The article addressed the nature of our political system and how it had drifted from the Founders’ intentions. Unlike a Tea Party rant, it provided a thoughtful look at U.S. and European democracies and how they deal with fundamental human selfishness through separation of powers and self-restraint.

The piece basically addresses what the Founders called the tyranny of the majority and how our leaders can combat it. As a representative democracy, the United States government is not designed for politicians to simply serve as a conduit, relaying the voters’ point of view; instead, our Congressional representatives, Senators and the President should exercise leadership on our behalf.

That’s what troubles both the left and right in today’s political environment, and it’s one reason why the President’s decision on marriage equality was hailed so widely. The American people may not currently agree, but they recognized the action as a principled stance with possibly negative political repercussions.

As we are dragged through the turmoil of another Presidential election, that’s what voters should consider before making a selection. Do I trust this person’s leadership? Will he protect the poor and the helpless? Or will he just shift his positions responding to the polls like a marketing executive?

Amendment 1 formally defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. This came as a huge blow to a coalition of civil-rights groups in North Carolina, who have been fighting the initiative since it was first placed on the ballot last September and who, together with their opponents, have spent a combined $3 million on the effort.

Critics of the amendment have blamed the loss on a wide variety of culprits, from the Republican lawmakers who introduced it to religious leaders who threw their weight behind it. “I think the movement is fragmented,” said Pam Spaulding, a blogger and one of the most prominent gay-rights activists in the state.

Spaulding, whose website calls attention to gay-rights philanthropists that haven’t contributed time and resources to the fight against the amendment, is among many activists who have expressed disappointment in the lackluster show of support by traditional allies of gay-rights legislation. One such ally is Freedom To Marry, the nation’s leading organization advocating for same-sex marriage.

Freedom to Marry initially tried to keep the amendment off the ballot, but after that effort failed, they withdrew their support. It’s not a strategic investment, the organization says. It would rather spend its money in states where same-sex marriage is a tenable possibility.

North Carolina hardly presents such an opportunity. After all, same-sex marriage is already illegal there, and this law goes even further, making it unconstitutional. If gays ever win the right to marry in the South, it will be when the Supreme Court rules on the issue, or the federal government steps in.

Except then reality intruded, and it looked like the Chinese might go back on their agreement, as they isolated the lawyer in the hospital and refused to give anyone access to him. The whole arrangement was on the verge of falling apart, and the lawyer and his family would be subjected to harsh treatment at the least.

But the story wasn’t over. Our hard-working Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, arriving in China for long-scheduled strategic talks, took over from the senior diplomatic officials and somehow, somehow, managed to get the Chinese authorities to agree to release the dissident for a “temporary” trip to the United States. This concession was wrung from a Chinese government known to have zero tolerance for dissident demands, even when they lit themselves on fire in the streets.

Our entire relationship with China, carefully nurtured over the past few years, was teetering on collapse before Ms. Clinton arrived to save the day.

Of course, this isn’t a story. The blind dissident lawyer is Chen Guangcheng; he originally helped the handicapped but ran afoul of authorities when he exposed forced sterilizations designed to enforce China’s one-child policy. He’s still in China, but his trip to the U.S. has been ensured, and he will be studying at New York University.

Truth indeed is stranger than fiction.

CISPA says companies need to give up your information only in the face of a “cyber threat.” So, what is a “cyber threat?” The bill defines it as “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy government or private systems and networks.” In other words, trying to do bad stuff on the Internet, or even just talking about it. Facebook, Google and Microsoft all support CISPA. Why? Because they don’t want to get hacked, and they think this will keep them safe(r).

The intent of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI), is to protect America’s Internet interests (both governmental and our precious YouTubes) against attacks. It’s technically an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947 but would have sweeping 21st century consequences. CISPA would permit any private company (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, Google, you name it) to give away any and all data it’s collected on you when asked by a government agency. Literally any government agency. This data would then head to the Department of Homeland Security.

Additionally, opponents of the bill have a very formidable and vocal ally – President Obama. Earlier this week, the White House released the following statement, “Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, information sharing, while an essential component of comprehensive legislation, is not alone enough to protect the Nation’s core critical infrastructure from cyber threats. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, in its current form.”

Ultimately, President Obama has reiterated that if the bill were to travel across his desk, he would veto it immediately; however, that is much easier said than done. In order to overcome CISPA, we as citizens need to make our voices heard in order to ensure that our privacy is maintained in the online arena. For if we don’t, the ripple effect could produce disastrous results.

Posted by Paul Hoferer

In terms of immigration law, American citizens who look like illegal immigrants and are suspected of a crime can be held indefinitely without trial. This part of the law violates the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, in terms of the new abortion law, “The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency.” It also states that gestational age should be defined as “the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”

And furthermore, the most recent controversial legislation directly contradicts separation of Church and State.  Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2563, which allows high schools to offer classes on “how the Bible has influenced Western culture,” although nothing requires students to take the class.

Mind you, all of these laws have been passed within a three-month period.  It appears as though the state’s Tea Party influence has propelled all legislators involved into the national spotlight, most notably Governor Brewer.  The media coverage on these issues has been scarce and inconsistent despite some vocal critics.

