A federal judge ruled recently that South Carolina can’t issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the license plate was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by government. Apparently Judge Currie needs to take a remedial course on Constitutional law or else she is deliberately misrepresenting the true meaning of the First Amendment to promote a political agenda.

Let me just quote the First Amendment and then I will endeavor to explain why Judge Currie’s ruling is unconstitutional and misguided.

First Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

That doesn’t seem so hard to understand, yet it seems many Liberals have their own special interpretation of those simple words. As long as Congress doesn’t make a law that tells Americans that a particular religion is the official state religion to which all people must belong or passes a law that prohibits us from worshiping or not worshiping the religion of our choice, the First Amendment has not been violated. It is as simple as that.

So where does the much abused term “separation of church and state” come from? It is certainly not in the Constitution. The phrase actually came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Association fifteen years after the Constitution was written. The Baptists were afraid that the state of Connecticut had not granted them an inalienable right to worship their religion, rather the state was allowing them to worship as a “favor.” So they wrote to Jefferson seeking guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would.

Jefferson responded with the words of the First Amendment and also mentioned the “establishment clause” created a “wall of separation between church and state.” What Jefferson meant by those words was that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around. There is also no constitutional protection from being offended by a religious display on government property.

So when a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State said government must never be allowed to give favorable treatment to one faith above others, that is not what South Carolina is doing and not what the First Amendment protects against. Putting a cross on a license plate is not the equivalent of the state of South Carolina making a law telling South Carolinians that Christianity is the official state religion to which all South Carolinians must belong. Neither is it passing a law preventing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists from practicing their religion. South Carolina is not prohibiting placing religious symbols of those faiths on license plates and only permitting Christian symbols to be used.

So if the agenda of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is to separate church from state, all I can say is good luck because you certainly cannot use the First Amendment as the tool to further your goals. What groups like this really want is to eliminate religion altogether from our country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are replete with statements that show that the Founding Fathers believed that religion was vital to the continuation of our Republic. To quote President George Washington in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

So when groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State attack religion on false grounds, what they are really advocating is the very destruction of our Republic.

]]> http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/11/11/federal-judge-usurps-state-rights-and-misrepresents-first-amendment/feed/ 0 http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/10/21/the-worst-car-review-in-history/ http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/10/21/the-worst-car-review-in-history/#comments Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:01:32 +0000 Michael Tefft http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/?p=1942 Honda makes a lot of good cars but, according to Jeremy Clarkson of The Times of London, the Honda Insight hybrid is not one of them.

“It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it anymore…[it] makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.”

“So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23 mph because that’s about the top speed… [it] feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats … are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton… the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle … built our of rice paper … poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats.”

“Acceleration 0-62 mph: 12.5 seconds. One star (out of five) … Good only for parting the smug from their money.”

- From ‘Arguing with Idiots’, by Glenn Beck

In the same breath Teepen disingenuously touts the beauty of the Mayors appeal to the President as not calling for new laws but tougher enforcement of existing laws, saying that this is what gun rights advocates promote, while then going on to say that this is a phony pose. (On the part of the gun rights advocates)

Teepen continues by saying that the gun lobby works steadily to undermine enforcement by limiting the reach of current laws and chipping away at enforcement budgets. I would be interested in hearing Teepen explain how the gun lobby can influence law enforcement budgets.

According to Teepen, the Mayors make 40 recommendations. One is that the ATF require manufacturers to stamp new guns with a hidden serial number in addition to the one that criminals often file off. Since most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and any hidden serial number would not be traceable to the criminal, this is a useless idea. Criminals seldom leave a gun at a crime scene to assist the police in solving the crime.

The Mayors also suggest more undercover testers to find out if unlawful out-of-state or felon buyers are shopping at gun shows. Since gun show purchases of firearms require the same background checks as those at retail stores, no felon is going to be able to buy a gun at a gun show. This is another useless idea.

