Friday, April 16, 2010

Health Care and the Commerce Clause


Ask a Congressman about the constitutionality of the health care legislation and one is likely to hear an answer similar the one given by House Majority Whip James Clyburn. He said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

One might even hear a response like the one given by Congressman Phil Hare when he said, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest… I care more about the people that are dying everyday that don’t have health insurance.”

When asked “where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals get health insurance,” Senator Kent Conrad replied, “I’ll refer you to the legal counsel for the Senate and they’re the ones that lead there as the full legal basis for the individual mandate—and I assume it’s in the Commerce Clause.”

The reasoning employed by Clyburn, Hare, and Conrad, as well as many others, is disturbing for a number of reasons.

To begin, the Framers of the Constitution did not view the Commerce Clause as giving to Congress any sort of positive power. Instead, the Framers gave Congress the power to prevent States from stopping interstate commerce. In a letter to Joseph Cabell, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote that the Commerce Clause “grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

To dismiss the suits filed by nineteen states as purely political is wholly inaccurate. It is even more erroneous to suggest that the health care legislation is constitutional because “it is in line with a long line of precedents.”

Randy Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, recently said that the lawsuits are “definitely not frivolous.” In reference to precedents, Professor Barnett said, “Anything that has never been done before has no precedent for it. And this has never been done before.”

Even though “this has never been done before,” the discussion of precedent is still necessary. Many of the pending lawsuits center on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez. In this decision, the Court ruled that Congress does, indeed, have the power to regulate, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Fortunately, the Court ruled that having a gun within a thousand feet of a school did was not related to interstate commerce. Additionally, the legislation which had been enacted by Congress was deemed unconstitutional because Congress was regulating something which had been traditionally left to the States.

As can be seen, there are similarities which exist between the upcoming legal battle and United States v. Lopez. Congress is once again attempting to regulate an area which has traditionally been left to the States. Also, a gap exists between the goals of the health care legislation and interstate commerce. As in United States v. Lopez, it will be up to the federal government to show that health care substantially affects interstate commerce. This would seem to be a daunting task—as it was in United States v. Lopez.

We should expect to have leaders who adhere to the Constitution—the Framers certainly expected as much! Never forget that Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

Remember those who place Constitutional authority below their own preferences when voting in November!


Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Our Constitution Under Siege


President George Washington once said, “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.”

Today, we are unable to say that all of our representatives hold the Constitution in such high regard. In fact, we are forced to accept the conclusion that many of them do not consider the Constitution whatsoever.

This is unfortunate—considering that both the President and members of Congress must take an oath to defend the Constitution.

Specifically, the oath of office taken by members of Congress states: “I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Because of the importance placed on continual allegiance to the Constitution by the above quoted Title 5, Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, one would think that members of Congress actually consider the document when passing legislation. Tragically, this is not often the case.

It is possible that the most recent, if not the most outrageous example of dereliction of duty has been provided by Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL). After a meeting with some of his constituents, Hare was asked where in the Constitution he could find authority for Congress to make such sweeping changes to the nation’s health care system. Before the questioner could even finish, Congressman Hare shot back, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest ... I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.”

When pressed further, Hare asserted that the Constitution “says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Not even mentioning his gross misrepresentation of Jefferson’s meaning, these words are not from the Constitution. When this fact was pointed out, all Hare had to say was that “it doesn’t matter to me.”

In an apparent attempt to save himself, Hare asked that the question be repeated. Once again, the questioner began to ask, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority...”

This time, Congressman Hare interrupted by emphatically stating, “I don’t know; I don’t know.”

It seems inconceivable that a member of Congress would blatantly dismiss questions concerning from where his authority to pass a particular piece of legislation is derived. The very oath of office taken by Congressman Hare demands that he be ready to “support and defend the Constitution.” That appears to be a very difficult task for one who seems to have such a limited grasp of the document.

To be fair, Congressman Hare is not the only politician to have lost touch with his oath of office. That said, he is an excellent example of a politician who is “rustier” on the Constitution than a classroom full of children. We can understand schoolchildren becoming a bit confused when discussing the Constitution.

However, we have much more trouble fathoming an elected representative who has taken his responsibilities so lightly that he does not even care that he cannot distinguish between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our Constitution is under siege! May our representatives have the same devotion to the Constitution as did Samuel Adams when he said, “The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Thursday, April 1, 2010

America's Revival for Restoration


Over the past weekend, a friend and I were privileged to attend Glenn Beck’s American Revival at the University of Central Florida.

Some have said that such a conference would be attended by “right-wing radicals.”

Instead, it was attended by Americans who are concerned about the direction of their country, states and lives.

The theme for the American Revival Tour comes directly from Apostle Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. I Corinthians 13:13 says, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

In order for America to be restored to its founding, its citizens must have faith, hope and charity.

Faith in God was important to our founders. President Washington said, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

President Adams said, “The safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgement of this truth is an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.”

“Hope” is a word with which we have become very familiar.

It is unfortunate it has become a word with an empty meaning. Today, we are told to hope promised benefits will be available when it is time for us to receive them. We are told to hope that our debt will not cripple us.

More importantly, we are told to hope we are too big to fail.

This conception of hope has been completely separated from the truth.

In John 8:32, Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Of course, Jesus was speaking of the fact that knowing and obeying His truth will set us free from sin and death. The principle, however, is applicable to all areas of life.

Truth be told, our country is on a path that cannot be sustained.

We will not survive if we continue to spend money we do not and never expect to have.

The truth is we are in trouble, and the politicians apparently do not want us to know.

We have to drastically cut spending by at least 50 percent, and cut taxes.

The world is spinning out of control, and we have to prepare to once again be the island of relief for investors seeking a safe haven.

Charity, or love, has been paramount to the American experience. As evidenced by our response to disasters all over the world, it should come as no surprise that Americans are the most charitable people on the planet.

The vast majority of these works of love came straight from individual American citizens — not from the federal government.

Works of love cannot be legislated. Our money is our money. This is to say that it is up to us how we spend our own money.

The Bible tells us that as individuals we should care for the poor, sick, fatherless and widowed, among others. We are told this is a responsibility for individuals or congregations — not government.

The revival of America begins with us. Continually seek, serve and thank the Almighty Father. Always speak and seek the truth. Never expect someone else to be charitable on your behalf. You cannot be charitable with the money or talents of others.

This is our mission as Americans. We must restore our republic through faith, hope and charity.

Don’t wait for others — the revival begins with you!

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Fighting the Socialist Agenda

James Madison once said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Let’s face it—this is exactly what we are experiencing today. The takeover of health care by the federal government is nothing more than a threat, which has been on the socialist wish list for many years.

Congressman Ferrand once introduced a bill in Congress that would have forced all Social Security recipients and their dependents to participate in a national health insurance program. More important is the fact that Congressman Ferrand made it clear this was not actually what he wanted.

Instead, he only saw his bill as the foundation for what would come later. In fact, he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that.”

How does this sound any different from what we are hearing from Democratic politicians today?

That’s right—there is no difference!

After listening to some of these Washington politicians, one is almost forced to conclude that they all read historical quotes from Congressman Ferrand immediately before opening their mouth to speak.

