The credit for this one goes to Nevada Pundit – it has to be seen to believed.

So says Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to a gathering of minority journalists yesterday, stopped short of endorsing an official U.S. apology to American Indians but said the country should acknowledge its history of poor treatment of certain ethnic groups.

“There’s no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we’ve got some very sad and difficult things to account for,” Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY ’08, a convention of four minority journalism associations.

The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal U.S. apology to American Indians.

“I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

“I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

That, by the way, comes pretty close to Obama endorsing the monunentally unjust idea of reparations for slavery. Outside of that, I’d like to find a day over the past 30 years when we weren’t noting the tragic elements of our past…and counter that its time we started concentrating on the glorious aspects of our past. To be forever digging up the ghosts of slavery, Jim Crow and Wounded Knee does no one any good – it doesn’t help those who were treated unjustly (they are all dead), it doesn’t harm those who carried out the injustices (they are, also, all dead) and it makes it harder for us to reconcile in the modern world and, like the Seneca at Appomattox, say “we are all Americans here.”

‘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.’
-Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Tenth Amendment, which is supposed to hold weight equal to the First, Second and every other Amendment to the United States Constitution, has in the last 80 years been regarded as “a nice idea” but optional. This has resulted in usurpation of powers from the States in everything from health care to education (and everything in between).

Far from being taken seriously, the Tenth Amendment has become the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, and has been ignored with impunity by the Federal government.

There is a movement afoot in Oklahoma, however, to rectify the situation:

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘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.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The measure passed overwhelmingly in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, but was hung up in the State Senate (sound familiar?) However, Representative Charles Kay plans to re-introduce the measure when the Oklahoma State House reconvenes next year.

What would upholding the Tenth Amendment entail? Walter E. Williams writes,

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

Of course, the eye of the needle through which the camel squeezed its head was the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. All well and good; however, meaning of the term “commerce” has been twisted and manipulated to not only cover business transactions between residents of different states, but everything else under the sun:

These scholars interpret interstate commerce to mean “substantial interstate human relations” and find this consistent with the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They also argue that this expansive interpretation makes more sense for the foreign and Indian commerce clauses as one would expect Congress to be given authority to regulate non-economic relations with other nations and with Indian tribes.

This ‘liberal translation’ of the term, ‘commerce,’ of course, flies in the face of Jefferson’s writings; which is SOP for liberals, who true to their moniker often take great liberty in using the words of the Constitution as so much silly puddy to bend and shape their meaning to fit their cause d’jour. This led to the creation of FDR’s “New Deal,” which led to the notion that the government pretty much had the right to step in to any situation, for any reason, if there was any indication of interstate commerce whatsoever. While minor shifts toward state’s rights have occurred in between, the Federal Government still maintains overwhelming authority over areas of our lives in which they Constitutionally have no business to regulate.

This could be the start of a groundswell of opportunity to defeat Federal usurpation of power, and to once and for all defeat the federal imposition of liberalism and its even uglier cousin, socialism. I look forward to a Republican legislator from my home state of Minnesota to take up this mantle (I know it won’t be a democrat).

Have at it boys and girls, just didn’t have time to write a good post for the AM shift.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Looks like John Kerry was partying late this weekend…

According to Real Clear Politics show the race varying from an 8 point Obama lead, to a 4 point McCain lead. What does this mean?

That no one really has a clue what is going on out there.

I look at it like this – there are just too many variables out there. Will the youth vote show up? Will blue collar Democrats vote for Obama or McCain? Will movement conservatives show up for McCain? Will President Bush’s unpopularity drag down GOP participation? Will the Democrat Congress’ unpopularity drag down Democratic participation? Will victory in Iraq help/harm McCain/Obama? Will oil/gasoline prices help/harm Obama/McCain? Will liberal women show up for Obama? Will hispanics keep on track for the Democrats, or will McCain have appeal to them due to his immigration stance? The only thing we can say with any certainty is that African Americans will turn out in high numbers and will give a super-overwhelming majority of their votes to Obama (if McCain cracks 5% of the black vote it’ll be a bit of a shocker). With so many variables out there I’m not surprised that a respected pollster like Ramussen comes up with a three point Obama lead while respected pollster USA Today/Gallup comes up with a four point McCain lead. I really don’t suspect any bias in the pollsters (except any Newsweek poll – they are universally and amazingly biased in favor of the Democrats – I’ll trust a Carville poll before I’ll trust a Newsweek poll) – they just don’t know and are doing the best they can.

