To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at
ModernPatriot@hotmail.com
Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to
Cadman12@swbell.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M
odern
P
atriot
C
hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 2, Issue 6
June 26, 2003
By Craig Dawkins
Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling "Narrowly Focused"
Looking for Real Libertarian/Conservatives
Supreme Court "Right to Privacy" Ruling
Copyright@2003, All Rights Reserved.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
SURVEY! SURVEYS! SURVEYS! SURVEYS! SURVEYS!
Should the diversity quota ruling be applied to all state colleges and universities equally including Langston University? Yes or NO.
Go to
www.ModernPatriot.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Supreme Court Ruling Affirmative Action "Narrowly Focused"
The U.S. Supreme Court's Grutter v. Bollinger decision has sent a wave of confusion across America. The court missed an opportunity to set America on a rational and reasoned course regarding race and fairness. Allowing the University of Michigan to arbitrarily set racial quotas will have a negative impact in areas yet unforeseen.
Most liberal black leaders across America praised the Supreme Court decision. But one wonders if they heap praise too soon. What happens to publicly funded state colleges like Langston University? If other state universities adopt a racial quota system, shouldn't Langston University be expected to do the same? Or will Langston University claim that it doesn't see the necessity of racial diversity? And will Rep. Opio Toure D-OKC insist on the same racial quota standards at Langston University as he applies to other state colleges and universities? Some how I doubt it.
The court's ruling makes a laudable point. Racial diversity is a good thing. It should be encouraged but not at the expense of educational excellence. If Oklahoma colleges and universities adopt a quota system, the same quota percentages should be standardized across every state funded college and university equally.
One could argue that the recent Supreme Court decision eliminates the necessity of historically state funded black colleges. Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor wrote; "Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civil life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized. The law school has determined, based on its experience and expertise, that a critical mass of underrepresented minorities is necessary to further its compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body."
Langston President Earnest Holloway praised the decision. I wonder if he believes it applies equally to Langston University. The
Grutter v. Bollinger
decision should initiate the beginning of the end for all state funded racially based colleges and universities.
Equally……..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Are you Conservative or Liberal? Go to
www.Politopia.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Rinehart Has it Right
Once again, we learn that the constitution has few friends on the Oklahoma City Council. You'd think that after the Bass Pro debacle that they could just go along on this one. But why bust up a streak right? Brent Rinehart deserves lots of credit for having the guts to challenge the USA Patriot Act. Rinehart is concerned about the constitution. All but one of his peers isn't.
Which brings me to Kirk Humphreys. Rumor has it that he wants to run for U.S. Senate or Governor. While I was glad to see him come out against Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel's proposed tax increase, I'm very concerned about voting for a guy who won't stand against an act that arguably infringes on our fundamental constitutional rights. Rinehart showed himself to be a friend of the constitution and a patriot. Maybe Rinehart should run instead.
At a minimum, we'd be able to count on Rinehart to support limits on government powers.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Looking for Real Libertarian/Conservatives
Many of you who regularly receive this newsletter may have noticed my increasing displeasure with the direction the national Republican Party seems to be headed. Uncontrolled government spending, lack of real immigration reform, assaults on the constitution, the constant growth of socialism, no commitment to reform education and healthcare, tort reform, privatizing social security, etc…. I'm no longer convinced the RNC has the willingness or the capacity to change America for the better.
It seems that both parties engage in frenetic food fights over who gets the most pork for their constituents, who gets to hand out the most government contracts, and the favor of high rolling lobbyists. This isn't good government. Whatever happened to the idea where the government that governs best governs least? It's a concept that's long been lost in Washington D.C. and most of the country.
I have been a Republican my entire life. I cast my first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan. Reagan believed in efficient and limited government. But that was yesteryear. The concept of limited government is lost on today's National Republican leaders and strategists. Of course they like to talk about limited government when in front of limited government types like myself. But actions speak much louder than words. I'm for a party that fights for these core values. So what's happening with the RNC?
Nationally it seems the strategy is to take the conservative Republican base for granted. I have heard it said before that the Republicans can win every conservative vote and still lose. So the strategy is to work leftward promising liberal government programs to potential Democratic Party voters in order to buy votes with our tax dollars.
This might be a great strategy for maintaining power. But power at the expense of principle is a waste of time. Right now, a Republican congress is spending money faster than any time in history. And while it spends and spends and spends, it's cutting tax revenues. This is exactly what happened to Ronald Reagan. Only it was a Democratic Party dominated congress that controlled the purse strings.
So I guess I'm officially on the fence. While the Democrats are hopelessly demented and sad when it comes to protecting our constitution and our core values, the national Republican Party seems to have lost its way as well. Both parties seem to be melding into one party fighting for the mushy middle. In the past, Republicans have been willing to fight for Libertarian/Conservative values. Maybe the way to bring the Republican Party back to its core values is for good Libertarian/Conservatives to start running to the right of Republican candidates in primaries or as independents.
If the Republican Party wants conservative voters, it had better stop taking them for granted.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Supreme Court "Right to Privacy" Ruling
Today's supreme court decision to overturn the Texas anti-sodomy law shows the danger of what an activist court can do to our political and constitutional system. While I agree that the laws against consensual homosexuality are ridiculous and are wholly inappropriate in a free society, the Supreme Court isn't the place for this issue to be settled. The proper place for this debate is the ballot box.
In a free republic, issues of this nature should be reserved for the states to debate and resolve. For the high court to interject its activist will on the nation as a whole is simply not what the founders of our country envisioned. Regardless of the "right to privacy" debate, some social, moral issues must be left to the states to decide.
I don't believe it is appropriate for police officers to forcibly enter a private home to arrest consenting adults for engaging in "illegal or unapproved sex." The whole concept is offensive to me. However, the unchecked power of the Supreme Court to social engineer is a very dangerous trend.
The dominance of the federal government and the federal courts over the states causes one to wonder why we even need a state government. What's the point? State governments aren't free to govern anymore. States are free; it seems, only to implement federal government programs and initiatives. Nothing more.
Perhaps we need to pass an amendment to the constitution limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices to two, four year terms with a new confirmation process for each term. Maybe this would create a different dynamic. It would most certainly make them more responsive to the will of the people.