Both.

Tim Tebow is a Heisman trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida.  As a home-schooled kid from a Christian family, he shatters the stereotype that kids taught by their parents at the kitchen table grow up to be abnormal, socially stunted adults.  Arguably the best college football player in the country, Tebow remains centered in his faith and family.

Pam Tebow was serving as a missionary in an orphanage in the Philippines with her husband Bob and Tim’s older siblings when she was pregnant with Tim.  She suffered from a parasitic infection, and doctors predicted a still birth and advised Pam to abort the baby for her own health.  She refused, and gave birth to a healthy, full term baby boy.

Focus on the Family has sponsored a 30 second add to appear during Superbowl XLIV, which features the Tebows and include some sort of “choose life” message.  And you know how pro-women groups feel about people choosing life.  They really can’t stand it, can they?  It’s interesting to me that they get so angry about it.  I mean, if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why do they get so upset about women choosing not to do it?

The Women’s Media Center and the National Organization for Women are going absolutely bonkers, accusing Focus on the Family of being “extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,” and pushing an “anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients.”  Whoa, that’s harsh.

So what does Tim Tebow have to say about the ad and about his mother’s decision to choose life?

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe…[T]hat’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

Bravo to the Tebow family for standing firm in their beliefs in the face of tough opposition.  I applaud you for not being afraid to exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech.  Even if that speech is difficult for some people to hear.  And to those that would deny the Tebows, Focus on the Family, and CBS the 30 second advertisement, I have two words for you: mute button.

Today the Supreme Court knocked out significant campaign finance laws, all of which had been unconstitutionally enacted in the name of “fairness.”  The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) attempted to restrict electioneering by wealthy corporations and labor unions by barring them from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate.  Just a little bit of unconstitutional censorship, that’s all.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court lifted those restrictions.  Which means that companies will be able to run ads for candidates they like.  You know what kinds of candidates companies like?  The ones that make it easier for them to actually run their businesses, instead of trying to bankrupt them with mandated health care requirements and cap and trade.  If they can successful run a company, they can expand operations… and create jobs!  Remember, it’s better to have a job and no health care than no job and no health care.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

This from Mr. Closed Door himself. Obama doesn’t care about everyday Americans.  We’re all just serfs to him, here only to fund his playground of policies and bailouts.  Well we’re done Mr. President.  We’re picking up our toys, packing up our trucks, and going home to the Constitution. Don’t let the sand hit you in the teeth.

Well, it looks like the Senate has its 60 votes to pass the health care bill through.  A bill so fantastic that votes had to be bought by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lord knows how many others.  There were a few whose votes couldn’t be bought.  So the Democratic leaders resorted to threatening their family members unless they supported the bill.

Not only is the health care bill so stellar that Senators had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it, but it’s going to be voted on at 1 o’clock in the morning, four days before Christmas.  Some perspective for you- no one will see any benefits from this bill until 2013 (if ever), yet it’s being rushed through in the middle of the night during a time when most Americans have turned off their TVs and put down their newspapers in the hopes of having a joyful holiday season with their friends and family.  I understand doing what we have to do, but this is NOT something that couldn’t easily wait until January.

During debate on the Senate floor today, Senator Tom Coburn made some excellent points and observations on why this health care bill is not a health care reform bill, but only an unsustainable health care coverage expansion.  Sen. Coburn is one of only two practicing physicians in the Senate (the other is Senator John Barrasso), so he speaks from the unique perspective of being both a doctor and a politician.

Sen. Coburn pointed out that there are zero guarantees that taxpayers won’t finance abortions, zero prohibitions on the rationing of health care, and zero Senators required to enroll in either Medicaid  or another government run option.  The Republicans proposed amendments to disallow the use of federal funds to finance abortions or the rationing of health care, but the Democrats voted down the measure.  Let me ask you this: If funding for abortions and rationing of care aren’t part of the plan for this bill, why wouldn’t the Democrats put those amendments in?  That’s like a bookie betting on a game to get others to bet as well, without actually putting any money into the pot.  The bookie ends up making money, and I’ve read enough crime dramas to be pretty sure that that’s highly illegal, not to mention immoral.