Its also July and while this election seems to have been going on forever, it really doesn’t kick into gear until after Labor Day…and the high test doesn’t come until after the World Series is over. Between now and then, there is just so much which can and will happen, that all I can do at this point is rate the election a complete toss up and thoroughly enjoy the most interesting political year I’ve ever seen.

Demonstrating that its really all about keeping abortion legal, everything else be damned:

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), has charged that American feminists are refusing to address the problem of sex-selective abortions, a phenomenon in which unborn children of an unwanted sex are aborted. Mosher claims that over 100 million girls are missing, primarily due to parents who use ultrasound examinations to choose whether or not to abort the unborn child.

Speaking in PRI’s latest YouTube video, Mosher says the disparity is particularly noticeable in East and South Asia, but also in American groups of Asian descent.

In China, India, and other Asian countries, there is a strong preference for boys,” Mosher says. “This combination of a preference for boys and modern technology—the ultrasound machine—has proven deadly for millions upon millions of baby girls.”

The PRI video cites a recent study published by the National Academy of Sciences.

“Where are the feminists when you need them?” Mosher asks…

The lesson here is that if you want justice, liberty, etc you can only get it if you apply it to everyone – exclude the unborn or the sick elderly, and the injustice you allow will just breed more. Abortion, in and of itself, is unjust – sex selection abortion just doubles down on it…and the feminists – except for a relative few with wisdom over at Feminists for Life – stay silent about this destruction of the next generation of women.

Do you want to live? Then you have to defend everyone’s right to life. Do you want to have a fair shot in life? Then everyone who comes into life must also have a fair shot. Do you want to be respected as an individual? Then you have to respect all individuals. Can’t have it both ways – you are for Life, or you are for Death…and most feminists are for Death.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe, authors of Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths – The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, which debunks 20 negative stereotypes about Republicans and conservatives.I have posted the interview below:

MATT MARGOLIS: Did your experiences growing up and living in the liberal northeast inspire you to write this book? Was there any particular incident that made writing book feel more like a necessity to you?

S.E. CUPP: Although I grew up in the liberal northeast, I didn’t necessarily grow up in a particularly political household. My parents were patriotic, hardworking and compassionate, so that was my largest immediate influence — not politics. It wasn’t until college really that I understood how conservative I was, and until I realized that the Republican Party best addresses my political interests. This book is a direct result of our circumstance, being conservative fish-out-of-water in liberal Manhattan, and finding ourselves inexplicably at the business end of a verbal firing squad on a near-daily basis.

BRETT JOSHPE: Yes, for sure.  My experiences in college and law school probably contributed to my desire to write this book more than anything.  It is very frustrating being lectured to by left-wing professors and having relatively little recourse.  It made me want to respond in other ways, hence the book.  Also, I witnessed a great deal of anti-Americanism given the post 9/11 world we live in, which was also frustrating and inspired me to want to work on this project.

MATT: How did you choose which stereotypes to address in your book?

S.E.: It wasn’t hard to come up with a list of 20 stereotypes that are regularly and inaccuarately used to sum up conservatives in catchy sound bytes and clever bon mots. I think anyone with a pulse and a television could come up with 20 stereotypes about Republicans.

MATT: How can Republicans overcome these stereotypes?

BRETT: Well, it certainly won’t happen lying down.  It’s important for conservatives to disprove these stereotypes by not only showing people that they do not embody the myths, but by educating themselves on the facts so that these accusations can be refuted.  Our book is a good place to start, and there are also some other new books filled with facts that show why some of these stereotypes are grossly inaccurate.  Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Makers and Takers” is one such example.

MATT: Have any of your liberal friends read your book? Were they convinced by it?

S.E.: Many of our liberal friends have read the book, which is a feat in itself. And while they’ve all said how much they enjoyed it, how funny it was, and how informative it was, few have actually changed their own political ideologies. But I think a number have realized that conservatives and Republicans are far more intellectually diverse than they thought. I think they appreciate how nuanced our positions on race, reproduction, poverty, foreign policy, faith, gun control, and the rest are, and I think many will think twice now before using the same, hackneyed rhetoric to describe conservative points of view.

