The Rigors Of A Day In The Life Of A Liberal

27 05 2009

This yesterday morning, America woke up to an inspiring press conference with Obama, his teleprompter, and the likely next Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.

Most liberals were thrilled when they saw her name.  Not because they necessarily knew her, but because they were totally pumped when they deduced that she must be a female and an ethnic one. They were even more psyched when they found out she wasn’t some Uncle Tom when the blogs reported that she had said:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

That type of prejudice and stereotyping is right in the deranged liberal wheelhouse, but unfortunately it’s unconstitutional and it reeks of judicial activism.  Of course this fits directly into Obama’s own radical viewpoint and was easily predicted if only you paid attention to what he’s said:

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom…The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

You’d think a brilliant Constitutional lawyer lecturer would know better, wouldn’t you?

Me too, but maintaining congruent arguments is always a challenge for liberals and by lunch time on this awesome day, they had to completely flip their script when Prop 8 was upheld in California and same-sex marriage remained banned, in part because of differences between genders.

Instantly, they had to switch from admitting (if not boasting) that the genders are not the same, to insisting that they indeed are, and that anyone who disagrees is a hater and a homophobe.

Such is the difficulty of day to day life when suffering from a mental disorder.

MORE:

Hotair.com with a video of Sotomayor relishing her judicial activism.

Hotair.com with some of her rulings and an interesting factoid that the GOP moved to block her in 1998.

Newsbusters has Chris Matthews making a fool of himself.

Newsbusters explores how the big, corporate media portrayed conservative and liberal judges and nominees. HERE and HERE.

Malkin’s coverage.

Thomas Sowell on judicial “empathy:

People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.  That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all America.

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges

Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

UPDATE: Was Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the first “hispanic” on the SCOTUS?

Advertisements




Constitution Shredder Bush Exits Without Coup And Crackers Didn’t Riot Of The Day

20 01 2009

Wow.

America is an amazing place and this was an amazing day.

Obama isn’t the black candidate I had in mind to do this, but he means something very special to the black community and he will forever be treasured.

That’s pretty cool.

The speech was pretty much what I expected.  Maybe a little rougher on Bush than I would have liked.  And Politico is reporting the new White House site slams Bush.

That’s looking backwards if you ask me.

A few excerpts from the inaugural speech that I didn’t exactly appreciate:

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord…

We will restore science to its rightful place…

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals

Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more...

On the flip, thanks to Obama for a few conservative talking points in his speech.  He didn’t have to do that.

In spite of directly following a fear-mongering global warming point, this was my favorite:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

No thanks to the classless liberals who booed Bush/Cheney and chanted the “Nah Nah Nah Nah Goodbye” song on this day where Republicans and Democrats stood united.

Also, big loud boos to the Rev. Wright-like speech that Rev. Lowery gave.

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.

Ugh. When will that stop?

And, I was going to say something like this, but David Horowitz sets the bar so:

How should conservatives think about these events?

First we have to recognize and then understand that whatever happens in the Obama presidency, this Inauguration Day is a watershed moment in the history of America and a remarkable event in the history of nations, and thus a cause for all of us who love this country, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican, to celebrate.

Second, in order to do this as conservatives — as conservatives who have been through the culture wars — we need to get past the mixed feelings we will inevitably have as the nation marks its progress in moving away from the racial divisions and divisiveness of the past. These feelings come not from resistance to the change, but from the knowledge that this celebration should have taken place decades ago and that its delay was not least because our opponents saw political advantage in playing the race card against us and making us its slandered targets.

If we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday at a time of presidential inaugurals, this is thanks to Ronald Reagan who created the holiday, and not to the Democratic Congress of the Carter years, which rejected it. If Americans now have accepted an African American to lead their country in war and peace that is in part because an hysterically maligned Republican made two African Americans his secretaries of state. And if, after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, race has continued to be a divisive factor in our politics over the last 40 years that is because the generation of Sharpton and Jackson and their liberal supporters have made it so.





“Brilliant Constitutionalists” Say This Stuff All The Time

19 01 2009

The other day, the soon-to-be, Ego-In-Chief called for a, “new Declaration of Independence.” Obama is seemingly gleeful at the economic crisis and the opportunity it presents for bigger government, huge expenditures and a grand opportunity for his legacy.