Referring to the health care legislation under consideration, Sen. Tom Harkin said, “What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home. It’s got a good foundation ... It’s got a good roof ... It’s got a lot of nice stuff in there ... but, we can build additions as we go along in the future. It is a starter home. Think about it that way.”

Of course, President Obama has also been making similar statements.

He has made sure he let us know how wonderfully the federal government will take care of us once we are all on its rolls. If we are concerned about transforming one-sixth of our economy overnight—we shouldn’t be.

Like Obama said, “Yes, it’s one-sixth of the economy, but we’re not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop.” So I guess we are supposed to feel better about it all just because the Democrats aren’t going to destroy us “all in one fell swoop.”

Can’t you see what is happening to us?

The politicians in Washington either think we are so uneducated or lazy that we cannot understand
what is happening. This has all happened before.

Stated differently, the socialists are trying to pawn their same old tricks off on us. We cannot stand for such. We must pay attention to what is being said. We must reject the same old lines and arguments.

We have been gallantly fighting to stop this horrendous piece of legislation that Democrats do not even feel compelled to pass according to the process required by Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution.

Even if the House passes this legislation using an illegal method, it is likely that Democrats will have to place a few more nails in the coffin before their dastardly goal can be completed.

We must continue to fight against government oppression. We cannot allow ourselves to one day have “to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

The fate of the republic rests upon our shoulders.

What will you do to help save our republic?

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, March 22, 2010

Then and Now: A Story of Hypocrisy

President George Washington once said, “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Washington was referring to the Framers’ decision to create the Senate. It would serve as an important check and balance to the House of Representatives, where the popular will of the people could more quickly be realized. In their opinion, rapidly passed legislation was not wise.

What has the Senate become today? Is it still a body that largely accepts its role as a deliberative body? The preponderance of the evidence gives a resounding answer of “no.”

In part, this assessment comes after years of using, albeit infrequently, the process of reconciliation. Such a process allows the Senate to pass legislation with 51 votes, without first garnering 60 votes to end debate.

Without question, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of using reconciliation over the years. Each and every case has been unfortunate because it provides evidence that our leaders no longer respect the rules which were established for the benefit of the country as a whole.

As noted, Republicans have been guilty of misusing power in the past. Similarly, Democrats are threatening to enact health care legislation by reconciliation if Republicans do not accede to Democratic demands.

What did Democrats say when they were threatened with a similar ultimatum?

Then-Sen. Barack Obama said, “What I worry about would be that you would essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the Founders intended.”

He also said it was his understanding of the Senate “that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen.”

Then Sen. Joe Biden said that when Democrats took power he prayed to God that they wouldn’t “make the kind of naked power grab that (the Republicans) are doing.”

Chuck Schumer said, “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the ‘nuclear option.’ The checks and balances, which say that if you get 51 percent of the vote you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It is amazing. It’s almost a temper tantrum.”

Harry Reid said, “The right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.

In these cases, a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves limited government.”

Hillary Clinton said reconciliation was only “for immediate gratification of the present president.”

For once, something Democrats had to say actually made sense. It is too bad that such arguments were only made because they wanted to derail President Bush’s agenda. Are there any patriots left among our leaders? Certainly there are, but they are not in the majority. Seek out those, from both sides of the aisle, who will stand against tyranny of both the majority and minority. Our leaders must maintain that delicate balance.

Demand that our senators follow the advice of their colleague, Sen. Robert Byrd said. He warned that, “The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters.”

If the reconciliation process is used, against the advice of one of its creators, Sen. Byrd, we will be led even closer to the destruction of our republic. As Sen. Max Baucus said, “This is the way democracy ends—not with a bomb, but with a gavel.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Why I Voted "No"

In the 17th century, Thomas Hobson operated a thriving livery stable in Cambridge, England. To say the least, Mr. Hobson became successful because of, or possibly in spite of, an odd practice.

Instead of allowing his customers to select their own horse, he demanded they take the one nearest the door or none at all.

Did Mr. Hobson institute this rule to save time? Could it be that he didn’t like watching customers agonize over their decisions?

Whatever the case, Mr. Hobson is remembered for having instituted what we now know as “Hobson’s choice.”

As might have been suspected, “Hobson’s choice” involves one being forced to make a decision between exactly what is offered and nothing at all.

To a degree, the vote taken concerning the mascot process is reminiscent of “Hobson’s choice.” On the other hand, “Hobson’s choice” looks appealing in comparison with the “choice” we were given.

If we, as students, had been given the same consideration that Mr. Hobson gave his customers, we would have at least been able to vote on whether or not we wanted a new mascot.

In other words, the referendum would have asked, “Do you want a new on-field mascot?”

Voting “yes” would mean that one is in favor of a new mascot patrolling the sidelines. Conversely, a “no” vote would mean that one desires to retain the status quo of no on-field mascot.

While not a great choice, it at least offers two distinct alternatives.

The choice given us by the ASB, with the full support of Chancellor Jones, offered no distinct alternatives.

The option given us could only meet the definition of the term “choice” because it offered very minutely different processes by which to reach the same alternative.

I cannot understand why so many of my fellow students chose to put themselves in the back pocket of the administration by aiding in the unfortunate framing of this debate.

Instead of reporting the nuanced difference between what a “no” or “yes” vote meant, our student leaders should have pointed to the inherent unfairness of the “choice” we were given.

I do not dispute that The Daily Mississippian correctly informed students of what voting “yes” and “no” meant.

However, as members of the press, we should have called more into question the motive behind wording a referendum in such a manner.

Neither the ASB nor the administration ever had any intent of allowing students to have a real voice.

If they had, we would have at least had the chance to decide whether or not we wanted to maintain the status quo.

Instead, our leaders were simply seeking political cover for the actions they wanted so deeply to take.

The chancellor has the authority to install a new mascot if he so chooses. It seems, however, that he is unwilling to make tough decisions on these kinds of issues. Instead, he waits for or encourages the ASB to pass a resolution — which he then cites as justification for whatever action he takes.

I understand that, when faced with such limited options, many students decided they must take the gamble that they would actually be allowed to have input in the choosing of a new mascot.

I say gamble because we have not even been told how this whole process will take place. We know that a sort of committee will be formed to handle suggestions. What will the committee do with the suggestions?

Will this committee have the authority to eliminate some?

Will the chancellor simply pick his favorite submitted suggestion? Will students be allowed to choose from among all submitted selections, or will they only be able to choose from either the chancellor’s or the committee’s favorite suggestions?

These are all questions which should have been both asked and answered before a vote ever took place.

I say this because the answers to these questions could have made a large difference in how some students decided to vote.

I voted “no” because I had no desire to be blackmailed by both the ASB and the administration. If we had at least been allowed “Hobson’s choice,” I would have no significant qualms with our leadership.

I have serious problems with being offered only a choice between two paths leading to the same location. That’s not really a choice at all — but the administration can say it was because it was put on a ballot.

Instead of either blindly following or caving in to the administration, question their motives.

Don’t always take for granted what those in political office may say. You must often dig beneath the surface in order to find the truth.

Let us always “question with boldness,” as Thomas Jefferson so nobly advised.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, March 1, 2010

By the Numbers: Health Care Reform and Budget Deficit

In his recent State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.”

