Muslim Americans Increasingly Support Imposing Sharia Law

[From article]

new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia -- Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law” -- poses to their basic liberties. Overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the United States.
But polling data also reveal that an ominous, growing proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.
Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters -- 98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and regionpropensity score-weighted to reduce biases) -- from June 19 to June 20, 2016. They asked:
Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?
Seventy-one percent affirmed:



Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.
The group answering “yes” was then asked:
Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?
Eighty percent responded:
No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.
The next query, which addressed only foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock First Amendment principles.
[. . .]



The Sharia, Islam’s canon law, is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith” -- the traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community -- and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom.
Sharia is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/shocking-polls-show-what-u-s-muslims-think-of-u-s-laws/

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws
BY ANDREW G. BOSTOM

JULY 1, 2016

Killing The Tenth Amendment

[From article]
Congress never passed a law on abortion or same-sex marriage. What we call the "law of the land" is nothing more than an opinion written by a justice in 1973 and 2015.
Was this country founded to have people governed by justices who overturn the work of state legislatures? I don't think so, and the 10th Amendment is there for all to read.
In both cases, Justice Kennedy threw out the work of state legislatures. Is that what he thinks of the people?
[. . .]
So what is the point of having state legislatures? Why not just have the Supreme Court decide everything?
The Texas abortion clinic rules were about protecting women rather than denying them their "right" to abortion.
[. . .]



How can you govern a country when a Supreme Court justice reverses what people pass in state legislatures? How much longer before the people in those states say "we're out of here/, because this system does not respect or work for us"?
Last, but not least, it's time for a governor to say "enough." I hope that Governor Greg Abbott will say "no" and refuse to obey Justice Kennedy's opinion. It's about time that someone reminded the Supreme Court that their opinions are not "the law of the land."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/do_state_legislatures_matter_anymore_.html

June 28, 2016
Do state legislatures matter anymore?
By Silvio Canto, Jr.

Free Speech, Hate Speech and Campus Boycott Israel Campaign

[From article]
The Netherlands has just declared the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel to be free speech. Israel is furious; but for classic conservatives, there is no easy answer to this issue.
“Statements or meetings concerning BDS are protected by freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as enshrined in the Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights,” [Dutch Foreign Minister Bert] Koenders said Thursday...-- Jerusalem Post
"Limits on the concept of freedom of speech?" Sounds detestable. Who gets to decide those limits?
Boycotts have been a major part of the Western social arsenal for centuries. History has been swayed by boycotts.



The Boston Tea Party led to a sense of American identity and the American Revolution
The Irish led boycott against eponymous Captain Boycott resurrected Irish nationalism and put Britain on notice that the Gaels were not beaten.
The Jews themselves unsuccessfully tried to boycott German goods in the 1930s, in hopes of toppling Hitler.
In Mandatory Palestine, both the Arabs and Jews tried to boycott each other. Labor Zionism was predicated on Jewish exclusivity.
Blacks led a boycott of the Montgomery Bus line to desegregate buses.
In NAACP vs Claiborne Hardware, 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld boycotts as protected speech.
So boycotts have an honorable history. It is with trepidation that any Western government should intervene to stop them. Normally, they are a vital part of the democratic process. At least Sweden thought so, as well.
...Sweden had been the only European government to recognize that BDS is a civil society movement and that governments should not try to impede it. -- Electronic Intifada
But other nations in Europe have judged in favor of Israel. They agree with the Israeli government that BDS is hate speech intended to bankrupt the Jewish state into dissolution, just as South Africa was broken.



In October 2015, the French high court declared BDS illegal.
French law prohibits targeting of nations for discrimination -- Times of Israel
While one applauds France's preference for the Israeli position, the Muslim world asks why it is deemed okay for the French to draw nude pictures of Mohammed, insulting Islam, in Charlie Hebdo, but peaceful boycotts against Israel are now taboo. Of course, France is less inclined to appreciate Islamic calls for free speech after the Islamic attacks in Paris. Since when were the Muslims ever peacefully in favor of free speech? At least the French did not shoot up BDS organizations.
The fact remains, however: even though Islam obviously does not respect free speech; should the French have restricted free speech; albeit for a different purpose? Though Islam is despicable, free speech has taken a hit in France.
[. . .]
I do not support BDS, but I do support free speech; and so I am in a quandary.
Such restrictions on free speech come to no good. After WWII, with the Holocaust in mind, European countries passed laws protecting minorities from hate speech. Instead of protecting Jews, the laws ended up protecting Muslims from criticism. Michel Houellebecq was hauled into French court for merely criticizing the literary merits of the Koran. Geert Wilders was hauled into Dutch court. Brigette Bardot was regularly in and out of court. And this is just a short list.
Laws intended to protect Jews ended up protecting the enemies of Jews.
[. . .]