Side note: Maybe I sound like liberals who say Bush relished 9/11 because he could then bludgeon every Muslim nation…heck, maybe Bush did enjoy it.  Then again, don’t we all remember Bush at the kindergarten when he learned of the 9/11 attacks, something the empathetic left has never let him live down.  That was not the look of happiness.  But I’m open to the idea that he had a bone to pick with Hussein (Saddam)…are liberals open to the idea that Obama is ecstatic over the current economic storm?

Later in his speech, Obama gave us another hint of the contempt he has for the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence saying, “documents that (are) imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.”

This reminds us of the audio tapes that emerged from the Constitutional law professor lecturer in the final days of the 2008 election.  The corporate media didn’t dare redistribute the word because the lunacy in them could have doomed his campaign and killed their dream.

In them, Obama, even without a Russian accent, bemoans:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radicalIt didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

If nothing else, this type of information proves that we still don’t know anything about Barack Obama because the media, so integral to a free Democracy, has completely failed us.

Geez, I wonder if Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Castro agree with Obama about the imperfect founding documents.





Democracy In Action

12 01 2009

I was a good American today, well now it’s yesterday but still…I was good. Got my, “right to assemble” on for realz, though I must say some of my compatriots nearly violated the, “peaceful” contingent which merits the right.   And then I capped it off with some freedom of religion, freedom of speech and now I’m exhibiting a little freedom of the press…or something of the sort.

Unfortunately, much of the democracy I saw today yesterday was of the twisted sort that elected a terrorist, genocidal regime.

I went down to the Minneapolis J.C.C. to attend a rally for Israel, something I’ve never really done.  I have a lot of happy memories of that place from my teen years when I was involved with Jewish youth group leadership.

There was a good chance a few family members might be there too.  Now, explaining their support for Israel is a very tricky thing because they have to keep goose-stepping the liberal line.  But I am related to a few outgoing/activist-types and this wasn’t a march through downtown, uptown or dinkytown.  It was a poorly publicized, rally at a local Jewish community center, in the heart of the suburb of St. Louis Park, a city which is so well known for being a Jewish part of town, it’s called St. Jewish Park.

As a Jew who supports Israel and doesn’t have to twist my brain into pretzels to explain her rights while hating the most pro-Israel President ever, I knew I had to go.  The Jews I know who say they love Israel, still reflexively rely on moral relativism on all issues and strict adherence to their religion, Liberalism.  This religious devotion, or passion, must be preserved all at times, usually coming out in the form of:

I love Israel, BUT…

  • “It’s the poverty of Gaza that makes them hate life and love death”
  • “It’s dire and hopeless so they blow up at dance clubs”
  • “US aid to Israel is much higher, they have tanks and Palestinians have stones. “
  • “If America gave Palestine more equally, it would be better”
  • “Israel has been disproportionate aka, not numerically egalitarian, in their response”
  • “Palestinians living in desperate conditions aren’t all extremists, but what would you do?”
  • “Violence begets violence.  Israel has been extremely tough on them, and makes more terrorists when someone’s house is bombed”

Turns out, it’s a good thing my relatives didn’t infuse themselves in the realm of the Palestinians at this protest.  It could seriously have unraveled their whole psyches.

At this point, I’m going to, um interrupt…myself, and apologize for not bringing my camera, it’s totally unacceptable.  I just foolishly didn’t foresee the opposition.

It must be interesting from the Palestinian’s perspective to see Jews quietly and meekly filing into a building when they’ve built them up to be maniacal war criminals.  I was one of a few, if not the only, pro-Israel person who went anywhere near them.  It’s nerve-racking to consider what their mood might have been if a few more people had engaged them.  They were already chanting racist slurs and calling for genocide while ironically claiming the same is being done to them.  When Jews came and went, it was quiet and quick.  Eyes were diverted.  A few flashed peace signs.  Basically they said, “PLEASE DON’T F#(%*** HURT US.”

Jews are smart people.

Palestinians who had flooded the JCC’s parking lot, left to horns blaring, loud chanting, flag waiving and overall, warm toastiness.

Important:

How dare these people invoke the words, “holocaust” and “genocide?”

For goodness sakes, the UN doesn’t think Darfur is genocide.  And really, mustn’t one be an anti-Semite even if subconsciously, for rubbing German associations in Jews’ faces?  I mean come on!  It’s like so not even proportionate!

