Obama’s Avoidance of Discussing the Abortion Issue May Be Derailed
May 18, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
Throughout his campaign and since he entered office, Mr. Obama has done his best to distract abortion opponents from his real views through his rhetoric while passing many pro-abortion bills or reversing former President Bush’s pro-life regulations. The issue is coming back to the forefront of public debate, however, due to two events: the famous Catholic University of Notre Dame has engaged President Obama to give the graduation speech at their commencement this spring, and Supreme Court Judge David Souter’s retirement, which leaves the President with the opportunity to select a lifetime judge.
Obama’s goal thus far seems to have been to keep the eyes of the nation focused on the economy and other issues as he has pushed quickly but quietly for pro-choice legislation, to avoid having to confront his actual stand on the issue. He has verbally painted himself as more moderate on the issues, while his actions continue to indicate his true far-left views on abortion issues, as the New York Times points out (emphasis mine):
Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.
He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”
Clearly, Ms. Richards has no illusions about where Obama’s loyalty truly lies, but Obama has heretofore attempted to skirt the issue when confronted.  Being asked to give a commencement speech at a prominent Catholic University, however, has refocused the attention of the nation on his views on the issue. Protests are being organized at the university that target the issues of abortion and Obama’s stance on it, and outrage that Notre Dame even extended the invitation to the President in light of his decisions on the matter. Some of the President’s advisors have suggested that he address the issue in part of his commencement speech, but it is likely that all we will see is more of his “Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” as Kansas senator Sam Brownback puts it, rather than honesty.
Obama Pressured to Champion Gay Issues
May 11, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
Many gay activists have been disappointed that Obama has not moved as quickly on their pet issues as he has on behalf of abortion and several other liberal issues in his first months as President. Here are some of the issues they want to see addressed:
Some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president. Mr. Obama’s new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule.
Obama is making steps to appease the gay activists who are upset with his decisions:
The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials… to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be “unfolding exactly as we thought,” he was pleased…
“We’ve elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he’s very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage,” said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist…
Mr. Obama has chosen a number of openly gay people for prominent jobs, …and he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll…
In addition to calling for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military, Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.
Many conservative groups are disappointed with Obama’s conciliating steps toward the gay activist crowd, and the potential for losing even more ground on some of their key issues concerning family, traditional marriage, and life issues. As the most liberal president in America’s history stands in charge of the country, with a majority of Democrats also ruling Congress, the divide between conservatives and liberals is continually growing, and Obama’s promises of “change” may take a very disturbing form. The issues pushed by the liberal crowd will weaken and divide the country further, leaving the United States in a more vulnerable state and full of moral disintegration than ever before.
Expansion of Hate Crimes Bill Passed in the House of Representatives
April 30, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
On April 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed an expansion on the Federal Hate Crimes Bill that was previously vetoed in a weaker form by former President George W. Bush. The bill passed by a vote of 249 to 175, almost exclusively along party lines, with only 18 Republicans voting for the bill, and only 15 Democrats voting against it. The expansion of the bill broadens the protected groups of people by “classifying as “hate crimes” those attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.” The bill formerly included the categories of “a victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, [or] gender,” and allows the Federal government to prosecute these crimes with a greater punishment than crimes that are not based on “hate.”
The House debated the bill for hours, with passionate arguments on both sides. Here is an account of a few of the arguments presented:
Hours of debate preceding the bill included a stirring account by Rep. Jim Jordan of his attempt to add “the unborn” to the list of protected persons on the bill, with the amendment being voted down because the unborn were “not persons.” Contrasted with this were libelous and vacuous declarations by those for the bill, including one representative who quoted from the Ten Commandments as he accused those against the bill of “bearing false witness” in their attempts to raise warnings about the possible use of this law to muzzle and/or prosecute religious leaders when they attempt to speak negatively about homosexuality, and a declaration from another congressman that thinking the Hate Crimes Bill was about thought-crimes was like believing anti-lynching laws were about knot-tying.
The “political correctness” of the hate crime laws and punishments are more about thought and motivation than about the actual crimes being committed, which is the reason many of the Republicans opposing the bill quoted Animal Farm in making the argument that specifying categories for “hate crimes” would simply mean that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Here is what one Denver lawyer has to say about Colorado’s hate crime law, which is very similar to the bill which has just been passed in the House:
Colorado’s so-called “bias-motivated crime” law does nothing but provide government prosecutors nearly unchecked power to stop you from thinking certain thoughts. The politically correct categories that politicians have carved out for imprisonment — i.e., “race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation” — beg the question as to why crimes motivated by any other irrational category, such as political affiliation, are not similarly deserving of extra cage time.
