Dr. George Tiller's murder in cold blood at a Wichita church today should shock the conscience and grieve the heart of every thinking person—especially persons of faith, and above all, those of us who defend
Barack Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is par for the course with this president, a man who ascended the presidency on the basis of a compelling personal story and a bag full of bromides about post-partisan hope and change. Those who bought the Obama schtick may not have known it then, but they elected a hyper-partisan pol with big dreams of remaking America into a social justice utopia where the ends always justify the means. Rules—and indeed the rule of law—mean little in this world where grievance politics dominate, and the playing field shifts regularly to protect those suffering all manner of “discrimination” at the hands of the (white) power structure. Its typical class warfare, only this time it is practiced with extreme efficiency and on the backs of a huge Congressional left-wing majority. For those who believe that America is a meritocracy and should be truly “color-blind”, the country is now being run by those who see everything through race-colored glasses.
President Obama says he seeks “empathy” in a Supreme Court justice. His first nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, says a “wise Latina woman” would generally make better decisions because of “the richness of her experiences” than a white man. Those views reveal the extent to which political and personal agendas have supplanted the rule of law in selecting nominees.
With President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter, we will again have the opportunity during the confirmation process to consider the proper role of the judicial branch under our constitutional system. This debate usually centers between the two leading interpretations of judicial review: Judicial Activism and Originalism. Already many proponents of an activist judiciary are complementing the nomination as they support a judiciary that is actively making public policy. Most activists support the judiciary making public policy when they have been unable to make it through the appropriate legislative branches at the state or national level.
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein has been following the “climate change” bill that was cobbled together in Congress in recent weeks. This is the bill, written by left-wing Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, that would attempt to lower American carbon emissions by 83 percent in 40 years. I.e., it would raise energy prices, drive our remaining manufacturers offshore, destroy our future military capability and drive a stake through the heart of the American economy.
(Denver Post, May 24) Memorial Day, honoring America’s war dead, originated in 1868 after the horrific bloodbath that saved the Union and freed the African race. From Sumter to Appomattox, half a million whites lost their lives so that 4 million blacks might have their liberty. What else was bought with all that blood? Freedom of thought and speech and assembly, for one thing. In defeating the slave power, Americans also defeated the thought police who had tried to criminalize black literacy and silence abolitionist voices. The First Amendment was reaffirmed with passage of the Civil War amendments.
Much is being made of the *** Cheney vs. Barack Obama “debate” now going on in the media over national security. It was page one in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, after Cheney and Obama gave dueling speeches the day before—Obama from the rotunda of the National Archives and Cheney from the American Enterprise Institute. As has been his consistent message, Obama again reiterated his view that the Bush administration had “gone off course” in using enhanced interrogation techniques and off-shore prisons, saying that he is seeking to restore “the power of our most fundamental values”.
Women Warriors & Human Nature: All honor to the fallen Lt. Roz Schulte. Not sure I could have done what she did in life and in death. But I believe a well-ordered society that respects
Why did England have such powerful economic growth in the 17th and 18th century, while France languished? Why did England lead the way in technological achievement, advancing into the Industrial Revolution, while France remained mired in the past and oppressed by poverty and tyranny? And what’s the relevance of their contrasting experiences for us today? Perhaps the contrast was due to England’s limited government. The Magna Carta forced the king to call Parliament if he wished to levy a tax, however Parliament usually demanded a voice in government, so the Stuart kings of the 17th century preferred to rule without them. This kept taxes low or nonexistent, and enabled the English to accumulate vast amounts of capital, which they invested and built wealth. Near the end of the 17th century the Stuarts kings were replaced in a bloodless revolution. The new monarchs agreed to an English Bill of Rights, which limited royal power and granted even greater political and economic freedoms.
“Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Obama administration had no choice but to order the shutdown of the prison at Guantanamo because ‘the name itself is a condemnation’ of U.S. anti-terrorism strategy,” said a news item this week. Okay, let’s think about this. Here we have a high official supinely conceding that the Left’s poisoning tactics can fatally stigmatize something, anything, they happen to hate — anything the Left and its slavish media decide to subject to years of constant battering. That poisoning itself now becomes the reason driving US policy.