Professor Gates and a brush with authority

I believe, based on the information available at this point, that Professor Gates ran head-on into Authority and, like many of his ilk, black or white, in Academe, he found it not to his liking. I am not fond of authority either but when someone armed with a badge and a gun starts talking to me I listen carefully and respond equally so. After the meeting it can all be sorted out as to whom is the Alpha Male.

Professor Gates was not used to being gainsaid, certainly not by some young, white male that he would associate with the students in his classes. And, since he is deeply involved in racial problems he would be more inclined to believe he was being racially profiled. A shame, really, but he, as the better educated, older, male should have kept his head and not challenged the officer.

Consider this: You are at the airport Security desk and the TSA officer, armed and snotty, needs to be taken down a peg which you do. Do you think he will then courteously escort you to your departure gate or the airport cell?

Finally, our President, in his orotund tones, tells us the police acted stupidly. Always on the stump, Obama has now put the Office of the President into play. Talk about authority figures! Once a community organizer, always a community organizer. I can hear it now, in his thoughts: "Off the pigs!"

And wouldn't it be nice if the Professor was so well known in his neighborhood that the good neighbor would have recognized him and NOT reported a break-in but rather would have gone over to help.

All in all not a good day for the police, Academe in general, neighborly friendships and certainly not a good spot for the Prez.

Time is running out

When the French Philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville toured the United States right after the Civil War, He said 'Democracy will survive in the United States until politicians find they can buy the people's vote with the people's money',

Interesting!

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:


'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between
the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

How to reduce Health costs for large corporations

Let's say you are the Finance officer for a large corporation with a large number of employees. Health benefits are a large part of your financial picture. Congress is proposing the perfect solution for you and it goes like this: if you do not provide health benefits for your employees they will be able to buy government provided health insurance. All you have to do, as the CFO, is to budget 8% of your payroll as a tax to be paid to President Obama at tax time.

What CFO wouldn't leap at this opportunity! Shed yourself of all the costs both actual (for the insurance you buy) and the administration costs of the same for a fee that is far less than what you pay now. Of course all those employees are now without health insurance for a while but they can buy the much lower cost government insurance which will tell them where to go and who to see and what procedures they can have or not have, alkl supported by our increased taxes.

I find it difficult to believe that any staffer in the House of Representatives actually allowed his Congressman to vote for this inanity. While it is generally accepted that the bill will not make it through the Senate, I am not sanguine.

The real questions we should ask nominated justices

One of the difficulties found in the interviews by the Senate of Judges nominated to the Supreme Court and, the lesser courts also, is that each side asks only how the judge would rule in a specific cases. If the answer corresponds to the questioner's bias the judge passes, otherwise he is "not fit."

I think that we should, instead, ask those nominated what they think the meanings are of the various clauses in the Constitution. What does the 2nd amendment mean as concerns an individual right to bear arms. What does the 14th Amendment (Privileges or Immunities clause) mean? Where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to spend money on anything it wants?

Don't ask how these clauses would be applied to specific cases or circumstances, just what do they mean and how did the nominee ascertain this meaning. Are they bound by the original public meaning or is it just a factor in their judgment. If just a factor what are the other factors and how do they align them with the meanings of the clause.

Perhaps the comedian, qua Senator, Al Franken could lead the way in positing what the Constitution really means. That would be a sight wouldn't it! He would probably get a lot of laughs. But then how many Senators could expound upon this subject in any case? I would posit darn few!

But such an approach would negate all the fodelrol concerning individual cases and circumstances and we would have a clear view of the nominees approach to their responsibilities in the high court.