Al Sharpton is not happy with Glenn Beck .  On  The O’Reilly Factor yesterday he took umbrage with Beck’s desire to “take back the Civil Rights movement .”  Now, as I see it there are several reasons a so-called Black Community leader like Sharpton could find that language offensive. It could be that be Al believes that the Civil Rights movement – one in which Americans of all races, creeds and backgrounds came together to forge a new national character that elevated previously down-put groups to equal legal and social footing with the majority population as a whole – is the exclusive property of African-Americans.  He said so much during his counter-rally when he commented on the date being the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King ’s “I Have A  Dream” speech on the mall. “This is our day!” Sharpton bloviated.  “And we ain’t giving it away!” I guess the idea that those on the mall this Saturday had no right to that day came as a surprise to Dr. Alveda King who is the niece of Dr. King and was a featured speaker at Beck’s rally.  It may have even come as surprise to the late MLK himself were he alive.  He was, after all,  the man who referred in his speech to “All God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics…” coming together.  And isn’t that what made King’s speech so special?  That his was a message of inclusion.  Not an “us versus them” but a gigantic national ”we.”  King understood that the cancer of racism destroys the entire body (America), not just the organ (minorities) it specifically targets.  In comparison, Sharpton’s comments seemed so beneath the memory of King.  So petty.  So small as to make one shake his/her head and ask what happened to this most noble of movements that began when a woman on a bus refused to give up her seat to a white man so many years ago? And this really gets to the heart of Sharpton’s problem with Beck’s incredibly successful gathering. When Mr. Beck speaks of “taking back” the C ivil Rights movement , he is not using code language for returning to the days of Jim Crow and “separate but equal.”  Sharpton knows this of course.  And for so-called religious leaders like Al Barnum to imply as such is nothing more than a cynical act rooted in self-preservation.  What Beck means by this is that the Civil Rights movement that arose from the mist of exclusion and bigotry came to champion the ideals of racial harmony, equality, and overcoming our divisions (“we shall overcome”).  But somewhere along the way to the promised land it was effectively hijacked by a band of self-promoting charlatans, self-righteous statists,  and shake-down artists, urged on by their enablers in the left wing literati, for whom agitation and protest has become a lucrative cottage industry. The movement has also become synonymous with a certain political agenda that stresses affirmative action, cradle-to-grave government hand-outs, and patronizing attitudes towards personal responsibility.  In other words, a litmus test somehow came into being whereby one’s commitment to racial equality is measured by one’s level of assent to the democratic Party ’s social platform. I argue that the policies that so many left-leaning self-proclaimed minority advocates have implemented (which have imprisoned great numbers as permanent wards of the welfare state while financially rewarding socially destructive behavior) have done more damage to the very fabric of minority communities since that great speech on August 28, 1963 than any klansman would have ever dared hope for.  70% Black babies born out-of-wedlock.  Inner-cities racked in poverty, despair, gang-banging and drug violence.  Homicide now the leading cause of death among young Black males

View original post here:
Big Government

In the words of our President: “Let me be clear,” Missouri’s Prop C represents a victory for individual freedom, not “states’ rights.” I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but there is NO SUCH THING AS STATES’ RIGHTS!  And people that use that term, or the term “nullification,” do not help our cause. States have powers, and while those powers diminish in the face of the progressive-statist attack upon our Constitution, powers run contrary to individual rights.  So let me break it down: 1) Prop C places a duty on the state of Missouri to defend its citizens from the IRS enforced individual mandate. 2) Prop C denies the federal government state resources to enforce the individual mandate. Anyone with an ounce of constitutional knowledge knows that neither of those aspects of Prop C conflict directly with the Supremacy Clause . Individual Freedom No part of Prop C provided any protection for the state.  Prop C placed a duty on the state to defend Missourians from the individual mandate.  Contrary to Lefty arguments regarding the costs of such a defense, the state attorney general has a fixed budget, and I am not sure why people have a problem with the state’s top lawyer defending individual Missourians from an arguably unconstitutional mandate.  Imagine these same naysayers suggesting we not push integration because it would cost too much through litigation. Prop C recognizes the first principles enshrined in the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The fact that the Constitution did not mention a right of the people to choose whether or not to purchase insurance does not grant Congress the ability to mandate the purchase of insurance.  Interestingly, the private lawsuits initiated against Obamacare deal directly with 9th Amendment issues.  The lawsuit out of Mississippi uses the infamous Roe v. Wade to advance the concept of the right to privacy .  If there are any legitimate socialists left in this country, they should realize that progressive-statists do not like either the right to privacy or the freedom to choose.  The private lawsuit initiated in Missouri by Lt.

