Sotomayor to make her first bad decision

Soon after Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, I discovered her position of gun ownership.  During her confirmation hearing she was asked about her position on Second Amendment rights.  In both cases, in my eyes, she plainly said she opposes private ownership of guns and to hell with the Second Amendment.  It is also interesting to note that in her first case she will be deciding McDonald v. Chicago, a gun ownership rights case.  One wonders if her gun position influenced the decision to nominate her. Now she sits on the highest court in our nation and she it about to essentially pluck the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.  That is, if enough of the other eight justices can be persuaded by the upside down logic she uses.

Let me repeat my stand.  I hate guns, I hate violence, but I respect the U.S. Constitution.  I don’t own a gun, although I have been to the shooting range and fired a few hundred rounds in my life.  I can hit a target consistently and understand that the experiences is entertaining.  I get the same satisfaction from a video game.  That said, I have also read the Constitution, as well as the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers argued about this issue – no not the video games, gun ownership.

A Short History of Rights

Those of you who have been educated in public schools might not understand the significance of the Bill of Rights.  Madison initially strongly opposed adding a Bill of Rights, arguing that basic human rights were unnecessary to guarantee.  He felt that if rights were guaranteed in writing then any rights not included could be construed as not granted. He held onto this argument for quite a long time.

However, the people and specifically their elected representatives, felt very strongly that rights needed to be protected in the Constitution.  They felt so strongly that many states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.  Richard Labunski’s, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, states that some states suggested long lists of guaranteed rights as a condition to their signage.  Only a guarantee that a Bill of Rights would be included later, convinced some states to sign.

Virginia’s Patrick Henry felt Madison’s position extremely dangerous to our long-term liberty and vehemently opposed both Madison and the Constitution.  The issue of guaranteed rights was so important to people of Virginia that Madison lost his bid to become one of the state’s first Senators.  In a revelation that has been often repeated since, Madison was convinced to change his mind.  He became a champion for amending the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights.  During the amendment process hundreds of amendments were proposed by the various states.  Labunski writes that when all the duplicates were removed there were about 120 suggested rights to be guaranteed.

This brings me to my point. Madison argued that it would be difficult to protect all the rights that might be subject to legislative abuse, rather he suggested, only those rights deemed most highly valued and in need of protection should be codified into the Bill of Rights.  It is this argument that resulted in only TEN federally guaranteed rights forming the Bill of Rights.  These ten rights were deemed to be the most important rights for people living in this representative democracy.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights

If these rights among the original 120 were all that were chosen they should be venerated and immutable.  There should be no question of their application or coverage.  The original states all demanded these guarantees, that some state constitutions do not guarantee one right or another is a moot point.  We could argue those states felt such a guarantee unnecessary due to the existence of the Bill of Rights.  But here is where James Madison is simultaneously correct and wrong when he originally argued against the Bill of Rights.  Madison thought if some rights were codified then those rights not codified would be assumed to be not granted.

We see this point of view being argued today.  CNN displayed a map on their so-called magic wall on Friday, displaying six states that do not contain gun ownership rights in their state constitutions.  The anchor suggested that the lack of guarantee meant no such right existed within those states.  Madison was just shot with his own gun – so to speak.  He was right that codifying rights meant non-codified rights would be denied.  But where he was wrong, was assuming the government would recognize inherent rights in the first place.

Federally guaranteed rights

Since the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution courts have repeatedly agreed that these rights are granted to the American people.  Free speech, religion, press, assemblage, search and seizure, jury trial, cruel and unusual punishment, ect. all accepted as universal in application.  Your state government cannot torture you to death no matter how heinous your crime because of the bill of rights.  Your state cannot shut down the local newspaper for criticizing the governor because of the Bill of Rights.  Virginia had an official state religion prior to the Bill of Rights but no longer does.  Why?  The Bill of Rights.

But now when it comes to the subject of gun ownership, suddenly we have a Supreme Court Justice arguing that this particular right does not apply to the states.  The source of the argument is that the Bill of Rights limits the federal government only, but it essentially does not restrict state law.  If the state of Illinois decided to shut down or arrest the ownership of The Chicago Tribune for calling out Blagojevich surely the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the state’s action unconstitutional.  No one would question it or argue that the First Amendment does not apply to state law.

