Vocal Minority

Liberal Fascism: Land Stolen in "Kelo" Case Still Not Used

Stories like this just make me weep for my country.

You remember the infamous Kelo case from a couple years ago? Suzette Kelo was being forced by New London, CT to abandon her home so the government could use her property for better “public use.” Kelo took her case to the Supreme Court and lost (Naturally, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer ruled against liberty and the Constitution; Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.)

That was 2005. So what’s been happening on the land? Nothing. In September local Connecticut news station WTNH reported:

Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne’s lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot’s towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing. …

New London officials decided they needed Kelo’s land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would compliment a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

So what’s going on with that $350 million Pfizer facility? Again, nothing. Ain’t happenin’, the Washington Examiner reported yesterday:

Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking
By: TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | 11/09/09 1:47 PM EST

The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.

But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes’ seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.

So let’s recap: The government, backed by the Supreme Court, forces a woman and several of her neighbors get out of the land they rightfully own “for the public good” and now their grandiose plans aren’t happening. “Oops. Never mind.” Talk about adding insult to injury!

So the land is an unattractive, abandoned, weed-filled wasteland. I can’t think of a better picture to depict what happens when greedy power-hungry government tramples on an Americans’ basic civil rights.

Ready for another government bureaucracy with the same sense of impersonalness to take over health “care”?

An Inspiring 11-Year-Old's Open Letter to Dear Leader

Facebook friend Tara, who blogs at A Little Red Rooster, posted this inspiring video at a rally in Philadelphia last week. It features an 11-year-old boy named Quentin Cody who read an open letter to President Hope&Change.

It's hard not to stand up and cheer for this young man at the end of his speech. Such an event gives one hope that our future is not yet lost.

Spread this around. And don't forget Cody's name when it's his turn to run for president in about 30 years!

[Video produced by www.NewJerseyForDummies.com]

Schmuck Republican: John McCain "Convinced" Obama Respects the Constitution

I almost fell off my seat when I heard about this. The U.K. Guardian reports:

John McCain stands up for Barack Obama during town hall meeting
Obama’s former rival heckled by audience for saying the president respects the US constitution

During the meeting in the retirement community of Sun City, Arizona, Obama’s former rival defended the president after an attendee asked: “Doesn’t he [Obama] know that we still live under a constitution?”

“I’m sure that he does,” McCain said. After the crowd erupted into laughter, the Arizona senator said: “No, no. I am serious. I am sure that he does and I’m sure he respects the constitution.”

“No!” the attendees shouted. McCain responded: “I am absolutely convinced of it. I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy and about the role of government. That is why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties, and competition about different ideas and vision for the future of America. I’m convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.” […]

John S. McCain, you are a schmuck! You are convinced that Barack Obama respects the Constitution? Why? What convinced you of this, Mr. McCain?

Was it when Obama said—way back in 2001—that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” because it doesn’t allow for “redistributive wealth” and espoused an unconstitutionally activist judiciary to correct those flaws:

[T]he 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 radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the 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.

Was it when he took over GM and wielded unconstitutional power over areas of the American private sector he sought to punish?

Maybe it was when the president appointed his 37th unelected, unaccountable, untouchable “czar” to encroach upon the last nook and cranny of Americans’ personal freedom. That would be the free-speech-hating FCC “Diversity” Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press … This freedom is all too often an exaggeration … At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

Or was it when the president was expressing his intent to regulate the income of Americans whom he considers enemies of his State—corporate CEO’s, Wall Street types, physicians, insurance companies (but not trial lawyers, Hollywood actors, or union bosses).

Barack Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution, John McCain, and you—unlike your much more courageous running-mate Sarah Palin—didn’t have the balls to say it. What a disgrace. 

It was hard enough pulling the lever for this RINO in 2008 only because it meant helping to prevent an Obama presidency. But if John McCain thinks he’ll be able to throw his hat in the presidential ring ever again, he’s going to have another think coming.

P.S. Free Republic reader “Nervous Tick” justifiably wonders: 

What would McCain know about respecting the constitution?
EXHIBIT A: the McCain/Feingold.

The Government Can!

VM reader Jay sent this to me. ROTFPMP!!!

Liberal Hypocrisy: Privacy Rights Are Soooo 2004

What a difference an election makes, huh? Remember when hoards of angry crowds protesting the election of George W. Bush and later the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was patriotic? In fact, crowds yelling and carrying signs that were, let’s say, “not complimentary” of the president and his so-called cabal of imperialists, terrorists, and oil criminals was said to be the highest form of patriotism. Extra patriotism points were given to the Michael Moores and Al Gores for doing it overseas. But now, with Democrats in power in Washington, angry protesters protesting ObamaCare—the largest and most unconstitutional governmental power grab since FDR’s New Deal—are considered rude, crude and frightening.

