Mountain Views News          Saturday, January 22, 2011

10

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, January 22, 2011 


Last week Greg decried 
“blatant hypocrisy” in coverage 
of the Tucson tragedy. He 
cited the aftermath of a shooting 
last August; that when “a 
black man purposefully killed 
8 whites and himself credited 
liberal rhetoric about racist America as his motivation, 
the press told us to ignore those associations.” 
The shooter, in fact, turned the gun on 
himself before anyone had the opportunity to 
question him about “motivation”.

Omar Thornton killed eight co-workers at a 
beer distribution warehouse in Connecticut, and 
the media reported that past and present girlfriends 
said he’d told them about being victimized 
by racist acts of his predominantly white co-
workers. He told of images of nooses and racial 
epithets scrawled on restroom walls, and of overhearing 
intentions to “get rid of the n - - r”. There 
was evidence of stolen beer, but none indicating 
the influence of “liberal rhetoric.”

There weren’t the warning signs of mental illness 
in Thornton as there were with the Tucson 
shooter; he often complained about racist treatment 
at various jobs, comments directed at his 
white girlfriend, and was increasingly hounded 
by debt collectors.

He was also into guns; buying them (legally) 
in stores and shopping over the internet. The 
ones he used in the murders were Ruger-9’s, 
which, according to gun websites, were specifically 
designed for the market created by relaxed 
concealed-carry laws. His were concealed in his 
lunch case, and were brought out after he’d signed 
resignation papers handed him along with evidence 
of his stealing.

Similarities between that tragedy and the recent 
one in Tucson include focused outrage from 
the right not on the crime itself, but on coverage 
in the media. Last year, the commentary on the 
Connecticut shootings cited most on right-wing 
websites was Dennis Prager’s. His take on the incident 
differed from Greg’s, but both missed the 
truth. Greg missed that Thornton complained 
of first-hand experiences with racism, not of 
hearing about the subject from “liberals”. Prager 
missed that it wasn’t the “liberal media” connecting 
the murders to racism, but rather the girlfriends 
and family members whose comments 
the media reported on.

There’s another similarity between reactions 
to the two incidents. In response to calls to tone 
down vitriolic and potentially dangerous rhetoric 
since the Tucson shootings, we’ve heard cries 
from the right of “But they do it, too!” In response 
to allegations of racism related to the Thornton 
case, Prager expressed his frustration that “(a)fter 
50 years of being inundated with stories of white 
racism, and being taught in college that . . . only a 
white can be a racist . . . the liberal media . . . does 
not brand these Connecticut murders for what 
they are: racist.” There’s grudging acknowledgement 
that white people have committed racist 
acts, “But they do it, too!”

The attitude seems to be, thanks to Dr. Martin 
Luther King Jr., we now have a colorblind society 
and whatever problems there may have been 
were taken care of decades ago. Accusations of 
“racism” today can therefore be dismissed as attempts 
to deflect blame for something else. Dr. 
King has been gone now for more years than 
he was here on this earth, with both he and the 
causes he fought for relegated to history books. 

Princeton Professor Dr. Cornel West, in an 
interview with Tavis Smiley on PBS, discussed 
what he called “the Santa Clausification” of Dr. 
King; “He just becomes a nice little old man with 
a smile with toys in his bag, not a threat to anybody 
. . . rather than acknowledge him as to what 
he was, what the FBI said, ‘The most dangerous 
man in America’”. Dr. West explained, “ . . . love 
and justice is a serious thing in a world that’s obsessed 
with fear, hatred and greed, and that’s very 
much what we’re talking about.” 

 “A lot of our young people see Martin as 
just an item in a museum rather than part of a 
vital and vibrant tradition, part of an ocean.” Dr. 
West offered how he’d explain Dr. King’s legacy 
to his own children: “ . . . he was a human being 
who mustered incredible courage to think for 
himself, free, against the grain. You have to be 
able to think for yourself. You have to be able to 
cut against the grain, get the distance from your 
peer group . . . you have to have an habitual vision 
of greatness, you see. You have to believe in fact 
that you will refuse to settle for mediocrity. You 
won’t confuse financial security with your personal 
integrity. You won’t confuse your success 
with your greatness or your prosperity with your 
magnanimity.”

I can remember from my own childhood hearing 
comments expressing puzzlement over why 
someone who had already done so much for “his 
people” in the area of civil rights, who’d attained 
such acceptance and stature, would risk it all by 
coming out in opposition to the Vietnam War.