I do not support BDS; but I do support the First Amendment. I want Israel to live, but I do not want dangerous restrictions put on free speech. Such laws always backfire. Ask Michel Houellebecq or Geert Wilders.
There is no easy answer to this problem. BDS is starting to hurt Israel. Agrexco, an Israeli agricultural firm, went bankrupt. Sodastream suffered a setback from BDS. BDS is rearing a generation of anti-Israel intelligentsia on campuses all over the Western world. If left unchecked BDS will snowball. Israel is right to fight it.
[. . .]
I have no easy answer to this. I do not want to see Israel hurt or go under, but neither do I want free speech restricted. If one says BDS is an agent of Arab foreign policy -- and it may be -- and therefore should be illegal; how long would AIPAC hold up to similar scrutiny?
No one had expected the Arabs/Palestinians/Fakestinians to fight on this long or this determinedly. And it seems that no one will be allowed to take a neutral position. Will the West have to prioritize whether the Jewish state or Free Political Speech is the superior value? One's opinion on Israel is no longer confined to theory. It now seems Western democratic institutions and practices will be adversely affected.
The Arabs demand free speech to destroy Israel, but scream and shoot if Mohammed is criticized. Zionists wants free speech to criticize Islam, but will sue and if possible, prosecute, if one advocates BDS. We in the West no longer have the option to tell the opponents to take it elsewhere.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/bds_and_free_speech.html

May 30, 2016
BDS and Free Speech
By Mike Konrad

Constitution Versus Progressivism

[From article]
For the last 100 years our grand political debate has centered on the tension between the principles and mechanics of the Constitution and the ideals of the Progressive movement. Under FDR the Progressives became known as liberals, but the term ‘Progressivism’ has re-emerged under Hillary, who described herself as a Progressive Democrat in order to distinguish herself from the self-proclaimed socialist who has ‘trumped’ her party’s nomination process.
[. . .]



Woodrow Wilson believed in a unified will of the voters, molded by strong leaders, and a professionally staffed administrative institution to manage government much as the new managerial class was running large businesses.
Wilson was critical of the structural constraints of the Constitution designed by the Founders. The Progressives sought to tilt the balance of power substantially from the states to the federal government, contending that parochial interests centered in Congress made national action too difficult and incohesive.
Eventually the strong leaders and compliant courts succeeded in implementing the Progressive agenda. The administrative state became a large regulatory state and gave birth to the welfare state.
In Relic. How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government--and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency by William Howell and Terry Moe, Wilson’s [. . .] the authors seek a second age of Progressivism. They lament the inability of the Congress to overcome partisan and parochial interests and blame the structure of the Constitution. Their solution is greater legislative authority for the president.
[. . .]



The Founders may have failed to imagine the kinds of changes the country faced a century ahead, but their concern was not the efficiency of government, but the misuse of its power. Thus they dispersed it between the states and the federal government and among the three branches. The great challenge for the modern Progressives is to make the government more responsive to current needs without losing sight of the potential for the abuse of its power.
[. . .]
Author Randy Barnett in Our Republican Constitution. Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People takes an opposing viewpoint: our problem lies not in the structure of our Constitution but in our efforts to stray from its essential principles. Our unelected Administrative State acting like a fourth branch of government has bypassed constitutional constraints and electoral accountability. Our courts have strayed from the mission of protecting individual constitutional rights to upholding majoritarian democracy.
[. . .]



While our constitutional constraints make comprehensive legislation difficult they also provide a needed break on bad legislation. Barnett notes that the regulatory bureaucracies have upset the balance of power, making reversal of administrative rules extremely difficult. We have found a way to work around the Constitution to pass rules in a branch without accountability yet can invoke the Constitution to block any correction.
[. . .]
We should avoid bestowing power on any position without picturing our worst nightmare in that position able to exercise that power. Charles Cooke at National Review suggested that the potential for a Donald Trump presidency may make even the Progressives reconsider their fondness for greater executive power. In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress saw fit to reduce executive power.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/making_a_relic_of_the_constitution.html

May 28, 2016
Making a Relic of the Constitution
By Henry Oliner

Jefferson-Adams Political Feud in 19th Century

Thomas Jefferson left, and John Adams

[From article]
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were two of the key figures of the American revolution. Jefferson's glorious pen gave the Declaration of Independence the lines that we all love. Adams was a major force in leading the colonies toward independence.
They were part of the first Cabinet under President Washington. Mr. Adams was the first V.P. and the second president. Mr. Jefferson was the second V.P. and third president. Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800 in a very nasty election that fractured their friendship.
After losing to Jefferson, Adams went home to Massachusetts, and the two men never spoke again. It was a very sad ending to a partnership that mattered so much from independence to the formation of the new nation.
[. . .]
The Jefferson-Adams bitter feud remind us that politics has always been rough.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/1813_the_week_jefferson_and_adams_started_their_historic_correspondence.html

May 29, 2016
1813: The week Jefferson and Adams started their historic correspondence
By Silvio Canto, Jr.

Women At Harvard University Object To Forcing Them To Admit Men To Their Clubs

Does "Title IX" trump the Right to Associate guaranteed by the US Constitution? And the Mass Civil Rights Statute Chapter 265, Sec. 37 "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States."



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/9/female-clubs-sororities-response/

Sorority, Club Women Denounce New Policy on Facebook
By C. RAMSEY FAHS and DEREK G. XIAO

Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS
May 8, ,2016

* * *



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/5/10/women-oppose-sanctions/

Hundreds of Women Protest Harvard Sanctions
By C. RAMSEY FAHS

Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
May 9, 2016

Educated Muslims Support Sharia Law Over U.S. Constitution

Problem with these arguments are they are logical and make sense. Propaganda rejects logic, favoring emotions. promoting equality and fairness, and opposing hurting anyone's feelings.



[From article]
The West is in a major-league mess when it comes to immigration. Enlightened conservatives have known this for many years. The ostriches are just coming to their awakening, or else heads remain firmly buried in the sands of political correctness.