The House did indeed vote down including “amendments [that] also seek to expand the applicability requirements to include age, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces, or status as a law enforcement officer beyond what is currently contained in the bill.”
Are these groups of people any less valuable, or violent crimes committed against them any less reprehensible than the groups who were included in the amendment? All violent crimes could be considered “hate” crimes, and ought to be treated equally, as all violence is absolutely wrong and unjustifiable.
Overly Intrusive (and Counterproductive) Cybersecurity Bill
April 28, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
A bill intended to dramatically change the way the government regulates cybersecurity has been proposed in the Senate by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV and Sen. Olympia J. Snowe. According to this bill, the regulations for cybersecurity would not only be increased in the governmental sector, but also require new government access to the Internet security systems, as well as information belonging to privately owned business and corporations that are considered to be part of the nation’s infrastructure, such as banks, electricity, and water. Provisions of this proposed bill would give the President power to shut down all Internet traffic regarding these systems in the case of a national cybersecurity emergency, without specific language defining what would constitute such an emergency, as well as waiving all existing privacy laws to allow the Commerce Department access to all kinds of private information if it is deemed necessary or “relevant.”
Here is the direct wording from the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (emphasis mine):
SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce–
(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…
(3) shall report regularly to the Congress on threat information held by the Federal Government that is not shared with the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned…
SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.
The President–…
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network…
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security
Do we really want any part of the government to have power to operate in the private sector “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access”? How is this different than wiretapping individuals without warrants, and other similar breaches in privacy which have raised such an outcry in the past? Why would it be a great idea to tell Congress information regarding threats to systems without informing those who are “primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned”? Shouldn’t those responsible for operating the security systems be the first to find out, so that they can redouble their efforts and maintain the security themselves?
The Internet is not simply limited to the USA. If the President were to shut everything down in the case of a cybersecurity emergency, it would have worldwide repercussions, and severely affect the operation of the businesses that have international contacts. The ramifications of such an action would be unprecedented. Certainly the need for Internet security is essential, and possibly laws could be passed setting standards for testing the security of privately owned businesses that make up America’s infrastructure, but any “mapping” or access that would allow the President to shut these connections down may actually backfire and create a LESS secure Internet environment! If a hacker could break into the new system, he/she would have access to all the information and systems at once, instead of having to break into each private system one at a time!
The privacy and safety ramifications of this bill are looming over our heads. Should we let this pass unaddressed?
International Arms Control Treaty Faces Opposition From American Gun Owners
April 25, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, International, Politics
During President Obama’s recent visit to Mexico, he announced his intention to revive efforts to pass an international arms control treaty which failed to pass the senate during Clinton’s Presidency. According to ABC News,
The treaty makes the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms illegal and calls for nations in this hemisphere to establish a process for information-sharing among different countries’ law enforcement divisions to stop the smuggling of arms, to adopt strict licensing requirements, and to make firearms easier to trace.
The ratification of this treaty is quite politically charged, as many American Citizens oppose it on the grounds that it will be used to restrict their second amendment right to bear arms. According to an article published by the Gun Owners of America, many are concerned that the interpretation of the language in the treaty could eventually be used to impose severe limitations on those who legally own weapons in the United States. Here are a few of their concerns about ways the broad language could be interpreted by opponents of gun-ownership:
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition… without a license….” Hence, reloading ammunition… putting together a lawful firearm from a kit… [or] [m]odifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing….”
2. “[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined…
* Banning gun clubs. Article IV [states] that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances… And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So…Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers…
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to… impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records… that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
Most of the guns owned by the large Mexican drug cartels have been smuggled in by the United States, according to Mexican Authorities. But, this statement has also been refuted. According to an ATF Spokesman interviewed by Fox News, “a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.” This conclusion was also reached by FactCheck.org.
Undoubtedly something must be done to stop this from continuing. However, we must also be careful how much power we give the government, to avoid compromising the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. This is a delicate political issue that the Obama administration and Congress should approach with caution, and weigh the voices of both sides carefully, always remembering that they are here to serve the best interests of people of the United States who have put them into power.
