Pennsylvania – John Malcolm

Memo to NBC: What the hell is wrong with you?

June 23, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Deacon Greg Kandra | June 19, 2012 | The Deacon’s Bench

Seriously.

First, there was the Trayvon Martin boondoggle a few months ago.

Then yesterday, evidence of some creative editing regarding Mitt Romney’s visit to a Wawa in Pennsylvania.

Today, we have Andrea Mitchell’s spectacularly lame followup to “criticism of the Romney clip edit” — which amounted to Ms. Mitchell saying, with a sigh and a frown, “Oh, bother. Fine. Here’s what we left out.” She failed to acknowledge what the “criticism” entailed; she neglected to point out how the editing misrepresented the event being covered; and she offered nothing resembling an apology or an admission of responsibility for something that was, as a matter of fact, irresponsible.

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

June 17, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Victor Davis Hanson | June 15, 2012 | National Review

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Obama Makes Good on His Promise to Destroy America’s Coal Industry [Video]

June 5, 2012 by John Malcolm Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Progressivism, Videos Tagged With: Coal, Coal Industry, Coal Plants, Coal Towns, Communities, Curt Spalding, Energy Prices, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Greenhouse Gases, Law, Lisa Jackson, Natural Gas Plants, Pennsylvania, Public Policy, West Virginia

America’s Courts Have Been Violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause for Three Decades

May 14, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Jerry A. Kane | May 12, 2012 | Canada Free Press

For thirty years the ACLU and its atheist hordes have been in state and federal courts vigorously marginalizing Christians and uprooting public memorials and symbols of the nation’s Christian heritage. Any cross, crucifix, sculpture, statue, figurine, or carving that could trigger memories of America’s Christian founding has been targeted for eradication from the public sphere.

The Framers wrote the Bill of Rights to restrict the powers of the federal government, which means the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from an intrusive government, and not the government from religion.Even though over two-thirds of the American public believes the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation between church and state,” the truth is the Framers of the Constitution never entertained such a notion. For three decades now, rulings by the courts ordering the removal of Christian symbols from public property have violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment begins with the words, “Congress [i.e. the federal government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Framers didn’t want the federal government establishing a “state church” (as England and some European Countries had at the time) or interfering with the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment kept the federal government from interfering with the people’s right to establish their own churches and denominations and worship freely.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”—Thomas Jefferson The suggestion that Christian symbols displayed on public property could amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause would be laughable to the Framers.

The concept of a Judeo/Christian God or nature’s God was embraced by the Founders:

Fifty-two of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were members of established orthodox churches in the colonies:

Congregationalist-7
Deist-1
Dutch Reformed-2
Episcopalian-26
Lutheran-1
Methodist-2
Presbyterian-11
Quaker-3
Roman Catholic-2

In fact, the Framers enshrined the concept of the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence:

When …it becomes necessary for one people to …assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them …

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 …

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies …

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

At the time the First Amendment was written, several states were dominated by churches, e.g., Connecticut was Congregationalist, Massachusetts was Puritan, Virginia was Baptist, and Pennsylvania was Quaker. The people in those states chose the religion they preferred, and they didn’t want the federal government imposing any particular sect or denomination on their states.

It’s safe to assume that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they understood that:

God establishes the place of nations in the world.
God created man.
God endowed man with certain unalienable rights.
God is the supreme judge of human conduct.

As Mark Levin writes in Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America,“the Declaration of Independence … is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. … Religion and God are not alien to our system of government, [sic] they’re integral to it.”

If the Framers intended the Establishment Clause to erect a “wall of separation” between the Judeo/Christian God and nature’s God and government, they would have included the “separation of church and state” notion in the First Amendment or would have at least introduced and discussed it at the first Constitutional Convention. But not one of the Framers ever mentioned it. None of the Congressional Records of the discussions and debates of the 90 Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment contains the phrase “separation of church and state.” The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the First Amendment, or in any of the notes from the Convention.

The idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state surfaced in 1947 when the Warren Court lifted the “wall of separation” phrase from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson used “wall” as a metaphor to address the Baptists’ concerns about religious freedom, and to clarify for them that the federal government was restricted from interfering with religious practices. Jefferson’s letter explained that the First Amendment put restrictions only on the government, not on the people.

The truth is the current “separation” doctrine is a relatively recent concept and not a long-held constitutional principle. The Warren Court took Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase out of context and reinterpreted the First Amendment to restrict people instead of government. And now some 65 years later, 69 percent of the American people believe the First Amendment actually contains the “separation of church and state” phrase.

In his dissenting opinion in the 1985 ruling against silent prayer in public schools, Chief Justice William Rehnquist decried how the Warren Court’s “wall” notion undermined the Framers’ original intent of the First Amendment:

“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

Read the full article here.

On the “Separation of Church and State” (wizbangblog.com)
SCOTUS and Religious Freedom’s Slippery Slope (americanthinker.com)
ObamaCare and Contraceptives: The Free Exercise Zero-Sum Game (americanthinker.com)
Obama Still Poised to take over Churches and Eliminate First Amendment (canadafreepress.com)
Does the Roberts Court Have a Pro-Church Bias? How They’re Undermining the Separation of Church and State (alternet.org)
The Founding Fathers were too stupid to say what they meant… or something (boilingthefrogs.wordpress.com)
Should Christians Impose Their Moral Standards on Society? (str.typepad.com)
Missouri Bill Declares All Out War On The Constitution (thinkprogress.org)
Money in politics? Framers had solution (wnd.com)

Filed Under: American History, Conservatism Tagged With: Carving, Christian Heritage, Christian Symbols, Christianity, Christians, Church, Civil Rights, Clergy, Communism, Congregationalist, Congress, Congressional Record, Connecticut, Conscience, Constitutional Convention, Courts, Cross, Crucifix, Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, Declaration of Independence, Deist, Denominations, Despotism, Divine Providence, Dutch Reformed, England, Episcopalian, Establishment Clause, Europe, European Countries, Everson v. Board of Education, Federal Government, Figurine, First Amendment, Founders, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Framers, Free Exercise Clause, Freedom of Worship, George Washington, God, Government, In God We Trust, James Madison, Judeo-Christian Ethics, Judicial Activism, Judiciary, King of England, Laws, Lutheran, Mark Levin, Marxism, Marxist Agitators, Massachusetts, Masses, Methodist, National Monument, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Nature, Nature's God, Original Intent, Pennsylvania, Physics, Prayer, Presbyterian, Public Policy, Public Property, Public Square, Quaker, Religion, Religious Freedom, Roman Catholic, School Prayer, Sculpture, Secular Humanism, Separation of Church and State, State Church, Statue, Subversion, Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unalienable Rights, Virginia, Wallace v. Jaffree, Warren Court, Washington DC, William Rehnquist, Zorach v. Clauson

Obama Voters Losing Jobless Benefits Due to the Manipulation of Workforce Numbers

May 11, 2012 by John Malcolm 1 Comment

By Rush Limbaugh | May 11, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael in Momence, Illinois. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks a lot, Rush, first-time caller. I’m calling because I was at the unemployment office just yesterday, and they have tables there where people fill out the paperwork that they have —

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait whoa, whoa, whoa, just a second. I need you to go slow here.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Why were you at the unemployment office? It may seem like an obvious question, but I want to know, why were you at the unemployment office?

CALLER: I was filing for benefits.

RUSH: Filing for unemployment benefits. Okay.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Then you said on the tables…

CALLER: They had tables set out for people to fill out paperwork.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: All right. On this table was a few copies of a news release, as it said across the top of the paper, and what the news release was saying was: Due to the lowering of the unemployment rate and the improving economy, that federal extensions for unemployment benefits were being canceled. So it’s not 99 weeks anymore.

RUSH: Well, this was in Momence, Illinois?

CALLER: Kankakee County office.

RUSH: Kankakee County. So you went in there —

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: — and they’re touting the economy roaring back so much, unemployment rate has gone down, the economy is improving, so federal extensions for unemployment benefits are being canceled?