Remember the outrage that ensued with the Patriot Act? Not a day passed without some member of the liberati decrying the perceived violations of civil liberties committed by then-A.G. John Ashcroft. Protesters were virtually convinced their emails were being used as George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s nighttime reading. And don’t even talk about abortion (oh, excuse me, “reproductive rights”.) All George W. Bush had to do is whisper the word and you get thousands of women gathered at the Mall while Whoopi Goldberg and Hillary Clinton cackle at the top of their lungs weilding hangers and babbling something about the “invasion of privacy!”

Oh, and what about the proposal of national voter ID cards in order to greatly reduce voter fraud. But nooo, the liberati cried. Their rejection of this brilliantly simple idea includes such inane arguments as it would disenfranchise poor people, particularly minorities (How, I have no idea) and that it’s akin to Nazi Germany where the fascistic government requires every citizen to have “their papers.”

Yet if the health (s)care bill passes, every citizen of the United States of Obama must have a national health care ID card!

I guess privacy rights are soooo 2004. Because now basically the same people supporting ObamaCare. They must not realize—or most likely, don’t care—that the House bill allows the most blatant violations of privacy.

What follows should be front page news—if the mainstream media were actually doing its job and reporting the news rather than acting as the Democrat Party’s personal propaganda arm. Writing for the CBS News blog (I guess CBS gets one thumb up for that), Declan McCullagh points out these frightening parts of H.R. 3200:

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.” Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details—there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable—to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.” Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.

Also, Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Oh sure. When it comes to quality and morally imperative health care for all Americans, the I.R.S. and S.S.A. are the first things that come to my mind.

Doctor G. Wesley Clark at American Thinker puts it succinctly:

Under the ObamaCare healthcare nightmare, the private details of your medical history would be made accessible to an unknown number of government bureaucrats, for supposedly legal purposes, but also for illegal snooping by thousands of government employees. […]

So much for the “Constitutional right to privacy”—your privacy is only important when it serves progressive objectives, but worthless when they want to seize power.

Exactly. Privacy rights? We don’t need no stinkin’ privacy rights!—Not when there’s a liberal agenda to pursue, that is.

Welcome to the future suckers.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Ted Kennedy, Self-Serving Arrogant SOB to the Very End

They say it could be weeks, if not days, before Ted Kennedy (D-Chapaquiddick) finally loses his Senate seat, something that could only be made possible by death. One tries not to speak ill of the dead (unless you’re a liberal commentator and the deceased is Ronald Reagan or Tony Snow). So, before Kennedy finds himself face to face with Mary Jo Kopechne, maybe we can nail for something one last time. 

But what scandalous acts could such a terminally ill man possibly get into? Let’s see … let’s see … Ahh, here we go! From Politico:

Kennedy asks for change in succession law 

The Boston Globe reported late Wednesday evening that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has privately asked Governor Deval Patrick, state Senate President Therese Murray, and state House Speaker Robert DeLeo to change the Massachusetts succession law so that the state will not be without a vote in the Senate if his seat becomes vacant.

According to the Globe, which obtained a letter sent by Kennedy to the state’s top Democratic leaders, the ailing senator wrote that he still backs the state’s existing succession law, which gives voters the authority to fill a Senate vacancy, but asked that Patrick be granted the power to temporarily appoint someone to the seat before a new senator is elected in a special election.

“I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their senator,’’ Kennedy wrote. “I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.’’

The Globe reported that the letter was drafted in early July but not sent until this week. Discussions about pursuing a change in the law began months ago, and involved Kennedy advisers and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

A brain tumor has kept Kennedy away from the Capitol for much of the past 15 months, and his absence from recent public events has generated concern about his declining health.

A change in the law to allow Patrick a temporary appointment would give Senate Democrats an additional vote that they may need to pass President Barack Obama’s health care reform. Without the change, under the succession law Massachusetts lawmakers passed in 2004, the seat could remain vacant for as long as five months until a special election .

That succession law had a political design of its own: the Democratic-controlled legislature wanted to deny Republican Mitt Romney, then governor, the opportunity to appoint a Republican to Kerry’s Senate seat in the event he won the presidency.

You getting all this? In 2004, had John Kerry beat George W. Bush, the filling of his vacated Senate seat would have been decided by Republican governor Mitt Romney. So, Kennedy played the piece of scum he’s always been and got Massachusetts law changed to take that decision out of the governor’s hands up to the five months before voters elected Kerry’s replacement.

Now, in 2009, with every precious vote needed in Senate to pass a health (s)care bill and a Democrat Deval Patrick as governor of Massachusetts, Kennedy is spending his last days on earth getting his own law changed back, so that governor Patrick can immediately replace Kennedy with an ObamaCare-supporting Democrat Senator of his choosing until an election takes place.

Edward Kennedy, a self-serving, result-oriented piece of excrement until the very end.

Today’s Wall Street Journal wonders:

Beacon Hill [Mass.] has long sported heavy Democratic majorities, so the state legislature has the votes to grant Mr. Kennedy’s wish. But does it have the chutzpah? An election is the more democratic option. After witnessing recent attempts by incompetent Governors in Illinois and New York to fill Senate vacancies, Massachusetts voters may have soured on such appointments. Especially when Mr. Kennedy’s motivation for changing the law is so obviously born of partisan interest, not principle.

