This week we celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I am going to quote what I wrote as an introduction to the Town of Selma’s ceremonial reading of the Declaration. Hopefully, some of you got to hear it and the Declaration read Wednesday night.
“The American Revolution against Great Britain began in 1775. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution to declare colonial independence in the Second Continental Congress. The vote on that resolution was delayed for several weeks. On June 11, 1776, the congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence from Great Britain. One June 28th, a draft of that declaration was presented to Congress. On July 2nd, Lee’s Resolution was partially passed by Congress, declaring, “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” The declaration document was debated and revised, and on July 4th, the Second Continental Congress approved the final draft of the American Declaration of Independence”.
I consider July 2nd to be our actual Independence Day, not July 4th. This is not just because July 2nd is my birthday, but because the actual vote for American independence came on that day. John Adams thought much the same way. He wrote to his wife on July 3rd, 1776, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more”.
The Second Continental Congress voted for independence to escape the tyranny they had been experiencing, which was enumerated in the Declaration, point by point. Tyranny can come in various forms. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this. Samuel Adams, cousin to John Adams (and not just one of my favorite beers), said “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.” Never has this quote been as poignant as it is today.
North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue has vetoed the state budget so that she can look magnanimous in her stance for increased funding for public schools. This is nothing more than a ploy to build her legacy as someone who allegedly cares about children and education. However, discerning people realize that it’s nothing more than political showboating. The plain meaning of adequate funding is being perverted.
The recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on both the State of Arizona’s immigration law (SB1070) and on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) show that the quote by Samuel Adams to be glaring accurate. To declare that states no longer have the ability to control immigration to their respective sovereign jurisdictions (as originally intended) is federal tyranny over states. The Arizona decision along with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws cause states to shoulder the burden of educating illegal immigrant children, requiring large state education budgets. The fact that Obamacare was ruled as constitutional as a form of taxation has forced the single largest tax increase in American history. It takes away your freedom of choice over whether or not to carry health care coverage, and requires you to participate in commerce, whether you choose to do so or not. That, my friends, is a form or tyranny.
The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare was a surprise to me, since I figured that even a high school civics student could have figured out that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was highly unconstitutional. Sure, there were some provisions I liked in the bill, but they were small ones. Sure, the health care laws could use revision, but this gigantic bureaucracy was not the way to go, nor is it the American way of doing things. If the law is an exercise in tyranny, limits freedom, and is a major financial burden, then the parts I like are irrelevant and not worth the government’s interference and tyrannical power.
In the first paragraph, I quoted the brief narrative on the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Folks, we started a revolution for far less than we are putting up with now. When will we have had enough?
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scotus. Show all posts
Friday, July 06, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Column for June 28, 2012
Even if we have a flawed system of government, it’s possibly still the best one in practice. That is, of course, only if moral men and women are in charge of the government. In 1776, John Adams, our second President of the United States and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was quoted as saying, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Within the last two weeks, we have seen great lapses in morality in our governments at different levels, but it is all linked together in purpose and in poor judgment.
Locally, the Wake County School Board voted to return to a “diversity based” student assignment plan beginning in 2013. After so much controversy about going to a “neighborhood schools” based assignment plan that is only one year into that plan, the school board is reversing its previous stance on the issue. In a retreat from morality and common sense, students will be shuffled around yet again rather than being allowed to stay in a school closest to their homes.
The immorality that comes with this decision is astounding to me. So-called “reverends” (ordained clergy) spouted specious claims of racism and segregation in the courageous decision to return to a neighborhood school policy. The idea of being able to send your child to the school that is nearest to their home was a moral one, being responsible to the taxpayers who are paying the bills for public education, to the students who will spend less time being shuttled around the county, and to families that will have more time together. All of those ideas are being tossed out the window in the name of diversity.
Diversity is nothing more than a liberal utopian concept meant to falsely display concern for others whom you secretly disdain and treat with condescension. The idea that poor or minority children cannot perform well in public schools unless they are seated next to allegedly richer Caucasian children is nothing short of sheer racism and sells minorities short of their potential. It is a modern form of enslavement of the mind and body.
Linked to this concept is the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down three provisions of Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-illegal immigration law. SB1070 was a state law that mirrored the federal statutes on illegal immigration. Arizona acted because the federal government would not enforce its own immigration laws and, being a border state, Arizona was paying a heavy price because of it.