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: I had not heard that.

CALLER: That was news to me as well.

RUSH: Well, but was there anything in this about 99 weeks, or are you just saying that because you know it’s 99 weeks that’s the max?

CALLER: Well, actually my brother’s well below his 99 weeks. He called to verify and he said he’s gonna be kicked off as of next week.

RUSH: Even before he reaches his 99 weeks?

CALLER: Yeah, 99 weeks doesn’t mean anything anymore.

RUSH: I have not heard this anywhere. Have you heard this anywhere, that people are just being told the economy is doing so well and unemployment is going up or down, employment’s going up, that your benefits are being canceled?

CALLER: Not mine personally yet, but that’s what’s going on.

RUSH: Well, but you’re just starting. Illinois’s unemployment rate hasn’t gone down. Illinois’s unemployment rate is skyrocketing.

CALLER: Well, apparently they seem to think it’s pretty good.

RUSH: Well. This doesn’t make any sense.

CALLER: Well, Rush, here’s part of my question, is what happens to these people now that they’re shoved up the unemployment rolls? Are these people being counted?

RUSH: That’s why this doesn’t make any sense. In an election year, you add people to the unemployment rolls. You take care of ’em. You extend their benefits. You make sure they know you’re doing — this makes no sense. This is like a Romney prank.

CALLER: You know what you probably could do, and maybe your staff could do it, maybe go to the Illinois unemployment website and click on news releases. They do release news on the website.

RUSH: Well, I’ll assign one of the 55 people doing research to that. Snerdley is asking me, “Could this be how they’re lowering the numbers?” Am I the only one that sees this? Again, I ask that question. Okay, here are the two possibilities on the table. Michael, I was joking about the 55 people doing research. I was being very, very facetious. Thanks for the call. Here’s what we have. A guy goes in to the Illinois unemployment office in Kankakee County. News releases all over the tables where you fill out your forms: Because the unemployment rate is coming down and the economy is recovering, unemployment benefits are being canceled.

The only thing not said on the release is, “Get a job.” I don’t know what canceled means. They’re not canceling everybody’s benefits. That I know. But it’s just what this guy saw. So here are the two possibilities on the table. Snerdley’s theory is that this is how they’re getting the unemployment rate down. Okay, the benefit of that is what? The unemployment rate going down, millions and millions and millions of Americans unemployed, who else is gonna see this? The only people that are gonna see this are people going to the unemployment office. Why do you go to unemployment office? To get your bennies. To get your benefits.

You walk in to get your benefits. You read a news release that says: Sorry, you’re out of luck, get a job. This is how we’re lowering the unemployment rate. And this lowering the unemployment rate is gonna redound to Obama by getting him more votes because we’re gonna spread the news the economy is recovering, unemployment’s going down, but nobody is gonna see that unless somebody from that office called here like just happened. On the other hand, what is the real-world effect of this? People who are on unemployment are in there, I’d say the majority of them are genuine, they’re not scamming the system. Some are in there trying to scam it, happens, but most people are in there ’cause they’re out of work and they want some unemployment benefits. They read something in there: Sorry, the economy is getting so good, the unemployment rate is falling so much, that benefits are canceled, or extension benefits are canceled.

In an election year, Obama turning away voters? I can’t believe this. This is like a Republican trick. If I didn’t know better I’d say Andrew Breitbart had been in the Kankakee County, Illinois, unemployment office. I mean here you have hapless people with nowhere else to go, out of work, going in to sign up for unemployment and they read something from the regime that says, “No benefits, the economy is doing too good.” In an election year you want as many people on unemployment benefits as possible. You want dependents. You want people thanking you for making it possible they can eat. Snerdley, you’re off the reservation. Snerdley is now suggesting this is how they’re getting rid of white working class. They don’t know who’s gonna walk in there. The news release doesn’t say: Only to be read if you’re white working class. Doesn’t say that. Everybody’s gonna see this. According to the BLS, the Illinois unemployment rate is 8.1, so it is down. This doesn’t make any sense. And again, anybody can call here and say anything, but the guy sounded legit.

Read the full article here.