The general consensus among pundits depicts Arizona as just one state out of 50, and if you do not like the values they are promoting, then don’t live there.  But this could be the beginning of a very alarming trend, with far-right Republicans forcing their ideological agenda on others.  Ultimately, only time will tell.

Posted by Paul Hoferer

President John F. Kennedy said that you can judge a civilization by its approach to its most vulnerable members, and our country has always looked upon poverty as a scourge to be eliminated rather than an inconvenient problem to be explained away.

But that’s exactly what social Darwinism does — the poor are those who are left behind in the competition for the resources in our society. They are the ones who competed in the contest and failed.

Our political and religious heritage has always pledged compassion to the poor — to such an extent that even George W. Bush as a candidate felt compelled to give lip service to “compassionate conservatism.”

The current Republican crowd, though, is heading in a very different direction. The budget proposed by Paul Ryan, and endorsed by Mitt Romney, pares back on the programs of compassion, including Medicare and food stamps, to instead give a hefty tax cut to the upper class.

They attempt to justify this approach by calling these recipients of federal largesse “job creators,” who will create “a rising tide that will lift all boats.” Yet, as President Obama noted, we have already tried trickle-down economics, and it has only exploded the national debt.

Will the American people be fooled again by this philosophy? Stay tuned. There’s an election coming up.

As per the Washington Post, “It’s been that way since 1803 when the court, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, ruled against a legislative attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. “An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void,” the court said in a unanimous ruling.

That authority — the court passing judgment on the work of Congress — is what engaged the justices in three days of arguments last week as they considered a case that could result in overturning Congressional overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

But as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “It’s not your free choice just to do something for yourself.”

Excuse me? Isn’t “the land of the free” supposed to be the United States? Since when did the Supreme Court receive power to deny the God-given right to “the pursuit of happiness,” provided by this healthcare bill, to anyone?

For any government anywhere in the world to arrogate to itself the power to prevent people from peacefully pursuing their self-interest is tyrannical and dehumanizing. For such a statement to be made in this country — by a federal official sworn to uphold the Constitution — is inexcusable.

Posted by Paul Hoferer

The first involves the “Stand Your Ground” laws, a pet project of the NRA that seems to allow a Wild West, vigilante solution for amateur, neighborhood-watch patrols.

Though theoretically color-blind, these vague statutes typically allow any white person who feels “threatened” by an Afro-American to shoot away without any fear of repercussions.

The second legal issue involves the use of hate crime punishments for particularly heinous transgressions. Right-wing politicians, especially in the South, denounce these laws because it is impossible to know what a person is “thinking.”

I beg to differ. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the motivations of a lynching or the cruelty of pre-meditated killings of people who represent “the other.”

These crimes attack the very foundation of our society, which is based on the premise that everyone has the right to pursue individual happiness.

Sometimes, you need to enforce an additional measure of deterrence, an extra exclamation point that our nation will not tolerate this type of behavior in any way.

While certain elements of Trayvon Martin’s death remain to be determined, videos of the perpetrator, George Zimmerman, blithely walking into the police station afterwards, seem to belie his claims of extreme injury.

And if that is so, the full weight of the law needs to condemn him, not exonerate him.

However, a larger, much more imperative narrative involves learning methods to overcome the disadvantages of urban environments. Michael White, author of Solomon’s Adventures, has suggested using highly illustrated graphic novels as a primary educational tool in modern urban environments. Mr. White wants nearly every high school in the local Orange area to adopt his curriculum with the hope of sparking student enthusiasm for learning.

However, implementing this bold program requires widespread community support. Specifically, the residents of East Orange need to understand Mr. White’s attempt to effectively shift the students’ focus and emphasis away from the athletic arena and back into the classroom.

“I want to provide these children with the same opportunities other students receive outside of urban areas,” White said. “Additionally, I want to prove that if given enough encouragement and the right set of tools, children within our community can step up to the plate and perform in front of their peers, while simultaneously representing the community as a whole in a positive light.”

Only time will tell if the city of East Orange and its school board actually adopt this very bold venture, but this debate is definitely worth having.

The writer, Greg Smith, served the investment giant as a mid-level executive and personally witnessed a corrosion of the company’s corporate culture, a phenomenon apparently unaffected by the 2008 financial crisis, Occupy Wall Street or government regulation. The article has created a stir among financial institutions as well as the federal government and may bring about positive change in the industry at long last.

Mr. Smith has done more than affect the financial community in his efforts. He has given hope to all of us who struggle to make a difference in our own lives and those of  our communities. We all know about Martin Luther King and other famous movers and shakers, but what about the unheralded individuals: Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring to boost the environmental movement; Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” transformed a radical splinter group fighting for independence from the British by giving it the popular support it needed to succeed. And, during this time of March madness, let’s not forget that Dr. James Naismith singlehandedly invented the game of basketball.

So, the next time someone tells you, “You can’t fight City Hall,” stay true to your ideals and keep up the good fight.