The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

Connor

Restrained by the Constitution

by

by Ken Connor

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

On December 13, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson issued a decision on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare’s “minimal essential coverage provision,” sparking a flurry of controversy and commentary by declaring that neither the Interstate Commerce nor the General Welfare clauses of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance.

As a conservative, of course I am delighted with the decision.  As an attorney, I am impressed by Judge Hudson’s admirable exercise of judicial restraint in crafting his opinion. Continue reading . . .

Balancing Rights: Privacy v. Life

by

by Ken Connor

There’s been much controversy in recent weeks over the issue of full body scans and pat-downs at airport security checkpoints across America.  Individuals from all points on the political and ideological spectrum are angry and speaking out against practices that they assert violate civil liberties and undermine human dignity.  Much in the same way that the Patriot Act thrust the “privacy v. security” conundrum into the foreground of the public’s attention, the kerfuffle begun by John “Don’t Touch My Junk” Tyner has ignited a national debate about how far our society is willing to go to ensure the safety of air travel in America.  President Obama, for his part, acknowledges the inconvenience posed by the new TSA procedures, but insists that they are necessary to ensure our safety in an era of pervasive terror threats.Abortion protest

Upon hearing the President’s rationalization of full body scans and vigorous pat-downs, I can’t help but be struck by this Administration’s inconsistent and unprincipled approach to personal privacy issues.  Ever since the Supreme Court issued the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, the American Left has vigorously defended the constitutional “penumbras” guaranteeing an individual “right” to privacy.  This understanding of individual privacy led the Court to decide in 1973 that a woman’s right to privacy trumps her unborn child’s right to life.

Continue reading . . .

The Road Ahead: Tax and Spend or Cut and Save?

by

by Ken Connor

As Congress’ lame duck session gets underway, the nation is watching to see if the Democrats will attempt to capitalize on their last few weeks of hegemony before a huge shift in power occurs.  Foremost on the agenda are the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts.  Happily for the middle class, there appears to be universal agreement that those cuts should be extended.  The real contention lies with the question of whether or not to extend tax cuts to those Americans earning over $250,000 a year.

Aside from the obvious political implications of using the lame duck session to ram through a tax increase that would undoubtedly fail if put forward under the new Congress, there are two key issues at the heart of this debate.  They represent different sides of the same coin:  Taxing and Spending.  When it comes to taxation, the real issue is how the federal government views the earnings of the American people.  With regard to those earnings, does the government have an entitlement mentality?  The second involves the American people’s view of government programs.  Concerning such programs, do the American people have an entitlement mentality?

Continue reading . . .

Change and Hope

by

by Ken Connor

The results are in, and in the words of former President George W. Bush, it was a thumping.  What this nation witnessed on November 2nd was not merely a wave election, it was a tsunami.  The obvious beneficiary of the voter’s frustration this time around was the GOP, but as many have emphasized, it would be a huge mistake to interpret the outcome of this election as a mandate for the Republican establishment to carry on with business as usual.

As I cast my ballot on Election Day, it was difficult to shake feelings of trepidation and cynicism, despite the energy that has animated my fellow conservatives in the past several months.  According to a new poll, I wasn’t alone.  A record 75% of voters surveyed prior to the midterm elections feel that things are not going well in America.  Now that the suspense is over and the dust has settled, many questions remain.  Is the uncertainty and doubt that has characterized the mood of the American people something that the new crop of reformers can overcome?  Are these newly elected agents of the people ready to do the work, take the chances, and make the sacrifices necessary to bring about real change in the way our government does its business?  Will the American people’s vote of confidence be rewarded, or betrayed?

In the immediate aftermath of an election, it’s difficult to tell whether or not the campaign pledges that landed a winning candidate in office will go on to guide their service, or be left on the cutting room floor.  For the next couple of months, the winning candidates will bask in their victory and recover from the rigors of the campaign trail.  But come January, the American people will be anxious to see if their representatives meant what they said.

Continue reading . . .

Left’s Tolerance Limited to Liberals

by

by Ken Connor

The Good Book tells us that pride goes before a fall, and with the midterm elections looming perhaps nothing encapsulates the truth of this maxim more than the leadership of the Democrat Party and its constituency of liberal media elites.  The Left’s inability to engage opposing views with seriousness and respect and their unwillingness to tolerate divergent opinions within their own ranks reveal an ugly intolerance lurking beneath their veneer of open-mindedness, an intolerance that has fueled the continued, rapid growth of the Tea Party and all but sealed the electoral fate of many Democrats come November 2nd.

A new series of advertisements for MSNBC on the airwaves this week captures perfectly the kind of paternalistic condescension that’s crippling the Left in the eyes of so many American people.  The ads are intended to communicate the spirit of progress that guides the network, and to set MSNBC above and apart from it’s chief competition and ideological nemesis, Fox News.  In airing these ads, MSNBC is essentially extending an invitation to the American people.  “Join us” they say, in our quest to “move forward” towards a better America for all.  There’s only one small problem.  According the ideological litmus test imposed by the network, vast segments of the American population don’t qualify to participate in MSNBC’s vision.

Continue reading . . .

Multiculturalism: Political Correctness Run Amok

by

by Ken Connor

“We … take our form-freedom balance in government for granted as though it were natural.  There is form in acknowledging the obligations in society, and there is freedom in acknowledging the rights of the individual….  There is a balance here which we have come to take as natural in the world.  It is not natural in the world.  We are utterly foolish if we look at the long span of history and read the daily newspapers giving today’s history and do not understand that the form-freedom balance in government which we have had in Northern Europe since the Reformation and in the countries extended from it is unique in the world, past and present.”

Francis Schaeffer, “The Abolition of Truth and Morality”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel set the tongues of pundits wagging this week when she declared that multiculturalism has “utterly failed” in Germany.  Multiculturalism is, of course, one of the sacraments Secularism.  It is the idea that people from dramatically different cultures can peacefully coexist as a unified society within a state or nation notwithstanding that they order themselves very differently within society and cling to radically different–and often conflicting–world views.  Multiculturalism is the fruit of “cultural relativism” which maintains that all cultures are equally valid, no one being better than another.  Cultural relativism, in turn, is the outgrowth of “relativism,” which asserts that there is no such thing as universal truth and that all ideas are equally valid and depend on the circumstances in which they are applied.

Not surprisingy, the political correctness police went into high dudgeon in the aftermath of Ms. Merkel’s speech, suggesting that her comments represented some kind of ominous foreshadowing of a German nationalist resurgence (allusions to Hitler’s Third Reich are perfectly permissible rhetorical tools for liberals, though off limits to conservatives).  Their goal was to squelch any thoughtful debate of the premise advanced by the Chancellor.  If they could demonize her position, that would have a chilling effect on the willingness of anyone else to embrace it or, perhaps, even to discuss it.  In the western world of the 21st century it is no longer fashionable to take pride in one’s national heritage, and patriotism is equated with parochialism.

Continue reading . . .