The pro-immigration narrative in many quarters has gone as follows. We need immigrants to grow our economy and do the jobs our own people won't do, but don't worry: nobody who wants to emigrate to our nation desires to change our legal system into an authoritarian structure. This policy platform does not discriminate between educated and uneducated immigrants; in fact, it tends to prefer the latter, as they have negligible wage bargaining power and will do the supposed "jobs Westerners won't do."
[. . .]



According to data released by the Pew Research Center, the second argument – i.e., a preference for the educated immigrants – just had its foundation ripped out from under it.
We start with some background. The primary concern is sharia law, and the sources of the concern are the massive levels of Muslim immigration that have been taking place, and continue to accelerate, throughout the West. Large numbers of immigrants are entering from Islamic states.
When Syrian refugees started to flood in, questions were raised about where the risks came from. Young, single, uneducated men – it was said – were the only real demographic holding Islamist tendencies. The rest, particularly educated individuals – it was claimed – posed a near nonexistent threat of seeking to impose sharia law on their adopted countries.
So naive that view was.
[. . .]



With such high percentages of educated Muslims apparently favoring sharia law in their home countries, it is exceedingly unlikely that the West would be taking in (i.e., selecting exclusively for) only the Muslims who oppose a Quranic legal system. And if these individuals favor sharia law in their home countries, there is no reason why they wouldn't favor sharia law in their adopted nation. In fact, the spread of sharia on the road toward the global caliphate may be exactly why they are emigrating.
There is no way around this problem other than immigration restrictions based on religion, much as presidential candidate Donald Trump and others have argued for. Simply asking potential immigrants to assure authorities they will not agitate for or otherwise support the imposition of sharia law is insufficient. We have no way of assessing whether or not the oath-taker is lying.
Critics of Trump's views noted that we also have no way of assessing a potential immigrant's actual religion. If we have a policy against Islamic immigrants, then applicants could simply lie and claim another religious belief or no religion at all. This is true, and we are then led to the natural conclusion that, for national security reasons, immigration from dominantly Muslim nations should be severely restricted or eliminated entirely.
[. . .]



For those already inside the West's boundaries, any and all forms of support for the imposition of sharia law should be considered as treason. It has been a long time since treasonous activities – which supersede any rights to freedom of religion – were prosecuted

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/majority_of_educated_muslims_abroad_still_favor_imposition_of_sharia_law.html

April 30, 2016
Majority of educated Muslims abroad still favor imposition of sharia law
By Sierra Rayne

Government Remains Incompetent, Power Must Be Limited

[From article]
The Constitution is pretty plain: all the powers the federal government has are articulated as legislative power in Article I, Section 8, and the role defined in Article I is very small. Basically, this is what the federal government is supposed to do: conduct diplomacy, trade, and national defense; create systems for naturalization; insure that money is sound and sovereign debt is honored; protecting intellectual property; and regulate the postal service, with such infrastructure as that may require.
Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government power to manage health care or fund education or regulate private land use or bail out banks and other businesses or do almost anything that almost every candidate today is insisting he will do if elected president. This does not mean that "government" has no right to enter into these areas, but it means that state governments, which have all residual powers not granted directly to the federal government, have that power – to act or not to act.
The remedy in our system if the federal government lacks sufficient authority in the Constitution is to amend the Constitution, but only in three instances – the 14th Amendment requiring equal protection, the 16th Amendment allowing Congress to tax income, and the 18th Amendment mandating Prohibition – have federal powers been expanded. (The 18th Amendment was repealed.)
What ought to trouble us and the candidates seeking our votes for president is that in those limited areas in which the federal government is supposed to act, it fails wretchedly.
[. . .]



Federal currency was once redeemable in gold, then in silver, then in nothing more than the whims of the Federal Reserve system.
One hundred years ago, before the devolution of currency value by federal manipulation, much of the currency in circulation was made up of private banknotes, which were always redeemable in gold – a "dollar" is simply a measurement of precious metal – and because banks lived or died based upon their fidelity, this money was very sound. One happy consequence was that between the ratification of the Constitution and World War I, our nation had, essentially, no inflation at all.
The sovereign debt problem of state governments, which was a real problem in 1789, is as bad today as when the Constitution was adopted, but much worse, the sovereign debt of the federal government is so huge that it will never be paid off, and the simple service of that debt will soon become unmanageable.
The system of orderly and lawful naturalization in Clause 4 of Section 8 has disintegrated, and worse, when states like Arizona have attempted to at least have state officers enforce federal law, Washington has rejected that help. The borders, of course, are utterly insecure. States like Texas could close the border – and would, but for Washington.
Intellectual property is systematically pirated by other nations (so much for federal control of that function), and, of course, the trade practices of nations have effectively crippled much commerce and industry in America.
Does the federal government protect us from threats? Political correctness has gutted much sensible security action. The military is used not so much to win wars or defeat enemies as to placate domestic opinion and serve the political interests of cynical American leaders.
Ironically, that part of the original federal role that is probably done better than any others is the one most often mocked, the postal services, but even that function, with many private competitors and with cyber-mail alternatives, is increasingly irrelevant.