What does this health care bill do besides use tax payer money to provide abortions and limit care to those the government deems “unworthy” due to age or lifestyle or previous health?  It creates ten new taxes, and seventy-one new government programs.  There are 1,697 times that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will write regulations, and 15,000-20,000 new government jobs will be created to carry out this legislation.  That’s funny, I thought the idea was to create more DOCTORS to treat more patients at an affordable price, but I guess a job-is-a-job-is-a-job, right?  Maybe those four out of ten doctors that said they’d consider quitting the practice of medicine if this bill passes can apply for a job with the government.

Another thing in the bill is the word shall.  It’s in there a lot- 3,607 times at last count.  What’s significant about the word shall?  It takes away your options.  The bill does not say, “You may choose to purchase health care insurance in the event that you become ill or injured,” it says, “You shall purchase health care insurance, whether you want it or not!”

That’s the individual mandate that you’ve been hearing about.  It is the first tax in United States history that will tax you for simply existing.  It’s not based on your work or purchases or decision as to whether to take the toll road or surface streets.  It’s a tax that you can choose not to pay by choosing not to breathe.  And even though I’m not a doctor, I’m fairly certain that breathing is pretty important.

That’s not right! You may be saying to yourself.  No, it isn’t right. It’s completely unconstitutional. And more likely than not, it will be completely unenforceable in court.  Which means that no one will buy health insurance until they are sick or injured. And given that the bill will require health insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and place limits on how much they may charge their customers, they will inevitably go bankrupt.  Leaving the only option the government option.  That, my friends, is called socialized health care, and it has never worked well.

The government is not compassionate. We already see rationing in government run health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The government already comes between elderly and/or underprivileged patients and their doctors, deciding what treatments and procedures may be done, regardless of the patient’s personal history or the doctor’s recommendation.  Why on Earth would it be a good idea to expand government control of health care, when Medicare and Medicaid are inarguablly broken and on the verge of bankruptcy?

People are compassionate. Doctors are compassionate. Neighbors and family and benefactors are compassionate.  Let’s focus on incentivizing the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, creating transparency so that we can choose and purchase our own health care insurance based on value and quality, and assisting those facing tough times that need some extra help.  That’s true reform.  This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lead our once liberty-loving country into a single-payer health care system.

In the words of Ronald Reagan during a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

The government is not compassionate.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

I bolded the part that’s relevant to this post.  That bold part?  “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  That is what we call eminent domain.  It sounds boring, but it’s not.  One of the things that makes American uniquely America is our right to our property.  Hopefully you only know from watching shows like CSI (or my favorite of the moment- Castle) and not from experience, but cops need a warrant to search someone’s private property.  That’s the due process part of the amendment.  Can you imagine the violation and abuse of power if any law enforcement agent could come into your home and search it for whatever, whenever?  Hopefully, we’d still have some good guys in law enforcement, but don’t you think that sort of job would attract criminals?  That’s why we have due process of the law.

What about the private property being taken for public use?  That means that if a local government needs to build a courthouse, a school, a road, or some other public facility, and the best place to do it is on property owned by a private citizen, the government may not seize that land without just compensation.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined what constituted “public use” of property in the landmark Kelo versus City of New London case.

Ms. Susette Kelo was a divorcee living in New London, CT, in a century old home that she had bought after her divorce and fixed up herself.  In 1998, she read in the newspaper that Pfizer Corp, the privately owned pharmaceutical company, was going to build a $300 million global research and development center in the area, and that her home would be bought out for a municipal redevelopment plan.  She said, “I read that residents in Fort Trumbull were going to be bought out of their properties and that those who refused to sell were going to be taken by eminent domain. That’s how it all started. I read about it in the newspaper.”

Ms. Kelo’s neighbor’s eventually accepted the money and moved out, and one by one, their houses were torn down.  But Ms. Kelo refused to be bullied by a government that would take her property for the benefit of a giant corporation.  Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of New London.  The majority opinion of the case was that, ” a city may claim private property under the Fifth Amendment so long as it does so as part of a clear economic development plan intended to benefit the community as a whole.”

So basically, the Supreme Court ruled that a government may seize the property of individual citizens whenever they feel like it’s a good idea.  I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution after winning a revolutionary war against the oppressive British government (insert sarcasm here).