Go here to see the original:
Big Government

President Obama applauds Elena Kagan during a ceremony to mark her confirmation to become the next Supreme Court justice, Friday, Aug. 6, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP) Elena Kagan is poised to take her place in the history books Saturday when she is sworn as the fourth woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in Kagan twice. She will recite one oath as prescribed by the Constitution during a private ceremony in a conference room at the court with only her family present.

See the rest here:
FOXNews.com

President Obama marked the first anniversary of Iran’s jailing of three young Americans by reiterating that they are guilty of nothing, have never worked for the U.S. government and never had any quarrel with the Iranian government. In an appeal for Tehran to free Sarah Shour, 31, Shane Bauer, 28, and Josh Fattal, 28, Obama reminded Iran that it is a signatory to conventions on human rights that if honored would free the Americans. “Their unjust detention has nothing to do with the issues that continue to divide the United States and the international community from the Iranian government,” Obama’s statement said. “This is a humanitarian imperative.” They were arrested last July 31 as they hiked along the Iraq-Iran border. Iran contends they are spies for the United States. Obama’s statement said he particularly wanted to “acknowledge the suffering and advocacy of Sarah, Shane and Josh s families.” He said he spoke this week with the captives’ mothers, whom the Iranians allowed to visit their children briefly in May. “The Iranian government s gesture of allowing these mothers to visit their children was welcome, but I cannot imagine how painful it was for these three courageous women to return home without their children,” Obama said in his statement. “I told these three mothers that Sarah, Shane and Josh are in my thoughts and prayers, and that the U.S. government would continue to do all that it could to secure their release.”

Continued here:
CanadaFreePress.Com

Reuters May 15, 2010: Kenyan supporters cheer at a rally to launch campaigns for the constitution referendum, in the capital Nairobi. A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya’s referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law. “Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.” The proposed constitution will curtail the vast powers of the Kenyan president, offering more balance among the different branches of government in an effort to bring order and stability to the political process of a nation often torn by tumultuous exchanges of power. Vice President Biden told the Kenyan people in a recent speech, “Let me repeat, this is your decision, your decision alone. And the people of Kenya must make this choice — a choice for Kenya by Kenyans.” Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation’s coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries. “We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.” Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans, in requesting the federal investigation into the administration’s spending on the referendum. “U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.” One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S. Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday. But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role. “If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.” The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said. According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance. Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women’s health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process. But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage. Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.” “Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.” Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values. In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage that they believe the abortion provision attacks.  

