Declaration of Independence Declared Unconstitutional

You can absolutely feel the outrage sweeping across the country. It's palpable ... thick with anger and resentment. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – a Democrat Court if there ever was one – has actually ruled that the Declaration of Independence, as amended by the Congress in 1954, is unconstitutional.

First ... a brief background. Michael Newdow is an atheist. His daughter attends a government school in the Elk Grove School District of California. The California Education Code requires that public schools begin each school day with "appropriate patriotic exercises." The code says that "the giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy" this requirement.

Newdow was not thrilled that his daughter had to sit in class and, though she wouldn't have to actually recite the Pledge, she had to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is 'one nation under God.' "

Right now I'm actually reading the decision of the court.

When I first heard about this ruling this afternoon, my first thought was that the court had simply ruled that a requirement that this Pledge be recited in a government school is unconstitutional. Well, it goes further than that. It's not requiring the Pledge that's unconstitutional. It's the Pledge of Allegiance itself. And why? Because of the words "under God," that's why.

Now it would be soooo easy to start popping off about "outrage" and "they've gone too far" over this decision. I hope you'll pardon me if I take the time to sit back and read the court's decision and THEN pop off.

Meanwhile ... for instant expressions of outrage and threats of retribution, you can go ahead and tune in to almost any other radio talk show host. I'll weigh in later.

Yesterday President Bush made it plain that there would be no American support for a Palestinian state under Yasser Arafat. He wants Arafat out of the picture. Imagine that, a nation at war against terrorism wanting the father of modern terrorism to take a hike. What gall!

Today the newspapers are reporting that various European HMWICs and U.N. Chief Kofi Annan are rejecting Bush’s call for "new” Palestinian leadership.

Hopefully nobody is surprised. These people rejecting a call for Arafat’s ouster are not exactly at the top of the list of supporters of Israel. Considering their anti-Israeli views, why would they want Israel’s chief tormentor ousted?

Arafat is a terrorist leader. He is neither equipped nor qualified to be the leader of a peaceful member of the world of nations. He knows terrorism. He knows hatred of Israel and all things Jewish. He knows how to kill. He knows how to lie. He knows how to incite.

He does not know, nor will he be willing to learn, how to lead a nation to prosperity in a time of peace.

His name is Roger Kahn. He’s a big-government Democrat and has tried several times to send various Republican officeholders to an early retirement.

Now Roger Kahn is running for Congress again. Georgia’s 11th District. It was at a candidates forum on Tuesday night that Kahn uttered the words that are sure to (a) cause him some problems and/or (b) send him backtracking like a bulldozer stuck in reverse. Roger Kahn actually said "maybe some drugs should be legalized.” Buddy Darden is Kahn’s Democratic primary opponent. Darden and the three Republican candidates in attendance all stood to announce their fealty to America’s war on drugs.

Kahn took a risk. He says he’s willing to listen to all arguments on the issue. Now he’s sure to get calls, letters and e-mails from the same idiots I hear from whenever this subject is broached.

As soon as any commentator or political candidate expresses any support for discussions on ending the war on drugs – or legalizing drugs – imbeciles surface with accusations of "You’re for illicit drug use.”

OK ... there are two ways to support freedom. The first way is to support the freedom of other people to act only in ways that you think it is proper for them to act. The second way is to support the freedom of other people to act as they please, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of any individual to life, liberty or property through force or fraud.

The "Oh, so you’re for people using drugs!” crowd come from the first set. They are not true supporters of freedom. They don’t truly love liberty. They just want to live in a society where people do things they approve of and are prohibited from doing things they disagree with. Now, that is an interesting definition of freedom, wouldn’t you say?

We covered this on the program yesterday, but I just wanted to make it part of the record in my column. Here’s the deal:

Earlier this week a commercial airliner made what you might call an emergency landing in Detroit. It seems there was a gun on board. A passenger had a pistol.

Don’t get excited. It was all quite legal. The passenger was supposed to have a pistol. He was a postal inspector with the U.S. Postal Service. He is legally empowered to carry a gun by the Imperial Federal Government. He showed his identification to the security screeners before he boarded the airplane. No problem.

