>What A Great Day – With Glenn Beck At The Helm We Shall Not Fail!
Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category
Founding Fathers would have contempt for vision of today’s Americans
>Reverse discrimination is what Sonja Sotomayor is about.
She discriminated over those dozen or so white (one Latin) firemen who passed all the tests for administrative promotions and were refused. This is outrageous and, alone, should be cause for the U.S. Senate to reject this Obama nominee.
When the firemen went into Judge Sotomayor’s appeals court, she turned them down because there weren’t any black men in that group.
That’s reverse discrimination of the worst kind. When people are prepared, pass a test, and meet every requirement including having the necessary time in position, they should get the promotion regardless of skin color. Most blacks agree with that statement. Discrimination is not the job of the court.
It’s been too long since the Civil War for the U.S. to still be discriminating against white folks just to salve the injustices of the past. All of those people have long since passed on, and you can’t take care of them in their graves.
How long must we put up with this kind of injustice? Well, Barak Obama believes we white people haven’t suffered long enough because now he’s nominated a Latino who is going to rule just as he would if he were on the Supreme Court. George Will wrote about this nominee, Sonja Sotomayor, in this morning’s Washington Post. I wrote a comment, which I’m including below along with several other comments.
THE HAS BEEN REPEALED
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on April 6, 2009
On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London. The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, , Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.
The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a “framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires.” These standards are to include the extension of “regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets…[including] systemically important hedge funds.”
Note the key word: “all.” If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company “systemically important”, it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be “too big to fail.”
The FSB is also charged with “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”
That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at “all firms.”
The head of the , the precursor to the new FSB, is , Italy’s central bank president. In a speech on February 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking. He noted that “the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework…would have been unthinkable just months ago.”
He said that “every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision.” He adds that “it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision.”
In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while “I don’t see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time…it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies.”
This “coordination of national agencies” and the “setting” of “standards” is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.
Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the US role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store. Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy. These decisions will be made internationally.
And Europe will dominate them. The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members. The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear. The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote. So will Italy.
The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT WWW.DICKMORRIS.COM!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
|You are currently subscribed to dick_morris_reports as: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to email@example.com
>Start Speaking Up For America — The United Nations and Foreign Countries Don’t Espouse The Right Principles
A Politically and Socially Correct Life
My observation and advice for Obama: When you abandon freedom and free enterprise you weaken the country. Government doesn’t make worthwhile, long-term jobs, only more bureaucracy and inefficiency, lowering the standard of living for all.
Defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil is called theodicey. Somewhere in the history of America, politicians have lost that desire to defend that which is most sacred, their religious views concerning marriage, family, and the sacred nature of God.
Joseph Smith gave us the best description we have ever had about what God looks like because God appeared with The Son to him in the sacred Palmyra, New York grove in 1820. “If you have seen the me, you have seen the Father,” the Savior said. Why don’t many Americans take that for what it literally means?
It is America’s challenge to defend righteousness and decry evil at every turn. Evil seems to getting the upper hand over what is basic, what is good, and those tenants of truth the founding fathers left us with. Of course, what today’s liberals are trying to do is re-write the U.S. Constitution.
But it can’t be re-written, as Justice Scalia so eloquently said: It is a dead document as opposed to those left-wing liberals who say it is a ‘living document’ which should and can be reconfigured, changed, reduced, and re-interpreted by men many different ways. The liberals would like us to believe that nothing is worthy of keeping, even our Constitution which, along with the Bill of Rights, guarantees rights and privileges of free men living in a free country. They’re selling our freedom down the river.
Scalia says he believes the Constitution’s meaning cannot change over time. It was meant, he says, to impose rigid rules that cannot be altered, except by the difficult process of constitutional amendment.
“If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather, it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say — which is probably whatever the people would want it to say — you’ve eliminated the whole purpose of a constitution. And that’s essentially what the ‘living constitution’ leaves you with,” Scalia says.
Although he takes an “originalist” view of the Constitution, that its meaning today is the same as when it was drafted, Scalia says this doesn’t mean he wants to undo past Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees.
“You can’t reinvent the wheel. You’ve got to accept the vast majority of prior decisions. … I do not argue that all of the mistakes made in the name of the so-called living constitution be ripped out. I just say, ‘Let’s cut it out. Go back to the good, old dead Constitution,” Scalia says.
This attitude puts him in a decidedly different camp than fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who Scalia concedes is far more willing to reverse past precedent.
“I am a textualist. I am an originalist. I am not a nut,” he says, underscoring that he generally doesn’t favor undoing old rulings. He also notes that the idea of a living constitution places no restraints on judges.
Scalia has surprised some critics with his hard-line view on what he sees as the excesses of the Bush administration in at least one area — the imprisonment without charge of U.S. citizens accused of being enemy combatants.
“As with anybody arrested, you bring them to trial or you let them go,” Scalia says.
Notice that he said “U.S. citizens accused of being enemy combatants.” That is much different from imprisonment of foreigner combatants, who should be subject to Martial Law meded out by the military. This is part of the great debate taking place in America today by liberals and conservatives. Liberals love foreigners. In fact, in some cases they prefer them and legally defer to them over citizens of the U.S. To each his own,
I suppose. But when you see a liberal doing this, look for the money. There’s always a money trail, and conservatives are on the nasty scent of Barack Obama in his apparently easy desire to take money from the likes of Tony Rezko—and trade future governmental favors for campaign cash donations from foreign countries like Pakistan that would prefer a softy president like him over a tough-minded president like John McCain . In other words, the word on Middle East streets is the American liberals can be bought.
Where have the liberals in America gone wrong? They have lost their religion—not all of them, but as a whole. They no longer prescribe to the good old-fashioned ideas of families, honor, patriotism, and love of country that conservatives have. I will write more about this, becoming far more explicit in the next blog.