Washington fails at almost everything it does, and the vast majority of the things it does are not legitimate activities for the federal government under our constitutional system. It would be reassuring if someone – anyone – running for president saw the shrinking of federal power back to its original purpose to be a winning campaign issue. Sadly no one does.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/washington_fails_at_everything.html

April 4, 2016
Washington Fails at Everything
By Bruce Walker

President Has Duty. Not Senate. Lawsuit Cannot Compel Senate To Act

Is this a SNL routine proposal? Is it about lawsuits, revenge, made up duties? Evans does not say. There are several US legal actions pending regarding the ACA. Article II, Section 2 of Constitution provides a duty for the President, not for the Senate. Read it and weep. Misguided argument would make some sense if the White House did not ignore regularly the Constitution and his duties, in other areas. Why not encourage the President to use executive orders to make SCOTUS appointments? Both President and Vice President argued against making such nominations/appointments during elections and recesses of the Senate. How did Democratic Senators treat the nominations of Judge Robert Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas? Talk about "impoliteness, discourtesy, and political grandstanding." Teehee. BTW a lawsuit cannot compel the Senate to act. This professor emeritus needs to read some law and the Constitution.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20160324/guest-commentary-taste-of-their-own-medicine

Guest commentary: A taste of their own medicine
By Martin G. Evans
Posted Mar. 24, 2016 at 3:06 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Parallel Government Abuses, Iran and The Current White House

[From article]
Put simply, if a citizen dares to disagree with the theocratic ruler of Iran, the punishment that follows is severe and unforgiving.
At any rate, although Washington D.C. is 6,300 miles away from Iran, after being led for eight years by a Supreme Leader whose favorite pastime is issuing infallible decrees, the seat of American government is beginning to resemble an Iranian theocracy.
For instance, when differing opinions arise that contradict the sacred text concerning gun control, abortion, and climate change, although the president doesn’t respond by beheading anyone in a public square, he does find a way to overtly impugn the credibility of those whom he feels spread corruption.



Now, judging from what Attorney General Loretta Lynch had to say at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations, Obama’s future method of response may become more official.
Apparently, Obama’s Justice Department is in the process of deciding whether or not to take civil action against beliefs held by those Iran would call “gross offenders of the moral order.” Lynch had this to say about how climate “deniers” in the fossil fuel industry could possibly face lawsuits:
This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.
Based on the Attorney General’s remarks, it’s hard to believe that what was once a Constitutional right to individual thought and belief, may now be one step closer to an Iranian-style regulation overseen by a hierarchy of American mullahs.
[. . .]
In America today, it seems that the only way to prevent being monitored by a western version of the Iranian “religious police” is to go green, relinquish the guns, and to stand, in unflinching unanimity, with the proprietors of the baby body parts chop shop.
And if that’s where America is headed, then Ballistic Barack testing his DOJ arsenal is just as harrowing in it’s potential to do harm as an Iranian missile.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/barack_goes_ballistic_.html