That was in 2005.  There has been more than enough time to see the dramatic economic improvements promised by the Pfizer Corp and the city of New London.  So what’s going on in New London these days?  Has it prospered with the redevelopment?  The city and state spent $78 million of tax-payer money to bulldoze the area in preparation for the hotels, condos, and strip malls that were to bring job creation and economic prosperity to the area.  Four years later, the site sits undeveloped.

In November 2009, Pfizer Corp. announced that it would be shutting its R & D center in New London, and transferring the 1,400 people working there to another facility.  The promised economic boom fell flat before it ever even got off the ground.  Ms. Kelo was forced to leave her home so it could be bulldozed and redeveloped into a wasteland of weeds and broken dreams.

What does this prove?  I don’t know if it proves anything, but it is yet another example of the Midas touch of government when it messes with the affairs of private citizens.  That is if Midas had turned everything he touched to chicken manure instead of gold.  I take that back.  At least chicken manure is good fertilizer.  What good is a vacant parking lot where Ms. Kelo’s home once stood?

I think it’s safe to say that I’ve been completely enthralled with watching what’s been happening in Upstate New York.  The 23rd district of New York has no one representing it in the US House of Representatives.  Which is why there’s going to be a special election on Tuesday, November 3rd.  As is usual with any election, there is a Democrat and a Republican running for the seat.  Only this time, both of those candidates were liberals.  Enter Doug Hoffman, a lifelong Republican who was sick of the closet liberals hiding in the GOP closet.  He entered the race as an Independent, for the Conservative Party.

Everyone knows that third party candidates don’t stand a chance of winning elections, right?  Right?  Maybe not.  Mr. Hoffman picked up steam quickly, even though the odds were stacked against him.  He was operating on a shoestring budget, and the Republican machine (specifically Newt Gingrich and the National Republican Congressional Committee) endorsed Ms. Scozzafava, the Republican candidate.

This has been fascinating to watch, because it’s the first time that we’re seeing Tea Party Principles being put into practice.  MSNBC can dismiss us with crude name-calling comments.  The Speaker of the House, the 2nd in line for the Presidency, can call the movement AstroTurf, not real grassroots activism.  The President himself can tell us to get out of his way.  The media can completely ignore a 9/12 March on Washington, which was attended by at least 8 people.  Or maybe over a million.  Counting is hard!

The race in New York is proof that us liberty loving Americans are not in the minority.  We are not Democrat haters who only care about having Republicans in office.  We are simply sick of our elected officials trying to run our lives for us.  They do not give us our rights, God does that.  The government can only protect those rights.  Doug Hoffman is an ordinary man, but he understands that the Constitutional principles of limited government.  After all, a government that can give you everything can also take it all away.  When Doug Hoffman began getting substantial numbers in the polls, it showed Washington that Conservatism is not a fringe movement.  It is a snowball, and baby, it has just begun to roll down the hill.

The Washington Elite are getting scared.  I think the liberals hiding in our GOP closet are the most terrified, and they should be.  Dede Scozzafava has certainly been acting like a scared mess of a person.  She called the cops on a reporter that had the audacity to ask her about some of her liberal positions.  She set up a ridiculous press conference in front of one of Hoffman’s campaign offices, which ended up as a horrendous photo-op that did her no favors.

Yesterday, October 31st, she finally picked up her toys and went home. She officially withdrew herself from the election, saying,

It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.

You know, I actually grew a little bit of respect for the lady.  She seemed to understand that due to some of her liberal positions, many of the Republicans voting in the election would be forced to choose between her or the more conservative Doug Hoffman.  She took one for the team when her numbers kept slipping, removing herself from the race and almost ensuring a win for Hoffman.

That respect lasted almost 24 hours, right up until  she endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

Halloween is over.  I guess Dede Scozzafava has finally taken off her Republican costume.

The Smart Girl Report

I’ve grown up with the law.  Literally.  My parents met in law school, and my mom was pregnant with me when she graduated.  I spent the first 6 months of my life nestled in her arms as she studied for the bar exam (although now that I have my own darling little hooligans, I can barely believe I was that good of a baby.  My mom is just THAT SMART for passing the bar on the first try.).