See the article here:
FOXNews.com

A woman walks past the Human Rights Council at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva May 31. (AP Photo) The United States and its allies suffered a series of setbacks at the United Nations on Friday as the Human Rights Council flirted with media censorship and was poised to elevate an anti-American politician and a Cuban to key positions.  Concerns about censorship were raised after the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has tremendous sway in the United Nations, successfully pushed through a resolution that creates a watchdog to monitor how religion is portrayed in the media.  The OIC says it will promote religious tolerance by ensuring that religion is not defamed, as it claims occurred when Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad provoked Muslim riots. But the United States and the European Union members on the council opposed the resolution, fearing that it will censor the press and muzzle freedom of expression.  The resolution now opens the way for the Human Rights Council to select a special investigator on religious freedom to “work closely with mass media organizations to ensure that they create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity.”  Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based non-profit U.N. Watch, warned that what the OIC is really trying to do is “turn an international shield for religious freedom into a sword for religious-motivated state censorship.”  Another blow to U.S. interests Friday in Geneva was the appointment of former U.N. General Assembly president and ex-Sandinista Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann as a member of the council’s 18-member Advisory Committee.  D’Escoto is a virulently anti-American politician, who champions the causes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and Chavez ally Evo Morales, president of Bolivia. During his tenure as General Assembly president, D’Escoto’s senior advisers included Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi supporter Ramsey Clark and Hamas-friendly U.N. human rights investigator Richard Falk. D’Escoto last year called Fidel Castro a world hero.  On top of that, a Cuban is expected to be selected Monday to be vice chair of the Human Rights Council.  Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, decried the developments in Geneva in a statement on Friday.  “‘Shameful’ is the only word that can describe any organization that would promote Cuba as a defender of human rights, while naming an anti-American, anti-Israel former Sandinista mouthpiece as an advisor,” she said.  The developments raised new questions about the Obama administration’s decision last year to join the Human Rights Council — ending President George W. Bush’s policy of boycotting it because its members include China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and other countries with abysmal rights records.  At the time, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice acknowledged that the council is flawed, but said: “We are looking forward to working from within with a broad cross-section of member states to strengthen and reform the Human Rights Council.”  Fox News has asked for Rice’s reaction to the latest developments in Geneva and is awaiting a response.  Supporters of U.S. participation in the council point to successful lobbying against Iran’s recent bid for a seat as proof that it makes sense to be engaged. They say participation gives the U.S. and other defenders of human rights a better chance to make the institution more effective.  But Ros-Lehtinen is pushing to withhold funding to the U.N. proportionate to what is allocated for council activities.  “The U.S. was wrong to join and legitimize this rogues’ gallery in the first place. The Cuban tyranny’s elevation to vice chair of the council should be the final straw that prompts all responsible nations to finally end their participation and support,” she said.  Neuer also objected to D’Escoto’s appointment on Friday.  “That the U.N. Human Rights Council chose to honor and be advised by an apologist for genocide perpetrators and promoters only underscores the inverted morality of this Orwellian body. Just when we thought the council had already reached rock bottom, today it found a way to sink even deeper,” he said.  The Human Rights Council website says the Advisory Committee serves as the council’s “think tank,” providing it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues.  The latest setbacks for the U.S. and its allies follow the April election of Iran to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. Tehran will hold this influential human rights seat at the U.N. for four years, while women’s rights advocacy groups say the Iranian regime does not believe in gender equality.

See the original post here:
FOXNews.com

AP Rep. Steve King Iowa Rep. Steve King said he is performing a public service by accusing President Obama of favoring blacks over whites.  “I’m standing up against something that is or could become racism,” King told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. The Iowa Republican said he didn’t misspeak when he told a nationally syndicated radio show on Monday that President Obama favors blacks over whites. King told the G. Gordon Liddy show that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly demonstrate an unjust preference toward minorities.  King told FoxNews.com that his comments alluded to a July 2009 incident in which a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested a black professor for disorderly conduct. Before knowing all the facts, Obama said Sgt. James Crowley acted “stupidly” when he apprehended Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. outside his home. Obama later said he did not intend to malign the police offer — and invited the two men to a “beer summit” at the White House — but King claims his initial remarks showed a “built-in defense mechanism” that favors minorities. King said Obama’s first public statement on the incident “brought up race in the beginning” and “concluded with race.” The three-term congressman repeated his claim that Obama has “a default mechanism that breaks down on the side of the minority.” But King stopped short of calling the president a racist. “I don’t know if I want to go so far as to make that allegation,” he said. King went on to cite more recent remarks from Obama in which the president criticized Arizona’s controversial immigration law by suggesting it could lead to racial profiling — a concern held by the administration and most Democrats as well as civil rights groups fighting to repeal the legislation.  King also criticized Holder for embracing what he called a similar racial “bias,” citing the Justice Department’s decision to drop a 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. King’s remarks Monday didn’t sit well with members of his own party — including Colorado Republican Cory Gardner, whose congressional campaign canceled a $100-a-plate fundraiser that was to feature King as its guest speaker. And King’s upcoming appearance at a Tea Party rally in Loveland, Colo., was canceled after organizers got word of the comments. Responding to the snub, King said the Tea Party movement needed a “spine” and said Gardner “simply caved in at the first sign of friction” without “bothering to call me.” Iowa Democrats also condemned the race remarks on Wednesday. “This is a fairly typical rhetoric for Congressman King,” said Norm Sterzenbach, Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director. “Once again, it’ll be interesting to see if other prominent Iowa Republicans will denounce these statements.” “Where’s the outrage in the Iowa Republican Party? Are they going to say something?” asked Sterzenbach. Danielle Plogmann, communications director for the Republican Party of Iowa, declined comment when contacted by Fox News Wednesday. She referred all inquiries to King’s office. King, who is seeking a fourth term in the House, claims his remarks were “willfully distorted” by liberal blogs, which he says did not print a transcript of the interview in its entirety. “I’m offended by Eric Holder and the president also, their posture,” King told Liddy on Monday. “It looks like Eric Holder said that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race.” “The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race on the side that favors the black person in the case of professor Gates and officer Crowley,” he said. “That was, that was a case where he knew nothing about it…and concluded that the cop had operated on a race bias or a racist basis and then he ended up having to have a beer summit because of that.” Holder, however, did not suggest in his 2009 speech that whites are more cowardly than blacks when discussing race. “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot,” Holder said, “in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” Fox News’ Steve Brown contributed to this report.

