With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger. ~ James Wilson
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil. Our great hope lies in developing what is good.
Just when you thought the Pro-Abortion Left could not get any more ridiculous, they go and say something like this:
“When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science,” Harris-Perry said on her show Sunday. “The problem is that many of our policymakers want to base sweeping laws on those feelings.”
Really? So life begins when the Parent feels like it? My questions for Melissa are many; when does this standard of “life begins at whenever the Parents feel it does” end? Is it an absolute standard, or does it have exceptions? Does this standard only apply to babies in the womb? Because if life begins when the parents have “a powerful feeling”, could that not be interpreted to mean that parents can decide a child is not a life after they have been born? What if a parent decided that their child wasn’t a life 22 years into it? (comedian Christopher Titus calls this decision a “22 year late term abortion window“)
Now many will call my questions to Harris-Perry “absurd”, and to be honest, yeah they are; but thats exactly why I posed them. The absurdity of my questions are meant to illustrate the absurdity of her claim; to put forth that the feelings of parents and not science, decides when life begins, is one of the most illogical and unreasonable things I have ever heard a human being say. We humans have strong feelings about a lot of things, but our feelings do not make those things true or false. In order to justify the sickening decimation of babies in the womb, Harris-Perry turns to feelings instead of facts, and continues to show us just how low the Pro-Choice movement in America is wiling to go.
Apparently the Constitution means nothing to the San Antonio City Council:
The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology…Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board.
What happened to the individual’s freedom of religion? And what about freedom of speech? The 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States specifically protects an individual’s right to speak their mind and to hold their own, personal, religious beliefs; the idea that a City Council could try and prohibit you from being a member of a law making body simply because you have exercised both of these rights is beyond repugnant, it is downright illegal. If the San Antonio City Council is successful in this revision of policy, a lawsuit should be filed the minute after completion.
But its also ironic isn’t it; in the name of anti-discrimination, San Antonio is willing to discriminate against those with Religious beliefs that teach them that Homosexuality is wrong! It is the old adage of “I am tolerant of everyone, unless of course I disagree with what they are saying”; or to put it in simpler terms, Hypocrisy. The people of San Antonio should stand up for their rights; if we want to protect Liberty in this country, we must me ready to fight encroachments upon it at all levels, State and Local as well as Federal.
It has finally happened; Detroit has filed for the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history:
Detroit on Thursday became the largest city in U.S. history to file for bankruptcy, as the state-appointed emergency manager filed for Chapter 9 protection.
After decades upon decades of Liberal economic policies, Liberal planning and programs; after having the auto industry bailed out, Detroit has finally hit rock bottom. The City is a classic case as to why Liberal economic and social policies have never, and will never work in the real world. If anything, it is surprising that it has taken this long for them reach this point, but any Conservative or Libertarian could have told you this was coming. To quote Lawrence Reed, President of The Foundation for Economic Education:
Now that Detroit has filed for bankruptcy, will the conservatives and libertarians who have been in charge of the city for the last 50 years apologize for their failure? Oops, sorry, I just remembered that no conservative or libertarian has been in charge of anything in Detroit in my lifetime. However, I’m sure that those responsible will come forward.
Sarcasm noted Mr. Reed; Detroit should serve not only as a point of reference for the right, but as an object lesson to the left; that their favored economic polices just don’t work. Far from Detroit being Liberal policy gone wrong, it is actually Liberal policy gone right, because in reality, there was no other way this could have possibly gone; but sadly Mr. Reed is right in his sarcasm; that those to blame for Detroit will not take responsibility for their actions, and its a shame that thats the case.
Reblogged with permission of our friends at The Westchester Report: Addressing HUD’s Attacks on Westchester County.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is picking a fight with Westchester County; in 2006 the Feds went after Westchester under the “False Claims Act of 1863”, and even though no fault was found with the County, in 2009 then Executive Andy Spano agreed to settle with HUD and build 750 “affordable” housing units. Then new County-Exec Rob Astorino came into office, and even though he is well ahead of the requirements of the settlement, HUD is still complaining about the County’s progress with the endeavor.
They have targeted Westchester’s zoning laws with a focus on racial discrimination. At “Ask Astorino” townhall meetings all around the County, Astorino has been telling residents about what HUD is demanding of him and providing the letters to prove it; and when you read these emails, it is full of scary and sometimes ridiculous demands and accusations.
Take for example the May 13th, 2011 letter from HUD to Deputy County Executive Kevin Plunkett, where HUD says:
“The County agreed to adopt a policy acknowledging “the location of affordable housing is central to fulfilling the commitment…because it determines whether such housing will reduce or perpetuate residential segregation…The data indicates that almost 54% of existing affordable housing units are located in the racially concentrated areas of New Rochelle, Port Chester, Sleepy Hollow, White Plains, and Yonkers. These municipalities are ineligible for the placement of the required 750 AFFH units.”