How long did jobs remain his primary focus? To answer such a question, we must examine the evidence before us.

Instead of using his political capital to push his jobs bill, Obama has decided to revisit the unpopular health care legislation.

Late last week, the president sent a message to members of Congress. He said, “We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system.”

I want to know what polling data the president is viewing. Maybe he is conducting his own polls and offering free money if the respondent answers with the president’s most preferred response. The point is that legitimate polling data shows the president is either wrong or is simply lying.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 37 percent of voters say the president’s top priority should remain his promise to “cut the deficit (his administration) inherited by half by the end of (his) first term in office.”

Apparently, the president will not be able to do as he promised. By the end of his term, the president could potentially cut the deficit from his first year in half.

This is only possible because the budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2009 is somewhere between two to four times larger than it was in Fiscal Year 2008. Such being the case, the president would not be capable of “cutt(ing) the deficit we inherited by half.”

According to his own Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, the budget deficit by the end of his term would be slightly above that which he inherited.

When the president says the American public desires health care reform, he can’t be referring to any proposed Democratic legislation. According to polling data, only 39 percent of Americans approve of health care reform legislation and 58 percent disapprove.

Even more condemning is the fact that only 19 percent strongly approve while 48 percent strongly disapprove.

Regardless of the view of voters, President Obama has decreed that health care must pass.

The president is now solidly in favor of using the reconciliation process in order to pass health care legislation.

The bill currently being authored in the White House is described by a Democratic aide as “a reconciliation bill.” The aide further notes that the administration has vowed that “if Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”

The aide is alluding to an upcoming health care summit. Obama has asked both parties to come up with a single plan.

However, Obama has refused to begin the process anew and promised to have a unified Democratic proposal completed before the summit begins.

After the president found previous Republican proposals to be unbeneficial, who thinks he will incorporate any of them into his bill? Even more, why would he be willing to incorporate Republican ideas if he is now committed to using a reconciliation process which only requires 51 votes in the Senate?

Everyone should focus on the idea that Obama will push his own bill through by reconciliation if the Republicans don’t bring “any substantial offers.” To him, nothing the Republicans offer will be substantial.

This is despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has verified that the proposed Republican health legislation would lower premiums by 10 percent and shave $68 billion off the deficit over the next ten years. The CBO has agreed with Republicans that this could be done without increasing taxes on families and small businesses.

At the very least, the people want a chance to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections before more healthcare legislation is voted upon. In fact, 54 percent are in favor of waiting until after the election and only 35 percent want legislation to be passed prior to the election.

As Chancellor Dan Jones says, we can’t have an election every day. What we need, however, are politicians who play by the rules and listen to the people.

Originally, the reconciliation process wasn’t intended to be used for passing such legislation.

As long as the Senate maintains the tradition of requiring 60 votes to end debate, the reconciliation process should not be used by either party — even though both have used it in the past.

It is important that this traditional rule must be allowed to serve its noble purpose of slowing down the legislative process and protecting the rights of the minority party.

We must demand that our elected leaders be honest and open. In order to keep them in check, we must always be a bit suspicious. Such advice comes from none other than James Madison when he said, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, February 22, 2010

A Response to Chancellor Jones

During a recent question-and-answer session with The Daily Mississippian, Chancellor Dan Jones stated that “none of us get to vote on anything we want to vote on at any given day; there’s a democratic process in place.”

The chancellor was addressing the concern of many students that they have been left without a voice in the discussion over the mascot issue.

One of the most cited reasons for concern is that students will never be allowed to choose Colonel Reb as an on-field mascot.

Apparently Chancellor Jones has a quite odd idea of democracy. I assume, in this context, he was alluding to the fact that “student leaders” are elected every year.

He seemingly believes this provides an “appropriate way” for the students to have input.

I concede that ASB elections are held every year. However, I will never believe that “there’s a democratic process in place.”

In fact, the whole system is rigged to appear democratic while, in reality, it is far from it.

Chancellor Jones, as well as other heads of Mississippi’s colleges and universities, is separated from voters by at least three degrees.

As registered voters, we elect a governor every four years.

According to Article 8, Section 213A of the Mississippi Code of 1972, the governor then has the power to “appoint the members of the board (The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning) with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

According to the same provision, the board of trustees “shall have the power and authority to elect the heads of the various institutions of higher learning.”

We have almost no input into who becomes chancellor of this university.

To be fair, the law ensures that Chancellor Jones cannot serve more than four years without being reconfirmed by the board. This might be serviceable if the people of Mississippi actually had some power in deciding who serves on the board of trustees.

The “student leaders” Chancellor Jones loves to compliment have no power.

Constitutionally speaking, Chancellor Jones has been appointed as the “head” of this university. As President Harry S. Truman famously said, “The buck stops here.”

That’s right, the buck stops with the chancellor.

At best, elected student leaders serve as a weak form of agenda setters.

At worst, they are used by the administration.

In the latter usage, the administration, in opposition to Truman’s principle, “passes the buck” to student leaders.

Put differently, student leaders are used to make the actions of the administration appear more legitimate.

In the end, the chancellor will only do what he wants.

Of course, he must also consider the desires of powerful politicians and big donors.

Students only figure into the calculation as pawns which can be used to obtain a desired outcome.

Sure, the administration may have been slowed by the actions of students, but it has never been completely stopped. When Chancellor Khayat removed Colonel Reb as the on-field mascot in 2003, a vote was held for the students. What was the result of that vote? 94 percent of the students that voted (approximately 12 percent of the student body) supported retaining Colonel Reb as the on-field mascot.

However, the administration did not support the students.

The current administration will never support the opinions of students — unless the opinions expressed align with their own.

You can listen to Chancellor Jones’ theory that a democratic process is in existence, or you can come to the realization that the system is rigged.

The latter will be much more difficult because you must accept the idea that things aren’t always as they appear.

Stop viewing every instance of changing traditions as separate. This is a war on the traditions of our school.

Don’t fully trust the chancellor when he says that he doesn’t “have any intent of beginning” a discussion on ending our identity as “Ole Miss” or “Rebels.”

I’m sure he won’t “begin” the discussion. He will just use the ASB to “begin” it for him.

Then he will swoop in to “support our students (the ASB) and the things they want.”

This is the way things are done in Mississippi’s public universities and colleges.

We cannot stand for such. Demand that state leaders give the people more power in determining who is in charge of our institutions of higher learning. Never forget former Senator Barry Goldwater’s assessment that “Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven and earth.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, February 15, 2010

A Nation Made for the People

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

The more our government officials speak, the more aware we are that they do not fear “we the people.”

Recent comments made by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), son of late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), should leave no doubt in our minds that many officials do not care what we think.

On Feb. 4, Rep. Kennedy was critical of Scott Brown’s desire to be seated in a timely fashion. In fact, he said, “Brown’s whole candidacy was shown to be a joke today when he was sworn in early.” Rep. Kennedy went on to accuse Scott Brown of wanting to take his seat early in order to vote against President Obama’s nominee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

For the record, Brown denies wanting to be seated “early” in order to cast such a vote. However, “we the people” will never know, because Brown was not sworn in until after the vote had taken place.