Link:
FOXNews.com

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently hit a major stumbling block in its effort to impose net neutrality via the “reclassification” of broadband services.  Following months of civil rights groups, artists, and a major union voicing their opposition to net neutrality as a policy and a federal appeals court ruling that the FCC’s regulatory power was more limited than the agency had believed, 248 members of the U.S. House of Representatives went on the record to oppose the FCC’s plans. But that hasn’t stopped the FCC from continuing to pursue reclassification.  Last week, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn  unveiled herself as a supporter of designating broadband a telephone service under Title II of the Communications Act. In a speech to the Media Institute, Clyburn rejected the notion that reclassification constituted a power grab saying that “The chairman is proposing that we reestablish the authority that the commission and most observers thought we had.” But opponents say that the FCC’s proposed action is exactly that—a naked power grab, aimed not at reestablishing something “stripped” of the FCC, but rather extending the agency’s reach to impose heavy regulation on Internet services, in possible usurpation of Congress’ authority. Technology policy experts have previously opined that any move to reclassify by the FCC could be met with a second legal challenge similar to the one it lost earlier this year. Furthermore, any such case could be bolstered by previous moves by Senators Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry and Congressmen Henry Waxman and Rick Boucher—all of whom head up committees tasked with work on broadband issues—to revise the Communications Act.  Observers say the initiation of that revision process in and of itself indicates that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate the Internet, including via reclassification. The FCC has set aside June 17 to vote on a “notice of inquiry” aimed at obtaining information relevant to broadband regulation and the reclassification plan. For his part, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has recently been touting a so-called forbearance plan that would purportedly apply only certain sections of Title II regulations to broadband.  Genachowski says this would provide “confidence and certainty that this renunciation of regulatory overreach will not unravel…” However, as think-tank Digital Society has noted, Genachowski’s immediate target number of sections to apply swiftly increased—an indicator of the FCC’s closeted commitment to overreach, say some opposed to Internet regulation.

