagree with him, as I do on this issue, you should and can join the conversation. If you agree with Mark Levin, or with Congressman Smith, or disagree with them, as I do, your views and voice should be heard before our Constitution is changed, whether by amendment or by disregard.

If you oppose so-called "pathways to citizenship" or if you support them, join in the debate. whatever your opinion, join in the debate. It is only our Constitution if we keep hold of it, and remind those who would ignore the People that the document is ours, not the Courts, not the judges, not the lawyers, not the Presidents, but ours.