A Chance to “throw up”

Rick Santorum was a guest on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this past Sunday.  If he was trying to make headlines he certainly was a success.  Following are the transcripts of the two parts of the interview that are truly nauseating.

It’s the things that make me want to throw up.

ON EDUCATION

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me get back to education. We were talking about that at the top of this interview. You had — you talked about President Obama and education yesterday. I want to show what you said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: President Obama once said he wants everybody in Americato go to college. What a snob.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: You’re good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to tests that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now getting to college has been part of the American dream for generations, Senator. Why does articulating an aspiration make the president a snob?

SANTORUM: I think because there are lot of people in this country that have no desire or no aspiration to go to college, because they have a different set of skills and desires and dreams that don’t include college.

And there are other — there’s technical schools, there’s additional training, vocational training. There’s skills and apprenticeships. There’s all sorts of things that people can do to upgrade their skills to be very productive and —

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: — and build their community.

STEPHANOPOULOS: All he said was he wants, quote, “every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training.” In your interview with Glenn Beck this week, you seemed to go further. You said I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because they are indoctrination mills. What did that mean?

SANTORUM: Well, of course. I mean, you look at the colleges and universities, George. This is not – this is not something that’s new for most Americans, is how liberal our colleges and universities are and how many children in fact are – look, I’ve gone through it. I went through it at Penn State. You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed, you are – I can tell you personally, I know that, you know, we – I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views. This is sort of a regular routine (ph). You know the statistic that at least I was familiar with from a few years ago — I don’t know if it still holds true but I suspect it may even be worse – that 62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator, when you put all this together—

SANTORUM: This is not a neutral setting.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — it makes it sound like you think there is something wrong with encouraging college education.

ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have also spoken out about the issue of religion in politics, and early in the campaign, you talked about John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston back in 1960. Here is what you had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTORUM: Earlier (ph) in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, “I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent (ph) at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston,Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison—

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you wanted to throw up?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: — the perfect remedy. Well, yes, absolutely, to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

– 

My grand parents (both sets) were proud of the fact that they had one child from their families that graduated from college.  They were my mom and dad.

As to religion there is nothing in the First Amendment that says government should bring “everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

When the Courts Provide a Solution

For most of us going into court without a lawyer is a daunting thought. A Southern California woman who challenged the legal status-quo by filing a small-claims action against Honda won her lawsuit.  Her complaint was that her hybrid Honda had not provided the promised fuel economy that had been advertised.  She won!

This event will induce others to go into small claims courts all over the country.  Companies and people should be held accountable for their actions and promises.

The Fourth Branch of American Government

This is the reason we need to defend America’s free press.  

Sometimes called the “fourth estate”; the press has become the real watchdog that helps ensure the government really does the people’s will.

Just two weeks ago there was an item on 60 Minutes about a proposed law titled the Stock Act. The proposed law would outlaw the right of congressmen and senators the right to legally act on insider information that would send the rest of us to jail. The law was originally introduced in the 109th session of the House of Representatives on Mar. 28, 2006 by Brian Baird (D-WA) but it received no support at all until it was part of the television program on November 13, 2011.  As of December 2, 2011, it has 153 co-sponsors.  This never would have happened without the reporting on television.

 Last night Steve Kroft, again on 60 Minutes,  interviewed two people who were fired from big financial companies (one from Countrywide Mortgage and one from Citi-Group) because they tried to intervene in fraudulent activities.

It was the Los Angeles Times that provided the expose revealing the theft of city funds from the small city of Bell, California.  That has resulted in criminal charge against the city manager and city council members.

Between 1972 and 1976, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, reporting for the Washington Post,  emerged as two of the most famous journalists in the Watergate affair that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Joe Paterno & Child Abuse in America

Joe Paterno’s motto “Success with honor” was just words without deeds.  He is at fault for child abuse. It is an act that society cannot tolerate. From USA Today “In 46 seasons as coach, Paterno built a football powerhouse while touting academics, ethics. But a scandal ended his career prematurely.”  Paterno probably won’t be prosecuted but he deserves to be ostracized from society.  However, just in case he he is prosecuted he has hired an experienced attorney who regularly represents companies in civil and criminal investigations according to The Washington Post.

It’s something we rarely talk about but just Google “incest in America” and you will find an extraordinary amount of information and most likely mis-information.  Many of our states do not allow abortions except in the case of incest or rape.  Is that because it is so prevalent?

