WorldNetDaily: What independence?

Vox Day writes:

"There is always an inherent conflict between government and freedom. Nearly every act of government, almost every law and regulation that is imposed from above, is intended to limit freedom. What conservatives must understand is that it is not always possible to be a fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizen and be a free man at the same time. In fact, for most of human history, it has been impossible. The American revolutionaries were lawbreakers of the worst kind, for they were directly challenging those who were their rightful masters in the eyes of the law. And yet even today, few would argue that their disobedience was both just and right.

"The question of justice turns on the point of whether government – on all levels – has overstepped its lawful bounds. For if the laws of government have passed those limits, they are not law, but mere dictatorial assertions, with no more force than that which the government can muster. And while it is wise to obey under the threat of force, one has no moral obligation to do so, and as the recent history of Eastern Europe shows, once the people become aware that the threat of force is empty, they will begin to ignore both the government and its illegitimate laws with alacrity.

"It is impossible to know what the future holds for the United States, but one thing is sure. All governments fall in time. Ironically, governments that rely on force are more fragile than most and tend to fall even faster. The merciless totalitarians of the Soviet Union lasted a mere 72 years, a historical blip when compared with the lifespan of the British monarchy, the Roman Empire or even the neo-democratic oligarchy of the United States of America.

"The genius of America was its independence. As that independence has been systematically reduced over the years, so too has its competitive advantage over other, less free, nations declined. The best and brightest have been leaving the country for years, and the American brain drain is accelerating as the Internet has made it possible to run a software company from the Bahamas or an import-export operation from Ireland, where the taxes are lower and there's no danger of losing your home to a Wal-Mart.

"In summary, this is not a day to celebrate American independence. It is, instead, a day to mourn America's passing and pray for its eventual rebirth."

WorldNetDaily: What independence?

WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?

Pat Buchanan writes:

"While Bush continues to insist Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and will never be abandoned 'on my watch,' U.S. war policy is emerging as a 21st-century version of 'Vietnamization.'

"For the president just wagered the ultimate success or failure of this mission on the ability of Iraqis themselves. 'As the Iraqis stand up,' said Bush, 'we will stand down.'

"Clearly, the president has heard the message of an impatient country. His rhetoric has been reconfigured to conform to reality...

"Bush appears to have begun to understand that for many Iraqis, the cause of this war – why they fight – is that we are there. They do not have to love Saddam to want Americans gone...

"There is another reason Bush will not be sending 100,000 more troops. The Army, Reserves, Marines and National Guard are failing to meet recruiting and re-enlistment quotas. Soon, Bush will not even have the option of sending another 100,000 troops, unless he is prepared to go to Congress and ask for a draft...

"Democracy may be the antidote to terrorism, Bush is saying, and democracy may be the future of the Middle East, but democracy is not going to be brought in on the turrets of Abrams tanks. Whether the Arabs are free will depend on the Arabs themselves. And that is as it should be...

"Thus, whether we win or lose this war is going to come down to the question it came down to for Nixon – as he pungently put it in the early 1970s – 'Can the Vietnamese hack it?'

"Can the Iraqis hack it? Can Iraqis build up their political institutions and military and security forces not only to take over from the Americans, but to win a war the Americans were unable to win? The answer to that question will give us the answer to a far greater question: Will Iraq be a historic triumph for the United States and George Bush, or is it destined to end in a defeat and a debacle more disastrous than Vietnam?

"What persuades me we are headed for a crisis is that, within the president's speech, lies a contradiction. He calls the war in Iraq 'vital to the future security of our country' – i.e., defeat would be life-threatening for America.

"But if victory is vital to this country, how can President Bush ever entrust the outcome of this war to Iraqis? If victory is vital, how can he rule out more troops? If victory is vital, how can he even rule out a draft?

"Has President Bush thought this through?"

WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?

WorldNetDaily: Let's end the drug problem tomorrow

James Rutz writes:

"We now have a way to halt the illegal drug trade.

"It will require twin solutions – one at the supply end of the pipeline, the other at the demand end.

"Let's look at the demand problem this week. That's the easy one because it can be solved by government decree: Just get Congress to pass a law legalizing drugs and setting up super-discount outlets for heroin, pot, and other flavors of dunce drugs, and – poof! – the game is 90 percent over.

"A baggie of white powder that would sell for five dollars in the Colombian bush (or $1,000 in Boston) will then sell for $5.95 in Uncle Sam's Death Emporiums from coast to coast.

