[COLUMN] 14th Amendment is not the problem

When the War for Southern Independence ended in 1865 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, some 4 million slaves were freed from bondage.

While it is difficult to imagine today, such a monumental shift in demographics came with myriad problems, not the least of which was white resentment, especially in former slave states, of suddenly having to treat blacks, not as property, but as equal citizens.

Of course, we know that did not happen. Many states, right from the start, began the process of trying to reduce blacks to slavery in all but name.

This led to the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, perhaps the most significant change ever to our charter.

Today, that amendment is under attack by xenophobes, racists, isolationists and other anti-immigration groups.

There are generally three ways to become a citizen of a country, citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis), by soil (jus soli), or through some naturalization process.

In the 14th Amendment, the United States adopted the philosophy of jus soli, sometimes referred to as birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

What this means, with a few exceptions, is that if you are born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of your parents, you are an American citizen.

About one-fifth of the world's nations adhere to some form of jus soli, including Mexico and Canada.

While no court ruling has addressed the issue directly, several have suggested, and it is generally assumed, that the clause applies to undocumented immigrants as well as documented ones.

So if a Mexican woman crosses the border illegally, has a child on U.S. soil, that child is a U.S. citizen. That is the law of the land and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.

[COLUMN] Mosque criticism sheds bad light on America

Let them build the "mosque."

Whining over the building of a $100 million Islamic cultural center - known officially as Park51 and informally as Cordoba House - just blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers once stood before being destroyed by Islamic terrorists nine years ago is the perfect example of why I gladly became a libertarian.

This is really a nonissue. Still, I find the debate amusing, and a little shameful.

First, from a legal standpoint, those opposed to the center have no standing to stop it from being built. Period. There is no exception to the First Amendment pertaining to Islam. Additionally, property rights are the cornerstone of a free society. Without a strong property rights regime, there is no hope for liberty.

Those opposing the center will argue this is not about legality but rather about the wisdom of the location and a lack of sensitivity on the part of the planners.

Wrong.

It is all about legality. Even if 99.99 percent of the American people believe it unwise or insensitive to build the center at that location, it would still be wrong for the government to block the project or to throw obstacles in the way of the developer.

I find it amusing, however, that liberals, such as President Barack Obama, who have been ignoring and violating the Constitution for years, suddenly want to hide behind it when it comes to Cordoba House. Obama's sudden support for the Constitution lacks credibility. It's more likely that Obama, who studied the Quran as a child and once told The New York Times that the Islamic call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," is a closet Muslim.

That being said, let's consider the "wisdom" argument put forth by those who know Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has every legal right to go forward with his plans.

[COLUMN] Federal workers growing fat in recession

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released its annual report on compensation levels by industry and it should come as no surprise that wage disparity between federal workers and the rest of us has continued its upward climb.

In 2009, the average wage for 1.95 million federal civilian workers was $81,258, which compared to an average $50,462 for the nation's 101 million private-sector workers.

The disgrace does not end there.

The chasm between federal workers and normal people is greater when worker benefits are included. In 2009, federal worker compensation averaged a whopping $123,049, which was more than double the private sector average of $61,051.

That 101 percent difference in compensation has grown from a 66 percent difference in 2000, which means federal workers have been getting larger and more frequent wage increases than those in the private sector who actually pay those federal wages. In fact, in many segments of the private sector, wages have actually decreased for a variety of reasons such as wage freezes and pay cuts.

Federal pay has grown in the last decade at a rate 33 percent higher than inflation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9 percent since 2000 compared with a meager 8.8 percent for private workers.

Additionally, while private sector employees are facing increasing unemployment and layoffs, federal employees continue to grow fat. In fact, according to the government report, a private-sector employee in 2009 was more than three times more likely to be laid off or fired than a federal employee.

Federal workers know they have a great deal, too. In 2009, private-sector employees quit at a rate that was more than eight times higher than federal employees. After all, why quit when you are growing fat at the expense of real workers in the real world?

[COLUMN] Time to end tax withholding

While it will go nowhere, one Republican Ohio congressman has drafted a bill to institute something for which I have long advocated: Require taxpayers to pay their tax bills directly and put an end to the unconscionable practice of forcing private employers to act as tax collectors.

U.S. Rep. Bob Latta last month introduced H.R. 5959, the Tax Education and Accountability Act. The bill would end the law that requires employers to deduct federal taxes from an employee's paycheck, therefore requiring individuals to pay their own tax liability on a quarterly basis.

"With this legislation, taxpayers will have a much better concept of exactly how much money Washington is taking from their paychecks," Latta said. "Armed with this knowledge, it is my sincere hope that more taxpayers become interested in knowing exactly what their taxes go towards and how severe the out-of-control spending is under the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress.

The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee where it will probably die.

Still, Latta's point is valid.

If the United States is going to survive the 21st century and remain a somewhat free nation, then the people of this country need to wake up to the biggest national security threat in recent memory.

"As our nation faces a record deficit of over $1 trillion for the second straight year and a $13 trillion debt that will hit $20 trillion by 2020, we are on a path toward fiscal disaster and the only way to stop it is for more people to be aware of what is happening right now with the taxes they send to Washington," Latta said.

By forcing Americans to write checks to Uncle Sam, the people will quickly understand exactly how much of their hard-earned money is being stolen by the government and redistributed to others.

The idea of using employers as surrogate tax collectors came from the Great Destroyer of constitutional government, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He thought up the scheme to allow the government to steal our money before we even had it.

Withholding, more than anything, turned the income tax from a tax on the rich to a tax on the masses. Not only that, the masses have been trained to rejoice when the government gives a refund check as though it were a gift.