The problem was that he failed to submit the proper paperwork to the airline itself. The flight was already airborne when the airline was finally informed, and the pilot elected to land and check things out. The postal inspector was questioned and everything was hunky dory.

So … why is this such an extraordinary story? Think about it for a minute. Just what does a postal inspector do? Inspect mail fraud? Try to figure out which postal employees might be pilfering things from the mail? Track down neighborhood criminals who put "Will mow your lawn for $10.00” notices in federal-controlled mailboxes?

Face it, these guys aren’t exactly Clancy material, but they’re allowed to carry handguns on commercial airliners – and the pilots can’t? Some postal inspector on the way to Sioux Falls to arrest a postal employee who has been ripping centerfolds out of Penthouse magazines can carry a gun on the airplane – but the man in the front left seat who is responsible for the safety of the flight cannot?

Have we gone nuts?

This has prompted me to try to gather a list of the various government employees who are permitted to carry firearms. It’s not a quick job, but we’re working on it. Here are some tasty little facts.

Smithsonian curators can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot.

Agriculture Inspectors can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot.

Some Park Service employees can carry guns. Airline pilots cannot.

I’ll let you know when we’ve fully researched the list.

There will be a lot of talk over the next few days about President Bush’s proposals for a peace agreement in the Middle East. Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, is wandering around saying "Who, me?” and calling for elections early next year. Yeah, sure. Those elections ought to be real models of fairness.

Anyway – a thought for you here. That word, "elections.” There are other Middle Eastern states, Saudi Arabia, for instance, that aren’t particularly friendly with that word. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, a monarchy. There are no elections for leaders there. The Saudi royal family doesn’t want its subjects to be watching the spectacle of elections and new leaders in some new upstart nation called Palestine.

There is only one country in the Middle East where the people choose who lead them. That country is Israel. It is one of the reasons Israel is hated and feared by oil sheiks and princes. They are hardly going to applaud or support a plan that will shake the foundations of their dictatorial control.

The big news today will be WorldCom. Houston, we have another Enron. It seems that WorldCom is going to restate its earnings for the past five quarters to show losses. Cash flow has been overstated to the tune of almost $4 billion during that period of time.

Yes, Arthur Andersen was WorldCom’s accounting firm.

Today won’t be pretty on the stock market. Investor confidence is rattled. Investors don’t know whether or not to believe the earnings statements they read from various companies. Stockholders are looking at corporate officers and boards with a jaundiced eye.

Today we will also hear people, especially the political caste, screaming for new laws – laws to rein in the excesses of capitalism.

Now, I’m not here to say that new laws aren’t needed. I’m sure that some tweaking of accounting rules and procedures might well be in order. Fact is, though, that this situation is already correcting itself. The free market has a longtime habit of correcting errors and punishing wrongdoing. This will be no exception.

Already WorldCom has fired its chief financial officer. Bankruptcy is probable. Other companies, other financial officers watch and take note. CFOs don’t want to lose their jobs. Corporate boards don’t want to oversee bankrupt corporations. Accounting firms don’t want to be the subjects of criminal prosecutions.

These people don’t need new government laws and regulations to force them to clean up their acts. Angry stockholders and lost investor confidence can do more than ill-conceived and poorly enforced government regulations. The marketplace doles out harsher punishment than does the bureaucracy.

I can’t remember where I heard this discussion, but it stuck in my mind and I wanted to share it with you.

That phrase "Only in America” – we’ve all heard it hundreds of times, right? Well, think about this. I heard someone of note say that America is the only country in the world whose name is used in that way. Nobody says "Only in France” or "Only in Finland.” It’s "Only in America.”

In spite of our troubles and apparent turmoil, this country is still the envy of the World. Those who escape tyranny don’t aspire to move to Argentina. We’re it, folks. The Top Dogs. The envy of the rest of mankind. WorldCom stock may be worth two cents a share by the end of the day but, as they say, that’s "Only in America.”