That’s an understatement!

Like I said, it’s not proper to speak ill of the dead, so I’m gonna say this right now while I have the chance: 

Chapaquiddick Ted, you are a detestable human being and represent everything that is wrong with American politics. When you are gone, the nation and the world will be a better place.

There. Too mean-spirited? Too vitriolic? Tough. Go back to your New York Times editorial page and your Jon Stewart show. They’re just ohhh so polite and civil.

Related reading: Ted Kennedy's Last Will and Testament by Daniel Flynn

Surprise! High-Ranking ACORN Official Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy

This has to be the week’s most underreported story. (‘Cuz I certainly didn’t see it blanketing the front pages of the nation’s most mainstream newspapers or make the evening network newscasts, did you?)

The lefty “community organizing” group ACORN, which already has a mile-long rap sheet of election-related violations, has landed in trouble again. Yes, this would be the same ACORN once legally represented by President Hope&Change and who has been slated assist the administration in the 2010 Census. Judicial Watch [h/t JoAnnMo] reports:

A high-ranking official at the taxpayer-funded leftist group that conducts fraudulent voter registration drives has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for organizing a scheme that illegally paid workers to register new voters.

As a Nevada field director for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Christopher Edwards paid canvassers—many of them “lazy crack heads”—to register new voters for the 2008 presidential election. He also set illegal quotas of at least 20 voters a day for canvassers to keep their job and offered an additional $5 for registering 21 or more.

ACORN’s shady quota system is illegal in Nevada as well as most states and the Chicago-based community group with strong ties to President Obama faces criminal charges across the nation. As part of Edwards’ guilty plea, he is cooperating with authorities and will testify against several high-ranking ACORN regional officials.

His testimony could strengthen other pending criminal cases against the group and its crooked method of recruiting new voters in low-income, “underserved” communities. For its corrupt 2008 drives alone, ACORN faces criminal charges in Florida, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. In an effort to dismiss the charges in Pennsylvania, the group actually filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the state anti-quota law it violated unconstitutionally interferes with important political activity.

In previous elections, ACORN has been busted for falsifying information to register new voters in numerous other states, including Milwaukee, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Colorado to name a few. In 2007 the group settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.

ACORN’s well documented history of fraud and corruption led to an overdue congressional investigation that determined the community group is a criminal enterprise. A lengthy report recently published by the House Committee on Government Reform reveals that ACORN has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systematic fraud and that the group hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.

Incredibly, the radical leftist organization with offices around the nation continues to receive massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars for its various community programs. Earlier this year ACORN got a multi billion-dollar infusion—for “neighborhood stabilization activities”—from the monstrous economic recovery bill that was supposed to create new jobs and offer an immediate tax relief to stimulate the ailing economy.

You know, I love it how liberals/Democrats say they’re all for fair elections and frown upon voter fraud. Yet, here is the extremely unethical ACORN, a taxpayer-funded organization which is solely in the business of electing Democrats and pushing liberal policies. Not to mention Obama’s justice department inexplicably dropping charges against the New Black Panthers, where were caught on video engaging in voter intimidation in Philadelphia on election day.

Liberals/Democrats aren’t for fair elections. They’re for winning elections. By any means necessary. Otherwise ACORN would have been defunded years ago.

Related reading: The Las Vegas Sun, to its credit, reports on what’s going on with ACORN in its own state.

Rite Quotes: Liberty and Tyranny, Chapter 2, Mark R. Levin

About this Rite Quotes series here.

From Chapter 2 of Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin, 2009

Chapter 2 of Levin’s book, “On Prudence and Progress,” covers the issue of how a society evolves within the confines of the Constitution and rule of law. Three themes are prevalent: (1) First, he illustrates the contrast between change (the politically-expedient tactic of the Statist) and prudent reform (the Constitution-preserving method of the Conservative). Here he debunks the oft-used smear that Conservatives fear change and cling to the status quo. (2) Second, Levin discusses equality and the Statist’s misuse of this concept as a means to tyrannical ends. He writes about how the Statist is so obsessed with fixing every perceived inequality that the Constitution, the rule of law, and preserving the dignity of the individual are no barriers to achieving that goal. (3) Finally, Levin explains how the compliant media, academia, and entertainment industry play an essential role in softening up the American citizenry to accept the intentions of the Statist.