Child sexual abuse has been reported up to 80,000 times a year, but the number of unreported instances is far greater, because the children are afraid to tell anyone what has happened, and the legal procedure for validating an episode is difficult. The problem should be identified, the abuse stopped, and the child should receive professional help. The long-term emotional and psychological damage of sexual abuse can be devastating to the child.  More on this subject here

1. Wikipedia: Prevalence of incest between parents and their children is difficult to assess due to secrecy and privacy; some estimate that 20 million Americans were…

 2. AMERICA’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: CHILD ABUSE AND INCEST …

http://thecapt.blog-city.com /americas_dirty_little_se… – 50k – similar pages

May
31, 2006 Here in the U.S. we give a lot of lip service to looking out and caring for children but the reality is different. Actions speak louder than words.

3. About Us | RAINN |Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

http://www.rainn.org/about-rainn – 26k – similar pages

“One of America‘s 100 Best Charities — Worth Magazine”. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network is the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization.

4. Incest – National Center for Victims of Crime

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32360
– 81k – similar pages

One of the nation’s leading researchers on child sexual abuse, David Finkelhor, estimates that 1,000,000 Americans are victims of father-daughter incest, and

The Limits of Free Speech

We all know that yelling “Fire” in a theater is not permitted.  That would be an effort to cause panic and catastrophe.  What if you demonstrate against a speaker with the intent of disrupting his right to speak?  That was the case of a group called ‘Irvine 11.’ The group was reduced to 10. 

At a UCI(University of California Irvine) speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States the group of pro Palestinian demonstrators made every attempt to stop the presentation.  That was an act intended to deny the ambassador his right to speak.  The jury found the accused guilty.   Will they appeal this case?  That remains to be seen.

Recall the religious group that was demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When the Supreme Court ruled in March that an antiwar church had a constitutional right to protest outside a military funeral, California lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to ban pickets within 1,000 feet of any funeral.

These decisions by the Supreme Court, in my opinon, are incorrect.  Everyone should have the right of free assembly.  Demonstrators infringe on that right.

The Declaration of Independence

 

Independence Hall

 

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence, severing the colonies’ ties to the British Crown.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

W hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

This came to me today.  snopes.com verfied its accuracy.  Theodore Roosevelt was talking about legal immigrants. 

Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.’
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

We Want The Best President

The argument over Barack Obama’s birthplace seems to me of little value.  There is no credible evidence he was born elsewhere.  The question ought to be “How well is he doing as president?”  I was born in Canada.  My parents moved to the United States less than six months later.  If only they had contained themselves for those six months I could have been eligible to be president of this country.  For that reason alone, I and many other loyal Americans are denied the opportunity to reach America’s highest office.  I am not certain that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be elected to the presidency but why would we deny someone who is clearly devoted to America the opportunity to run for leading the country?  Some of the brightest and smartest Americans were born elsewhere.

Our former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia.  Joseph Pulitzer was was born in Hungary in 1847.  He made his way to America to join the Union Army during the Civil War.  Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter was born in Vienna, Austria in 1882 and moved with his family to the United States in 1894.  Irving Berlin was born in Russia in 1888. He is the composer of “White Christmas,” “Easter Parade” and “God Bless America.”  Dr. Rita M. Rodriguez, a former director of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, was born in Oriente, Cuba in 1942.  Sidney Harman (deceased this year), founder of Harman Kardon Industries (famous for Hi-fi sound systems) was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Mortimer Benjamin “Mort” Zuckerman (born June 4, 1937) is a Canadian-born American magazine editor, publisher (U.S. News and World Report, etc.), and real estate billionaire. He is a naturalized citizen of the United States. Google co- founder Sergey Brin (born in Russia and moved to the U.S. at age 6). 

A well known host of a quiz show, born in Canada, that asks the contestants to provide the questions.  I am sure you know many more great foreign born Americans.

We must seek agreement on gun reforms

This commentary written by President Barack Obama appeared in today’s Arizona Daily Star and on the newspaper’s website.

It’s been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack’s turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people’s pain.

But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.

He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.

But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.

Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They’re our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

I’m willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few – dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example – from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I’m willing to bet they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas – that we should check someone’s criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to buy a gun so easily; that there’s room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

That’s why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that’s supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn’t been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states – but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data – and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can’t escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Clearly, there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren’t interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don’t get to look away and move on, neither can we.

We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts – to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children’s futures.

The First Amendment Protects those we Despise

Christian Dior has fired head designer John Galliano over anti-Semitic and racist remarks he allegedly made on two occasions.  The AP reports that Paris prosecutors ordered Galliano to stand trial in the coming months over alleged racial insults.  Unlike France, that most of us think is a free country, in the United States you really do have Freedom of Speech!

Remember the KKK marches in Skokie, Illinois?  The ACLU defended the right to march and display hate.

Can you see any difference between these two videos?

Once again the right to hate has been upheld.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.  The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker,” Roberts said. “As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Alito strongly disagreed. “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” he said.