March 13, 2016
Barack Goes Ballistic
By Jeannie DeAngelis

Denying U.S. Exceptionalism Indicates Anti Americanism

[From article]
We are surrounded by negativity. And yet most people are unaware of the dangers inherent in this morale-eroding Political Correctness. For the most part, people are focused, each day, on making a living. The true significance of what we all are doing is not always apparent. The true significance of our experience is that the era we live in, and the nation we live in, are the most extraordinary in all human history. This is the Golden Age of America.
[. . .]
Consider this: through a single human link, that between Gunnar [Endenquist] and myself, we span the entire length of one of the most significant epochs in all of human history. This link extends a direct human experience from the beginning of flight to deep into the space age. Gunnar was born before the advent of flight. Behind the scenes, Gunnar made major contributions to the development of aviation. In carrying on that tradition my focus has been on the development of space technology.
[. . .]
Step back for a bit and survey the past and present of this great nation. America is truly great, and truly exceptional, because it is the world’s most creative nation. Few times in human history has there been such a florescence of human imagination. And never before to such an extent, and for as long, as in this land. America may well be the exemplar of all golden ages.
What is it about America that gave the world a Constitution of genius, unmatched anywhere to this day -- a Constitution which preserves for us all our God-given individual freedoms?
Why is America the cornucopia of invention? Why did America give birth to modern industry? Why was it Americans, and no others, that gave the world controlled flight? Why did an American dream up the assembly line? What inspired our geniuses to invent electric power and electric lighting, atomic energy, the telegraph, the telephone, electronics, motion pictures, television, transistors, the microchip, cell phones, robots, GPS, weather satellites, and the internet? Masterpieces of creative art, all. Who was it that discovered new ways of marketing and of rapidly delivering products anywhere across the continent and across the world? What took us so rapidly to the moon when we decided it was necessary?
Why do we have overwhelming dominance in science and in Nobel Prizes?
Why did America give the world syncopated jazz and musicals and modern dance, feature movies and the greatest songwriters? What inspired the creation of new forms of storytelling – including animation and graphic novels? Why has American skyscraper architecture transformed the cities of the Earth?
Why are we the magnet for enterprising and creative people from all parts of the world? Why do they all want to come here to live, and to flourish?
And yes, we happily steal good ideas wherever they come from. But we transform them and creatively build on them and make them uniquely American. And then we generously give them back, very much improved, to the world at large.
Why are we fearsome in battle but magnanimous in victory – lifting the defeated back onto their feet and accepting them as friends? No other nation does this.
What is it about America?
We are different. Let no one say otherwise.
One answer to this puzzle lies in a unique combination of peoples and circumstances. In this nation there has long been a collision of cultures, ideas and genetic stock and a subsequent melding together of these human riches. All our people were drawn to this nation by the simple idea of liberty. Our ancestors were the most energetic and courageous of the people in the many lands from which they came. It takes guts to cross the sea and dive into a hazardous wilderness of nature or into an alien city where all speak an unfamiliar language. To overcome these risks individuals learned to band together and to work together in fundamentally new ways. Creative solutions to problems were valued rather than scorned as they often were in the motherlands. Creativity became ingrained, first in each of the colonial cultures, and then in the ever growing and flourishing united America.
But there is more to explain American greatness than just the mixing of diverse and enterprising peoples. The essential element is our Constitution.
Though the various colonies differed in local culture and laws they all rapidly developed experience with self-government. These varied self-rule experiments taught our forbearers what worked and what didn’t. This was a unique departure from the remote, totalitarian governance suffered by other colonial societies such as those in Spanish America.
Additional factors were held in common in our colonies: language, liberty, enterprise, a frontier, and constant danger on the land and at sea. Prior experience with these common elements provided the keys to success when the crisis of rebellion arose. Rebellion against the greatest military power in the world could not possibly succeed. And yet it did. It succeeded with innovative solutions to impossible problems. In the aftermath, a generation of brilliant men left their respective colonies and pooled their experience of the revolution, of the risks to their lives, and of their several experiments in self-government, to create the unique Constitutional foundation for our great nation.
By the time of its founding, America had long been a hotbed of entrepreneurial activity. Many of the Founding Fathers were themselves risk-taking entrepreneurs. So a central idea embodied in the Constitution was the deliberate promotion of commercially oriented creative endeavor. For two centuries our Constitution has sheltered and nurtured this creativity and the factors that spurred it on: liberty, competition, cooperation, and reward. America’s commercial and cultural landscape is dominated by corporations, many of recent origin, which started small and grew rapidly because of the value they added to society. But nowadays this fertile growth environment is under serious attack. Many of the most valuable companies are migrating overseas and innovative startups are being suffocated. There is no guarantee that America’s Golden Age will continue.
Across the political spectrum people sense that something is very wrong. Go-along-to-get-along political Washington is dysfunctional. In creating the Constitution, the Founders recognized the dangerous passions that are aroused in reaction to untrammeled government. They therefore deliberately built into the Constitution safeguards to protect against the unlimited growth of the government. But those protections have been progressively stripped away by people who are seduced by power or by self-righteous ideology. The Founders were prescient. America is being smothered in taxes and ideologically motivated regulations and is essentially bankrupt.
But there is another problem. A far worse problem. For half a century or more, our morale has been under deliberate attack by partisans of the Left. This attack is very clever and very dangerous. Break the morale of the country and our nation’s dynamism, our prosperity and our future will be broken, as well. The Left lies. They sneer at patriotism. They distort our history. We are villains. Political Correctness tries to control our thought. Fracturing the American Melting Pot into contending racial, ethnic and economic factions shatters our unity and purpose.
Much more dangerous than these tactics is denial that America is exceptional. We hear this often, nowadays. We hear it in the schools and the movies. We hear it from “progressive” politicians. We hear it in the News. We even hear it from the White House. People who propagate this fiction are not friends of America, they are America’s adversaries.
America is exceptional. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. That is the truth!

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/exceptional_america.html

March 5, 2016
Exceptional America
By Chet Richards

Scalia Fought Kritarchy, Trump Fights Stupidity, Anti Americanism

Antonin  Scalia fought against Kritarchy

[From article]
Among this election season’s oddities was the dust-up between Pope Francis and Donald Trump. After departing Mexico, the pontiff appeared to criticize Trump in an interview, suggesting that building walls — not bridges — “is not Christian.”
Calling the comment “disgraceful,” the presidential front-runner and insulter-in-chief compelled the Vatican to Think Again before retreating. Meanwhile, comedians joked that the perceived papal putdown would cause church attendance to fall and Trump’s poll numbers to surge.
Indeed, by crossing swords with the pontiff, Trump burnished his image as a fearless fighter, a trait his voters prize. Unfazed by his incoherence, lack of policy specifics or controversies, Trump supporters, like columnist Jim Nolte, are tired of losing and want “someone who will do whatever it takes to win.”
Buoying Trump is Americans’ sense of powerlessness and insecurity. Consider these controversial policies imposed on disapproving majorities using extra-constitutional means: the Iran deal, the irresponsible and never-debated Omnibus budget, Obamacare, trade promotion, and executive actions and sanctuary-city policies that nullify immigration laws.
[. . .]
That Bork was Scalia’s ideological and intellectual equal but was rejected shortly after Scalia’s unanimous approval speaks to how politicized the theoretically independent judiciary has become. Consider that it was President Franklin Roosevelt’s fellow Democrats who foiled his plan to pack the Supreme Court.
[. . .]
Thomas Jefferson warned that giving “judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not … would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” Now, having morphed from “the least dangerous branch” into an unelected super-legislature of nine philosopher kings with lifetime appointments, it’s not surprising Supreme Court nominations are hotly contested and fraught with hypocrisy.
[. . .]
By short-circuiting the democratic process for resolving emotionally charged issues, Scalia believed the court was violating “a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
[. . .]
As Scalia argued while pointing to unfree nations that have charters of rights, “It isn’t the Bill of Rights that produces freedom; it’s the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all the power.”
Essentially, the founders used constitutional walls to separate and check power so that diverse people with differing beliefs would be free to build bridges of mutual respect and tolerance, forging an open and decent society. The Supreme Court’s unlikely “best buddies” — rivals Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — built a remarkable bridge, a lesson for Pope Francis, Trump and Trumpkins.
Think Again — Isn’t the best way to “Make America Great Again” to elect a president who’ll adhere to America’s great constitution?