Yet that is precisely what Sotomayor has argued.  This is an issue that should concern both conservatives and liberals alike.  If the Supreme Court sets a precedence that any right codified in the Constitution can be usurped and otherwise disregarded by any level of government a dangerous assault upon liberty has occurred.  One can call my argument slippery-slope, but it is a very real situation.  Courts are slaves to precedence and judicial slippery-slopes are not coincidental but dictated largely by precedence.  While Sotomayor may have little regard for individual rights or the absolute power of the Constitution, we can hope and pray that the court’s other members seriously think through the ramifications of their decisions before ruling on McDonald v. Chicago. Fortunately, the balance of the court seems unlikely to follow the junior justice’s misguided opinions.

Advertisements
  1. I believe that if the SCOTUS were to throw the 2nd amendment under the bus the public display would make them wish for the chance to change their decision.

    After that sinks in, they will then turn their thoughts to just how they might go about relieving us of our weapons.

    They are not that stupid.

  2. I certainly agree with Ben. In addition, if SCOTUS does throw the Second Amendment under the bus, this will ensure that the next nomination to the Supreme court, or any other court, will result in a real fight in the Senate for confirmation.

  3. PS. I listed the wrong blog. I should have been: http://ricks-constitutionofourforefathers.blogspot.com/

  4. Rick –

    Being just a tad bit flippant on my part, my take upon your observation that the next nomination to the SCOTUS rests upon the idea the SCOTUS still exists.

    • Ben smells a gun fight? Revolution? On some level it would be a counter-revolution. Last November there was a revolution and now the government is no longer listening to the people. They are pursuing the lost dream of socialism-done-right. I’ve heard conservative talking heads say the Administration follows polls. Heck no. They only speak to polls while following a fixed agenda. Clinton followed polls. He tacked hard toward the center after being whooped in ’94. Even before that he dropped Hillarycare when the polls showed people were angry about it. Obama/Pelosi/Reid don’t care about angry people. They are in charge now. The rest of us are asked to sit down and shut up.

      We shall see what the end result will be. Will a third party come along and hit the “reset” button? Will Republicans get their heads out of their butts and actually fix things when they regain control of the House next year? Or will the government default and collapse according to the Alinsky Plan? Or in the least likely scenario, will people just embrace socialism, relax, and let the government choose their jobs and benefits for them?

  5. While I continue with my decades-long disagreement with the policies of the Democrat Party, I also continue to have problems with the Republican Party. While my issue with the Dems is one of ideology, my issue with the Reps is also one of ideology but it is rooted in the partitioning of the voting districts. When one candidate realizes they have little chance of being elected in a Republican district they change parties to increase their chances. I have to believe this tactic is also used by a Republican to get elected in a Democrat district. Either way, once in office the candidate adopts positions on issues which reveal their true colors. One other issue I have surrounds the oath of each party. Once a politician becomes a member of the Democrat of Republican party, they take an oath. I’ve read both. They are very similar in wording and message. Both ring a hollow chord of real meaning and it appears they both have more to do with ceremony rather than allegiance to a cause or set of beliefs.

    Would a third party fix this? No. It would just allow it to persist. There is no real benefit to a 3 party system in my opinion and would effectively reduce any likelihood for a majority representation in a presidential election. Not a good idea.

    For me the “solution” lies in pressing the GOP for real and meaningful policy changes about the party itself. Adopt a core set of policy planks which never disappear, (border and sovereignty, conservative immigration policies, conservation of language and culture, strong military, strong fiscal policies, fewer taxes, etc.) and weed out those whose voting records do not reflect those policies. That way, when an American votes for that candidate they know they adhere to these core values or the party boots them out. Disenfranchising the people you say? Not really. It would rest on the idea that once the party takes such a drastic position against the party member it is doing so on the idea the member has already disenfranchised the people who elected them to represent their interests in the first place. Replacing him/her with another member of the district would only right the situation. The replacement would serve out the term until the next election. The way I see things this is a much more palatable set of conditions than having a fraud holding the office. As it is, we have too many frauds in office today.

    A revolution for the right reasons in pursuit of the right goals is always a good thing.