BRETT: Yes, many liberal friends have read it and enjoyed it.  One such friend said that although it didn’t push him over the edge from liberal to conservative, it provided about a 20% swing towards conservatism.  Not bad.  If we could get a 20% swing in everyone, we would have no trouble in November.  In general, I think most people, liberals and conservatives, who have read the book have enjoyed it and definitely have a more complete view of our movement now. Continue reading →

Obama is back home and he got a bounce from is campaign to be President of the World – but will it really help him in the long run? Or is this yet another Obama flash in the pan doomed to fizzle out as soon as the pizzaz fades away and people, once again, realise that Obama is just a very junior Senator with no life experience which indicates an ability to be President?

Oil prices fell sharply last week, and have been followed by lower gasoline prices – are we about to see the oil bubble pop, or are we just catching our breath before another rise in oil prices?

President Bush touted the turn-around in AIDS treatment in Africa over the past five years or so – just how did Chimpy McSmirk BusHilter manage to be this great a humanitarian for Africa? Shouldn’t he be evil to them, too? Or, is it that the EEEVIL!!! Bush meme is a bit overdrawn?

Team McCain welcomes Obama’s flip flop on surrender in Iraq – congratulating the Senator on finally seeing that a withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions, not rigid timetables. Will this flip harm Obama with his kook left base? Help Obama with non-kook voters?

Discuss these and any other issues you wish.

From NRO’s The Corner:

Senator John McCain said today that he supports the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in the state’s public contracting, education (including university admissions), and employment programs. Essentially identical initiatives will be before voters this fall in Colorado and Nebraska, and have been enacted in California, Washington, and most recently Michigan.

Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: “I think in the past he’d been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”

Obama’s criticism is wrongheaded for at least three reasons: (1) it is obviously preferential policies that are divisive, not their abolition; (2) the “big problem” of helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds can be addressed by helping people of all colors who are disadvantaged, rather than crudely and unfairly using race as a proxy for disadvantage; and (3) Obama himself has recognized as much, albeit fitfully and inconsistently, in his own statements—for instance, acknowledging the divisiveness of preferential treatment (in his Philadelphia speech), and the fact that his own daughters, for starters, come from privileged backgrounds and thus are “probably” not deserving of preferential treatment.

It is rather breathtaking the way our liberals will claim that after divvying us up into race, class and gender groups for forty years that they’ll call any attempt to end such things “divisive”. Never let it be said that our liberals lack for an ability to be Orwellian in their viewpoints. John McCain has now taken a strong stand in favor of treating human beings like, well, human beings.

It has long been my contention that while liberals love humanity, individual humans rate very low on their scale of concerns. Liberals don’t really want to help that poor, black guy down the street who’s having a hard time…they want to help “black people”. Liberals will help you as long as the help is directed towards an identified victim group – and so for a liberal the black son of a lawyer and the black son of a sharecropper are same/same…both need affirmative action to get ahead. On the other hand, conservatives view individuals and see the inherent worth in each one of them…we want to help people who are poor, and we don’t care what sociological grouping the particular poor person belongs to.

Added to this worldview is the corruption so endemic to modern American liberalism. Affirmative action helps out some rather well-connected individuals, groups and businesses. Like this – if you’re going to have a bit of minority set-asides for the new highway contract and there’s only one minority-owned highway contractor in the area, guess who’s going to get the job, even if he’s not the best at it? Of course, that highway contractor now has a vested interest in keeping the set-asides going forever – and so he donates to politicians who will promise to defend affirmative action. Then there’s the fact that a lot of companies will put a woman or other minority in as CEO and call themselves a minority-owned business just to get in on the affirmative action swag.

Taking into consideration the corruption and injustice of affirmative action, its clear that any forward-thinking politician would be in favor of scrapping it. And in this we see just how hidebound Obama is – in fact, the best way to describe him is as a liberal reactionary. Odd grouping of words there, but Obama is so entirely locked into the failed policies of the 60’s and 70’s that only the most stubborn blindness can explain it. Affirmative action, as we know it today, was saddled on to the country by Richard Nixon as a cynical ploy to try and get liberal media to be nice to him – didn’t work, of course, but we’re stuck with this unjust dinosaur nearly 40 years later, and its high time to scrap it.

I’m still laughing at this…