When that vote took place, who was sitting in the seat entrusted to Scott Brown? That’s right—Paul Kirk. Yes, the same man who vowed to stay in office until the last moment. This was despite a 1939 Senate Judiciary Committee ruling which states, “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.”

It should be noted that there were 76 Senate Democrats in the 75th Congress and 69 Democrats in the 76th Congress. In other words, it isn’t like a bunch of “kill-joy” Republicans decided the Constitution didn’t allow an interim senator to retain his seat after a special election.

Instead of Kennedy demanding that his Congressional colleagues acknowledge the will of the people, he chose to criticize a man who simply demanded to do the people’s work.

Even if Sen. Brown had wanted to be seated in time to vote against President Obama’s NLRB nominee, how does that immediately concern Rep. Kennedy? Sure, Kennedy can say all day long that “seven out of 10 of Brown’s voters were labor households” and that voting against Obama’s nominee would be “the most anti-labor, the most anti-what his constituents thought they were voting for when they voted for him.”

In the end, though, what Brown votes in favor of, or vice versa, is between him and the people of Massachusetts. When he stands for reelection the people will let him know if he has served them well.

To make matters worse, Kennedy continued his assault on Brown by asserting, “This is where he shows that when they need him, he’s in the tank for the Republicans.”

After considering Brown’s voting record and personal beliefs, one would be hard-pressed to find a man who is “in the tank for the Republicans.” The “independent-minded” label he has
placed upon himself appears quite accurate.

In American politics, being “independent minded” is usually a good thing. Rep. Kennedy certainly seemed to disparage those who are “in the tank” for a political party.

I guess he forgot to examine his own voting record. OpenCongress.org calculates that Rep. Patrick Kennedy “votes with (his) party 99 percent” of the time. In his mind, “being in the tank” for a political party is only bad if you happen to be a Republican.

Even then, Rep. Kennedy is so intelligent and all-knowing that he can tell whether or not someone will be “in the tank” for a party before they ever cast a single vote. One has to wonder what his prediction about himself was.

Remarks such as those made by Rep. Kennedy are only part of the reason why Americans are becoming disgusted with the political process. What can we do to ensure that our officials act responsibly? We should seriously consider advice given by Kennedy’s late uncle, President John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you— ask what you can do for your country.” President Kennedy proudly and nobly served our country in World War II.

Even if we don’t serve our country militarily, we can make sure that we elect men and women who will respect the choices made by the people. We can no longer stand for politicians who flippantly ignore, and even criticize, the will of the people. Elected officials must be reminded “that government (is) of the people, by the people, (and) for the people,” as President Lincoln so nobly stated. Remind “forgetful” politicians of this American principle by throwing them out of office and putting in their place individuals more inclined to honor the choices of the people!

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Another Treat from the Democrats' Bag of Dirty Tricks

With everyone focused upon President Obama’s State of the Union Address, it seems as though something important has been overlooked by the media.

It is shameful that almost no one, including Republicans, seems to be outraged that despite Scott Brown’s recent electoral victory, interim Massachusetts Sen. Paul Kirk is still casting votes.

Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy by Gov. Deval Patrick.

Sen. Kirk declared that he would remain in the Senate after the special election and would vote in favor of healthcare legislation. Specifically, Kirk said this would be his “responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Sen. Kennedy’s agenda.”

This is while William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has been clear about the fact that Kirk’s elected successor would be left in a state of limbo until at least Feb. 20. Galvin’s spokesman, Brian McNiff, said, “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

No matter how unfair, maybe we could swallow this cruel piece of reality if this were simply the process required under the laws and traditions of both Massachusetts and the Senate. However, a simple examination of history’s evidence paints a much different, and darker, picture.

At least as far back as 1938, the Senate was forced to deal with such problems. On that occasion, interim Tennessee Sen. George Berry, like Kirk, argued that he was able to retain his seat until his successor was either certified or seated by the Senate. He held this view despite the fact that the Tennessee statute stated that an interim senator “shall hold office until his successor is elected at the next biennial election and qualifies.”

For resolution of the matter, Berry’s argument was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It considered all relevant laws, including the Seventeenth Amendment, and Senate precedents. At the conclusion of their work, the Judiciary Committee reported that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” Subsequently, the full Senate, without dissent, agreed to the resolution.

Considering the Massachusetts law is very similar to the noted Tennessee statue, a comparison of the two cases should remain relatively simple. The statute reads, “Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”

If Massachusetts law, Senate resolutions, nor Senate precedents allow for such Democratic tricks, what could? It could be possible that, right or wrong, Massachusetts officials have always delayed the certification of special election winners and have prevented them from taking their seat until all votes are counted.

To find this answer, one is forced to turn the pages of history all the way back to 2007 and the election of Democratic Representative Niki Tsongas. Rep. Tsongas was elected to replace Martin Meehan and was seated in the House of Representatives only two days after her electoral victory.

Doesn’t it seem as though Massachusetts officials have a double standard when it comes to seating Democratic and Republican special election winners? Rep. Tsongas was elected and certified in only two days because the Democrats needed her vote in order to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. Sen. Scott Brown is being denied his seat in such a timely manner simply because, unlike Rep. Tsongas, he does not support the Democratic legislative agenda.

Sen. Scott Brown has been duly elected by the people of Massachusetts. It is his right under the Seventeenth Amendment, precedent, and Massachusetts law to have almost immediately taken his seat in the Senate. At the very least, Paul Kirk should not be sitting in the seat for which the people of Massachusetts have designated for Scott Brown.

It is more than a shame that the media isn’t decrying such dirty politics on a daily basis. This is not a left or right issue—it is an issue of right and wrong.

Massachusetts officials are delaying sending Scott Brown to the Senate and are leaving Paul Kirk as senator for one reason — Paul Kirk will vote their way and Scott Brown won’t.

Essentially, the people are, once again, being treated to the Democrats’ bag of dirty tricks. We cannot stand for such. We must demand that government officials recall the words of Mark Twain when he said that their “function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Holding Washington Accountable

It has been a long time since Washington politicians and the people have spoken the same language.

It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to understand that politicians often speak a different language than their constituents.

Even though the media purports to help Americans decode the language of Washington, it has, at best, overlooked that politicians often talk past their constituents. At worst, the media has become complicit in the actions of Washington. Whatever the case, Michael Savage’s oft-repeated assessment that “the fourth estate [the media] has become the fifth column” continues to ring true.

Of course, we must also blame ourselves. In today’s world, we are not forced to rely on limited news sources. The news is no longer chained to a single writer or anchorman. Instead, media such as radio, cable television and the Internet have opened the opportunity to research for ourselves what politicians are doing “on our behalf.”

Despite all the opportunities given us, we have failed to adequately hold politicians accountable. Finally, Americans are waking up from the slumberous state to which we have grown accustomed. Washington politicians, however, have not yet come to this realization. This can be seen in no better place than the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party, especially its leadership, continues to speak a language different from the American people. Even worse is the fact that their language runs entirely counter to reality. Unfortunately over the last year we have grown complacent in being promised by one thing and receiving another.

Then, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promised us that he “could make a firm pledge.” He continued by promising, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000… will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

For some reason, the media hasn’t exposed Obama’s breaking of his “firm pledge.” It seems that his drastically increasing taxes on tobacco and his desire to levy taxes on good health insurance plans should have tipped off the media. Sadly, the media continues to cover for Washington.