In other words, HUD wants more “affordable” housing units built for presumably minorities to live in (as evidenced by their concern over the reduction or perpetuation of “residential segregation”), and yet, they have told the County that they can’t build (supposedly) minority friendly housing in the areas where most minorities live. If you really think about it, it is a rather strange thing to demand. Not only because the federal government has no right to force counties to build any kind of housing or change zoning laws, but because it is illogical to build the housing away from where your target recipient is. What HUD fails to realize is that White Plains (for example), is actually a pretty sizeable city with all sorts of people from all kinds of races living in it. Building more houses in which (again presumably) minorities will reside, in a city such as White Plains, will do absolutely nothing to promote “segregation” at all.
But HUD’s claims and demands get even stranger (and worse); the following is from the March 13th, 2013 letter to Mr. Plunkett:
“…HUD provided the County with well-known Fair Housing Act case law. These cases provide legal basis for indentifying restrictive zoning practices that have exclusionary impacts on minorities and other protected classes, or where such practices create, perpetuate, or increase segregation…A zoning ordinance with a discriminatory effect violates the Fair Housing Act unless the municipality can prove that its actions “furthered, in theory and in practice, a legitimate bona fide governmental interest and that no alternative would serve the interest with less discriminatory effect.”
What HUD fails to realize is that zoning practices are not something that can be racially exclusionary to minorities, given that zoning laws detail WHAT can be built and not WHO can live there. For example, zoning practices can dictate that a skyscraper is not built in a residential neighborhood; residential zoning however cannot dictate that a certain racial group cannot live there. The only possible way that HUD can see zoning practices as being discriminatory, is if they say that a law dictating only single family homes be built in a certain area is discriminatory toward minorities; as if minorities are unable to obtain single family housing.
But the other problem with HUD’s statement rests on one single phrase: “minorities and other protected classes.” By including this phrase, HUD exposes just how they view American citizens; as groups and classes, not as individuals and people. Our nation was founded on the protection of individuals and their liberty; the subjection of individuals to groups and classes disfigures the individual, and if anything does more to cause racial problems then stop them.
But there is one more question on that statement; what does it mean to be a protected class? After all, if there are such things as classes that are protected, then by default there must be classes that are not protected; and if you cater to the (supposed) needs of the protected class, are you not therefore discriminating against the classes that are not protected? It seems that in HUD’s rush to fight discrimination they are actually participating in discrimination against those classes which they don’t seek to protect.
HUD however, was not finished; as you may recall from above, Westchester is only required to build 750 units of affordable housing, and yet HUD is not happy with the fact that 750 is the amount that Westchester is building:
“The County’s “test” ignores…the consideration of regional needs and requirements.”
HUD then goes on to cite a 2004 study from Rutgers University which was commissioned by the County, but never adopted, as proof that Westchester is obligated to build more than 750 units:
“This assessment identified the need for an additional 10,768 affordable housing units by 2015. In its July 6th letter, the County stated that it was not required to consider this evidence because the Allocation Plan was not enacted into law, and because it has not been specifically incorporated into the Settlement. The Department disagrees.”
In other words; even though by law the County only has to build 750 units in accordance with the 2009 Settlement, HUD “disagrees” and believes that the County has to abide by a study of “housing needs” that was never made into law nor included into the settlement. To claim that Westchester needs to build more than the specified and agreed to amount because a non-adopted study says so, shows that HUD has very little concept of law, even though they are a Department of the federal government.
Although there are many more claims that can be examined, HUD makes two more against the County that cannot be described as anything other than ludicrous. On page five of the 2013 letter, HUD argues:
“The County also failed to include a strategy to overcome exclusionary zoning practices and proposed no zoning changes for eligible municipalities. The July 6,2012 letter states, at p. 5, that since there are no exclusionary zoning practices in Westchester County, it “cannot formulate a strategy to ‘overcome’ such provisions which have been found not to exist. This conclusion was non-compliant with the…request.”
So because Westchester could not come up with a strategy to overcome a non-existent barrier, HUD claims non-compliance with their wishes. This reaction by HUD is akin to the government going into Arkansas, and telling a family that they need to come up with a strategy to stop Polar Bears from living on their lawn. When the family responds and says; “we can’t come up with a strategy to keep Polar Bears off our lawn, because we’ve never had nor ever will have Polar Bears on our lawn”; the government replies with, “This is unacceptable!” It is pretty obvious to any rational thinker where HUD is making their mistake.
Finally, and laughingly, the last claim by HUD we will address is in regards to a specified amount of land on which the Department believes that Westchester should build affordable units. Page eight of the 2013 letter states:
“The County’s letter also states that 15 municipalities have districts with a minimum lot area of 50,000 square feet (1.1acre) or larger. The Zoning District Comparison chart shows that no ineligible municipality utilizes this mega-lot minimum zoning, suggesting a potential correlation between this type of zoning, and segregation. Rather than examining this correlation, the County offers potential justifications for this restrictive practice, stating that these municipalities are located in the New York City water supply watershed; and have topography and infrastructure limitations…Whether the County’s explanations are legally sufficient governmental purposes for the zoning ought to be considered after a review of whether the zoning is having a discriminatory effect…”
So essentially, HUD noticed areas of land that were not being used/considered for housing; and when questioned as to why they would not be used, the County informed the Department that the area can’t be used due to it being New York City’s water supply. After hearing this, HUD called the County’s reasons “potential justifications” and claims that it will have to be reviewed. The arrogance of HUD in this response is amazing, and sadly incompetent. If they can’t figure out why housing can’t be built in NYC’s water supply, one questions if they should be in a government position of power at all.
Fortunately, the County is fighting back against the intrusive and abusive actions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with many municipality leaders responding contentiously to HUD’s Westchester Overseer, and Astorino personally fighting HUD on behalf of the people. For more information on the situation, see The Wall Street Journal’s article here, Newsday’s article here, or Astorino’s website here. You can also contact the County Executive at email@example.com
Already dealing with a ratings drop, MSNBC decided to try and boost them by going all out with their coverage on the George Zimmerman trial…not that it helped them all that much…
MSNBC’s ratings woes came into sharp relief on Monday with the release of the preliminary numbers for the Zimmerman verdict. In the 10-11 p.m. hour on Saturday night, when the verdict in, Fox News had 3,682,000 total viewers; CNN had 3,407,000 total viewers…In the same hour, MSNBC had 1,298,000 total viewers — about one-third of Fox’s total …Despite branding itself as “the place for politics,” MSNBC went wall-to-wall on the Zimmerman trial after watching its ratings tank in recent months. It doesn’t seemed to have helped.
There is a simple explanation as to why MSNBC’s Zimmerman coverage failed to boost the ratings; its because Americans by and large want to hear about the trial, not about how supposedly racist everything is! But MSNBC (along with others) chose to take the path most traveled and make the case a racial propaganda issue instead of a criminal justice issue. I mean, just look at what MSNBC analysts and favored politicians said about the verdict alone; that it “literally invoked the same justification for the killing of Trayvon Martin that you would during lynching”, that “Stand your Ground” laws are humiliating to Blacks (as if Blacks can’t get their own guns to stand their ground with).
That Trayvon Martin was denied a jury of his peers (huh?) because no black or male participants were on the jury; or as MSNBC contributor Anthea Butler wrote as a result of the verdict, that God is “a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men.” Rep. John Lewis (an MSNBC favorite) said: “the verdict…seems to justify the stalking and killing of innocent black boys and deny them any avenue of self-defense” (Never mind that Trayvon was on top of George, beating his skull into the ground); and this is just a taste of the bountiful race-baiting that MSNBC has been airing ever since before the trial started, and it has been part of their downfall.
Now MSNBC hosts like Al Sharpton are trying to get the Federal government to charge Zimmerman with Civil Rights crimes, insinuating that George is a racist, and was racially motivated; but sadly (for them), even the FBI can’t prove that Zimmerman is a racist. Its funny though, as annoying and despicable as I find MSNBC calling everything racist (even when it clearly isn’t), I can’t say I want them to stop; because the more they do it, the faster their ratings will drop into irrelevancy, and that my friends is something that can’t happen soon enough.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
~ Patrick Henry
Senator Cruz is certainly sticking to his campaign promises; the Washington Examiner explains:
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with 17 other Senate Republicans, has introduced the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013, which would fully defund Obamacare, in the wake of the recent string of bad news surrounding the law.
“The Administration’s recent announcement to delay the onerous and unpopular employer mandate until after the 2014 election, coupled with its announcement to delay income and health status eligibility requirements in favor of an honor system for the most expensive entitlement for our generation, confirms what has been obvious from the start–this law is a colossal mistake,” Cruz said in a press release.
Not only is this a good idea in terms of policy, but it is also a very politically expedient move due to all the trouble Obamacare has been running into recently. Take for example Obamacare running out of money before it is even fully launched, or perhaps the fact that Unions are coming out against it (when they had previously supported it); or maybe ABC’s Political Director calling the law “a Slow-Motion Train Wreck”, or CBS referring to it as a “barely operational jalopy“, or Massachusetts of all places seeking a waiver to get out of the obligation to the law. Couple all that with Dick Durbin saying the law needs to be changed, and a new poll from Rasmussen showing that nearly 50% of likely voters want their Governors to oppose it; Obama’s signature legislation looks to be in a very decrepit state.
But unfortunately, while Cruz and his colleagues are pursuing a virtuous and worthy bill (and I commend them for doing so), I have very little faith in their ability to pass it at this time, given that they are in the Democrat/Harry Reid controlled Senate. So props to Senator Cruz for following through on his promises and acting in accord with the wishes of the American people; and in the hopes that I am wrong, here is a preemptive “better luck next time.” But this is also a call to Conservatives, not only do we have to hold onto the House, but we need to focus our efforts on winning as many Senate seats as possible in 2014; if we do that, we will have a real chance at repealing what could possibly be the worst law in the history of this country.