[All bolds are mine]

[T]he Conservative doesn’t reject change. For [Edmund] Burke, change as reform was intended to preserve and improve the basic institutions of the state. Change as innovation was destructive as a radical departure from the past and the substitution of existing institutions of the state with potentially dangerous experiments. (p.13–14)

*     *     *     *     *

The Conservative believes, as [Edmund] Burke and the Founders did, that prudence must be exercised in assessing change. Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of a society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughful deliberation by the community. (p.14)

*     *     *     *     *

The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. … The Statist rejects the Founders’ idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictibility, irrationality, and, ultimately, tyranny. (p.15)

*     *     *     *     *

For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. … His first duty must be to the state—not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. (p.16)

*     *     *     *     *

The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word—equality. … The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual’s property rights at the expense of individual liberty … 
    President Barack Obama made this point when lecturing the Wesleyan University graduating class of 2008 during his campaign: “[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” But salvation is not the government’s to give. Indeed, it is not a grant to mankind from mankind. Under the wrong conditions and in the wrong hands, this deviant view is a powerful tool against humanity. (p.16–17)

*     *     *     *     *

Academics claim to challenge authority but, in truth, preach authoritarianism through various justifications for and approaches to deconstructing the civil society. They talk of individual rights but promote collectivism. They talk of enfranchisement and suffrage but promote judicial and administrative usurpation of republicanism. They talk of workers’ rights but promote the heavy taxation and regulation of labor. Indeed, academics portray Utopia as a kind of heaven on earth but have a high tolerance for the hell of widespread misery. (p.19)

Levin concludes the chapter with this memorable quotation from C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. (p.22–23)

A brilliant ending to a brilliant chapter.

Chapter 1 post here.

Rite Quotes: Liberty and Tyranny, Chapter 1, Mark R. Levin

Intro to this Feature

This is a new blog feature that I really wanted to initiate at the beginning of the summer but didn’t get the time to until now, because it involves a great deal of reading before typing.

On my bookshelf are rows of indispensible books with wise, powerful, and inspiring messages. Yes, these books are of a political nature, and they are almost all right-of-center. Their authors cherish freedom, individual liberty, and American exceptionalism. Likewise, they reject the jackboot of liberalism, which in modern times is none other than the rejection of the above. 

From the moment I curiously pulled my first political/societal book down from a Barnes & Noble outside of Union Square in NYC shortly after September 11, 2001, they have led me on the path out of go-with-the-flow political agnosticism to where I am today.

It has been my intention to reread these books over the course of several years and provide for you, dear readers, my favorite morsels—“rite quotes”—to mull over, absorb, and, when short and pithy enough, even memorize. Basically, the eternal grad student in me feels compelled to return to my most treasured sources, collect the most significant excerpts, and present them indefinitely on this blog, chapter by chapter. 

The Left likes to mock the Right as having a philosophy that is shallow and fit neatly on bumper stickers for the intellectually incurious to consume and regurgitate (because, ya know, “No blood for oil,” “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” and “Buck Fush” are so sophisticated). Make no mistake: These quotes aren’t for bumper stickers. Even if you don’t agree with all of them, they are nevertheless profound and thought-provoking.

The result of this labor of love will serve, I hope, not only as a resource for politically-minded people surfing the web, but also as sort of a “Cliffs Notes” version of my favorite books. Please enjoy it and feel free to comment, contribute, and debate.

From Chapter 1 of Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin, 2009

Three main themes comprise the introductory chapter of Levin’s book, which set the stage for its remainder: (1) The Conservative’s faith in and adherence to the Constitution, vs. the Statist’s rejection of diversion from it, (2) Following point 1, the Conservative’s belief in limited, constitutionally constrained government vs. the Statist’s endless appetite for centralized governmental authority, supposedly to right society’s “injustices,” (3) The Conservative’s focus on the individual and his role of self-interested cooperation in a civil society, vs. the Statist’s rejection of individualism as being selfish and greedy and needing to be replaced by a philosophy of collectivism (often couched in such feel-good rhetoric as “sacrificing for the greater good”).

[All bolds are mine]

The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights. (p.2–3)

*     *     *     *     *

In the civil society [a.k.a. ordered liberty or social contract – ed.], the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous—that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends. (p.3)

*     *     *     *     *

In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty. (p.3–4)

*     *     *     *     *

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). (p.4)

*     *     *     *     *

… [T]he Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And in furtherance of that purpose, the Statist speaks in the tongue of a demagogue, concocting one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and prosperity from its rightful possessors. The industrious, earnest, and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of “victims.” In this way, [both] the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government’s authority—the former by outright theft, the latter by dependent existence. (p.8)

This last quote reminds me of the rhetoric of 2004 vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. Speaking, as Levin describes it, in the tongue of a demogogue, Edwards lamented what he called the Two Americas: the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Indeed, the Kerry-Edwards platform, typical of virtually every Democrat platform since the New Deal era, was based on convincing the electorate of the existence of such injustices, and that only by granting them governmental authority (i.e., by electing them), can they be rectified. Of course, the whole scenario is a load of B.S. sold to the American people as a way to exert more centralized control over them, which is why Levin correctly rejects the label “liberal” in favor of the much more accurate “Statist.”

Although the Kerry-Edwards ticket did not succeed in the 2004 race, the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 did. And merely six month into the Obama presidency, the American people—both “perpetrator” and “victim”—are beginning to understand the reality of being subordinated by a quintessential Statist government.