I later learned how, although for most people 
being awarded a Nobel Prize would be the culmination 
of a life’s work, for Dr. King it signified 
an obligation to renew and expand efforts in all 
areas; from poverty to inequality to unjust wars.

Today’s debate seems more about the spin media 
and pundits apply to issues, rather than the 
issues themselves. There’s access to healthcare, 
particularly mental healthcare. There’s inequality 
of opportunity, particularly educational and economic 
opportunities.

There’s an increasing tendency to resort to violence; 
guns brought to town hall meetings and a 
presidential appearance, shootings in Connecticut 
last August and Tucson earlier this month; a 
bomb discovered and defused that was set to go 
off at a Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane 
last Monday.

It’s hard to say what role violent rhetoric played 
leading up to these events. It’s hard to say what 
role it played over forty years ago in silencing the 
one whom the FBI called “the most dangerous 
man in America”. 

HOWARD Hays

 As I See It

Defending 

The Constitution

GREG Welborn


Politicians continue to amaze me, and that’s 
saying something since I’ve been ready on more 
than one occasion to think that I’ve seen it all. 
But that’s what makes my job fun; being amazed 
that I’m amazed at what politicians will do or expect 
me – an average American Joe voter to believe. 
Most recently, we were treated to several 
U.S. Congressmen telling us that they have no responsibility 
to considering whether their actions 
are constitutional or not. Such pronouncements 
are not only ludicrous at face value, but dangerous 
if not countered with a proper understanding 
of just how important our constitution really is.

 First, let’s deal with the responsibility issue. 
Every Congress from the very first one convened 
in 1789 has sworn an oath as specified clearly 
in the Constitution. There is no exact wording 
specified in the Constitution, but article 6 clearly 
states that they shall be “bound by Oath or Affirmation, 
to support this Constitution.” The current 
oath has been around since 1884, and it is 
administered by the Speaker of the House on a 
yearly basis to all congressmen – new or returning 
– on the first day of each new congressional 
year. 

Thus, it would a great surprise to me if any congressman 
really didn’t realize that he or she had 
“solemnly sworn (or affirmed) that I will support 
and defend the Constitution of the United States 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic… So 
help me God.” So what are we to make of an elected 
official who either doesn’t understand what he 
or she is supposed to protect and defend or can’t 
remember that he or she is supposed to protect 
and defend anything? The most charitable thing 
I can suggest is that they might seriously consider 
another career option.

But what of the question as to the importance of 
defending and understanding this constitution? 
It is possible after all that this oath they swear is 
simply a quaint tradition... akin to swearing allegiance 
to a Queen or King who serves a purely 
figure-head role. Sadly, I do think that many of 
our elected officials view the constitution in just 
such a figurative manner. Politicians who want 
to increase their own personal power and to increase 
the power of the central government over 
our individual lives are highly motivated to convince 
us and themselves that the constitution is 
just a neat old historical document that we drew 
up after we through the Brits off the continent.

To view the constitution in such a manner is 
to miss the genius in it. Our founders were keen 
students of human nature and behavior. They 
realized that the quest for power would never 
be tamed and that any government they created 
would have to recognize and deal with that one 
overarching truth. Their solution was to structure 
government in such a way that two things 
happened. First, and foremost, they listed the 
specific powers that the central government was 
to have and left everything else to the individual 
states and the people. In this structure, the federal 
government isn’t allowed to do anything that the 
constitution doesn’t specifically authorize it to do. 
Second, because the federal government did have 
some powers delegated to it, they wanted to make 
sure that these powers would be abused as little as 
possible. Thus, they divided up this power among 
three competing institutions: the presidency, the 
congress and the Supreme Court. Our founders 
delegated certain of the federal powers to each 
institution and counted on the fact that each institution 
would compete for 
power against the others and 
thus be forced to compromise 
and work together. 

It is a beautiful system 
which has guaranteed our individual 
freedoms longer than 
any other form of government on this planet. It 
may not be perfect, but it is the best system ever 
created, and we are all its beneficiaries in ways 
and to degrees we will never be able to fully appreciate. 
We get only a glimpse into the blessings 
we enjoy when we witness the periodic dissolutions 
of governments or the rise of dictatorships 
in other countries. God truly blessed those great 
men who created our constitution.