In an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was confronted with the idea that “allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would essentially be a tax increase.” Instead of renewing the promise made by the President, Speaker Pelosi could only say “It isn’t a tax increase; it is eliminating a tax decrease that was there.”

Democratic reactions to Scott Brown’s improbable victory in Massachusetts only solidify this trend further.

Instead of admitting they were overreaching or misinterpreting recent electoral victories, they responded with language which blames others instead of themselves.

Democrats promised us relief from “politics as usual.” In reality, their gift to the American people has been nothing more than a rapid leftward lurch and shady back-room deals.

It seems like any rational individual could have at least acknowledged that the American people deserved to have an open and honest debate. Instead, the President just told us that everything is, once again, all President Bush’s fault.

During an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Obama said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

To be fair, the Republican Party is only just beginning to realize that they must be more honest and open with the American people. I suppose it took losing both chambers of Congress and the White House for them to come to such a harsh reality. How long will it take the democrats? What will shock them back into reality?

No politician can now hide behind curtains conveniently provided them by the media. They must face the American public with honest, problem-solving ideas. These ideas must then be openly debated both in Congress and in other public settings.

Wake up! Politicians are like the rest of us. They have to accept responsibility for their shortcomings. Individually speaking, President Obama needs to accept that President Bush is no longer the President. The responsibilities of the Oval Office now rest upon his shoulders. He and his party must stop blaming others for their failures.

We must all agree to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

Regardless of party, we must vote out of office any politician who refuses to accept the fact that he works for the people. Let us always allow the Ray Stevens lyric “we’ll vote you out of there” continue to reverberate in our minds. This is the only way we will be able to reassert the power given us by the Almighty.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, January 25, 2010

A Government That is Truly "of" the People

At the end of his famous Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln emphatically stated that “government (is) of the people, by the people, (and) for the people.”

At some point in the history of our beloved country, Americans forgot what Lincoln so eloquently acknowledged. This principle of governance by the people should not be taken lightly. This method of governance was seen in town hall meetings and was enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In America today, we have seemingly strayed as far away from this principle as possible.

To be fair, politicians on each side of the political spectrum have notions of entitlement.

Put differently, certain politicians or party leaders often feel as though certain seats in Congress belong to them. This has lately been best exemplified by the race to fill Senator Ted Kennedy’s former seat.

After Senator Kennedy’s death, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley was considered a virtual lock to serve the remainder of Kennedy’s unexpired term. Maybe Coakley should have recalled that even in the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, the people still must vote.

Why did Democrat Coakley lose the election to Republican State Senator Scott Brown? David Axelrod, an Obama adviser, claims that Brown ran a “very clever campaign.” For her part, Coakley blames the national Democratic Party establishment. In a memo, one of her top advisers noted “the failure of national Democrats to support Coakley.” Because of a lack of support, Coakley “was forced to devote significant time to fundraising.”

As usual, there are two sides to the story. Certainly this can be seen in Coakley’s demise. Who is at fault? Does the fault reside in Coakley or in the national Democratic Party? Could blame be attributed to both? If so, what mistakes did each make?

Undeniably, this was largely Coakley’s election to lose. Massachusetts Republicans are outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by their Democratic counterparts.

Additionally, the voters hadn’t elected a Republican to either of the two Senate seats since 1972. How, then, did Scott Brown win this election?

Scott Brown never forgot that no matter for whom voters have cast ballots in the past, they may change their minds at any time. No person or party is entitled to anything simply because the people have historically placed the same party or person in power. The people retain the right to uproot any representative and place another in his seat.

When asked by moderator David Gergen if he would oppose healthcare legislation while sitting “in Teddy Kennedy’s seat,” Brown responded, “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedys’ seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”

Coakley didn’t lose the election due to a lack of party support or money. She lost because she took the votes of the people of Massachusetts for granted, despite that the voters of Massachusetts were signaling their displeasure with pending legislation all along.

Instead of talking to voters about her ideas, Coakley criticized Brown for doing so.

When asked about her strategy of courting members of the political establishment instead of average voters, she responded with a critique of Brown’s strategy of talking to voters outside Fenway Park. She must have found “standing outside Fenway Park in the cold (and) shaking hands” to be ridiculous. I guess she didn’t need to because the seat already had her name on it.

That’s the story of an election. One candidate forgot that the people have the power in the United States of America. In contrast, the other called to memory the great American principle of governance “by the people (and) for the people.”

Brown never lost faith in the ability of his fellow citizens to recall the power voters possess. In doing so, he ran an honorable, issues-based campaign. He was not forced to resort to name-calling, as was Coakley when she began to lose grip on a seat that never belonged to her.

United States Senator Scott Brown has led the American people to a victory in our war to regain lost liberties and freedoms. However, the war is far from over. As President Thomas Jefferson once said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

Such being the case, we must remain ever vigilant. We, like Brown, must maintain an abiding faith in the Constitution and the people of America. Never fall prey to vain illusions of entitlement.

We have begun the long process of regaining our power. May we march forward into the future with the same zeal and passion for the Constitution as did our founders!

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, January 21, 2010

Obama's Shameful Submission

President Obama’s recent bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito is nothing more than disgraceful.

Of course, we have seen this before.

Remember the president’s bow before the Saudi king in April?

The very idea of a man bowing before his leader, or any other man, seems completely outrageous.

Such is more in accordance with the theoretical underpinnings of the divine right of kings than with natural rights philosophy.

The United States was founded upon the principal of natural rights.

In fact, the opening line of 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,” is a direct rebuttal of the notion of the divine right of kings.

If God directly empowers rulers, they certainly deserve to be bowed before.

However, if, as the Declaration of Independence claims, God gives certain rights to all individuals, it is up to them to give authority to rulers.

Fortunately, the Declaration of Independence tells us “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

As such, government officials deserve respect but not our complete reverence.

As far as his first bow is concerned, the president claims it was in fact no bow at all.

The most recent embodiment of bowing before a foreign leader was explained away as attempt to show cultural sensitivity.

Regardless of his claims, the act of bowing inherently shows more than cultural sensitivity.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “bowing” refers “to bend[ing ] the head, body, or knee in reverence, submission, or shame.”

So, was the president showing “reverence, submission, or shame?”

I can’t answer that, but I can say that bowing for any of these reasons is highly inappropriate, especially for the president.

The recent actions of President Obama are almost unprecedented, with exceptions made for the shameful bowing of both Clinton and Nixon.

Other than these deviations from tradition, American presidents have generally followed a protocol of not bowing to foreign leaders.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the State Department’s protocol office has long advised that U.S. officials not bow to foreign leaders.

In fact, The New York Times reported that “the ‘thou need not bow’ commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years.”

At least sense the Revolutionary War era, an apparent tradition of Americans rejecting deference to royalty has been in existence.

This can be seen, in part, through Constitutional prohibitions of “grant[ing ] any title of nobility.”

This rejection of the idea of deference to nobility is borne out in “The Shoemaker and the Tea Party.”

This book largely tells of the actions taken by a shoemaker, George Robert Twelves Hewes, during the Revolutionary War era.