Lastly, and to disprove the viablity of those choice words…

While mingling at the get-together, I confirmed with several Palestinians (even some of the ones who chanted “kill all the Jews”) that Israel is:

  • A terror state
  • a vicious military power
  • capable of destroying the whole region with bombs
  • a racist nation against Arabs and Muslims
  • gleeful at the sight of dead Palestinian children
  • a rogue nation who does not care what the world thinks
  • willing to break International law and even uses nuclear bombs to attack Palestinians

Ok, so if Israel is those things, then why didn’t any partakers in liberty have an answer for me when I asked why there was a single living soul left in Gaza if Israelis are such genocidal murderers.

Some of them even told me how long they think it might take if Israel were to completely annihilate Palestinian territories.

About 4 minutes.

Right.

This is no genocide.

This is no holocaust.

Israel obviously tries to minimize civilian casualties at all expenses.

Palestinians and Muslim fighters the world over, try to maximize them.

whosdead

On the way out, a few “human rights” protesters told me, “it’s coming.”

I wish I could have said, “we’re ready.”





Casual Certificate Could Cause Constitutional Crisis

10 01 2009

The “Cook-countification” of America oozes onward.  Nevertheless, this is a curveball to our readers.

Thanks Instapundit





David Horowitz: Birth Certificate Challengers Radically Assaulting Constitution

8 12 2008

A very interesting article by a man I usually agree with, suggests that the Obama lawsuits at the SCOTUS endanger our constitution by threatening to usurp the democratic votes of 120million people.  Moreover, that the questions about Obama’s birth certificate are fact based and not constitutionally based so, lawsuits “will not challenge the Constitution; they will challenge the interpretation of the Constitution which is different.”

This actually seems like a pretty coherent opinion and the threat of a constitutional crisis is certainly at hand.  But, what Horowitz is actually saying is that there is a giant loophole in our framework that we’re now powerless to solve.  He never addresses who’s job it is to verify rudimentary qualifications about a candidate, and he smears gutsy prosecutors as Constitutional destroyers, instead of the man who by many reports, hasn’t ever shown his real birth certificate.

Look, the media are supposed to be rock-ribbed patriots who get off on investigating politicians while balancing the power of a bureaucratic government, but they clearly failed their integral mission and all the lower courts have passed as well.  It seems this issue has no where to go but, to the Supreme Court.

For this reason alone, I really hope they pursue the issue so millions of concerned Americans can get some answers we’re satisfied with.

UPDATE: New Obama appointee, Bill Richardson is on tape calling Obama an immigrant in spanish.

UPDATE: Donofrio suit thrown out, also here at Malkin. And, Littlegreenfootballs notices the Horowitz article and gloats.

UPDATE: Americanthinker.com says:

So we are left with the follow irrefutable facts:
  • 1) When Barack Obama’s eligibility was challenged in court, rather than simply produce proof in the form of documentation subject to the rules of evidence, the campaign spent significant amounts of money to fight on procedural grounds. Perfectly legal, but not responsive to the question of his eligibility under the NBC clause.
  • 2) No other mechanism than court challenges seems to exist to test eligibility under the NBC clause.

That would seem to suggest that the natural born citizen is not a constitutional test, but really more of a suggestion.

For the moment, and probably in the end, that may be the most significant consequence of the entire case.





Shocker!! Obama To Use Legal Loopholes, Wordplay, To Stifle Opposition

18 11 2008

Oh he’s good…reeeeaaaaal good.  But he hurts my feelings that he hates Dennis Prager.

From the irreplaceable American Thinker website:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule in question is called “localism.”  Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses.

Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.

Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.

Furthermore, the Obama transition team knows all about the potential of localism as a means of silencing conservative dissent.  The head of the Obama transition team is John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress issued a report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.  This report complained that there was too much conservative talk on the radio because of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urged the FCC to “[e]nsure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Podesta’s choice as head of the Federal Communications Commission’s transition team is Henry Rivera.

Since 1994, Rivera has been chairman of the Minority Media Telecommunications Council.  This organization has specific ideas about localism:

In other words, it would not do for broadcasters to meet with the business leaders whose companies advertise on their station.  Broadcasters must reach beyond the business sector and look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.

Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman.  Martin is himself an advocate of more stringent localism requirements.

It was on Martin’s watch that on January 24, 2008, the FCC released its proposed localism regulations.  According to TVNewsday: “At the NAB radio show two weeks ago, Martin said that he wanted to take action on localism this year and invited broadcasters to negotiate requirements with him.”

So there you have it.