http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/20807989-113/sturm-scalias-lessons-for-trumpkins

Melanie Sturm
Think Again
February 24, 2016
Sturm: Scalia's Lessons For Trumpkins

Curbing Court Abuses, Restoring Freedoms Of Constitution

[From article]
When one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy, acting as the deciding swing vote on the Supreme Court, declared that “gay marriage” was now the law of land for a country of some 320 million persons, he may as well have been seated on a planet other than the one originally occupied by the men who wrote the Constitution. Note that the new nation was titled “United” and not “Uniform” States of America. That wasn’t a slip of the pen. America was never intended to be culturally and politically homogenous from sea to shining sea, though we hadn’t quite gotten there as yet. But here we are today, rolled flat by the wheels of the federal Juggernaut with nary a peep of protest by our local, state and federal representatives or executives.
[. . .]
Employing the courts to make and enforce cultural or moral decisions is one way of ensuring societal discord. It didn’t work with court-ordered busing that was intended to achieve racial integration of public schools. It still hasn’t settled the abortion-on-demand issue. And it certainly won’t peacefully and permanently institutionalize gay marriage no matter what Justice Kennedy or anyone else thinks.
[. . .]
One common law principle that has essentially disappeared from use is that of jury nullification. This principle was well-established English common law by the time the right to trial by jury was written into the Constitution. As described by Madison, jury nullification would provide the final defense against a tyrannical government. It was one means of preserving a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It was intended as a direct veto over government power by ordinary citizens. Contrary to common opinion, jury nullification does not mean that a jury may decide what the law is. That’s not the case. What it does mean is that a jury has a right to decide what is just even if its decision may be contrary to prior interpretation of a particular law. The jury may, regarding the specific case before it, judge the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a consequence, directed verdicts are prohibited. However, in 1895 the Supreme Court in Sparf v. U.S. ruled that jury nullification did not apply to the federal court system or cases. There went Madison’s shield against tyranny right out the window. Use of this common law principle in state courts has also been rather effectively suppressed even where not formally prohibited.
[. . .]
McNabb v. United States
[. . .]
Of course, ignoring, distorting or misinterpreting common law principle is only a piece of the very large puzzle of how our federal government -- through the unchecked acts of the men and women who peopled it -- stealthily, though boldly, evolved into the overbearing behemoth that it is today
[. . .]
The federal government is a massive bureaucracy quite determined to retain its pay and privileges. It has purchased the vote of a goodly portion of the electorate through programs of questionable benefit to the country as whole. Its future is to be assured through the progressive indoctrination of children in the public K-12 school system. Political correctness and disdain for free speech have become standard operating procedure at many universities. America’s military is underfunded and its traditions have been scuttled. The armed forces are now a laboratory for social experimentation rather than combat. All the major news sources, including to a fair extent FOX News, offer a one-sided, progressive slant on politics and current events. And perhaps most important of all, a large segment of the American people are more interested in and distracted by celebrity, sport, video games, internet porn and fantasy entertainment.
[. . .]
But I haven’t heard any of the candidates offer realistic proposals on how we’re even going to begin dealing with all, most or any of the above. Immigration, anyone? And I don’t see any presidential Alexander on the horizon who can cut through the Gordian Knot of our political bewilderment and frustration.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/is_it_possible_to_restrain_the_federal_judiciary_or_downsize_the_federal_government.html

February 13, 2016
Is It Possible to Restrain the Federal Judiciary or Downsize the Federal Government?
By Dennis Sevakis

White House Fails To Protect US Civilians From Terrorism

The primary purpose of the federal governments was to provide for the common defense. Instead it collects taxes to make education policy, to force misguided standards on use of minerals and land, and many other activities outsides of the purview of the US Constitution which mandates those are matters for the states. Yet it fails to provide safety for civilians. 

[From article]
Every single error made on the federal level concerning terror since the first inauguration of Barack Obama came to a head, from encouraging Muslim immigration to enabling terrorists to enter the country to crippling security investigations in the name of PC.
The federal government has unilaterally broken a basic element of the social contract -- that the citizen will give up private use of violence and support the government in exchange for protection.
[. . .]
Both the military and police have given up any pretense of attempting to control Islamic terrorism. Homeland Defense was founded to create a new basis for a public employee’s union. It fulfills that role admirably. It does nothing else.
[. . .]



Obama refuses to defend Americans while at the same time adding more killers to the brew.
[. . .]
It explains why the borders have not been closed, why Jihadi mosques are still in operation, why Moslem Brotherhood operatives remain active within the government itself. The Muslims are the New Proletariat, the left’s ideological pets. The PC template has been shifted from blacks and placed right over the Muslim Jihadis, because they are Muslim Jihadis.
[. . .]
We can take this as whimpering products of postmodernism, curled into fetal balls as we descend in freefall, so many Woody Allens whining for somebody to do something as we await the final bullet. Or we can act as Americans always acted when government has let them down. We can refuse to be victims.
How do we respond to the Muslim threat? With knowledge and action.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_federal_failure_to_counter_jihad.html