  6. I like it but it has as much chance as the proverbial snowball.

  7. Oh, I agree with you; there is little chance my reality will ever eclipse theirs. Nonetheless, that’s what I see as ailing the party; no substance, to true set of core values unique to the party and no belief in pursuing either.

  8. I have to agree with Ben if we don’t approach this in the right manner. Contrary to Glenn Beck and others who think voting for a third party is not throwing our votes away, I think voting for a third party will keep the dems in power.

    What we have to do is what some of us real conservative Republicans in Kansas are trying to do. We want to run the RINOs out of the Republican party, and run only Republicans in the primary who are for 1)either the fair or flat tax, It would be a plus if our candidates would promise repeal the sixteenth amendment 2)for term limits, 3)are pro-life, and 4)strongly pro-second amendment. We want them to have this in our state plank.

  9. I agree with the need to run RINOs out of the party, but after doing that there is still risk of another RINO getting in. The gate must be closed with the adoption of a meaningful oath that has teeth to come around and bite the party member if they stray off the course of the party as reflected by their voting record.

    After that gate is closed, any new initiative such as a flat tax needs gravity. The one or two representatives in Kansas who support a flat tax isn’t enough to build that gravity or momentum. Therefore, the plank should be inserted into party platform.

    I agree the issue of unlimited terms for Representatives and Senators allows for career politicians. It needs to be addressed. I believe it may even be unconstitutional as it excludes one particular elected official. As we know, our constitution works prevent discrimination, yet, there it is. We also know we cannot have a tax law which includes a segment of the population and another law for another segment. Again, it discriminates. While we have a law which forces an elected president to abide by term limits the law does not apply to another body of elected officials; Representatives and Senators.

    The issue of pro-life transcends political boundaries. It’s a difficult plank to deal with and very controversial in nature. It could serve to eliminate many, many party supporters and dilute the voting base. If we can accept the belief that all conservatives i.e. Republicans, are pro-life, can we accept the belief that all Catholics are liberals and Democrats? Is life science or is it theological in nature? If the party is to adopt a pro-life plank should the party adopt a plank of abolishing the death penalty?

    Regarding the Second Amendment, and the topic of this post, Sonia Sotomayor, I believe her confirmation process was actually no process at all. She got a pass. A true process would have attempted to reconcile her voting record against the Constitution. The mere fact that the SCOTUS overturned her decision just weeks before her so-called “confirmation” should have been enough to disqualify her for the seat.

    In summary, the party need work. It is a vessel in need of some dry-dock work and is long overdue.

    My ideas:
    Loyalty to Party planks/values
    Secure our borders
    Deport Illegal aliens immediately (and bill the host nation for transportation costs)
    America’s culture should be protected
    Religion and abortion
    Overhaul America’s education system
    Fix America’s media
    Provide for the common defense
    Reduce the size of government
    Energy policy
    Overhaul Immigration Policies
    Amend the U.S. Constitution to include an immigration policy

    The details of the above are here –> http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/values-for-a-new-gop/

    Some of it has some dark humor in it as well.

  10. Ben, We agree in the main points. But, we need to have a pro-life plank in the party platform. As I had been directly involved in the re-election campaign of Phill Kline for District Attorney of Johnson County, Kansas, I have seen pro-choice Republicans lie and do what they can behind our backs. They continually lie and misrepresent their positions, and can not be trusted as I wrote in my blog in May of this year:
    http://ricksblog-rick.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-abortion-industry-driving-obama.html.

    Truly conservative pro-life Republicans will support the plank and by supporting it will clearly indicate to the Republican conservative base their positions.

    More than 95% of Obama’s appointees are pro-abortion, and they are bringing in socialism as fast as they can. Millions are spent by the abortion industry to by candidates and public officials, as we have seen in Kansas the past several years.

  11. Remember the hordes who abandoned McCain simply on the basis of disagreeing with the mere existence of Palin.

    It is extremely easy for my brain to wrap itself around policies which pursue issues such as borders, language and culture in addition to immigration policies which pursue the preservation of them. It pursues the idea of preservation of country i.e. country first; provide the conditions necessary to ensure its success so it can endure.