The assertion by Teepen that gun shows and private sales remain essentially unregulated is absurd. Purchase of a gun at a gun show requires the purchaser to go through the exact same procedures as are required at a retail store. The fact that gun show sales amount to nearly half of all annual sales is therefore meaningless. There is no gun show loophole. As for private sales, I seriously doubt that someone who legally obtained a firearm is going to sell it to a criminal. Show me the statistics where this is a problem.

Then there is the assertion that there is little push against the 1 percent of licensed dealers who account for nearly 60 percent of the crime guns that law enforcement can trace. Statistics will show that this percentage of crime guns that law enforcement can trace is insignificant compared to the total of crime guns that law enforcement cannot trace. In other words, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were not obtained legally and none of the suggestions put forth by the Mayors will have an effect on reducing this problem.

Teepen then goes on to make the smarmy statement that there was a “pathological reaction” to Obama’s election evidenced by the huge leap in gun sales and ammunition purchases. It is not a “pathological reaction” when you consider that the majority of those serving in Obama’s administration are vehemently anti-gun and would like nothing better than to trash the second amendment and disarm Americans and take away their unalienable right to self-defense.

Teepen finishes up with the absurd statement that no other civilized country puts up with such a reckless level of domestic armament, or suffers the violence that inevitably follows from it. I could counter those ridiculous statements all day, but I will just make a few observations.

Numerous studies done over many years have all reached the same conclusion. Countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders while countries with less gun ownership had, say it with me, more murders. Over the two years following England’s ban on handguns, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40 percent.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study investigating whether gun control actually works. Their conclusion was that nothing seems to work very well. In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of 253 journal articles, 90 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control schemes. The total number of gun laws found to reduce violent crime, suicide, or accidents? Zero.

Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will never reduce the violent crime rate, it will have the opposite effect. And criminals will always find a way to obtain a handgun illegally. Depending on the police to protect you from violent crime is playing Russian roulette with your life as well as the lives of your loved ones.

Millions of Americans who own firearms use them for hunting, sport, or self-defense. Very few of these millions of firearms are used illegally. Reducing the number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens will do nothing to reduce violent crime. Tom Teepen and the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ bring nothing new to the table, just the same worn-out and discredited arguments and ideas.

Van Jones, the White House green jobs czar, resigned over the Labor Day weekend amid mounting criticism of some of his past words, actions, and political views. Some of his past radical activities and recent controversial stances attracted the attention of many conservatives, including Glenn Beck of Fox News. While Jones is considered a rising star in environmental circles, questions about his fitness for a White House-level office were raised when some of his past speeches and radical affiliations surfaced.

In order to clarify most of the criticisms that were raised I will simply list them below. If you want any further details on any of the items you can easily find more information from numerous sources.

• Jones was a self-described communist during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies.

• Many of his recent and past comments have been racially charged and divisive.

• He advocated for the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

• He injected race into the Columbine school massacre by saying that “You’ve never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never.”

• He has accused white businesses of polluting black neighborhoods.

• He signed a petition on the 911Truth.org web site suggesting that the Bush administration had deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen.

• He famously called Republicans “assholes” in a videotaped speech this year.

• Active in black nationalist movement.

In fact, Van Jones’s whole recent history is one of divisive, incendiary, and counter-productive statements and actions. Many people, both Republican and Democrat, have questioned how anyone like Van Jones could have been vetted for such an important position given his past statements and actions. The answer to that can be found in the fact that his two biggest supporters in Washington are the First Lady and the Vice President. I guess the vetting process results were thrown out the window in light of support like that.

The fact that the First Lady and Vice President supported Van Jones is very troubling. Are Van Jones’s beliefs and values shared by Michelle Obama and Joe Biden? For the sake of our country I hope his views are not shared by them. Another disturbing fact is that the whole controversy was completely ignored by most major newspapers and media outlets. If it wasn’t for Glenn Beck of Fox News and other conservative media, Van Jones would still be serving as the White House green jobs czar.