January 11, 2016
The Federal Failure to Counter Jihad
By J.R. Dunn

Thomas Paine Needed To Counter Misguided Democratic Party Policies

[From article]
In his masterpiece, Common Sense, Thomas Paine observed:
Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
[. . .]
after seven years of Obama leading the Democratic Party in insane notions of transforming the country, it is clear that rational thought and common sense are skill sets greatly lacking among liberal elites.
Whether blinded by ideology, motivated by egocentrism and nihilism, or solely focused on their goals of destroying America’s exceptionalism (while ensuring that Democrats rule forever), liberals are incapable of scientific inquiry, common sense analyses, and reason.
[. . .]
“Let them eat cake” is the unspoken mantra whispered at White House dinners. While Obama, Kerry, and Gore fly around the globe in their private jets, the rest of us are forced to use inefficient energy-saving appliances, ridiculously expensive light bulbs, and toilets with no water pressure. Our elitist-in-chief lectured Americans, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," and proceeded to heat the Oval Office to a temperature appropriate for growing orchids.
[. . .]
By his own estimation, Obama himself is an existential threat to mankind.
[. . .]
Anyone questioning the liberal mantra that Islam is a religion of peace, despite data to the contrary, is labeled an Islamophobe with the aim of shutting down honest debate. Islamists declared war on the U.S. well before 9/11 and yet liberals still refuse to name the enemy. To liberals, political correctness trumps common sense.
[. . .]
Refusing to recognize that terrorists will not only obtain guns whenever they want but that their weapon of choice is more often a bomb, liberals’ inability to reason has and will continue to lead to loss of life and limb. Only a change in commander-in-chief will save Americans from living through decades of terrorist attacks on our shores.
[. . .]
Iran has been at war with America since the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.
Liberals ignore chants of “Death to America,” the murder of our soldiers on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-sponsored terrorism across the world
[. . .]
Democrats are so ignorantly enamored by European-style socialism, despite its complete collapse, that the U.S. economy has not grown during Obama’s reign and the divide among economic classes has widened.
[. . .]
Affirmative action and other forms of social manipulation will not produce more productive members of society but rather, more resentful minorities. And bringing in untold numbers of indigent immigrants, whether Hispanic, Muslim, or otherwise, will only create more of a burden on government-run social welfare programs.
[. . .]
Obama, Holder, Jarrett and the gang would have us believe that we are a country of racists. [. . .] this gang of angry black folks is fueling the flames of hate -- at the expense of African-Americans. Obama’s divisiveness has set the civil rights movement back decades
[. . .]
Whether sic’ing the IRS on those with whom he disagrees or ordering the NSA to spy on Congress and the Israelis, Obama has enlisted all troops to fight his perceived domestic enemies. His DOJ nonsensically fails to prosecute criminals (Black Panthers and CAIR) while fabricating cases against individuals who disagree with his policies, including Bob Menendez who voted against his Iran deal. [and Dinesh D'Souza]
[. . .]
In liberal la-la-land, our historic friends are now our enemies on whom we spy and our decades-long enemies are friends who get $150 billion and nuclear weapons for doing nothing other than threatening our national security.
[. . .]
History will look back at an America that won the Cold War under Reagan only to reignite it under Obama. Our descendants will ponder how their ancestors abandoned American supremacy, ingenuity, and civility due to ignorance, idealism, and an irrational obsession with politically correct progressivism that led to the transformation -– and decline -- of this once great nation.
[. . .]
Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution. He has been at war with its constraints since day one, usurping power from the other branches of government and ignoring the laws that he swore to uphold and the security of the country he vowed to defend.
[. . .]
Safe spaces, coed locker rooms and unisex bathrooms in elementary schools and government-funded harvesting of fetal tissue at Planned Parenthoods are all the rage these days.
[. . .]
Obama does not believe in the Constitutional limits of office. His hope is that if his actions are on the books long enough, they will become impossible to reverse.
[. . .]
under the dictatorial, insanely irrational policies of the liberals dominating the Democratic Party, the country is destined to fall into the same abyss as the Roman Empire.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obama_and_the_insanity_of_the_liberal_mind.html

January 6, 2016
Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind
By Lauri B. Regan

Abuse of First Amendment Due to Ignorance. What Else Is New?

[From article]
The hysterical, politically correct outburst following Donald Trump's idea of barring Muslims from abroad produced much emotion and wacky claims, including the protest that barring someone based on his religion is unconstitutional according to the 1st Amendment.
The ignorance here is shocking. The rights, privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen are simply inapplicable to non-citizen foreigners.
[. . .]
Today's standard, politically correct interpretation is that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to make of the new United States an irreligious republic when that was nowhere near its original intent.
The principal, actually innocent catalyst for this misinterpretation lies in the evolution of language over time.
[. . .]
in colonial America, each colony (except for Rhode Island) had an official church in the same way England and every other European country had one. For example, Pennsylvania was the "Quaker State"; in Massachusetts, the Congregationalists dominated; in Virginia, the Church of England was official
[. . .]
when some revolutionaries wanted to disestablish an official government church, and were opposed, the opponents' philosophy was called antidisestablishmentarianism.
[. . .]
it was most logical to decide that the new United States of America would have no official church, no official religion to administer religious life in America. Religion was none of the government's business.
[. . .]
The Framers wanted limited government in many fields, and religion was one of them.
[. . .]
the language and purpose of the 1st Amendment was to create a republic of not atheists, but free individuals whose religious life was theirs alone to live.
Those who think the first words of the 1st Amendment call for an areligious society are all wet.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_first_amendment_recovered.html