"Initially, a few people will overdose and die, of course, but they will amount perhaps to half a percent of the 100,000 drug-related homicides that we would otherwise expect by 2015 in our present pursuit of the increasingly insane dream of Prohibition II, the Great Drug-Free Society.

"The magic of the forbidden fruit will evaporate...

"Think back to the 1920s. Marijuana could often be found growing wild down by the river in most states, and all the kids knew what it would do if you smoked it, but no child with any social standing would have anything to do with a loser who was brainless and pathetic enough to try it more than once. That, I suggest, would soon become the prevailing attitude again if we demystified drugs by putting them where they'd be readily available...

"One big factor that keeps drugs attractive to the young is the excitement of getting away with something forbidden. So we'll take that away and give them instead the embarrassment of being the laughingstock of their peers.

"Liberals don't understand sin. They prefer to pretend that people are basically good. That way, they don't have to repent and submit their personal habits to the lordship of Jesus Christ and the standards of the Bible. They prefer to maintain their righteous self-image by howling about the horrors of a few dope dens in Amsterdam or Kathmandu. Unfortunately, people are basically flawed. The Bible says the default condition of the human heart is evil. Even the most saintly believer starts off sinful in life. Conclusion? Forget the liberal utopia. Drug dabbling is going to be with us for awhile.

"But that doesn't mean regular drug use will continue to be a problem. In any other country of the world, drugs are hardly more than a blip on the national consciousness – regardless of how lax their laws are. As Yale law professor Steven Duke says, 'Neither cocaine nor heroin is habitually consumed by more than a small fraction of the residents of any country in the world. There is no reason to suppose that Americans would be the single exception.'

"The main force that keeps drugs so popular in the United States is the war against drugs. As Paul says in Romans, the power of sin is in the Law, which goads us to sin.

"So let's change the law."

WorldNetDaily: Let's end the drug problem tomorrow

Phyllis Schlafly: Republican appointees disappoint again

Phyllis Schlafly writes:

"An unacceptable decision by Congress or the president can be corrected in the next election cycle. Yet a bad decision by the Supreme Court can burden us for decades.

"Republican presidents are elected by promising to appoint good Supreme Court justices, but have abysmally failed to deliver on their campaign pledges. Congress has promised to pass laws curbing judicial abuse, so when will it honor its pledge?

"The only good news is that the Supreme Court rendered only 76 full decisions in the past year, far fewer than its average of a decade ago. Just imagine the damage that could have been done had it worked harder!"

Phyllis Schlafly: Republican appointees disappoint again

May God save the United States from this honorable court

Judge Roy S. Moore writes:

"'All told this Court's jurisprudence leaves courts, governments, and believers and nonbelievers alike confused--an observation that is hardly new.' With these words Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the Supreme Court's latest efforts in McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry to determine whether public displays of the Ten Commandments on state property are consistent with the U.S. Constitution...

"No wonder the American people are confused by such conflicting results contained in 10 separate writings that have no consistent legal analysis. The text of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses reads, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' but was quoted in its entirety only one time in all the writings of the justices.

"As Justice Thomas so appropriately noted, one may, and indeed must, question why the court cautiously avoids the words of the First Amendment. We need to restore the original definitions of 'law,' 'establishment' and 'religion' in the First Amendment. A monument or display could never be a 'law,' the mere posting or installation of it is not an 'establishment,' and the recognition of God by the public display of the Ten Commandments is not 'religion...'

"With these cases, it should be clear that, as Justice Antonin Scalia opined in his McCreary County dissent, 'nothing stands behind the court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the court's own say-so.'

"In 1952, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the court, stated in Zorach v. Clauson, 'We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.' And in 1961 in McGowan v. Maryland, Justice Douglas observed that the 'institutions of our society are founded on a belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state, that there is a moral law which the state is powerless to alter, and that the state possesses rights conferred by the Creator which government must respect.' However, this week in McCreary County and Van Orden, the high court contradicts history, logic and law in denying our inalienable right to acknowledge God.

"Certainly our courts have become arbitrary in depriving Americans of life by legal abortion or starvation, by snatching property rights for private economic gain (as we saw in Kelo v. New London), and now this week by restricting our freedom to acknowledge God. Every state constitution acknowledges God and so does our national motto, 'In God we trust.' Ironically, the Supreme Court itself opens with what they called a prayer in Engel v. Vitale, 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'

"A remedy is available in the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005--pending in both houses of Congress as H.R.1070 and S.520--which would enjoin the federal courts and the Supreme Court, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, from interfering with the right of public officials to acknowledge God, and prevent those courts from ruling by foreign law rather than the United States Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"Article VI of the Constitution requires all state and federal officials to support that Constitution as the 'supreme Law of the Land.' The American people ask no more and they deserve no less.