Just within the past two weeks and prior to the SCOTUS decision, President Obama unilaterally decreed that the federal government would not enforce some provisions of federal immigration law, bypassing Congress and the legislative process. This is nothing new to either Obama or even Presidents. We are a nation of laws, and yet potentates decide by fiat that some laws are not to be enforced display yet another abrogation of moral obligation. Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” If indeed the Arizona law or even national immigration laws are bad laws, then the best way to get rid of them is to enforce them, not ignore them.
So, what does the Supreme Court’s aberration of a decision on Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama’s decision to refuse to enforce federal law, and the Wake County School Board’s utopian stupidity have in common? First, they all demonstrate that elections have consequences. Second, if states cannot protect themselves and their sovereignty against illegal immigration or any other threat because of allegedly contradicting federal law (even if none are technically being contradicted, as was the case in Arizona), then states must sit back and take whatever garbage is handed them by the federal government’s actions or inaction, as the case may be. Because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws (in self-contradiction), then the states are helpless to fend off any problems caused by illegal immigration. States are the ones paying the bills for the costs of illegal immigration, including for education of illegal immigrant children.
Wake County would not have to be so worried about achieving diversity, about budget constraints, or about political correctness regarding race issues if illegal immigration could be seriously curbed by enforcement of current federal law and enactment of appropriate state laws. The moral failure of refusing to follow the law, refusing to allow states the right of self-determination, and of failing the students of local public schools is but a sign of the times in which we live.
Locally, the Wake County School Board voted to return to a “diversity based” student assignment plan beginning in 2013. After so much controversy about going to a “neighborhood schools” based assignment plan that is only one year into that plan, the school board is reversing its previous stance on the issue. In a retreat from morality and common sense, students will be shuffled around yet again rather than being allowed to stay in a school closest to their homes.
The immorality that comes with this decision is astounding to me. So-called “reverends” (ordained clergy) spouted specious claims of racism and segregation in the courageous decision to return to a neighborhood school policy. The idea of being able to send your child to the school that is nearest to their home was a moral one, being responsible to the taxpayers who are paying the bills for public education, to the students who will spend less time being shuttled around the county, and to families that will have more time together. All of those ideas are being tossed out the window in the name of diversity.
Diversity is nothing more than a liberal utopian concept meant to falsely display concern for others whom you secretly disdain and treat with condescension. The idea that poor or minority children cannot perform well in public schools unless they are seated next to allegedly richer Caucasian children is nothing short of sheer racism and sells minorities short of their potential. It is a modern form of enslavement of the mind and body.
Linked to this concept is the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down three provisions of Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-illegal immigration law. SB1070 was a state law that mirrored the federal statutes on illegal immigration. Arizona acted because the federal government would not enforce its own immigration laws and, being a border state, Arizona was paying a heavy price because of it.
Just within the past two weeks and prior to the SCOTUS decision, President Obama unilaterally decreed that the federal government would not enforce some provisions of federal immigration law, bypassing Congress and the legislative process. This is nothing new to either Obama or even Presidents. We are a nation of laws, and yet potentates decide by fiat that some laws are not to be enforced display yet another abrogation of moral obligation. Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” If indeed the Arizona law or even national immigration laws are bad laws, then the best way to get rid of them is to enforce them, not ignore them.
So, what does the Supreme Court’s aberration of a decision on Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama’s decision to refuse to enforce federal law, and the Wake County School Board’s utopian stupidity have in common? First, they all demonstrate that elections have consequences. Second, if states cannot protect themselves and their sovereignty against illegal immigration or any other threat because of allegedly contradicting federal law (even if none are technically being contradicted, as was the case in Arizona), then states must sit back and take whatever garbage is handed them by the federal government’s actions or inaction, as the case may be. Because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws (in self-contradiction), then the states are helpless to fend off any problems caused by illegal immigration. States are the ones paying the bills for the costs of illegal immigration, including for education of illegal immigrant children.
Wake County would not have to be so worried about achieving diversity, about budget constraints, or about political correctness regarding race issues if illegal immigration could be seriously curbed by enforcement of current federal law and enactment of appropriate state laws. The moral failure of refusing to follow the law, refusing to allow states the right of self-determination, and of failing the students of local public schools is but a sign of the times in which we live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
