Nowhere is political rhetoric more shameless — or more dangerous — than in the pious names that politicians give to the legislation they pass. Perhaps the most egregious example is the so-called "Indian Child Welfare Act," which callously sacrifices the welfare of Indian children.
Whenever we think we have five votes for the Constitution on anything, at least one of the "conservative" justices may be counted on to go into the tank. Did we really think it would be different with Georgiebird's (Bush the Lesser’s) first pick for the high court sitting as chief justice?
So this time it wasn't Justice Kennedy. And both "Diva" David Souter and Slippery Sandra (and rarely Cassandra) Day O'Connor are gone. So Roberts did the ignoble deed.
It should be just a matter of time before Holder is no longer our nation’s top law-enforcement officer. While the list of unconstitutional excesses by this Administration is longer than both of my arms, Holder’s bungling mismanagement of the Fast and Furious crisis, followed by his outright defiance of Congress, is reason enough to color him gone.
When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he tried to abolish the Department of Education, which had been established in 1979 by his predecessor, liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter. Walter Mondale, Carter’s vice president, had obtained the backing of the National Education Association by promising them a cabinet-level Department of Education, which the NEA had strongly advocated.
Conservatives had persuaded candidate Reagan to abolish the department when elected. But Reagan’s agreement to accept George H.W. Bush as his vice president indicated that as president he would cooperate with the liberal-leaning Republican establishment. As a member of the Skull and Bones secret Order, Bush could turn the entire secret society either for or against Reagan.
But why would Reagan choose Terrel Bell for Secretary of Education, who opposed his objective to abolish the Department of Education? It simply indicates that the controllers of American education had the upper hand in that choice.
On June 10, I turned 40 years old.
Much has changed since 1972, both in my own life as well as in the world.
Forty years ago, President Richard Nixon presided over America.
We were still engaged in the Vietnam War.
The median price of a home was $27,600. The average car cost $3,853, and the average income was $11,859.
Watching the television pundits fret over campaign finance is amusing, because the solution to their problem is right under their noses. They just don’t want to see it.
As long as government has the power to sell privileges, people will spend big bucks to influence elections. The wealthy and well connected will always have better access to government than regular people.
As the kites in Ocean City, New Jersey, became airborne, protesters on the boardwalk waved American flags and told the pro-wind crowd to go fly a kite while unfurling banners with slogans such as “Global Wind Power, Another Wacko Idea.”
Politicians seem to have a special fondness for words that have two very different meanings, so we are likely to hear a lot of these kinds of words this election year.
"Access" is one of those words. Politicians seem to be forever coming to the rescue of people who have been denied "access" to credit, college or whatever.
But what does that mean, concretely?
Obama's activities at this past weekend's "Gay Pride" parades in cities such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, prove again that the Democrats are no longer the party of the common man. They are now the party of the uncommon man.
This year the nefarious goings-on included an invasion by hordes of Barack Obama campaign staffers, who zealously plied the fertile recruiting grounds that are the parades. In fact, writes the New York Times, “The parades could have been confused for Obama campaign rallies. In Chicago on Sunday, 300 of his campaign staff members and volunteers marched down Halsted Street through the heart of the gay district to chants of ‘Four more years! Four more years!’"