| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 41° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
March 9, 2005
What the liberals don't want the public to know
For instance, when Alan Greenspan spoke before Congress last week he reiterated his call to action on the developing crisis called Social Security. This is not the first time he has stated, without reservation, the system is headed towards catastrophic failure that could swallow the future of our nation. He provided similar testimony on at least four occasions during the Clinton administration and now just as many during that of President Bush. Democratic reaction? Sen. Harry Reid says there is no problem with Social Security, that it will be solvent for the next 50 years, and he no longer trusts the counsel of the Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve during some of the most trying economic times in our recent history. Not to be outdone by the senator, Rep. Nancy Pelosi has now determined Greenspan is a political hack for the Republican Party. After a combined total of 17 hours of testimony, providing volumes of data supporting his call change, the best the House Minority Leader can come up with to dispute these facts is he is a hack. When is it these leaders of the opposition will be willing to stop the rhetoric and take a really hard and close look at the problem? If history is any indication, just about the time the treasury runs dry, the nation's tax rate reaches 75 percent in a desperate attempt to keep the checks flowing, and our nation devolves to Third World status just after many of the European Union nations whose socialism they embrace. And therein resides the reason they cannot and will not allow themselves to be pressed for their own policy or reasons for their opposition. If they were ever to provide meaningful information on their positions their true beliefs would quickly be shown. Power to government, not the people, and there is nothing more at odds with our Constitution than that belief. This is also the reason why Senate Democrats are subverting the rule on advice and consent to prevent judges from being appointed who will find in accordance with our current Constitution rather than creating a new one. This is a very clear and present danger. Thomas Jefferson, the first Democratic president, had a very clear and fearful understanding of what the judiciary might do. "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." Decisions last week and over the past few years show just how much the liberals need an active court that likes to play with wax. In a recent decision it was held that a 14-year-old girl was mature enough to choose an abortion without even having to notify her parents. Then last week, the same majority held a 17-year-old was not mature enough to understand his crime of capital murder. In both cases, the judge writing for the court referenced a "national consensus" on the issue as well as an "international consensus" supporting the decision. This is just exactly the kind of information the liberals do not want to become public. But if our Constitution is to survive these leftist judges their thoughts and words need to be made public, if for no other reason than to provide historical evidence of the demise of our way of life. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens should be quoted each and every time they render a decision denying people the free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms, limiting private property ownership or adding rights not defined in the Constitution for one special interest group or another. The threat they pose to our rules of law and their replacement with "international consensus" is too real to ignore. The following was reported in a non-mainstream media publication: In 2003, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer upheld an affirmative action policy noting an international treaty endorsing race-based advancement for minorities. Stevens noted, "Within the world community the death penalty is overwhelmingly disapproved" in overturning a capital case. Justice Kennedy has cited the European Court of Human Rights in cases regarding homosexual relations and wrote the majority opinion allowing a 17-year-old to get away with pre-meditated murder. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Justice Breyer added, "The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution fits into the governing documents of other nations." In thinking about having our Constitution made to fit, we should ask ourselves just exactly how much of the Bill of Rights we could live without. For liberals it seems the answer is all of them, and that is the real message they do not wish us to hear. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