Hewes recalls a time before the Boston Tea Party when he was forced to humble himself in the home of an elite Bostonian. By the Boston Tea Party, Hewes found himself dumping tea in the Boston Harbor alongside John Hancock.

Hewes’ recollections are not dissimilar to those of other contemporary men of modest means. These extraordinary events effectively caused Americans, especially those of modest backgrounds, to reject the idea that elites should ceremoniously be shown any degree of reverence.

Hewes makes this point when, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, he said, “I doff my hat to no man on the streets of Boston.”

On top of rejecting American tradition, the president’s bow before the Japanese emperor promulgates the idea that both he and the United States are weak.

An academic source, with both sympathies for the Obama administration and great knowledge of the Japanese empire, told ABC reporter Jake Tapper that “The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms. The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”

Why has the president chosen to bow before both the Saudi king and the Japanese emperor but no other world leader? Why did both he and the first lady break every protocol when meeting with Queen Elizabeth of England?

Only the president can answer these questions. Still, the American people deserve to know why President Obama has chosen to continually break American tradition and be the only world leader to bow before the Japanese emperor.

Without question, all men, world leaders or otherwise, deserve mutual respect. However, no man deserves our “reverence, submission, or shame.” Samuel West, a Patriot preacher, said as much in 1776 when he said, “Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone.”

May President Obama heed the words of Samuel West today!

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, November 19, 2009

The Republican Party Isn't Dying

Just as Rush Limbaugh has been labeled the “titular head of the Republican Party,” I have seemingly been labeled the “titular head” of the conservative opinion staff by my colleague, Brennan Breeland.

Mr. Breeland seems concerned that I might be upset due to his quotation of Communist Party Chairman Mao.

As long as he does not share White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s love of Mao’s political philosophy, I have no problem with the quotation.

However, I do take issue with Mr. Breeland’s assertion that the Republican Party is in danger because of conservative candidates, the success of talk radio, and its lack of liberals.

Essentially, my colleague, along with the Obama Administration, suggests that to be successful, Republicans should act like Democrats.

Why should we think that Democratic strategists desire a successful Republican Party?

Don’t they need Republicans to lose in order to win? In a two party system, this is the way these things work.

Apparently, my colleague has failed to examine Gallop’s latest breakdown of national and partisan ideology.

Forty percent of the electorate is conservative, 35 percent is moderate, and 21 percent is liberal.

Notably, the identification percentage levels for both conservatives and liberals are significantly higher than in the recent past.

The Republican Party is made up of 73 percent conservatives, 24 percent moderates and 3 percent liberals.

In contrast, the Democratic Party is much more divided in its ideological composition of 22 percent conservatives, 40 percent moderates and 38 percent liberals.

What do these numbers tell us?

To begin, it is evident that the United States remains a center-right country.

Given the Republican Party’s tradition of conservatism, it is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are conservative.

Understandably, there is also a significant portion of conservative Democrats.

Predictably, a large percentage of Democrats are liberal, and almost no liberals are found among Republicans. Also, moderates make up large portions of each party.

If you haven’t noticed, the composition of each party mirrors almost exactly the ideology of the nation at large.

As far as elections are concerned, it seems Republicans would benefit from conservative to moderate candidates.

On the other hand, Democrats should likely run left-leaning moderates.

We have noticed these numbers and strategy in order to classify Mr. Breeland’s assertion that the Republican Party “continues to weaken and marginalize itself ” as a bit shortsighted.

To a degree, the Republican Party has weakened itself by moving too far to the left.

Before Mr. Breeland sucks all the air out of the room by gasping, let me explain.

It is not outlandish to assume that partisan candidates receive most votes from their party’s base.

Without support of these voters, a candidate would find it difficult to gather enough support to get elected.

This is why the Republican Party made a mistake when it selected Dede Scozzafava to run in the NY-23 special election.

Since both the electorate and the party’s base in the district are largely moderately conservative, it would seem most appropriate to have chosen a right-leaning moderate Republican.

Before you tell me, as many have, that Dede Scozzafava was this moderate candidate, let me inform you.

As an assemblywoman, Scozzafava compiled the second most liberal voting record in the entire state assembly. Only the Democratic speaker possessed a more liberal record.

This doesn’t sound like the moderate about whom I keep hearing. Oddly, the Democrat, Bill Owens, is likely much more conservative than is Scozzafava.

Even though Owens leans left, he probably comes closer to the district’s ideological preference than Scozzafava.

Undeniably, the conservative Doug Hoffman was hurt by having to split votes with Scozzafava.

The Republican Party has not become too conservative.

Its problem has been that it has often infuriated its own base by selecting left of center candidates.

This causes voters to become discouraged or uninterested.

Therefore, many voters hold their noses as they vote, vote for third-party candidates, or don’t vote at all.

Whatever the case, the Republican Party should not take advice from Mr. Breeland and the Obama Administration.

NY-23 aside, Republicans won major victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.

They did this by running candidates who energized both their base and a majority of independents.

Truly, this is the formula for winning elections.

The party isn’t dead. In fact, its future is bright. The party will be successful in the future if it returns to its roots of solutions oriented conservatism.

This is exactly what worked for Christie in New Jersey and McDonnell in Virginia.

The words of President Reagan ring true even today.

The party must continue to “raise a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Phasing Out the University One Resolution at a Time

Over my four years at this university, I have grown weary of the often successful attempts of the administration to eradicate time honored traditions.

The recent actions taken by the ASB, Faculty Senates and the administration are nothing new.

There exists a lengthy history of university officials distancing themselves from our traditions.

It is a mistake for us to imagine that each new controversy is a stand alone event. The truth is that each one is a battle in a larger war.

Thus, the latest controversy is only part of the war to rid our university of everything it has been since 1896, when the name Ole Miss was first applied to the yearbook.

A brief review of the history of the university’s vanishing traditions seems most appropriate.

Since 1983, faculty and staff have been banned from displaying any Confederate images in their offices.

1997 saw the passing of an ASB resolution which encouraged students to forgo displaying Confederate flags. In turn, this request brought about an administration imposed ban on sticks and flags larger than 12-by-14 inches.

In 2003, Colonel Reb was banned from being the official mascot.

Of course, the current battle is quite familiar.

In early October, the ASB Senate passed a resolution encouraging fans to stop chanting “The South will rise again.”

Instead, it suggested that fans should chant “to hell with LSU.” This same language was later approved, in a resolution, by the Faculty Senate during an emergency meeting.

“From Dixie With Love” has already been altered at the behest of Chancellor Dan Jones.

If the words “the South will rise again” are not stripped from the vocabulary of fans at Vaught-Hemingway, the song will be thrown on the ash heap of now unapproved traditions.

Some say fans should simply acquiesce to administration demands. They say this is the only way to save a beloved song and tradition.

I don’t feel the same way.

Is something really still a tradition when it is being phased out? Don’t fall for it.

The administration is trying to hoodwink us into giving up our right to free speech and expression.

I support free speech and the right of someone being able to chant or say whatever they like in a public setting, so long as no laws are broken. Unless someone is breaking a state law, the administration should stay out of it. I agree they have the right to forcibly stop the playing of a song, but where does it go from there?