Because of this withholding scheme, the income tax has moved from funding core government responsibilities to a vehicle for wealth redistribution and social engineering as lawmakers use tax breaks as a way to reward people for doing certain things.

[COLUMN] Obama leading us down the road of ruination

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, answers questions during an all hands call with soldiers assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division stationed at U.S. Army Garrison Red Cloud, Republic of Korea on July 21, 2010. (DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Navy.)

Americans are fighting the wrong war.

The greatest threat to national security is not Islamic extremism. Nor is it a Chinese military buildup, nuclear weapons in Iran or climate change.

"I think the biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

How right he is.

The national debt under President Barack Obama has grown by $2.62 trillion in his first 18 months in office.

In June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its annual long-term budget outlook and it is dismal. As the reported noted, "the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits, as a share of the economy, since the end of World War II."

The report said that at the end of 2008, the national debt was about 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output as measured by gross domestic product, which was slightly higher than the 40-year average of 36 percent.

Under Obama's watch, the CBO predicts the federal debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, which marks the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.

By 2012, the annual interest on the debt will be more than $600 billion.

"And that's, notionally, about the size of the Defense Department budget. It's not sustainable," Mullen said.

[COLUMN] The pot is calling the kettle black

Benjamin Jealous, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

LIMA, Ohio - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People passed a resolution at its national convention Tuesday condemning the tea party movement for tolerating racism.

Is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

The NAACP has to be one of the most racist organizations on the planet and its attacks on the populist tea party movement make it a hypocritical one as well.

The flap between the tea party and the NAACP began when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous told the tea party: "You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions."

Perhaps he should learn that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Until the NAACP cleans the bigots and racists from its own ranks it really has no business condemning others.

Tea party officials realize the hypocrisy of the resolution and Jealous' unfounded accusations.

"You're dealing with people who are professional race-baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It's time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history," said Mark Williams, a national spokesman for the Tea Party Express.

[COLUMN] Feds right to fight Arizona law

"The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

There it is. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

This so-called Naturalization Clause is the foundation of the federal government's power in regulating immigration. It is why the federal government is justified in suing the state of Arizona to put an end to its Draconian immigration law, which is set to go into effect July 29.

It is the opposite side of the states' rights coin, a sort of federalism in reverse.

In addition to being the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution establishes the relationship between the federal government and the states.

In this country, the states hold all power. They are not political subdivisions of the central government, as is the case between cities and states. States, and by extension the people, are the masters and the federal government is the servant.

[COLUMN] Finding less to celebrate every Fourth of July

Today is the Fourth of July, a day during which I should be full of patriotic fervor. But, alas, I find myself looking around the present and weeping for the future.

I am not even sure most Americans even understand what it is they are celebrating today.

The Fourth of July is about more than the birth of a nation. It is about the idea of personal liberty and history's greatest experiment in self-determination.

If we simply wanted to mark the beginning of the nation, then July 2 would be our holiday because that is the legal birth of the United States of America. That is when the Continental Congress passed the resolution declaring our independence from Great Britain. (However, one could make the argument that May 15 is the proper date because that is when the Congress passed what is known as a preamble, drafted by John Adams, explaining the purpose of the resolution, but I digress.)

No, we have always celebrated July 4 as the holiday. That is the day the Continental Congress approved the wording of a statement drafted primarily by Thomas Jefferson and edited by Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman (the Committee of Five) that listed grievances against the British crown and eloquently expressed the sentiments of the Founders pertaining to the idea of political liberty.

While Jefferson was disappointed with the final product (especially the removal of a large section criticizing the slave trade), it is perhaps the greatest political document ever drafted. In fact, the second sentence of the declaration is perhaps the greatest sentence to ever be penned in a political document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Such a simple statement, yet it carries with it such a profound truth that is unparalleled outside religious writing.

[COLUMN] McChrystal flap sign of war's loss

The comments and subsequent sacking of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal expose a larger problem than a general who showed poor judgment.

The Afghanistan war, which is now President Barack Obama's war, is a colossal failure. It is, at this point and under this president and his philosophy, simply unwinnable, or, what the Pentagon would term, "mission failure."

The problem is twofold: The president's strategy, which McChrystal championed and his replacement, Gen. David Petraeus glorified in Iraq, is flawed and his Afghanistan team is dysfunctional.

The counterinsurgency strategy, often referred to as COIN, boils down to the idea of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. (If you have heard that before, it is because it was a central tenet of the war in Vietnam, which the United States lost.) It essentially requires the forces in Afghanistan to refrain from killing civilians.

Unfortunately, the enemy hides among civilians. So the policy the United States is pursuing is one that basically prevents America's war fighters from fighting the war.

[COLUMN] Obama makes BP look sympathetic

President Barack Obama, members of Congress, and whiners in the Gulf Coast region, with help from America's hopelessly leftist media, have achieved a nearly impossible feat, they are making people the world over feel sorry for BP.

When I say members of Congress, I mean both parties as became apparent Thursday when BP CEO Tony Hayward appeared in front of a congressional committee and U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, apologized to Hayward for the $20 billion relief fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill.

"I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is - again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown," Barton said. "So I apologize."

Way to hit the nail on the head, Mr. Barton.

Unfortunately, the spineless "leaders" in the Republican Party, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, threatened to strip Barton of his prestigious committee post if he did not recant his statement. He promptly apologized for apologizing.

Later Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small-business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction."

No, Mr. Gibbs, what is shameful is your lack of respect for the rule of law.