Over the decades, there have been several attempts 
to interpret the constitution in ways that 
would allow the federal government, and thus 
the politicians who are drawn to D.C., to exercise 
more authority over our lives. Today, this effort is 
being put forward under the guise of interpreting 
the “commerce clause” in a way that allows the 
government to mandate that Americans engage 
in a specific business transaction that they might 
not want to make. I grant that the commerce 
clause allows the government to regulate interstate 
commerce, but it has never been understood 
as a way the government could force someone to 
engage in commerce in the first place.

Obamacare’s most dangerous provision is the 
one that compels citizens to purchase health insurance 
of a type stipulated by the government 
and then to fine or jail those who do not comply. 
If the commerce clause can be interpreted as requiring 
you or me to buy health insurance, then 
the “commerce clause”, along with the “general 
welfare clause” and the “necessary and proper 
clause”, could be used to make us do anything. In 
other words, our freedoms are at grave risk. As 
our founders understood all too well, if the government’s 
power is not restricted and checked, it 
will grow unrestrained until we have no freedoms 
left.

 Thus, it is absolutely critical that every congressman, 
every senator, every president, and I’d 
add every voter, understand what this wonderful 
blessed document says about our freedoms. Accordingly, 
I have a couple of recommendations 
for congress. First, for any proposed law, ask 
where in the constitution the specific justification 
for the law is to be found. Second, congressmen 
should stop writing laws that simply delegate new 
powers to unelected bureaucrats. If the EPA can 
decide that CO2 is a pollutant, then it has way too 
much power. Third, Congress should start policing 
the bureaucracies and agencies which already 
exist and make them justify publicly the various 
and sundry stupid rules and regulations they’ve 
already promulgated.

We have a wonderful system of government, 
one that bears the mark of human genius that has 
guaranteed us all greater freedom and prosperity 
for a longer period of time than has ever been experienced 
before in human history. It would be 
a tragedy if such a blessed document and system 
were not defended by politician and voter alike. 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance 
writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. 
He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be 
reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net

Smith and Schiff Introduce 

Drug Safe Harbor Elimination Act

Washington, DC - Today, House Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and 
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced the Drug 
Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act – legislation 
to close a loophole in U.S. drug enforcement laws 
and give law enforcement officials greater authority 
to prosecute individuals engaged in international 
drug trafficking conspiracies. 

“Criminals who plot from within our borders to 
traffic drugs internationally should not be given a 
free pass just because the drugs they transport never 
enter the U.S.,” Chairman Smith said. “In order to 
protect Americans and combat the illegal drug trade, 
we must ensure that conspirators in the U.S. are 
brought to justice. We know that the illegal profits 
from these organizations fuel violence and fund 
terrorism around the world. And it is increasingly 
important to combat international drug cartels as 
the drug war in Mexico brings violence closer to 
home. This bill will close the dangerous loophole 
that allows international drug traffickers to avoid 
prosecution in the U.S.”

“In light of the destructive trade in drugs and 
guns between the U.S. and Mexico, it is more 
important than ever to eliminate any safe harbor for 
drug traffickers,” Rep. Schiff said. “This bipartisan 
bill closes a loophole in current law, giving law 
enforcement officials the ability to prosecute drug 
trafficking conspiracies conducted in the U.S., even 
if many of the illegal acts occur outside our borders.”

This legislation comes in response to a 2007 
decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the 
case, the defendants were convicted of a conspiracy 
to transport cocaine from Venezuela to Paris for 
distribution in Europe. The defendants appealed the 
conviction on the grounds that the objective of the 
conspiracy was to procure and distribute cocaine 
on foreign soil, and as such was not a violation 
of U.S. law. The government argued that because 
actions and meetings to further the conspiracy took 
place on U.S. soil (in Miami), they were subject to 
punishment under the title. 

The 11th Circuit overturned the conviction, 
finding that Congress’s lack of specific guidance 
on whether the statute should extend to drug 
trafficking outside the United States necessitated 
a dismissal. The legislation introduced today will 
clarify Congressional intent that conspiring to traffic 
in drugs in the United States is a Federal offense, 
regardless of where other parts of the conspiracy 
take place.

This bill was introduced in the 111th Congress, 
when it passed the House as a companion bill to 
legislation introduced in the Senate by Senators 
Kent Conrad and Jeff Sessions. Although it did not 
pass the Senate to become law during the 111th 
Congress, the Congressmen hope it will pass during 
the 112th Congress.

