The killing of al-Awlaki is troublesome.

Predator drone firing a Hellfire missile

Recall that he is was an American citizen. Bad guy, yes. Terrorist, yes. Deserving of the death penalty, likely. But was he killed lawfully? 

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, simply and succinctly:

(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; * * * *

See, e.g. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ (accessed 10 Oct 2011). Also http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend05 (accessed 10 Oct 2011).

I am troubled by the predator drone shooting of al-Awlaki and have been since first hearing of it, and those who know me know that I am basically a “hawk.” But I am also an attorney and judge and in those contexts one has  to conclude two things: First, that the killing of this man was pure assassination vi0lating the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” clause; and, second, that there was a better way to go about it.

The issues are simple:  Was he entitled to due process and, if so, did he get it?

Yes, he was entitled. He was a citizen notwithstanding his morally and legally reprehensible actions.  And no, he did not get it.  No need to go deeply into that question as I suspect that no person of rational thought would think otherwise.

I ran across an article that explains the matter so eloquently, thusly:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unequivocal: no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  No amount of ducking and diving will evade the inescapable fact that, for the first time, U.S. military officials in an aggressive overreach of constitutional authority deliberately targeted an American citizen for killing.  And no amount of legalistic wordplay will alter the reality that al-Awlaki was denied due process.

via Articles: Kinlay, Jonathan, “The Killing of al-Awlaki and the Death of the Fifth Amendment” 9 Oct 2011.  American Thinker  (http://www.americanthinker.com/) Web 9 Oct 2011.

The authorities, and many in the media and blogosphere, effusively justified the killing by extolling the many horrible acts in which he was, the bad characters with whom he consorted, and all the generally “bad character” evidence that had accumulated over the many years of his wretched life.  The “P” word — Patriotism — was often invoked. All well and good, justified, case closed.

Except there was no case. There was no evidence adduced under any hint of a legal umbrella, much less in a court of law. There was no due process or even an attempt at it, yet there was a way to have handled this situation — American citizen gone rogue –

I believe the answer lies in the creation of a new protocol empowering the courts to strip an individual of his citizenship on clearly specified grounds, including proven or admitted involvement in the planning and execution of terrorist activities.

id.

which the article goes on to explain in detail and is worth a full read.

We cannot ever exact punishment, capital or otherwise, simply under the belief no matter how strongly held of a person’s guilt with due process. It’s the law, and it’s the right thing to do in a civilized society. When we start justifying summary execution of an American citizen just because he is abroad and involved in very un-American activities, then each of us is less safe. We can either be — and continue to be — a nation adhering to its rule of law, or we can start down a slippery slope to tyranny.

Related articles

• The Al-Awlaki (Constitutional) Assassination (twentiesfreedom.wordpress.com)
• Memo details case for lethal strike on U.S. citizen (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Can U.S. legally kill a citizen without due process? (openchannel.msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Refuses to Reveal Secret Memo Authorizing Murder of US Citizen (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• Awlaki’s Killing: Legally Justified | FrontPage Magazine
• neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Was it legal to kill al-Awlaki?
• Al-`Awlaqi Should have been Tried in Absentia | Informed Comment
• Video: Dr. Paul Discusses Assassination of American Citizen on …
• The Unprecedented Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | RedState

http://www.deannazandt.com/2010/12/12/legitimate-civil-disobedience-wikileaks-and-the-layers-of-backlash/ (the site continues to get many comments, some quite thoughtful).

Wikileaks aka Cablegate presents many questions including political, constitutional, legal and moral- – just to name a few. This thoughtful article examines several portions of those debates.

I predict that the generated discussions surrounding the fact of the leaks will surpass and long outlive the discussions of the leaks themselves.

There is justice, after all. A corrupt organization with corrupt practices that were not repudiated and decried by allegedly responsible politicians in Washington.  Its demise is a triumph for freedom as their voter registration manipulation was as direct a threat to freedom and our constitutional republic as any threat from abroad. Good riddance.

On this election night, there is a stunning turn from ACORN.

It has filed for bankruptcy.

In an announcement on its website, Bertha Lewis, the CEO of the troubled activist group, says that ACORN has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the reason stemming from the legal troubles surrounding numerous voter registration investigations across the country. The scandals led Congress to vote to cut off federal funding, and the group also lost some government support.

via ACORN’s Troubled Past Leads to Stunning Election Day Announcement | Foxnews.com.