The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequalities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution … Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist’s ambitions is his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. (p.8)

*     *     *     *     *

When living freely and pursuing his own legitimite interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statist’s—initiative, self-reliance, and independence. … [T]he individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavior. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. (p.9)

One need to look no further than the treatment endured by publicly vocal opponents to the Statist’s agenda. Rush Limbaugh and other voices of Conservative talk radio are constantly demonized, threatened with economic punishment and political suppression. While Limbaugh himslef hasn’t resided in New York State for years, he has nevertheless been curiously audited every year since, with the hopes he could be caught violating some state tax law. Another victim of such tactics is Sarah Palin, who has endured not only personal attacks from the mainstream media, but has had to defend herself from over a dozen bogus ethics charges and even the hacking of her email account by the son of a Democrat politician. In short, there’s been ample evidence to show that there’s almost nothing the Statist will do in order to deter his opponents from thwarting his agenda.

How many enterprises and jobs might have been created, how many people might have been saved from illness and disease, how many more poor children might have been fed but for the additional costs, market dislocations, and management inefficiencies that distort supply and demand or discourage research and development as a result of the federal government’s role? (p.10)

The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. An “effective” government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. (p.10)

A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity, and happiness for more people than any alternative. Conservativism is the antidote to tyranny because its principles are the founding principles. (p.11)

Incidentally, the Statist/Lefist despises the notion of self-interest, considering it greed and selfishness. They are always demanding productive and successful citizens “sacrifice” for the common good. On this is based rhetoric by VP Joe Biden, who famously scolded the wealthiest Americans (who already pay the lion’s share of income tax revenue) that it was “time to pay your fair share, time to be part of the deal.”

And that’s the beauty and genius of Mark Levin’s book. He describes Statists to a T. He knows their mindset, their motivations, their agenda, and their ideology-influenced character flaws. No wonder it enjoyed a good dozen weeks at #1 on the NY Times bestseller list (and no wonder the Times, as cheerleaders for the Statist agenda, have devoted little to no attention to arguably the most important book of the 00’s.)

To Hell and Back, a.k.a. Watching Rachel Maddow, Day 3

OK, kiddies, here’s my ass-whooping of Rachel Maddow following her Wednesday show. As I suspected, my liberal interlocutor Leah did not appreciate my glossing over two stories from Tuesday’s Rachel Maddow show: The secret CIA program concocted by that Evil Mastermind Dick Cheney which, God forbid, focused on assassinating al Qaeda operatives worldwide, and the scandals of “The Family” on C Street.

Not surprisingly, Maddow continued reporting on one of these stories. So here ya go, Leah. Hope they’re adequate this time:

1:00 C Street

For three days (at least) Maddow has been reporting about this “mysterious” and “secretive” Christian society of Washington politicians residing in a housing complex on C Street, who are called “The Fellowship” or “The Family.” Maddow has a problem with the alleged secrecy pact held among the politicians there, and of course the fact that disgraced Republican governor Mark Sanford and Republican Senator John Ensign reside there. (And as of this writing, already three days after Maddow’s Wednesday show, it seems a third Republican politician, former U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering of Mississippi, has been exposed as having had an extramarital affair. So at least now there’s something for Maddow to discuss all next week!)

It’s clear why this story, which in all honesty makes my eyes glaze over in yawny sleepiness, is so important to Maddow: It’s a place for fundamentalist Christians to meet, have Bible study, and so forth. And what could be juicier than story about a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who have cheated on their wives and then vowed to each other to keep these affairs secret?

I’m not excusing any of these guys, believe me. And I—and many other conservative Republicans—think they should leave. So on that point, I agree with Maddow’s clear evaluation: these guys are slime.

What I don’t appreciate is the clear attempt by Maddow (and other liberal pundits/bloggers; just Google “C Street” and you’ll see) to make this a problem with Republicans or with Christianity. We got a lot of scumbag politicians in D.C., and they don’t all have an R next to their name, Rachel. But you’re a liberal TV host, so Republican scandals is all you show. I get it. I should also point out that at least two Democrats are members of the Family, including Congressmen Mike Doyle (D-PA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), and Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bill Nelson (D-FL).

If Rachel Maddow is going to directly or indirectly accuse Republicans in The Family of keeping secrets of their brethren’s extramarital affairs supposedly because they are also Republicans, what can she say about these Democrat members, who most likely also knew of these affairs?

Oh, and there is one former Senator who has been described as the Family’s “biggest Democratic friend”: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen [Yes, I know, saying a meaningless combination of sounds “macaca” makes one a notorious racist. Honestly, you liberals/Democrats are worse than pathetic.] This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics. [Really, she did? Go Hillary!] […] 

Fundamentalism is not the religion of the GOP, it is the established religion in Washington and it to some extent maintains control over both parties. I was raised in a church that preached it as the religion of the status quo: Respect authority and the power and always know your place. It helps the poor in poverty waiting for their treasures in heaven while the wealthy amass greater riches on earth. It keeps women from achieving their potential and the races separate. And it keeps us from finally passing something like a public health care system or the Employee Free Choice Act. If we want to take on this group, we better understand that we’ll have to fight both parties to do it.