"May God save the United States from this honorable court."

Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal - Extra

WorldNetDaily: No sex, brands or politics in choosing next Justice

Mychal Massie writes:

"The speculation with bated breath for the announcement of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has begun...

"But from my perspective, what is oftentimes argued as best for the country is not what is best for America, because what is best for America is that which upholds our Constitution...

"In my opinion, Sandra O'Connor's replacement... should be an originalist that understands their singular function is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not rewrite it...

"Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have the sole authority to interpret the Constitution and render final decisions pertaining to all federal laws; nothing more – nothing less.

"The Framers provided for a federal government superior to that of state governments within the confines of its enumerated powers, i.e., those powers absolutely necessary to fulfill the limited role of the federal government. All other powers were to be invested with and in the citizenry of the individual states, thus creating a unique system of checks and balances that were divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

"It was the will and intent of the Framers that '[A]ll political power rested with the people.'... Such was the reasoning of James Madison when he wrote: 'The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Government are numerous and indefinite...'

"And such was the order of America until Roosevelt's 'New Deal...'

"Roosevelt unleashed a flood of legislation creating expansive federal programs purportedly to curb the effects of the Depression. These New Deal programs dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government above and beyond its historic – and constitutionally mandated – role...

"Those Rooseveltians who would subvert and further undermine the Constitution and the will of the Framers are the offspring of Charles Evans Hughes, chief justice of the Supreme Court, 1930-1941, who uttered the words: 'We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is ...'

"Maintaining control of a court that finds a right to privacy where none exists; that finds a phrase in the First Amendment that is not only nonexistent, but is contradictory to every state constitution on at least some level; that finds in the Fifth Amendment the right of government to seize the private property of citizens for the financial benefit of the elite and influential is the type of court those unable to achieve same legislatively on any level are determined to maintain control over...

"We must insist the president appoint one who will benefit all Americans as the Framers intended. We must insist on one who has the temperament and requisite constitutional learnedness and understanding the Framers foresaw."

WorldNetDaily: No sex, brands or politics

WorldNetDaily: How O'Connor Supreme Court justice got job

Joseph Farah writes:

"Sandra Day O'Connor is stepping down as a Supreme Court justice after 24 years, and most Americans still have no idea how she got the job in the first place.

"She got it through deception.

"She fooled President Reagan into thinking she was a supporter of the Constitution as written, and she did it with the help of a conservative Republican icon named Kenneth Starr...

"I'm sure there will be many nice words expressed about the O'Connor legacy over the coming weeks and months. But the truth is that O'Connor has been a disaster on the court. She has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. She fancies herself a lawmaker, not a justice. And that is just how she has handled her long tenure on the court.

"She is also one of the majority members of the court who believes the U.S. Supreme Court should look to foreign courts for precedents. It is an astonishing betrayal of American sovereignty, independence and our Constitution.

"While others today are extolling Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure on the court, I say, 'good riddance.'

"What was Starr's role in elevating O'Connor to this position?

"In 1981, it was – as recounted by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak – 'a hurriedly prepared, error-filled memo by a young Justice Department lawyer' that convinced President Reagan to go through with the nomination of O'Connor to the court – despite tremendous opposition from those who believed she was unfit and unworthy of Reagan's support.

"That young Justice Department lawyer was Kenneth Starr.

"The memo gave O'Connor a clean bill of health on abortion by 'using legal gymnastics to explain her Arizona legislative record,' wrote Evans and Novak. He wrote that she had 'no recollection' of how she voted on a 1970 bill to legalize abortion when, in fact, she was a co-sponsor of the measure that was defeated 6-3 in committee.

"Starr misrepresented that O'Connor was something of a friend and associate of the leader of the state's Arizona pro-life leader, Dr. Carolyn Gerster. In fact, Gerster told Evans and Novak: 'I had an adversary position with Sandra O'Connor' and called her 'one of the most powerful pro-abortionists in the [Arizona] Senate.' ...

"The Starr historical legacy can best be summarized like this: He deceived President Reagan about O'Connor and let Clinton off the hook for monstrous crimes. Just what is it about the career of Kenneth Starr that some find so heroic and laudable?"

WorldNetDaily: How O'Connor got job