Van Jones is just one in a long list of White House appointees with a questionable past. I have lost track of how many tax cheats are serving in positions of importance in the Obama administration. Apparently Obama continues to think that the silent majority will continue to remain silent. This view despite evidence to the contrary in the form of a huge grassroots movement that is trying to convey the message to the Obama administration that we will no longer be silent on issues of national defense, health care, out of control spending, a burgeoning government bureaucracy, arrogance, and scorn for those who oppose Obama policies. I hope the upcoming 9/12 rally in DC this weekend will help drive home that message.

Evidence of the arrogance and disdain that many in the Obama administration have for those who oppose many of his policies and political appointments comes from Van Jones himself. In a sharply worded statement, Jones assailed his critics.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I would submit that the only lies and distortions are those that come from Van Jones himself. His past words and actions speak for themselves. You cannot smear someone by using the facts and ones own words and deeds. It is the proponents of reform who have taken up the tactics of lies and distortions to promote their own objectives. Their message is that it is either our way or the highway. The no longer silent majority begs to differ.

]]> http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/09/08/van-jones-downfall-came-from-his-own-words-and-actions-not-smear-campaign/feed/ 0 http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/08/20/burress-lawyer-says-nightclub-incident-not-intentional-criminal-act/ http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/08/20/burress-lawyer-says-nightclub-incident-not-intentional-criminal-act/#comments Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:58:14 +0000 Michael Tefft http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/?p=1909 Former New York Giant Plaxico Burress finally pleaded guilty to a lesser weapons charge after months of negotiation with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The original indictment on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count  of reckless endangerment was reduced to the one lesser charge and Burress will be sentenced to two years in prison.

The charges stem from an incident that happened in a Latin Quarter nightclub in late November of last year when a gun tucked into Burress’ waistband slipped down his leg and fired, shooting him in the right thigh. The bullet narrowly missed a nightclub security guard and lodged in the floor of the nightclub.

The gun was not licensed in New York or New Jersey, where Burress lived, and Burress did not have a valid concealed weapon permit for New York state. Both Burress and his former teammate Antonio Pierce tried to cover up the incident and did not report it to police. Additionally, neither the security guard at the nightclub nor the hospital staff members who treated Burriss reported the incident to police.

Yet despite all this, Burress’ lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, questioned the two year sentence. To quote Brafman: “This was not an intentional criminal act.”  “In my judgment, a two-year prison sentence is a very severe punishment.”

Lets review the details of the case. First, Burress knew he did not have a valid concealed weapons permit yet he still carried a concealed weapon into a nightclub that serves alcohol. In most states, even if you have a concealed weapon permit, you cannot carry concealed into a place that serves alcohol. That was an intentional criminal act on the part of Burress.

Second, Burress knew the gun was not legally registered in either New York or New Jersey. That was an intentional criminal act on the part of Burress.

Third, Burress tried to cover up the whole incident, which is another criminal act. Looks to me like Burress committed several intentional criminal acts. In my opinion Burress is lucky he only received a two year sentence for his crimes. Luckily it is not a crime to be stupid or there could have been another charge added to the original indictment.

Owning a gun is a very serious responsibility with very serious consequences if you do not follow the laws or use common sense. Plaxico Burress is just now finding this out. The whole incident could have been much worse, with either Burress or an innocent bystander being killed.

So all I can say to attorney Bejamin Brafman about his statement that this was not an intentional criminal act is “give me a break.”

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.  The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.  Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.  Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, Grow up!”

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.  Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.  The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter….”