This blurb, by the way, did not come from some right-wing site. It’s from (gasp!) the Daily Kos!

4:30 Maddow quotes a C-Streeter, former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK), who tells a Tulsa newspaper that even though he encouraged Ensign to end his affair, he was concerned for the well-being [of the C Street adulterers] and thought whether they should resign or not is up to them.

Thinking she’s caught the former Congressman in some sort of hypocritical predicament—because there’s nothing more gratifying to a liberal/Democrat than finding a conservative/Republican guilty of hypocrisy!—Maddow shows us a statement that Largent made over a decade ago, during the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton:

“I don’t think any reasonable people could say that the president should not resign. I think reading the president’s own censure resolution, You can’t come away with any other conclusion [than] that this president should resign. It’s the honorable thing to do.”

Small problem, though. Maddow gives us the date of Largent’s statement: December 27, 1998. This is eight days after the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton took place, on December 19. But Clinton wasn’t impeached because of sex. It was on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. (Both charges were ultimately narrowly defeated in trial along party lines, but that’s another story for another time.)

My point is that Maddow—erroneously—thinks that Bill Clinton was impeached because of sex, and therefore the Sanford and Ensign scandals are valid equivalents (or as my friend Leah likes to say, apples and apples). It’s a false premise repeated not only by Maddow, but by any Clinton-apologists in the Democrat Party and in the mainstream liberal media and punditocracy.

A simple, straightforward accont comes from this letter to the editor published in the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, in which the writer calls out one of the paper’s reporters who made the same mistake as Maddow:

Re “In love or just plain loony?,” June 26: Once again, we have a media member glossing over Bill Clinton’s impeachment by suggesting it was about sex and that Republicans should have minded their own business. Gail Collins has joined the chorus who intentionally misrepresent the Bill Clinton impeachment issue, this time in her article regarding South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Every left-wing pundit constantly and wrongly refers to the impeachment of Clinton as if he was impeached for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This whitewash is published over and over by his apologists.

Clinton was not impeached for carrying on with his intern; he was the defendant in a civil lawsuit. While providing testimony in that suit, he lied under oath. This is called perjury. Perjury is a felony. Presidents committing felonies get impeached. The liberal media then slant the story as a hypocritical witch hunt over an issue that should have been private. Lying under oath is a serious crime that carries a serious penalty. Clinton was lucky to have just been impeached.

Now, I don’t think Maddow was on the air 11 years ago, but I wonder if she thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Because if she doesn’t, then it is she who is being the hypocrite for demanding theresignation Sanford and Ensign—a governor and Senator, not the POTUS!

Maybe Leah can enlighten us as to how much coverage Maddow devoted to John Edwards’ extramarital affair as his wife Elizabeth battled cancer. Maybe she can also tell me if any time in the following week Maddow will do a segment on Mary Jo Kopechne, who died 40 years ago this weekend by asphyxiation in a submerged car driven by Ted Kennedy.

Back in June, when the Sanford and Ensign scandals were starting to be news, Cal Thomas wrote in the Washington Post:

As for those who are quick to wave the hypocrisy flag because Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign and Republican Governor Sanford took part in a Bible study, I would prefer to look at the far greater number of people who have passed through this house and who have not cheated on their wives and have been encouraged to "keep on keeping on" with a life of personal and professional integrity.

To suggest that because some occasionally fail at living up to the standards they profess and this proves the house serves no useful purpose, is like saying that because someone drops dead at the gym, exercise is of no value. I suspect most Americans—whatever their religious or political beliefs—would be pleased to know that at least a few Members of Congress are attempting to improve themselves, their relationship with God and each other and as a result to perform on a higher level of integrity than they otherwise might.

My advice to the folks behind the house, though, is to open up and let the media see what's inside. The attraction for them is in the mystery of it all. There is nothing to hide and much to admire.

Hear hear!

14:30 Sotomayor Hearing

Again covering the Sotomayor hearings through liberal-tinted glasses, Maddow sees nothing but a GOP Race-Fest where other, sentient, human beings would see both Republican and

During an exchange between Sotomayor and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) used the famous Ricky Ricardo catchphrase “You have a lot of ‘splaining to do,” complete with Hispanic accent. Even though Sotomayor chuckled at this, as did the rest of the room, Rachel Maddow declared she had yet again uncovered the ugly head of trademark Republican racism. 

To this, I have one thing to say: Get over yourself, you sad pathetic woman! Is there nowhere liberals will think they’ve found Republican racism? It’s like when in 1994 Charlie Rangel found racism when the newly-Republican-majority Congress wanted tax reform: “It’s no longer ‘sp*c’ or ‘nigger.’ Now they say, ‘let’s cut taxes.’”