    When it comes to issues such as pro-life or pro-abortion, for me, it is a topic which transcends party lines. As with the McCain-Palin analogy above, I can see where people will agree with 99% of the party planks, but abandon it on the basis of that 1%.

    The problem as I see it is that the topic of pro-life/pro-abortion steps out of the country-first arena into an arena of theology which opens up Constitutional issues about separation of Church and State.

    If a political party adopts a plank rooted in theological teachings then once that party member is elected as a representative, senator or president it means that tax dollars are now allocated and spent in pursuit of a policy based upon theology.

    It’s unconstitutional.

    Other sticking points (or other planks which must be adopted);

    * It would require that all party members must believe in a deity with accompanying teachings that life is a miracle created solely and directly from that deity.

    * The science of evolution is blasphemy and therefore should be removed from school textbooks.

    * Adam and Eve must be taught in public schools.

    * Methods of contraception are to be banned/prohibited/outlawed. The death penalty must be abolished.

    * Ordinance developed in pursuit of defending our country and our beliefs which are the basis for our way of life must be found to be illegal as it serves to kill and runs counter to the teachings of our chosen deity.

    * Guns should be outlawed for its potential to violate the sixth commandment.

    * Spading and neutering of animals must be prohibited.

    * Cloning technologies which allow my son to have a new lung immune to rejection to replace his lungs plagued with cystic fibrosis will be illegal and any and all research should be outlawed in this country.

    * Once a patient “flat-lines” he/she should be declared dead at that moment. Reviving any patient in this state is “playing God” and is blasphemous, therefore, outlawed.

    * Tax dollars will be used in pursuit of all of the above.

    The point is this; My belief system can permit me to believe in all of the above based upon the teachings of my chosen deity. To omit or include one over the other opens up a Pandora’s box of policy making. It opens up the possibility of being forced to adopt other policies rooted in other theologically based belief systems. Soon, we could have laws on the books, like in India, which allow me to place an plastic miniature obelisk of some nature in the middle of the street and declaring the space around it as sacred which forces all traffic to divert around it. Police arrive to place a traffic control barrier around it and my religious space grows out to include the curbs on both sides. Really. It happens just that way.

  12. You’ve brought up some items to think about. However, a pro-life position as opposed to a pro-choice position, as the Obama administration has supported, can we say he has already injected theology into the political system? Also laws against abortion would be political as much as laws against murder, which should have remained a state’s right issue. The Sixth Commandment is the original Hebrew states, “You shall do no murder.” The Holy Scriptures permitted the killing of animals and criminals, but prohibited murder, which is a divine prerogative. I believe the Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional as it violates the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

    Living in Northeast Kansas, I’ve seen too many public figures bought with Dr. George Tiller’s Pac election campaign donations. This has corrupted our present government, especially our former governor, who is now in the Obama Administration.

    Good to chat with you and discuss these important issues. But, let’s work to take back our country. Have a good night.

  13. Rick,

    RE:However, a pro-life position as opposed to a pro-choice position, as the Obama administration has supported, can we say he has already injected theology into the political system?

    Since I know of no religion which advocates a pro-choice position I do not see that theology has been injected into the political system.

    At this point in time we can only say that the pro-choice position is constitutional.

    As my religious beliefs have matured over time, I have come to know and accept that a person’s religious beliefs are incredibly personal. No one has the right to tell that person how they must worship their deity, if at all. In addition, I have had to accept the fact that some will not believe in any deity and may find themselves to be agnostic or even an atheist. As such I can understand how a law imposed upon them by the religious segment of the United States would be an affront to their beliefs. To me, that would be tantamount to Islamic law being imposed upon me regardless of the fact that I am a Christian.

    In the final analysis, in this country, government and religion and the beliefs associated with that religion cannot occupy the same governing space.

    If I were an atheist, I would see that my rights are being trampled upon. There is nothing in this world which

  14. Ben,
    It is interesting that you use the argument of pro-abortionists. I would like to quot from THE “RELIGIOUS” STRATEGY OF THE PRO-ABORTIONISTS
    http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL199/pres.html

    “There is a saying that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. One could equally make the case that religion is the last refuge of the pro-abortion variety of scoundrels. Their use of religion is most creative: They are ready to invoke religion to justify the right to have an abortion (“it’s a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her God”), but consider it unacceptable to invoke religion to justify the right to life.