There has been more than a little talk of how to actually get students to cooperate.

The resolution passed by the Faculty Senate says that university officials should admonish students who continue to participate in chanting “the South will rise again.”

Depending on how the word “admonish” is used, this could mean that the administration intends to notify uncooperative students of their having committed a fault.

What would this mean: an escort out of the stadium, expulsion from the university or other possible penalties?

The administration is treading a fine line between exercising its authority and limiting free speech and expression.

What happened to a free marketplace of ideas?

Oh, that’s right; I forgot that at every turn university officials have been unable to produce any good ideas for replacing our now defunct traditions.

If the goal of the administration has been to improve our image by ridding ourselves of potentially offensive traditions, it has done a very poor job.

While the chant “the South will rise again” is offensive to some, there are those who find “to hell with LSU” equally offensive. When someone says “to hell with LSU,” how can one not conjure up the idea that the speaker wishes for LSU fans to be sent to the eternal “lake of fire burning with brimstone?”

Everything said or done in public will never be acceptable to everyone.

I am offended by swearing; however, this is a big part of game day at Ole Miss. Instead of demanding that the administration remove chants which contain swearing, I support the right of people to say what they want.

I do this because I hope these same people support my right to free speech. This is what living in a free society is all about.

No matter what happens with the current controversy, don’t expect the war to be over.

Administrators will never stop until the University of Mississippi no longer has a name, a nickname, a mascot, a chant, a song or anything else that will ever call to mind the time when “Ole Miss [was] calling, calling, to our hearts fond memories.”

At that time our student body will be full of students with no voice who attend a university with no name.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The Downside to Obama's 'Beta Male' Personality

A recent article appearing in the American Thinker discusses whether or not President Obama displays the characteristics of a beta male.

Recall that alpha males display traits of dominance and power.

Conversely, beta males typically display a desire to avoid confrontation.

Does it matter if President Obama is a beta male?

Many Americans seem to have been drawn to him due to such traits.

Possibly, many have grown tired of the alpha male tendencies of most of our recent presidents.

President Obama, unlike the alpha male leaders of most other countries, does not go about demanding that the world conform to what is in his own country’s best interest.

Instead, he tells rogue world leaders “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Obama displaying his beta male characteristics might serve him well in his own life. In fact, some people might decide that avoiding conflict in their personal lives leads to a greater degree of happiness.

To be certain, I have no problem with people taking this course of action in their own personal lives.

However, when the leader of the free world exercises his beta male characteristics, many are forced to accept the consequences.

The potential negative consequences of President Obama’s beta male tendencies can be seen in his encounters with Iran.

Earlier this year, the president had a rare opportunity to support the Iranians agitating for more freedoms.

Instead, the president remained silent in an attempt to avoid confrontation with the leaders of Iran.

The president has told us he strongly believes in international law.

In fact, before the UN General Assembly President Obama said, “The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

The president apparently forgot UN Security Council Resolution 1696 which requires Iran to “suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development.”

You might recall that representatives of both the United States and Iran met October 1 in order to discuss the threat posed by increasing Iranian nuclear capabilities.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the two nations had reportedly come to a preliminary agreement.

The “agreement in principle” would allow Iran to send low enriched uranium to Russia in order to be processed.

As can be seen, this agreement actually breaks Resolution 1696.

That sounds like international law really is an “empty promise.”

It certainly isn’t the enforcement of international law.

Not even the fact that Iran has admitted to operating a previously unreported nuclear facility has caused President Obama to take a firm stance against Iran.

Without question, the president tries to talk tough.

Concerning the new nuclear facility, Obama said, “The existence of the facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions and IAEA requirements.”

Once again, the president deflected conflict.

He tells us that this proves that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations; however, he will do next to nothing to stop it.

If President Obama hoped to bargain with the Russians in order to gain their aid in stopping Iran, he certainly did not do himself any favors.

The best potential bargaining chips were given to Russia for nothing.

The bargaining chips, of course, were the missile defense shields which were slated to be placed in both the Czech Republic and Poland.

In prototypical beta male fashion, President Obama tried to avoid potential conflict with Russia by forgoing missile defense.

In order to pacify the leaders of Iran, he has not supported dissidents.

Perhaps most dangerous to the security of the United States is the president’s unwillingness to take a tough stand on keeping nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of the Iranians.

At some point, the president must realize that avoiding conflict with other countries will not necessarily make them like us.

Many countries will never like us no matter what we do. It is not that their leaders hate us simply because of how our leaders conduct foreign policy.

Instead, leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran, are fearful of the United States because of our numerous freedoms.

It seems as though an alpha male would demand that Iran give up its nuclear program since it is against both international law and what is best for the United States.

Such a leader would also support doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the Iranians do not gain such technology.

Unfortunately, President Obama will continue to appease our enemies by avoiding and deflecting conflict.

The president’s beta male characteristics may have made him an attractive public figure.

However, these same characteristics will continue to put our country, as well as the entire free world, in grave danger.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, October 15, 2009

Disagreement Is Not Racism

From the moment Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” during President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress, a firestorm began to brew.


Of course, the extent of the fallout from those two words could hardly have been predicted.


I, like Rep. Wilson, did not believe the president was being fully honest in his assertion that illegal aliens would not be able to take advantage of “healthcare reform.”


I understand some are concerned with upholding the decorum of the House.


However, taking time to pass a resolution of disapproval was senseless, as well as unfair.


After the speech, Rep. Wilson apologized to the president.


Added to this is the fact that decorum rules were broken, without penalty, in 2005 when President Bush was booed by many Democrats.


By passing this resolution of disapproval, Congress did nothing more than waste the time of the taxpayers. Considering our own Rep. Travis Childers voted for this resolution, we should ask him what good it did.


Unfortunately, the wasting of taxpayer time and money is not the worst thing which has come from this situation. Many Democrats, have declared that by shouting “You Lie!” Rep. Wilson was spewing forth racism.


Referring to Wilson’s comment, Rep. Steve Cohen said, “I think there was a racial element.”


Rep. Hank Johnson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, went so far to say that because of Wilson’s shout, “We will have people with white hoods running through the countryside again.”


Former President Jimmy Carter agreed that Wilson’s outburst was racially based by responding, “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”


I never knew disagreeing with the president equaled racism.


In 2005, the Democrats, by booing, obviously made known their disagreements with President Bush. Were they racists? If not, they must have booed the president because they hate people from Texas. That makes sense right?


They booed President Bush because they didn’t like his opinions. Rep. Wilson shouted “You Lie!” because he disagreed with what Obama had just said. That’s the beginning and ending of the story. Why must politicians make such a big deal out of it?


As Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, said, “It’s very destructive for America to suggest that we can’t criticize a president without it being a racial act.”


You heard it here first—every criticism leveled at the Obama Administration is not due to racism. People have different world views. His view doesn’t fit with almost half the country.


What, then, do you expect?


I fully agree with what then Senator Hillary Clinton believed when she said, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”


She hit it on the head.


I’m tired of people saying that half the country is racist because it disagrees with Obama.


Last time I checked, we still live in a country where we possess a right to speak freely. I didn’t agree with Senator Clinton’s opposition to President Bush, but I definitely supported her right to declare her disagreement with him.