Visit link:
Big Government

Civil rights.  Inalienable rights.  Human rights.  Animal rights.  Individual rights.  Group rights.  God-given rights.  Sacred rights.  Natural rights.  Positive rights.  Negative rights.  Children’s rights.  Parent’s rights.  Patient’s rights.  Property rights.  Personal rights.  Basics rights.  Fundamental rights. Just what is a right?  Can some rights be more basics or fundamental than others?  Which is more important, a basic right or a fundamental right?  Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?  Are rights absolute?  One could assert whole new kinds of rights and then argue about where they fit in among all the other rights.  How about essential rights, or core rights, or perhaps preeminent rights? Definitions of the nature and origin of rights vary widely – from a gift from God, to one of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison’s tenets, all the way down to “a good thing” – but these disputes can be left to theologians and historians and scatterbrains.  Let constitutional scholars debate the fine points of original intent or understanding (of each delegate?  or the drafter of a particular clause?  or the Convention as a whole?  or Congress?  or the ratifying state conventions?).  What really matters is how rights function within our constitutional system. A person saying he has the right to XYZ, for instance, is saying that regardless of what other people want, he must have XYZ and society must give it to him.  To admit there is such a right is to accept that the opinion of the majority on his having XYZ is meaningless; it is to accept that your opinion on the issue is meaningless, too.  As anti-democratic limitations on the scope of majority rule, rights are like provisions of the Constitution.  Indeed, they are one and the same, because in a practical sense – the only sense that matters – a right is a government policy that must be so regardless of majority will . Any constitutional provision can be seen as a right.  For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 – “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state.” – can as easily be: “Every person has the right to export Articles from any State without a federal Tax or Duty laid on it.”  The first part of Article II, Section 2 is the equivalent of “The President has the right to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.”  One could say he has the right to veto laws and grant pardons.  A Supreme Court Justice has the right to serve for life, and the Supreme Court has the right to original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign ambassadors.  The residents of every state have the right to representation by two Senators.  People have the right to have their federal laws enacted by a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  There are many more such variations on the theme, but the point is that the Constitution is nothing but a long list of rights, that is, government policies that must be so regardless of majority will. In addition to provisions limiting the ability of Congress or the President to change the general structure of the government apart from the amendment process, the Constitution contains many specific limitations on government action that are recognizable as rights.  The narrow definition of treason means that a person has the right not to be convicted of treason for a crime that does not fit the definition.  The privileges and immunities provision is a right, as is the jury trial guarantee.  The Constitution protects creditors by prohibiting states from voiding contracts (as they had done under the Articles of Confederation).  Congress may not pass a bill of attainder (a legislative pronouncement of guilt) or an ex post facto law (making an act illegal after it was committed).  The habeas corpus protection against arbitrary arrest is one of the most important rights protected by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist 84, the Constitution contains these rights and more even without the amendments known as the Bill of Rights.  Can the Bill of Rights protection against unreasonable searches somehow supersede the right to a jury trial spelled out in Article III?  Does freedom of the press outrank freedom of speech?  Is the 3rd Amendment ban on quartering soldiers in private homes more important than the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?  Does the order in which they are listed matter, so that freedom of religion is more important than freedom of speech?  No, to all these questions.  Since the entire Constitution – every rule in the rule book – must be so regardless of majority will, every provision of the original text (where unamended), of the Bill of Rights, and of the later amendments is no more or less important than any other. Since the entire Constitution – from “We, the people” to “shall have intervened” – is one long right and rights can only be exercised within our constitutional framework, constitutional rights are the only kind with any meaning.  As determined, ultimately, by the Supreme Court, an issue is either a political question – meaning it is to be decided by majority vote – or it is a constitutional right – meaning the correct decision, as determined by the Constitution, must be imposed on the American people whether people want it or not.  In the latter case, figuring out just what it was the Constitutional Convention decided for us on a particular issue may be difficult to determine, but the task does not involve balancing one provision of the document against another. Some rules in our society’s rule book cannot outweigh other rules; they are all equally valid.  Once understanding that any part of the Constitution, whether expressed as a provision or a right, is a policy that must be so, a person can see the absurdity of trying to balance one right against another.  Gone are tussles between rights and responsibilities, positive rights and negative rights, the rights of the many and the rights of the few, personal rights and property rights, human rights and economic rights, group rights and individual rights, fundamental rights and not-so-fundamental rights.  No constitutional right can be outweighed by some other consideration, because all constitutional rights are absolute.  Either something is mandated by the Constitution or it isn’t. This essay is adapted from Back to Basics for the Republican Party , a history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision.