    When “her God” gives a woman permission to have her child killed by an abortionist, she exercises a constitutional right. When pro-lifers seek to protect the child because God has created the child in His image and endowed her with the inalienable right to life, they are accused of imposing religious doctrine on the public in violation of “separation of church and state.” Pro-abortionists insist on having it both ways.”

    Pro-abortionists make up most of the Obama administration. They intend to inject the right to have abortions in every law and bill they wish to pass. They intend to put it into the health bill they prefer, by defeating every amendment prohibiting tax money to be used for abortions. They intend abortions to be included in ‘health care for women.’ They intend to force doctors, nurses, and hospitals to perform abortions, even against their religious beliefs. They want to continue funding Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money.

    In other words, they want to pass laws that violate the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    As far as the pro-choice position being constitutional, is it so just because the Supreme Court says it is? No. Many believe the decision contradicted the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The decision violated this amendment to protect state’s rights.

    Each state, until the Roe v Wade decision, passed their own laws regarding murder, rape, fraud, theft, and formerly, abortion. But, the decision has taken the right from the states to decide the legality of abortion and under what conditions. Previously, the Federal Kidnapping Act, like all federal criminal laws, is constitutionally justified by Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, most kidnappings do not cross state lines, but the feds still have jurisdiction. Now, we look at the administration trying to take total control over everything, finances, auto manufacturing, etc. Kansas, along with many other states, have now passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution to uphold the constitution pertaining the health care and the Second Amendment.

    The argument about the separation of church and state is bogus. What the progressives, including pro-abortionists, are really saying, is that they want separation between God and state. The Fist amendment was designed to prevent the US or the individual states from establishing a state church, i.e., a Christian denomination. I have debunked the left’s erroneous interpretation in my web site, October 7, 2008: http://ricksblog-rick.blogspot.com/2008/10/separation-between-church-and-state-not.html.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote “religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of the principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.” The intention of the framers was the protection from the persecution of a state religion; The Constitution gives the freedom to worship what one believes or the freedom to not worship at all.”

    In creating the U.S. Constitution, Benjamin Franklin stated: “Groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights. In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor…And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’…I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed…no better than the Builders of Babel.”

    We must elect our representatives to government who are moral of character and live by Judeo-Christian principles. If we want to take our country back, we have no other option.

    This blog article was about Sotomayor and the Second Amendment, and we have strayed far from the subject. My apologies to the blog owner.

  15. May I apologize as well.

  16. … but this IS about the SCOTUS and the Constitution so I suppose we are actually still on topic.

    RE:It is interesting that you use the argument of pro-abortionists.
    I regret giving appearances of alignment with pro-abortionists.

    Trust me; my logic is my own. I am only attempting to stay on the big picture of defining a plank or more accurately, the reasons for the plank’s exclusion from the platform of a viable GOP.

    I would be as much against a platform plank which supported abortion on religious grounds. So you see, it isn’t about pro-life/pro-choice.

    I’ve thought about it for many years and I come to this conclusion. The key to the pro-life movement’s success is this; remove the religion from the pro-life movement. That means is would be wise to distance ourselves from political lobby groups such as Falwell’s Moral Majority.

    To align the party with any religious lobby would be a grave mistake and would only serve to alienate.

  17. The problem with the abortion debate is that we have forgotten what is actually happening here. A woman is not merely having a small piece of tissue removed from her body. The doctor is terminating the life of an independent living creature inside her. A significant portion of the female anatomy was designed for and is reserved for the creation, support, and nurture of offspring. Abortion is by definition contrary to nature at its most base level. When an abortion is performed the “fetus” (I prefer to say baby) reacts. It does not respond like a gallbladder, which does not try to escape or flinch. Rather the “fetus” recoils, violently squirms and thrashes about. It demonstrates that it is feeling pain.

    It saddens me that in 30 years people have become hardened to the realities of it. We are willing to sacrifice our morals for a few extra votes. I completely understand both sides of this argument but in the end everyone should be required to watch an ultrasound of an abortion before being allowed to have one or express an opinion on the subject. Your reaction will tell a lot about your character. Anyone despicable enough to defend a partial birth abortion should be judged unfit for public office. Oh wait that would disqualify our President.