Legislative Fellowship Application 
Deadline Approaching

Senator Huff Urges All Qualified South State Students to Apply

SACRAMENTO: The application deadline for 
the 2011-2012 California Senate Fellows program 
is quickly approaching – and applications are 
now available in the office of Senator Bob Huff 
(R-Diamond Bar) and are also available online. 
Established in 1973, the California Senate Fellows 
(CSF) program is one of the oldest and most 
distinguished service learning programs in the 
country. It offers college graduates a paid, full-
time legislative staff position in the State Capitol 
for 11 months.

 The application postmark deadline for the 
2011-2012 California Senate Fellows is February 
23, 2011.

 The CSF program is jointly sponsored by 
the California State Senate and the Center for 
California Studies at California State University, 
Sacramento. Fellowship opportunities are also 
available in the California State Assembly, the 
Governor’s Office and the California Judicial 
Council.

 “The Capitol Fellows Program has been 
recognized as the number one internship 
opportunity in the country according to rankings 
from www.vault.com,” said Senator Huff. “My 
first year in the Legislature, I had a non-paid high 
school intern who volunteered in my District 
Office. This year he returned as a graduate from 
UC Berkeley to work with me as a Senate Fellow 
in my Capitol Office. It is especially gratifying 
to have a Senate Fellow who understands, first 
hand, the needs of the 29th Senate District.”

 The only requirement for the CSF program is 
a college degree and there is no preferred major 
since work in the policy arena covers a vast 
number of issues. Individuals with advanced 
degrees and those in mid-career are encouraged 
to apply. Although no previous political or 
legislative experience is necessary, applicants 
should have a strong interest in public policy and 
politics.

 Senate Fellows are offered a stipend of $1,972 
per month plus earn generous health, vision 
and dental benefits. They also earn 12-units of 
graduate credit from California State University, 
Sacramento for the academic portion of the 
program.

 Eighteen 2011-2012 California Senate Fellows 
will be selected to serve as full-time Senate 
staff for 11 months beginning in October 2011. 
Fellows are assigned to Member or policy 
committee offices and work as part of the public 
policy staff team in the Capitol. Responsibilities 
include helping develop legislative proposals, 
researching and analyzing bills, responding to 
constituent inquiries, and writing press releases 
and speeches.

 

The online applications can be accessed at the 
links below:

 Senate Fellows Program: www.csus.edu/calst/
senate

Assembly Fellows Program: www.csus.edu/calst/
assembly

Letters to the Editor

Editor,

 Today, for the very first time, I read your 
newspaper! Don’t know how I have missed it for so 
long but I found a copy of Saturday, January 15, 2011 
paper at SCPH, Royal Oaks Manor lobby. Many 
residents here speak so highly and fondly of Sierra 
Madre and your publication captures the friendly 
atmosphere of that community (even with the 
police blotter reports). Interesting ads, informative 
columns, appealing events, good pictures.

 

Good job. 

KB, Bradbury, CA.

 

To the Editor:

 

January 16, 2011

 Re: the Governor’s attempt to kill the goose that 
lays the golden eggs, and it isn’t his goose.

Governor Brown’s proposal to do away with 
Redevelopment Agencies and divert their tax funds 
to other uses is a serious betrayal of principle and 
amounts to an attempt to kill our goose that lays the 
golden eggs.

I basically agree with the Governor on two points 
– 

First, solving the budget crisis is going to require 
a combination of serious budget cuts and at least a 
temporary extension of present taxes.

Second, to the extent possible, decision making 
authority should be pushed down to the local 
governmental level because the decisions should be 
made by those most directly effected. Such a policy, 
of course, requires that the local agencies have both 
legal authority and a reliable source of funds to carry 
out their responsibilities.

Unfortunately, the Governor’s approach to the 
first is to permanently deprive cities and counties of 
both the authority and revenue source that they have 
traditionally had.

There are few decisions as peculiarly local as 
whether to engage in redevelopment and the 
details of the plan. Sunday’s Pasadena Star-News 
features the universally applauded redevelopment of 
downtown Alhambra. There is no way such a matter 
could be properly decided in Sacrament and no 
principled basis to say that Alhambra should not be 
free to make the decision at all.

Furthermore, the property taxes proposed to be 
taken from the Redevelopment Agencies only exist 
because of the enhanced property values and thus 
enhanced property taxes created by the actions 
of the Redevelopment Agencies. If they kill the 
Redevelopment Agencies to take these taxes there 
won’t be future tax increments or other economic 
development to benefit the communities.

If the Governor is going to work out a plan that 
will work he needs to immediately remove this detail 
from his plan.

 

--Eric Olson, 

Sierra Madre