December 21, 2015
The First Amendment (Recovered)
By Sha'i ben-Tekoa

Right Of Secession of States Opposed By Civil War President Abraham Lincoln

[From article]
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison 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."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
[. . .]
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 War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We 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 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."
The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams071515.php3

Historical Ignorance


By Walter Williams
Published July 15, 2015

Ann Coulter: Trump's Plan For Muslim Immigrants, Legal, Tried Before By FDR and James Earl Carter

Donald Trump, Presidential Candidate, New York City Real Estate Developer

[From article]
People without real arguments call anything they don’t like “racist” or “unconstitutional.”
Trump’s proposal is neither — I won’t waste space mentioning 100 years of constitutional law and practice, but of course our country has absolute authority to decide who gets to immigrate here.
In the 14 years since Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, this country has admitted another 1.5 million Muslims. So we’re xenophobic, bigoted racists if we don’t make it 2 million? Three million? When will we have enough? How many murdered Americans is an acceptable number before we can shut off the spigot of Muslim immigration?
[. . .]
According to Pew, only 11 percent of Muslims are Republican or “lean Republican.” They may not make the “best Americans” — as Ryan claims — but at least they’d get rid of him.
The hysterical demand for never-ending Third World immigration has gone beyond the rich’s need for cheap servants and the Democrats’ need for voters. It’s a mass psychosis.
Everyone acts as if Pakistani pushcart operators are the same as American blacks, and we’re required to bring them here to make up for the legacy of slavery.
[. . .]
We’re under no moral imperative to allow any immigration at all. We don’t owe citizens of other countries anything.
But as long as you brought it up: They owe us. America runs around saving other countries from tsunamis, earthquakes, pirates, disease, starvation, warlords, dictators, Nazis, communists — then their citizens show up full of grievances, as if we owe them.
[. . .]
Fox News’ Dana Perino complained that Trump’s policy doesn’t “distinguish the peaceful from the radicals.”
Yeah, nor can our government.
[. . .]
it’s really irrelevant whether “most” Muslim immigrants are peaceful little lambs. It doesn’t take a lot of them to create havoc.
[. . .]
We want remarkable Americans, not immigrants whose selling point is: “hasn’t blown anything up yet.”
[. . .]
San Bernardino shooter Syed Farouk’s mother described his father — the original immigrant — this way: “My husband is mentally ill and is on medication but is also an alcoholic and drinks with the medicine.”
Fantastic. So glad we got him.
[. . .]
How else have the 1.5 million Muslims admitted since 9/11 made our country better? Their massive welfare use? Overburdening our schools and hospitals? The machete attacks? The clitorectomies? The honor killings? The occasional terrorist attack?
Currently, there are more than a thousand active investigations of ISIS in all 50 states. Here’s an idea: Instead of paying for an ever-expanding federal workforce to track, wiretap and investigate immigrants with possible terrorist sympathies, let’s stop bringing them in!

http://humanevents.com/2015/12/09/happy-birthday-to-me-2/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Happy Birthday to Me!

Ann Coulter

Wednesday Dec 9, 2015 5:05 PM

White House Employs Anti American Cabinet Members, Who Ignore The First Amendment

"There is no constitutional right to perpetuate hostile environments or to engage in threatening speech," Duncan said. Here's one more White House anti American control freak ignoring the First Amendment. That guarantees the right to express protected speech and behavior which may offend some people. Racist speech is protected speech. Duncan's comment is offensive and hostile. Under his standards he should be silenced. Low and no information, and omniscient voters have been conditioned to promote not hurting feelings over constitutional rights. Feminist therapeutic state is destroying the constitution. See also, November 23, 2015 Useful Idiots Gone Wild By Robert Weissberg



[From article]
"There is no constitutional right to perpetuate hostile environments or to engage in threatening speech," Duncan said. "We can do better in our responses to these incidents and creating more welcoming climates."



In March, Oklahoma moved swiftly after Sigma Alpha Epsilon members were videotaped singing a racist chant on a charter bus. University President David Boren immediately condemned the video and two students were expelled.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/colleges-try-to-find-ways-to-deal-with-racial-incidents/36704722

Colleges try to find ways to deal with racial incidents
Portraits of black professors were taped over at Harvard
Published 10:12 AM EST Nov 29, 2015

Public Discourse On Immigration Has Misguided Focus

[From article]
The American people are far ahead of their elites in seeing the problem, even though our media, like the French and other Euromeadia, generally ignores the problematic aspects of not just Islamic culture, but the scriptural religion itself.
[. . .]



For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism. Consequently, many Americans are still in the dark about sharia, classical Islam’s societal framework and legal code. We should long ago have recognized sharia as the bright line that separates authentic Muslim moderates, hungry for the West’s culture of reason and individual liberty, from Islamic supremacists, resistant to Western assimilation and insistent on incremental accommodation of Muslim law and mores.
[. . .]



Islam is a comprehensive political and social doctrine, one in utter conflict with our Constitution. And the nations from which we are importing refugees have very large majorities in favor of sharia as the organizing principle of society. Even of Muslims born in the U.S., support for sharia is alarmingly strong.
[. . .]



There is no global right to come here. American immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interests of the United States. Right now, American immigration policy is serving the interests of immigrants at the expense of American national security and the financial security of distressed American workers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/the_question_we_should_be_asking_on_syrian_refugees.html

November 28, 2015
The question we should be asking on Syrian refugees
By Thomas Lifson