  18. I want to see this country return to the values most Americans shared in the ’50s, except of course those of bigotry and segregation.

    I’d like to see that America again, where our kids went to school and cited the Pledge of Allegiance without parents having to sign a paper to grant permission for their child to participate.

    I’d like Christmas to remain Christmas instead of being reduced to simply another holiday. I’d like an America where there is no such thing as a “Holiday Tree”.

    I’d like to see an America where Christianity isn’t under constant attack by Islam and the ACLU.

    I would like for Americans to be able to fly the American flag on their front porch without their home owner association sending them a letter threatening legal action.

    I’d like to see an America where we stop yielding our beliefs to those of foreigners.

    I’d like an America where immigrants learn English and assimilate into American society.

    I would like to see the Constitution legalized.

    I would like to see those days again. Somehow, someone decided those things were bad for America.

    I would like to know how that happened.

    • Do liberals really think the nation is a better place today due to all their attacks on Christianity, opposition to harsh punishment for crimes, and their inconsistent support/opposition to morality. Drugs, teen pregnancy, and violent crime have not grown better, but worse. Poverty was supposed to have been eliminated or made significantly better after Johnson passed his Great Society legislation.

      Did that plan cost us? Take a look at the black family and you will see the most significant cost. 50% of black children growing up without a father. (http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm) Girls having sex before they are 10 years old. Children dropping out of high school at alarming rates. (This is one conservative who didn’t scream out against Obama’s school message before reading the exact text.)

      • More than any other factor the Democrat party has done more to keep black Americans dependent upon government programs and breeding the entitlement mentality.

        To me, it would appear we got here through apathy. Too many conservatives staying home during the mid-terms, the primary and presidential elections.

        If that is indeed the case then it should be a simple fix. We just need to get off our collective butts and go vote.

        In the face of the Gallup poll below, I don’t know how else to to view it.

        Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx#

  19. To answer Ben’s question, as to how it happened that we ended up as we are today.
    It began with the Ivy League Colleges established in the 1700s to train Pastors for the young country’s churches. Over the decades in the late 1800s, and early 1900s, Progressives gradually infiltrated into the professorships and the universities became secular, with their pastor training minimized and sequestered into small departments. In the early 1900s.

    The NEA was founded as the National Teachers Association (NTA) in 1857, and adopted its present name in 1870. It was chartered by Congress in 1906 and merged with the American Teachers Association, formerly called the National Association of Colored Teachers, in 1966. In the 1960s, the NEA adopted union activities to supplement its long history of operating as a professional association. At the 150th anniversary of its founding, NEA membership had grown to 3.2 million. Secular progressive educators joined and eventually obtained control. On its 100th birthday in 1957, NEA had over 700,000 members. In recent decades the NEA has greatly increased its visibility in party politics, endorsing almost exclusively Democratic Party candidates and contributing funds and other assistance to political campaigns. The NEA, who controls our Department of Eduation, asserts itself “non-partisan”, but critics point out that the NEA has endorsed and provided support for every Democratic Party presidential nominee from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama and has never endorsed any Republican or third party candidate for the presidency (from Wikipedia).

    Due to their influence, our children in school today, as brought out lately by Fox’s Hannity and Beck, Phyllis Schlafly, and other sources not hampered by leftist ideology. They are taught that capitalism, conserbatis, and Christianity is the cause of poverty and all the rest of our problems.

    We are this way today, because our elected representatives, including those who voted for them; much of our leftist news organizations, and others were all brainwashed by our progressive controlled educational system.

    As all this has been happening, the silent majority, marginalized by the left, did nothing.

    Until now . . . .

  20. Good article. Not only do newspapers need to grow online attention, but the revenue stream has to grow exponentially. So there is a drop in daily paper delivery.

    • Royce, Thanks for the comments! Newspaper revenues are in trouble due to poor decisions in content, disregard for reader demographics, and inability to leverage the internet. Much of the latter is the result of decisions made in the mid-90s.

  21. Sadly she’s about to make another.

  22. I cannot thank you enough for the article.Really looking forward to reading more. Want more.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: