Friday, October 31, 2008
Rule of law in this country has been replaced by rule of judges. In case after case, citizens have watched as judges assumed sovereignty and ruled, like Humpty Dumpty, that the law is “just what they choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” The latest case of such legal hubris comes from Missoula, Montana, where a judge has ruled that a parent is whoever he decides is a parent...
A federal judge recently issued a ruling that limits the number of terrorism suspects being detained at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who can face trial as enemy combatants. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that the term ''enemy combatant'' applies only to detainees who are accused of ''supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces'' in battle against the U.S.
[we must get our courts out of warfare, they've no place there: war isn't about justice - it's about winning at all costs]
The issue of judicial philosophy has been mostly overlooked in this campaign, but the differences between the two candidates are stark: Obama has the most left-wing position of any presidential candidate in U.S. history.
Obama has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, two of the most liberal judges ever to serve on the Court. (Before her appointment, Ginsburg had served as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, and as a member of the ACLU Board of Directors.) He openly criticized Justice Clarence Thomas. He said he would never appoint someone like Justice Antonin Scalia. He voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito during their Senate confirmations.
The dramatic differences between McCain and Obama on judges go all the way to the most basic questions. McCain has taken the conservative view (called strict constructionism) that judges should apply the law and Constitution as written. A conservative judge will do this without regard to his policy preferences. Liberal judges, by contrast, are activists who make up laws from the bench, regardless of what the written law or Constitution actually says.
Obama has said quite explicitly that judges should look at the social impact of their rulings, not just the law as written. He has said he would appoint judges who, beyond objective legal expertise, would have empathy in their rulings for an unwed pregnant teenager, or a gay man suffering from AIDS, or a homeless woman with nowhere else to turn.
Obama would replace retiring Reagan and Bush I appointees with ACLU zombies...
[think of Kelo and Boumediene decisions, to name just two demonstrably insane rulings - add our current practice of assigning the demi-gods to life-long positions, and this issue will likely effect your children's children]
Media Research Center Founder and President L. Brent Bozell, III today demanded the press report on damning new evidence of Illinois Democratic Senator and Presidential nominee Barack Obama's radical views on how we need to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" [snip]
In the 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, the audio of which has just surfaced, Sen. Obama laments that "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."
The media have refused to report on or obfuscated what has now become a series of comments from Sen. Obama that indicate a radical outlook on America, wealth redistribution and the courts. On his nominees for the courts, he 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."
"To the liberal media I say: if you're not totally in the tank for Sen. Obama, prove it. Report this latest evidence of the Senator, in his own words, describing his radical view of and for America. An outlook that has him standing in direct opposition to our founding fathers and the vast majority of Americans today.
[the most long lasting aspect of the upcoming election]
During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election..."Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Cameron wonders if this endorsement will be a problem for Obama. It probably wouldn’t be if it were just one example, all by itself. But let’s pause, and take a look at all the endorsements he’s gotten so far from the world’s radicals, terrorists, tyrants, and their supporters. They’re starting to stack up:
Thanks to http://www.clintons4mccain.com/ on this info. - if you don't believe us - just WATCH the VIDEO of it HERE.
Here's lifelong despot, tyrant and enemy of freedom Muammar Gaddafi professing his hatred for America and love for Barack Obama, and falling in with the likes of China, Iran, and other despotic regimes in endorsing Obama.
Baghdad - For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital. During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week's US presidential election.
For those inclined to see the workings of Divine Providence in human history, the special affinity of the American people for Israel provides a happy example. If Israel could have only one consistent ally in the world, it would surely have picked the world's (still) most powerful nation. Without the United States, Israel would be hard pressed to obtain the weapons needed to defend itself.
In Western terms, America is a Center-Right country. A major aspect of the American exceptionalism discussed by historians is its refusal to develop a class-based political movement. Belief in American exceptionalism has always played a major role in American civic religion. The two dominant conceptions of American foreign policy — isolationism and internationalism — are both predicated upon it.
Senator Barack Obama represents a third foreign policy approach — what Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington calls the "cosmopolitan." Far from taking American virtue as its starting point, the cosmopolitan seeks to remake America in Europe's image. Thus Senator Obama presented himself to Europeans last summer as a citizen of the world, one of them. "Mr. Obama," in the words of Fouad Ajami, "proceeds from the notion of American guilt"...
JERUSALEM - Israelis believe that they, too, have a stake in the upcoming U.S. elections, and many appear to favor Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for his hawkish stand on Iraq and Islamic militants to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who they fear will favor the Palestinians. ABC NEWS.com conducted an unscientific survey among the students at Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
(Snip)Many Israeli students said they are sad to see President Bush go.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has told a hometown newspaper House Democrats will seek a 25 percent reduction in defense spending upon Obama's ascension.