Many Saturdays and school holidays were spent at my parents’ law office; making forts under my dad’s big walnut desk, coloring pictures with florescent highlighters, and making paperclip chain necklaces.  I didn’t understand what they did, but I saw that they loved it.  I knew they worked passionately and tirelessly.  I knew I wanted to be just like them when I grew up.

In second grade, my teacher asked us students to share what we would like to be when we grew up.  After several ballerinas, teachers, and firemen, it was my turn to answer.  “A United States Supreme Court Justice.  But I’d settle for senator.”  What a mouth I had even at the age of eight!

Needless to say, I’ve always been fascinated with the law.  It’s probably why I’m so passionate about politics.  I want politicians to uphold the Constitution.  You know, that thing upon which our laws are based?  That simple document that built the greatest nation the world has ever seen?  The one signed by George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and lots of other dudes in funny looking clothes?  Yeah, that’s the one.

So it’s no surprise that sparks of excitement practically shot out my fingers and toes when my mom invited me to attend a lecture by the Honorable Antonin Scalia, of the United States Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia (a Reagan nominee) is an outspoken proponent of Constitutional Orginalism, the idea that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document that is given to morph through the years into something unrecognizable to the founders of our great nation.  A constitutional originalist understands that times and technology may change, but that we must calculate the trajectory of the meaning of the founders in the original document.

I had an invitation to hear the foremost authority in the country talk about an issue that is near and dear to me.  To say that I was thrilled would be an understatement.  I even showed up two hours early to the event.  Well, you never know if you’re going to get a flat tire, or maybe spill your Coke Zero on your blouse and have to make a mad dash to the nearest clothing store to buy a new, unstained shirt.  Thankfully, I made it to the venue in plenty of time, and managed to snag a seat in the third row.

The auditorium filled up behind me while jittery nervousness coursed through my veins.  Justice Scalia is a man that I’ve held in high esteem for years, and everyone knows that pedestals have a tendency to crumble.  The room began to hush as four very scholarly looking professors made their way onto the stage.  Mike Rappaport (the Director for Study of Constitutional Originalism at USD) introduced the man of the hour.

Within the first 27 seconds, I knew that my image of Justice Scalia would not come crumbling to the ground.  He was at ease.  He made jokes with the professors and the audience.  His defense of “the enduring Constitution” was clearly defined and well articulated. He didn’t talk above our heads, but he didn’t dumb it down either.  He was not boring.

And now I have a new favorite buzz term: Constitutional Originalism.  Justice Scalia explained that if judges do not hold to originalism, they will rewrite the Constitution, which would change the very nature of America. (Rewriting the constitution should not be confused with amendments, which have done wonderful things like abolishing slavery and giving equal rights to men and women of all skin colors.)

Here’s what I learned:

It keeps up with the times. A common criticism of originalism is that it’s impractical.  The Constitution was implemented long before vehicles, computers, or indoor plumbing were an everyday part of life.  How is it possible to stay true to such an ancient document in a modern world?  Justice Scalia gave the example of Saia v. New York, a case in which amplified sound was an issue.  Of course there was no electronically amplified sound at the time of the Constitution.  A non-originalist judge might make up any new rule that he felt like on the particular day that the case was handed to him.  An originalist judge would try to figure out how our founders would’ve ruled on such a case given the current technology.  Even though there wasn’t electronically amplified sound 200 years ago, there were certainly public nuisances.  The originalist then could focus on whether the case violated public nuisance laws.

Even liberals can be originalists- In the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court saw a case regarding the right to keep and bear arms. In DC v. Heller, the court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use.  All of the opinions issued, even the two dissents, were originalist opinions.  Although they arrived at different conclusions, the Justices examined what the founders intended in, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It is ok (and sometimes necessary) to impose limitations on Constitutional rights.  A convicted felon does not have a right as an individual to keep and bear arms. Drunk drivers may be discriminated against by having their licenses revoked.  Screaming, “FIRE!” in a crowded public place as a joke does not fall within the bounds of free speech.

It’s hard to do the right thing. Part of the fun of being a non-originalist is that you can make up whatever you like.  If our courts and legislature do not hold true to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, what do they cling to?  Their own convictions and morality?  It’s much easier to make decisions based on how you feel, or upon popular opinion, than it is to make them based on that mean old rule book.