At 16 minutes she admits that “going Ricky Ricardo” wasn’t the most offensive thing Coburn has ever said—Whew, that’s a relief!—nor is it the most egregious example of the GOP’s racial fixation. Again, the only racial fixation I see in this whole topic is from Rachel Maddow. It reminds me of a joke told by Bill Murray’s character in the movie “What About Bob”: The doctor draws two circles and says “What do you see?” the guy says “Sex.” … So the doctor draws trees, “What do you see?” the guy says “sex”. The doctor draws a car, owl, “Sex, sex, sex”. The doctor says to him “You are obsessed with sex”, he replies “Well, you’re the one drawing all the dirty pictures!”

Likewise, the GOP were to tell Rachel Maddow, “You’re obsessed about race!” she’s most likely respond, “Well you’re the ones making all the racist comments!”

Leah, can you tell me how much time Maddow devoted to Jeremiah Wright when a couple weeks ago he called Obama’s Jewish cabinet members “Them Jews”? Or are only Republicans anti-Semitic too?

16:00 Maddow announces that on Thursday’s show she will be having on uber-righty Pat Buchanan to discuss a Human Events article he wrote about the Sotomayor hearings (Yes, she accuses Buchanan of being obsessed with race). I’ve already watched the exchange, which was made available on YouTube. It’s quite passionate and I’ll have things to say about it in my next post.

Oh yeah, on Thursday Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer was accused of “being racial” by the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. I can’t wait to watch Thursday’s show, where Maddow will certainly take the time castigating Madame Senator for being an insensitive racist bigot.

Incidentally, I mentioned that on Maddow’s Tuesday show, when discussing the Sotomayor hearings, the graphic on the screen was a picture of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the caption “Southern Discomfort.” Today’s graphic was a collage of four Republican Senators and the caption “Elephant in the Room.” Now that Al Franken is a Senator, who’s coming up with all these witty captions for you?

18:00 Oh goody, here comes Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick again! And what does she and Maddow start with? How all the Republicans are pressing this “wise Latina” comment ad infinitum (which, as I said yesterday, I partially agree with). But Lithwick says the GOP is doing it “at the risk of talking about something serious and meaningful like her record.” What is this woman talking about??? If you look at the transcripts that are available—I cited the transcript of Tuesday’s hearings in my last Maddow post; Wednesday’s is here—one will find ample evidence of Republican questioners discussing Sotomayor’s record.

So stop it with the spin, Dahlia! Contrary to popular liberal belief, we conservatives know how to read!

20:00 Here’s the quote of the day: Lithwick laments that, given the supposed display of GOP obsession with race during the Sotomayor hearings, Democrats have lost an opportunity to “explain what’s wrong with the John Roberts court. Why does the Roberts court have this determination to keep average Americans out of the courthouse doors? Why are they so set on doing away with the racial progress we’ve made?”

Dahlia Lithwick, what the f**k are you talking about???

Then, just when you think Ms. Lithwick can’t be any more divorced from reality, she then applauds Senate newbie Al “thanks, ACORN” Franken for “making a pointed critique of the Roberts court and saying to Judge Sotomayor, ‘How can they talk about striking down the Voting Rights Act? How can that not be activist?’”

What is Lithwick (and Franken) smoking? The Roberts court wasn’t trying to strike down the Voting Rights Act! For one thing, the 1965 was extended 25 years in 2006 by the Roberts court. And last month the Roberts court decided 8-1 (the lone dissenter was African-American Thomas!) to kick down the road a decision on whether one section of the act (“Section 5”) was constitutional or not. Exactly how that translates to trying to striking down the entire act or with judicial activism is anybody’s guess.

How much lies and spin can one show have??? And we’re only halfway done with this episode. Oy.

And then Maddow adds to Lithwick’s commendation of Franken by saying, “I guess that may be what Al meant when he talked about wanting to be the People’s proxy in these hearings.”

One last thing. Can you tell me what’s suspicious about these shots, which appeared during this segment?

Give up: The accompanying video doesn’t match the “GOP/race” captions. All the people in these shots are Democrats! They are, from top to bottom, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE).

22:30 “Operation Iraqi Baseball”

Good for you, Rachel. Two thumbs up on this one. (Leah, aren’t you proud of me?)

26:30 Palin Flop-Ed

Looks like a liberal has found a flip-flop Maddow discusses Sarah Palin’s editorial “The Cap-and-Trade Dead End,” which appeared Tuesday in the Washington Post (kudos to WaPo for publishing it) Maddow describes the editorial as “decrying the cap-and-trade provision in the president’s energy plan, which would reduce the emissions that cause global warming.”

Let’s rephrase that last remark so it’s more accurate, shall we? “… decrying the cap-and-trade provision in the president’s energy plan, which would force the American people, individual property owner and business owner alike to reduce the emissions that radical eco-Marxists have been trying to trick the government and public into believing they cause global warming.”

Now that we got that straightened out, we move on:

Maddow tries to catch Palin in a Kerryesque flip-flop by playing a clip from the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate in which she answered affirmatively to moderator Gwen Ifill’s question, “Do you support capping carbon emissions?”