View original post here:
Big Government

In Charlotte, North Carolina, there’s apparently a growing deadly threat to worry about.  It seems that protesters there are getting unruly these days – so unruly that local businesses have brought on extra security detail to help out the local police. That’s what happened when one such group of protesters descended upon the Bank of America headquarters on Saturday, May 8th.  The group showed up around lunchtime, eager to protest the financial reform bill currently making its way through the Senate.  Upon their arrival, not only were they met by three Charlotte police cars and a couple of local officers, but evidently Bank of America had somehow caught wind of the event and sent out another six or so Bank of America paid security staff. As an extra precaution, the bank had also hired at least two Wackenhut security officers to augment their usual staff.  Apparently, Bank of America felt it necessary to prepare for some sort of pending siege – these are Tea Party protesters we’re talking about here.  According to our own members of Congress and their allies, they’ve deemed Tea Partiers, the very constituents they are supposed to represent, a violent, racist bunch of potentially unstable people . Well, when I heard about the incident, I couldn’t wait to get a look at these dangerous rabble-rousers. So this is the riot mob that Bank of America sent out its security force, including extras from Wackenhut, to aggressively resist. Meanwhile, these protesters showed up simply to draw attention to Bank of America’s role in trying to influence the current financial reform legislation.  In North Carolina, Bank of America has a special place in the heart of democratic Senator Kay Hagan , who has been pushing an amendment to the bill on behalf of the giant bank.  (Coincidentally, it also benefits another of the Senator’s AND Bank of America’s favorites, the Center for Responsible Lending …but that’s for another post). Hagan, a former Vice President with Bank of America who oversaw subprime lending programs there, has proposed the amendment under the guise of “protecting consumers”, but when Bank of America is a staunch supporter of the legislation, it’s easy to be suspicious of anyone’s supposed good intent. Hagan’s amendment would control the types of financial products that you as a consumer would be permitted, under federal law, to purchase.  It will limit consumers to no more than six and as few as one loan per year during a 12-month period for “covered” loans – those include anything from car title loans, installment loans, and payday loans to even some retail company credit plans.  For instance, if you purchased a large appliance from a department store or home improvement center and financed it through store credit with a payment plan of installments, you might be literally barred by law from purchasing another appliance in that same 12-month period if you intend to pay for it through installments on another company credit plan. To enforce these controls, the government would create a national database to track the loan products that ordinary citizens are purchasing , and would require certain lending institutions – including banks, mortgage lenders (except for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are both exempted from the bill), car dealers, retail companies that offer credit plans, and even some doctors and dentists – to comply by providing information about you, your loans, and your bank account details to a bureaucratic agency managing the database. So it’s no wonder local Tea Party, 912 Project groups, and other liberty-minded activists in the Charlotte area tried to pull together a spontaneous grassroots protest at the Bank of America headquarters there.  Upon learning of the amendment and the bank’s support of it, they gathered this past Saturday to draw attention to the amendment, and to the bill in general. While it was a small gathering, the group arrived with signs and attempted to draw attention to their message from passers-by.  Since the bank was actually open for business, many people were going about their business in and out of the building.  Protesters said the local Charlotte police almost even seemed embarrassed and surprised at the show of force from bank of America. They were courteous to the group and even sent some of their officers back to the station after it was obvious the group posed no threat to the property or to any people. However, Bank of America security, including the Wackenhut officers, saw it differently. Protesters describe being spoken to by Bank of America guards with contempt.  They were immediately told to leave the premises, even though the bank was open for business and they’d stayed out on the sidewalk area.  Instead, the security detail then stood them down in a single file.  We’re receiving video and photo as of this writing but it’s almost comical to see the initial visuals, because their show of force actually outnumbered the number of protesters. After some not-so-friendly direction given them by one of the plain clothes security officers and then a Wackenhut officer, the protesters moved to a different area of the property location, where the boundary line between private and public property was demonstrated for them.  They cooperated without issue and proceeded to simply stand in the designated area with their signs.  Meanwhile, they describe the security detail as angrily watching over them and treating them as though they were common criminals, while passersby looked on.  