Talk of an eviscerated Pentagon and higher taxation rates meant to fleece Joe the Plumber, et al., is tonic to the party base.
Undecided voters are probably less likely to be persuaded by Frank's vision - that is if they ever hear of it before the election...
[as I've said, the economy is actually far down the list of my concerns - a 25% reduction in defense spending at this point in history is suicidal ]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Thursday that the imminent collapse of international “bullies” would be a good opportunity to spread Islam and Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad did not mention the U.S. by name but said that the ''bullying powers'' were on the verge of collapse...
Cairo, Egypt - The Muslim call to prayer fills the halls of a Cairo computer shopping center, followed immediately by the click of locking doors as the young, bearded tech salesmen close up shop and line up in rows to pray together. Business grinding to a halt for daily prayers is not unusual in conservative Saudi Arabia, but until recently it was rare in the Egyptian capital...
[there are immediate consequences whenever America is perceived as week - nowhere better demonstrated in the cultural war occurring world wide re: the spread of radical islam ]
TAIPEI – Republican presidential candidate John McCain would seek to defend Taiwan and play hard ball with China if he comes to office, but Democratic front runner Barack Obama would further sideline Taipei as he courts Beijing...
1) which is the democracy?
2) which the totalitarian regime?
3) who's surprised?]
Leave it to the foreign press to explain one of the major problems with American over-regulation and subsidies.
The Financial Times published a series Oct. 22 and 23 examining a subject the U.S. media have largely ignored: the effect ethanol mandates and subsidies have had on the ethanol market, investors, and food prices. Here's a hint: the effects are not good.
The first report highlighted the billions of dollars in losses investors have suffered after fluctuations influenced by legislation. Congress passed a mandate in 2005 requiring 7.5 billion gallons be mixed into the gasoline supply by 2012. They doubled that goal in an energy bill in 2007, requiring 36 billion gallons by 2022.
"Congress and the president created a multi-billion dollar market for corn-based ethanol virtually overnight," the report said, leading to a surge of investment culminating in late 2006. But as more ethanol plants came online and the price of the fuel dropped, the companies' values started declining even as the price of corn continued to rise.
Congressional Democrats, who have created the current crisis, will allow a certain degree of suffering on the part of the people in order to insure their agenda is furthered. They will continue to blame and punish "big oil" for the rise in gas prices just as Clinton blamed and punished Smith & Wesson for the violent crimes that took place while he was in office.
Moreover, like Lenin, these Democrats will try to to push their agenda through even if many of their countrymen fail to place the blame on "big oil." With the power of the federal government today's Obama-led Democrat party will implement their agenda through at the expense of the people by using scare tactics, and raw force when necessary, to silence their detractors.
[textbook socialist tactic]
Using tactics that would get any maker of sugary cereal in trouble, the Obama campaign shamelessly targets immature minds, and incites them to manipulate their elders into voting for the Obama. Dr. Slogan's Prescriptions has the details:
(Snip) That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, ''Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in...''
One of the campaign themes this election cycle is “affordable” health care. Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the “affordable” housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care?
Shouldn't we also ask how things turned out in countries where there is socialized medicine?
If the nation's big investment banks proceed with plans to give employees billions of dollars in bonuses this year, they can expect more regulation from Congress. That's what House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told NBC News on Monday.
"There's nothing we can do to stop it immediately, but we will be regulating next year in a way that hasn't been seen I think since the New Deal,"Frank told NBC News
A single report by KFYI radio of Phoenix, Arizona highlights a shocking claim made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD says that five million illegal aliens hold illegal mortgages. This is just one more example of the lax lending laws put into place by Democrats like Barney Frank that have contributed to this economic crisis.
One would think this would be big news. But, so far we have only this one report to cover it.
There have been earlier stories of home flipping schemes that made liberal use of illegal aliens as straw buyers and the FBI has followed numerous cases to prosecution and conviction. But the Old Media have not done much with this story.
There is a fierce behind-the-scenes battle for influence over presumptive Democratic candidate Barack Obama's Hispanic and Latin American agenda, and some Democratic strategists say that its outcome could determine the result of the November elections.
Some Obama backers in South Florida, in particular, are especially miffed at what they see as excessive power by labor-union-tied, left-leaning Mexican-American leaders at Obama's Chicago headquarters over the campaign's nationwide Hispanic policy strategies.
I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny.
And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.
But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization.
Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy.
The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created.
Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.
The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.