Those of us who disagree with the current president should be allowed the same leeway.


It is fine if you have a problem with Rep. Wilson having gone against rules concerning House decorum.


At the same time, it was outrageous to “discipline” him. The rules he broke have been largely ignored in recent years, as noted in the case of the booing Democrats.


On a deeper level, I have a great problem with anyone claiming that Rep. Wilson’s comments were either racist or racially charged.


Neither Senator Harry Reid nor Rep. Donna Edwards, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, agrees with this assessment.


More importantly, the president has accepted the apology offered by Wilson and has not considered his remark to be racially motivated.


Our leaders need to grow up and get to the business of discussing important issues.


Instead, all they can do is waste our time arguing over this while the economy suffers, the dollar weakens, the status of our health insurance remains up in the air, and our soldiers remain at war.


Ask your representative why he thought it was such a good idea to start enforcing decorum rules now.


Ask him why he decided to support the wasting of taxpayer time and money.


Most importantly, ask him why he is so quick to condemn Rep. Wilson for uttering two words at an inappropriate time but is so slow to condemn outrageous charges of racism being hurled at the same man.


--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama and Indoctrination

On Tuesday, President Obama spoke to children in schools across the nation. His supporters tell us that the president had no intention of indoctrinating America’s students. A look into the time warp of history should tell us a great deal about Obama and his beliefs concerning education. This should help us determine whether or not people have a right to be outraged over the fact that the president addressed school children.


Do you remember William Ayers? He is an avowed radical, left-wing terrorist. Maybe you also remember that the president was once chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Who do you think started this organization, which was founded to improve the educational quality of Chicago schools? That’s right, Bill Ayers.


At the outset, in what kind of educational instruction do you think a radical, left-wing terrorist believes? If you guessed “radical, left-wing educational instruction,” you are correct.


The CAC was founded upon the idea that achievement scores are not very important. Instead, teachers should focus more upon instilling in both students and parents a desire to become politically radical. This is due largely to the fact that Ayers believes the American system is totally corrupt and oppressive. In fact, he said, “capitalism promotes racism and militarism.”


You are probably thinking, “Okay, Bill Ayers is a left-wing kook, but what does that have to do with the president talking to school children?” The connection between these two men and educational philosophy is so strong that you would have to overlook it on purpose in order to miss it.


Most of you are probably aware that President Obama has written two autobiographies. The only real executive experience of his life came during his chairmanship of the CAC from 1995 to 1999. Would it surprise you if I told you that he never makes mention of this in either of his two books? It shouldn’t.


He hasn’t told us about this experience because he doesn’t want us to know about his educational philosophy. While chairman of CAC, Obama conducted leadership seminars for ACORN, whose representatives then worked for him. All the while, money from CAC was being funneled to left-wing groups such as ACORN. However, money was denied groups who promoted more traditional approaches to math and science education. Obviously, this money disbursement strategy fits with the overall noted educational philosophy of both Ayers and Obama.


Don’t parents have the right to be concerned about the president speaking to their children? First of all, the majority of Americans believe that the public school system is not a place for politics. Civic instruction should be left to talking about the importance of voting and being involved in your community. The details of voting and community service should be left for discussion in the homes of the students. In other words, this should be the prerogative of a student’s parents—not his teachers.


Secondly, the president’s educational philosophy is one of a radical nature. As noted, Obama, as chairman of the CAC, promoted a view of teachers as community organizers. He wanted teachers to focus more on teaching kids about the evil nature of their communities, culture, and country instead of focusing on traditional instruction.

With these things being true, how could anyone disparage a parent, or any other concerned citizen, who didn’t want the president to speak to America’s school children? The educational philosophy of the president and his top aides at the Department of Education seemingly go against those of the majority.


To be certain, I support Obama’s right to have his own opinion concerning education. I just wish he would come to understand that people are exercising their freedom to disagree with his philosophy.


The federal government has already come to own several banks, not to mention two automobile manufacturers. It now desires to completely control the nation’s healthcare system. Enough is enough! It isn’t Obama’s “stay in school” message that scares people. Instead, it is the combination of our nation’s rapid leftward lurch and Obama’s radical, left-wing educational philosophy. The fact that Obama’s aides at the Department of Education originally developed an extremely questionable curriculum to accompany his speech only made things worse.


I personally don’t like the idea of any president addressing all of America’s school children. As I said, politics is something for children to discuss with their parents at home. Even if a political discussion does occur at school, it shouldn’t be “led and directed” by the president.


The president and the federal government are involved too much in our everyday lives, as evidenced by the president speaking to a captive audience of school children. President Obama needs to leave educational instruction “to the States respectively, or to the people.” For that was the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution.


--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Friday, September 11, 2009

Obama Favors Single-Payer Healthcare

Throughout the summer, the entire country has been almost singularly focused upon the subject of healthcare.


Without a doubt, there has been much debate over how the bills being formulated in Congress would change the healthcare experienced by all Americans.


It should come as no surprise that it has been difficult for the truth to come to light. Instead of reporting Obama for his “fishy” comments, it is in this setting that I will reveal the true stances of the president and his cohorts.


Recently, the president has told us that he does not want a single-payer system to be instituted in the United States. In other words, he claims he does not wish for the federal government to become the insurer of all Americans. In order to find the truth, we should look much more closely at the president’s position on this particular issue.


In order to dispel the idea that the proposed public option is a means by which to obtain a system of nationalized healthcare, President Obama said, “Let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe…that it’s important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.”


This quotation alone should immediately raise flags of caution in the minds of Americans. President Obama flatly rejects the idea that he adheres to the notion of nationalized healthcare and argues that anyone who is concerned that he might hold this position does so in an “illegitimate” fashion. The fact that Obama believes “there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well” should, at the very least, cause one to question the president’s honesty.


After examining the previous comments of the president in regard to this topic, the statement previously noted should cause us to react just as our fellow citizens have done all over the country at various town hall meetings.


In 2003, as a state senator, Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on healthcare, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody…But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.”


During the campaign, the president told us that it would be his commitment “to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president...I would hope that we could setup a system that allows those who can’t go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”


Congressman Barney Frank said, “I think if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that’s the best way to reach single-payer.”


Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky revealed the true intention of the public option when she related the concerns of an insurance company employee who stated that “a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.” Schakowsky emphatically responded to this comment by shouting, “He was right! The man was right!”


It can clearly be seen that the president, by his own admission, is a proponent of a single-payer healthcare system. Without a doubt, Obama’s falling poll numbers have led him to be less than genuine about his true feelings on the subject of single-payer healthcare. If he were to tell the American people the unadulterated truth, his presidency would be in grave danger.


President Obama didn’t count on the American people seeking the truth. Regardless, we have identified the true positions of the president and his colleagues. The words of Obama, Frank, and Schakowsky are more than enough for us to know the truth.


Don’t be fooled into believing the public option is not “a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” This is exactly what the public option is. If instituted, we will be on a seemingly irrevocable march toward a single-payer healthcare system.


Stand against the socialistic intentions of the president and the liberals in Congress. Your concerns are legitimate. Write, call, e-mail, or protest in order to make your feelings known to your elected representatives.


--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, August 26, 2009