One plain clothes security officer got on his cell phone and spoke most of the time with an unidentified party, seemingly giving a play by play description of the protesters and their activity.  In viewing some of the initial photos we received, the man clearly wasn’t happy. The incident is especially interesting because it’s in such stark contrast with similar protests by left wing activists and labor unions.  Take, for example, these photos from other Bank of America protests, where security, if present at all, simply stepped aside and went about their business. There’s no question that Tea Party, 912 Project groups and other activists who stand for the Constitution and against overreaching government are portrayed by this administration unfairly , and certainly not treated with the same respect and fairness that labor unions and progressive activists enjoy.  That’s because while socialists and left wing groups have made it a central theme of their platform to demonize companies like Bank of America, chanting slogans like “ End Corporate Excess ” and “ Main Street Not Wall Street ,” the truth is that behind the scenes the two are bedfellows on the same side.  After all, Bank of America and many of the other big banks actually support the financial reform bill. And socialists like Kay Hagan are reeling in the big bucks in donations from the very banks from which they claim to be protecting us helpless consumers.  That’s why it’s no surprise that the financial reform bill has moved so quietly through the legislative process.  If socialists draw too much attention to it, opposing grassroots activists might take notice.  Instead, they’ve relied upon labor unions and Organizing for America to distract us all from that reality, with their dramatic stunts like “ Showdown on Wall Street “, and “ Bust up Big Banks ” rallies. Unfortunately, it’s a strategy that’s worked, because the Tea Party grassroots have all but been asleep on this issue.  At least, until now they were. “I can’t believe people haven’t been aware of this bill and some of the things that are in it. It’s a surprise to many of us – we didn’t even realize it was this close to coming up for the Senate vote.  We’ve been so focused on this statewide Health Care Repeal, that we almost missed the financial reform bill entirely.  Hopefully we have enough time to wake some folks up quickly enough to get engaged in this before it’s too late,” explained David DeGerolamo , a Tea Party and 912 Project organizer from North Carolina who built NCfreedom.us , a statewide coalition and website under which many of the local and state patriot groups could organize and coordinate while still maintaining their independence. “We need to get these people back to the principles of the constitution that made this country great.  It’s about freedom of enterprise, not government intervention into enterprise.  The government is solely the problem in just about anything that has a problem.  Almost anything that’s wrong can be traced right back to the big fingerprint of the government.” DeGerolamo was also referring to another statewide effort underway in the state of North Carolina, related to the recently passed Health Care legislation.  On May 12 th , State Senator Debbie Clary will introduce legislation that would exempt citizens and businesses of North Carolina from participation in any federally mandated health care.  According to NCfreedom, twenty-two states have so far filed lawsuits against the health care mandate. The group is hosting a huge statewide rally on May 12 th , where at least twenty grassroots groups from across the state of North Carolina will march on the general assembly building and peacefully demand that the bills be brought to the floor for a vote. And after this weekend’s incident at Bank of America, he’s decided to expand the topic to the financial reform legislation as well so that the grassroots groups are aware of the importance of the legislation and its constitutional impact on the rights and personal liberties of American citizens and our free enterprise system. Given the discovery that even many doctors and dentists who accommodate payment plans for their patients may be regulated under this financial reform bill as well, the expansion seems that much more appropriate. And going back to the protest at Bank of America’s building for a moment, one quick video clip will sum up the story well. As the protesters began to wrap up their exercise and stood alongside the bank looking on from the sidewalk, four or five kids began riding their bikes and doing tricks in front of the bank, right in the exact same spot from which the protesters had just been chased away for being on private property.  I guess they weren’t as threatening as that crazy, violent bunch of Tea Party protesters. I think after this Bank of America incident, it’s clear that our rights are being eroded faster than most of us can keep up with.  After all, how many of you have been asleep for this financial reform bill?  But this wakeup call’s come just in time for NCFreedom’s statewide rally on May 12 th in Raleigh, NC .   I have the feeling the Raleigh event has probably just become Tea Party and grassroots central – the hot ticket event for this week. If you’re anywhere near North Carolina, you can learn more about it here .   BigGovernment editor Mike Flynn has also just been invited to speak at the event. Stay tuned – we should have some video posted on the Bank of America incident shortly.  I’m not sure whether it will tick you off, or make you laugh, but it will probably do both.

Read more:
Big Government