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.  The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

{from an email my brother sent me.}

Declaration of IndeDpendence

It seems to me that this was a case of a man who has racial issues of his own losing it when a white police officer had the hubris to actually try to do his job. Refusing to show ID when asked by a police officer is not a smart thing to do. To start shouting at a police officer, calling him a racist, demanding the name of the officer and his badge number, saying things like “you don’t know who you’re messing with” are also not very smart things to do. When the police respond to a call the best thing you can do is cooperate and not lose your temper. The officers did not know who Gates was and were just trying to determine what was going on. I would think that Gates would have been appreciative of the officers, who were there after all to protect Gates home from being burglarized. Gates complained that Crowley did not have his permission to enter the house. Police do not need permission to enter a house if the owners refuse to identify themselves and the police are investigating a potential break-in and burglary.

This whole incident could have been avoided if Gates had acted rationally, like most people would have. But as I said before it seems that Gates has a giant chip on his shoulder and real issues with white people, especially white police officers. His comment of “this is what happens to black men in America” is interesting. Maybe he was referring to the fact that being black in America means you have the opportunity to become a respected scholar and Harvard law professor. The comment “you don’t know who you’re messing with” reflects someone who has a overinflated sense of his position as well as someone who knows he can play the race card effectively to say and do anything he wants. Or maybe he knew that his buddy, the President of the United States, would take his side while not even knowing the facts of the incident.

But the most troubling aspect of this whole affair is the President of the United States publicly siding with Gates without knowing all the facts (which he actually admitted) and then calling the arrest stupid. The President then went on talking about racial profiling and how it is a continuing problem in America. To quote the President “What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of Africa-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.” Why did the President mention racial profiling “separate and apart from this incident.?” There was obviously no racial profiling going on here. Every time a white police officer arrests a minority it is not “racial profiling.” If the neighbor had reported two white men attempting to break into the house does anyone think the Cambridge police would have ignored the call? Does anyone think the Cambridge police would not have asked to see their identification? Does anyone think the police would not have arrested them if they had started shouting epithets and being uncooperative?

Everything officer Crowley did that night was standard police procedure. The issue of race was injected into the incident by Gates. If anyone is a racist it is Professor Gates. Officer Crowley teaches a course on racial profiling for other officers and gave CPR to a dying Reggie Lewis, the Boston Celtics star who had a fatal heart attack in 1993 during a practice game at Brandeis University, where Crowley was a campus police officer at the time. The next day Professor Gates felt compelled to go before a group of African-Americans and continue to stoke the fires of racial discord by continuing to blame racial profiling for the incident. It is also notable that a majority of police agencies around the country have come down solidly on the side of officer Crowley and the Cambridge police department.

President Obama even went so far as to demand that officer Crowley apologize, again without knowing all the facts of the case. In fact President Obama mistakenly thought that Professor Gates was arrested for being in his own house after showing ID. He did not realize that Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. To quote officer Crowley, ” That apology will never come. It won’t come from me as Jim Crowley. It won’t come from me as a sergeant in the police department. I know what I did was right. I have nothing to apologize for.”

The White House tried to downplay Obama’s comments by saying that the President was not calling officer Crowley stupid. I guess he was calling the whole Cambridge police department stupid instead. If anyone should apologize it should be Professor Gates for throwing a temper tantrum and calling an officer who is clearly not a racist a racist. President Obama should also apologize to officer Crowley and the entire Cambridge police department. But I would not expect an apology to be forthcoming from Professor Gates and probably not President Obama either.

Even a CNN commentator, Maria Haberfeld, wrote in her commentary that Obama rushed to judgment on police in the incident. To quote her commentary: “We teach our children to think about what others feel before they act, but as grown-ups we frequently assume we understand what others do without ever having walked in their shoes.” She further goes on to say: “I was not there. Neither was the president nor all the others who are quick to pass judgment.”  Her commentary is very enlightening and can be read here.

Another great perspective, more eloquently presented than I can ever hope to do, on the incident can be seen here. (from CNN iReport), entitled “Shame on the President and SHAME on GATES for Pimpin’ the moment.”

And while I was not there either, I at least waited until I had most if not all the facts in before writhing this post. That is something President Obama cannot say.

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.