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• Remembering Antoine (Antoun) Saadeh – PART 8 …
• Crooked, Corrupt Cook County Commissioners Contumely …
• Unstoppable: Politics Beyond Two Corrupt Parties | frameshop

(Imagine this is delivered by a hypothetical leader of a hypothetical community and school system)

I am your new leader and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to lead people, especially when it includes young people.

I want to inform you of some new changes coming to our community and schools. These changes are because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated our communities, and our public education in particular, throughout America have worked against us, against our citizens, students, teachers, and our country.

First, we will no longer honor race or ethnicity.  I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white.  I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one we will recognize, is your individual identity:  your character, your industry and scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity our community and schools will care about is American.

This is an American community, with American public schools, and our American public schools were created to make better Americans through education.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through this community or its schools, you will have to go elsewhere. As of right now we are ending all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values – e pluribus unum, “from many, one.”  And we will be guided by America’s values. Not European, nor Asian, nor Mexican.  American.

This includes all community organizations and after-school clubs. We will not authorize organizations that divide people  based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your organizations will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties.

Those divisions just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. If the only organizations and activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you speak and read English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us here. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. Our young people will gain excellent English language skills and be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market.  We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English — but if you are in school and want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything our schools do will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that students and teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code in our schools.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere in public, or on our school’s property — whether at the mall, in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend.

It is my intent that by the time our young people leave our school, they will be among the young Americans to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs in school. In our school as in life, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that in high school there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting our school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any young person graduates our schools and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

Now until students learn the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country, the adults will hand them out to you.

So don’t sit down. I didn’t mean that when I said it up front and I don’t mean that now.

This is America.

STAND UP, SPEAK UP, and BE …

an American!

Source: A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give. At the outset of his column, Prager offers this (with which I totally agree):

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

I have previously written about the Arizona law and want to update my thoughts since the AZ legislature amended the statute.  The hue and cry continues, even by those who either don’t understand it, or haven’t bothered to consider the big picture (like the entire U.S.), or (sadly) have not even read the law. The focus here is on some of the changes to the law.  There is a great source of the text including red-lining of the changes.

Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law

By On the Net, on April 25th, 2010

There has been a great outcry in the press and on the internet about the terrible new anti-illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.  The sad reality is that very few people on both sides of the issue have actually read the new law, but their ignorance of the law does not stop them from making statements about  it.

This post is part 1 of 5 posts that contain the entire text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, (aka SB 1070) as as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162) on April 30, 2010.  The new illegal immigration law / anti-immigrant law becomes law on July 29, 2010.   Deletions to text made by HB 2162 are show in red text that is lined out and new language is this color and underlined.

via Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 1 | KEYTLaw.

The essence of SB 1070 is that law enforcement refrain from NOT enforcing existing federal law.  Put more directly, law enforcement is supposed to enforce all existing laws, federal, state and local.  Hardly a unique thought since every oath of a public official and law enforcement or military officer that I’ve ever seen includes the obligation to “protect and defend the Constitution and law of the United States and of this state … from enemies foreign and domestic.”

A criticism often voiced was that “contact” with a citizen could lead to investigation of immigration status. AZ has made a strong change in  Section 11-1051 thusly:

B.  For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state. . . .

By limiting the investigation trigger to a “stop, detention or arrest” puts the immigration inquiry on the same footing as the other information gathering done in any such circumstance.

An further in part B the anti-profiling provision is strengthened, as in

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection

Critics complain “but the cops will profile anyway” but that complaint is a red herring because that potential issue always exists. I suggest that there has to be a degree of trust in our officers, but even if you distrust them, it’s not a unique argument that should sway against this one law, of many.

Let’s put the situation in context. A person has been stopped, detained or arrested. Those are circumstances subject to volumes of cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court, about when, and how, and for how long a person is subjected to one of those varying degrees of restriction on their freedom.  Either we allow a person to be “stopped, detained or arrested” in the enforcement of laws or we simply abandon enforcing the laws of the nation and states.

So the person has been stopped, detained or arrested according to existing law and procedures, and will simply be asked to identify.  That is accomplished

. . . if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1.  A valid Arizona driver license.
2.  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3.  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4.  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification. . . .

How hard is that? It’s what any of us would have to produce if stopped, detained or arrested. And note the relevant provision of existing federal law regarding ID:

“Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” 8 USC section 1304(e)

Thus it is no imposition on the registered alien to produce what he is already required to have on his person.

Other sections of the law relate to various offenses such as trespassing, smuggling, employment and in every section is included the following provision:

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

Yes, skeptics will make light of that but it’s the best that can be done in the face of extraordinary circumstances of need, and there is ample existing law to govern actions in the AZ enforcement of their laws.

The final point is that while pundits (and bloggers) across the nation decry Arizona’s groundbreaking efforts, the problem of illegal immigration is not simply a border problem.  Folks in the midwest and Eastern seaboard would do well to consider that fact.

Below you will first find some statements of principles gleaned from history. Then we will discuss some modern examples. I dare you to read these and think about them … whose principles are these?

The principles

1. the working class must be equipped to defeat and smash the violent state force of the capitalists and replace the dictatorship of the capitalists by the dictatorship of the [people]. (1)
2. … seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic “means of production” by taking it from the . . . (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the . . . (working class.) (2)
3. … goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society (2)
4. The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a [worker]; the [worker] can free himself only by abolishing private property in general. (3)
5. … seeks to promote class warfare or, today, at least, class strife, and succeeds best where clear, major delineations exist between classes. (2)
6. … the exploiters . . .  regard religion as a superb means of keeping the masses under their yoke; firstly, it makes them obedient to their exploiters and, secondly, it prevents the [people] from revolting through promising them a better lot after death. The [people] exploits no one, and so needs no religion. While morality and aesthetics are only subject to change, religion must vanish completely.(4)

Do we have any current examples of the implementation of these principles? These numbers correspond to the numbering above … and whose principles are these, anyway?

Current Examples

1. That represents basic class warfare. Depict capitalism as bad and those who foster it as bad people, notwithstanding the fact that capitalism has made America the greatest country in the world, a fact which is objectively observable by the extremely high standard of living (relative to the rest of the world) of the so-called “working class.”
2. A major portion of the auto industry has been nationalized through ownership of General Motors (60% government owned now) and co-opting of union support by outright bribery in attempting to exempt them from the new health care burdens. Starting with Medicare and continuing through the 2010 health care legislation, the medical industry has been simultaneously co-opted and compromised.  The energy sector is essentially being taken over at an increasingly rapid rate via regulation.
3. It seems that every governmental influence around us has the aim of eliminating any distinction among people. When that is complete — should we sit idly by and allow it — our humanity will be gone. Schools reduce education to the lowest common denominator. Young soccer players all get trophies instead of letting them win or lose. Success is increasingly scorned instead of celebrated.
4. Private property is taken by confiscatory taxes aimed at the producers of capital (and therefore jobs and economic growth).  Virtual nationalization of industry (examples above) eliminates private property. Projections are that within a decade 63% of all people will work for a government entity. That will not increase private property!
5. Just read the news for a constant barrage of the drawing of delineations between “classes.”  I object to the entire idea of “classes” because the term in modern usage implies a difference in human worth, not a difference in economic status. There is nothing “evil” in the fact that economic differences result among people or groups of people whom you wish to describe as a member of an economic class. Everyone has a human worth to themselves, their family, and their community regardless of what they do or their economic worth. It is dishonest to create false distinctions between supposed “haves” and “have nots” and if successful, this ploy will finish the march to the point where those with their hand OUT exceed in number those offering a hand UP. We are near that point.
6. I need give no examples of the constant attack on religion in this country.

Whodunit and Who_doing_it?

Now then … what is the genesis of those six principles that we see are still in play in modern America? What philosophy is set forth in those principles?  I suspect that in spite of my attempts to disguise the obvious you’ve figured it out.

It’s Marxism, pure and simple, and each of those principles have been embraced fully by … YOUR president.  OK, I know, I just called President Obama a Marxist … but I’m far from the first. Here is an excellent piece discussing why his many associations with known Marxists “probably” means that he too is a Marxist.

But, in philosophical terms, the connection claimed to exist between Obama and his Marxist associates is not merely logical, but causal. His life-long, self-selected connections with known Marxists are claimed to have had a causal influence on his own beliefs. And that is a vital distinction when examining one’s resultant behavior patterns.

It is probabilistic, not deductive, reasoning that best deals with causal relationships. While we cannot conclude with certainty from the truth of documented facts concerning his Marxist associations that Barack Obama himself is a Marxist, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a significant probability that he is and doing so commits no logical fallacy. So his associations are not, as his defenders maintain, irrelevant as evidence of his own beliefs. They are, in fact, determinant.

via Obama and Marxism: A Legitimate Question.

What are YOU doing about that today?  Will you continue to be part of the great “silent majority?”  What is your church doing about it?  Starting in the 1950s churches began to opt out of political controversy and the majority thereby became the “silent” majority.  What are your other organizations doing about it?

How about some CHANGE that WE can believe in?  Nobody can ignore the many problems (many created by the Marxists disguised under the label of “Progressives”) in American society that need correction, but we don’t need a fundamental change in the principles of an effective representative republic (the operative word there is “effective”), of capitalism, or of personal responsibility.

Let’s get the government back to protecting us from enemies … foreign or domestic … and away from taking “care” of us!

Notes of sources:

(1) http://www.mltranslations.org/NewZealand/MarxPrinc.htm

(2) http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/definition-of-marxism.html

(3) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

(4) http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm

“Stay the course” justified. The difficult is hard, the impossible just takes a little longer. No, this war is not over but this event, the significance of which is embodied in this photograph, is a significant battle won.

A young Iraqi girl asked for her finger to be inked even though she was too young to vote in this Iraq election. Iraqis voted in Sunday’s election as insurgents killed 38 people across the country, unleashing a barrage of mortars intent on disrupting the historic day.

via Photo Of The Day: Iraq Elections | National Review Online. (http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/329/photo-day-iraq-elections accessed 3/8/2010)

While we mourn the lives lost and disrupted, the Iraqi elections with (albeit too many) fewer casualties of terrorism than in previous elections indicate continuing improvement in our fostering of freedom in another corner of the world. It may not become democracy as we understand it, but the added freedom is not trivial.

(this was originally thought of as a speech for the Highland Lakes Toastmasters Club on March 2, 2010 — more on that below)

It’s the day after election day for the party primaries in Texas and hopefully everyone got out to vote for the candidate of their choice. With early voting available it has become even easier to vote. What was your most important vote yesterday?

Voting is at the heart of this representative republic of ours. From the day people escaped the King of England and the fiefdoms that made virtual slaves of most, voting has been important, and fundamental, to this nation.  The Continental Congress and eventually the constitutional convention adopted a constitution by the process of … voting. The document was then ratified by the original members of the union, state by state, ratified by voting. See the timeline here.  What could possibly be your most important vote? It’s not what you think.

For two centuries and more following that time, citizens in cities, counties, states and the nation have been voting for legislative representatives, for the executive branch from mayors to governors to the president and, at least in Texas, for judges. Countless elections are held each year casting millions of votes. What is your most important vote? It may not be what you think it is.

We elect legislators who write the laws, the executive who administers the laws and the judges who interpret the laws. Laws are important, thus your vote is important. Law are important, indeed essential, in a civilized society for it is through those laws that a civilized society regulates the interaction  between and among the people. In uncivilized societies all you need is the biggest club, and when a nation-state is uncivilized (e.g. Nazi Germany) all you need is the biggest army. But in a civilized society you must have laws to define how we deal, one with the other.

Our fighting men and women have fought and died all over the world defending our freedom and, at it’s core, our right to vote. And all over the world there are people fighting even as I write this article to try to gain basic freedoms and, in particular, the right to vote. Voting is not only a right but truly is a privilege.

How you vote has an impact on how, and when, and to what extent the laws of our nation impact you, and me, and all of our neighbors. What then might be your most important vote? It almost certainly is not what you think it is.

Laws do regulate our relationships, one with the other. Whether it’s a contract matter, a marriage or divorce, the making of a Will or the probating of one, the resolution of a business dispute or a fenceline controversy, or perhaps obtaining justice for a crime perpetrated upon us, laws have a direct and immediate impact on our lives.

But when one of those matters of societal regulation goes awry, the law means nothing unless and until the matter gets into court for resolution. At a moment in time at the end of a trial there is a coalescing of all three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — creating a pinnacle of power that becomes vested solely in active participants in the administration of justice:  the jury.

That jury hears evidence, gets instructed by the judge on the applicable law, then deliberates and ultimately:  votes.  What then might indeed be your most important vote?  It’s the one as a member of a jury, an active participant in the administration of justice. That collective vote resulting in a jury verdict can have impact far beyond the immediate litigants. It can in fact come to have nationwide impact. Surely, such a vote or even the potential for such impactful vote is your most important vote.

The jury who sentences a defendant to “X” years for “Y” crime has just set the standard for the plea bargaining process between the District Attorney and defense lawyers for years to come. The jury who determines for the first time that a particular act was negligence sets a standard that governs future similar cases.  Whenever a jury assesses a large punitive damage award against a defendant for acting in a malicious manner it will have sent a message deterring that defendant from similar actions in the future. And when even large corporations suffer large damage awards, regular or punitive, that can change not only their behavior but that of an entire industry.

Think of the Ford Pintos and their exploding gas tanks, the Corvair that had a propensity to roll over, or the many suits regarding tobacco or asbestos. Entire industries have modified behaviors, policies and products:  all in the face of the votes of jurors.

Certainly, your vote as a juror may well be the most important vote of your career as a responsible citizen. Don’t squander that privilege the next time you get a jury summons. Step up, become an active participant in the administration of justice, and cast your most important vote.

I said this was “thought of” as a speech idea … I did a real quick jot of basic notes two weeks ago, then got tied up in a trial out of town for seven days and, sliding into town last night just prior to the Toastmasters meeting, had to do the speech in substantially an extemporaneous fashion.  With some trepidation, I recorded mine along with the other speeches, and mine is here:

An interesting piece from Liberty Counsel. (Note 1)  I saw a portion of the Mike Huckabee show last night and a LC spokesman was talking about this problem.  Pay attention:  The SBOE — which approves standard curriculum textbooks — is in the process of making changes that you should know about.  America has a rich past, indeed its beginning, founded on Judeo-Christian values and the continued assault from many sources to obliterate this history is both disturbing and fraudulent. That our own State Board of Education might be participating is a horrifying indictment of the “government school system.”  Awaken, silent majority, awaken to this threat and do something about it.

Some of the suggestions that have come forward at various times include:

* Removing references to Daniel Boone, General George Patton, Nathan Hale, Columbus Day, and Christmas.

* Including the cultural impact of hip hop music, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow, and the Hindu holiday of Diwali.

* Replacing the term “American” with “Global Citizen”– stating that students need to be shaped “for responsible citizenship in a global society” without any mention of citizenship in American society.

* Replacing expansionism and free enterprise with imperialism and capitalism.

The Board’s next meeting is in March and the final reading and adoption of the social studies guidelines will be in May.

Make your voice heard now, before the next meeting. Please call the board members at 512-463-9734 and encourage them to promote traditional, pro-American language in their guidelines, or you may email them at sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us.

via Liberty Counsel. (http://lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1094 accessed on 2/8/2010)

The ability of the Texas SBOE to, essentially, set the social studies/history textbooks for the nation is a huge issue this year.  As was pointed out on the Liberty Counsel site,

As Texas is a leader in textbooks, most other states purchase the same educational materials. The textbook controversy in Texas affects every American because, to have a bright future, we must know our past. America has a rich past founded on Judeo-Christian values and to forget them, or worse, to distort them, will doom our future. Those who want to reshape America begin by rewriting our past. We repeat the mistakes of the past when we are ignorant of them.

You can see the members of the SBOE on their site.

I am looking for the resources to see the actual process and the specific current proposals … if anyone has links, let me know.

Notes:

(1) Liberty Counsel’s “About” page states

Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family. Established in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a nationwide organization with offices in Florida, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and hundreds of affiliate attorneys across the Nation.

Healthcare “reform” is not your job.  Raising an army and protecting the country — and its inherent sovereignty — IS your job.

In none of the enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) do we find anything about regulating not only the healthcare industry but, as you are attempting, the individual healthcare choices of the people.  We are not your subjects to be dictated to — we got rid of the king a long time ago!

On the other hand, providing for the defense of the country is clearly required, not merely permitted. What do we hear now? That “. . . Americans will feel “a certain shock” when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the Christmas Day attack.” (Foxnews.com http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/07/national-security-adviser-airline-bomber-report-shock/(accessed Jan 7, 2010). That report from retired 4-star General James Jones goes on to detail the utter and devastating failure of our national security system.

There is no sense in pointing fingers at any one administration or session of Congress, Washington did it — i.e. failed. And I suggest that this failure is due to the intense partisan politics, and the headlong rush toward (senseless) change for the sake merely of change, that has so distracted Washington from the priorities with which they should be attending.  Washington has become so obsessed with managing — and I suggest micro-managing our lives that they are on the brink of forfeiting our lives and our liberty on the altar of “change.”

I prefer hope, individual liberty, and preservation of what made America great. Wholesale change is not only meaningless but counter-productive.  Stop it, and get back to your constitutionally mandated duties!