She then provides from footage from Palin’s September 30, 2008 interview with Katie Couric, in which she expressed support for running-mate John McCain’s cap-and-trade plan and declared she supports doing “all that we can do to reduce emissions and clean up the planet.”

29:30 Maddow brings on Ezra Klein, who wrote a retort to Palin’s piece on his WaPo blog.

Some of Klein’s ridiculous statements about Obama’s cap-and-trade politcy:

“It’s on some level an energy tax.”
On some level???

“It’s one that will get rebated to people.”
Oh please. Even if people do get the “rebate” Obama promises, there’s no way it’s going to offset the thousands and thousands of dollars will cost people to adhere to these unnecessary, unreasonable, and unrealistic rules—car and energy companies being forced to reduce fuel emissions to currently unattainable levels, every American from Maine to Hawaii having to retrofit their private home and business to meet the environmental guidelines set by a politburo of nameless faceless Washington bureaucrats.

“It’s one that will save the globe from getting a little crispy over time.”
Ezra Klein, if you actually believe what came out of your mouth, then you are a f**king moron.

Meanwhile, Maddow and Klein are so all in a tizzy about Sarah Palin flip-flopped on cap-and-trade, they never thought to consider that the cap-and-trade policy that John McCain was proposing—albeit despised by the conservative Republican base—was nowhere near as far-reaching and economy-destroying as Obama’s. From the very clips and editorial she cites, we can clearly see that Sarah Palin is specifically against President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan. That is not a flip-flop! 

In addition, there is also nowhere in the editorial that indicates that Palin has renounced her statements made to Ifill and Couric that she supports the reduction of carbon emissions. Maddow only assumes that since Palin opposes Obama’s ambitious plan, that she opposes reducing carbon emissions altogether. (And you know what happens when you assume!)

So, nice try, Rachel, but I don’t see a Palin flip-flop here.

OK, that’s all from this show. Sorry, Leah. I’m not discussing blobs or sharks (Maddow’s two final segments). So sue me!

To Hell and Back, a.k.a. Watching Rachel Maddow, Day 2

The first few moments of Rachel Maddow’s Tuesday show were frightening for two reasons. One, the unhinged Keith Olbermann stayed on air for a minute into Maddow’s hour to engage in light back-and-forth. If I had known I was going to see Olbermann’s mug, I would not have eaten right before. The second frightening thing was when Maddow said to Olbermann, “I’m with [conservative Republican Senator] Brownback on this one.” Of course, the topic of discussion mermaids (?), so …

As tends to be the case with news analysis shows, the segments of Maddow’s Tuesday show were nearly identical to the Monday show, simply with updates: the Cheney secret CIA thing, the Sanford affair, and the Ensign affair, complete with stories of Ensign’s parents paying off the mistress. (Doesn’t Maddow even care about the Obama not-so-stimulating stimulus package, his unsustainable and liberty-squelching national health care proposal, the appointment of his upteenth unelected and unaccountable czar, or his dipping approval rates? Of course not. It’s all Republican scandals, all the time.)

Probably to my liberal guest blogger Leah’s chagrin, I am not going to discuss the above-mentioned topics either because I currently find nothing wrong with the supposed infractions (as with the CIA program) or find them insignificant in the grander scheme of things (the affair scandals).

Instead, I’d like to devote my efforts deconstructing Maddow’s coverage of the Sotomayor hearings. Indeed, this is Maddow’s longest segment as well.

Yesterday, Leah accused Rush Limbaugh of taking quotes out of context, even splicing tape, in order to misrepresent what Democrats say and spin the truth to suit his own ideological perspectives. If that is truly the case, then Rush must have learned this trick from Rachel Maddow, because her Sotomayor coverage is filled with it.

First, as Maddow speaks, you see a video clip of the Sotomayor hearings with a caption that reads: “GOP Makes Race a Factor While Accusing Sotomayor of the Same.” That’s a load of bull. What it should have said is “Maddow Makes Race a Factor While Accusing GOP of the Same.”

The most egregious was, after reiterating all of the racist comments Sessions allegedly had made in the past, she tried to pin the racist label on him again for simply mentioning that Judge Cabranes (another judge looking at the now-overturned Ricci v. DeStefano case) was Puerto Rican, saying essentially, “See! This is how Jeff Sessions thinks! He’s all about race!”

In fact, another graphic that appears during the Sotomayor segment is a photo of Jeff Sessions (because, after all, Leahy, Kohl, Graham, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, Kyl, Hatch, Feingold, and Durbin are so insignificant here) with the phrase “Southern Discomfort.” Classy, Rachel.

The unspun truth, however, is this: that Sessions’ point in bringing up Cabranes’ Puerto Rican ancestry is that Sotomayor was Puerto Rican too, yet Cabranes reached the same conclusion that the Supreme Court did, the conclusion that overturned Sotomayor’s judgment in the case. Sessions was begging the question of whether Cabranes, a Puerto Rican, reached his conclusion by correctly interpreting the Constitution, while Sotomayor, also a Puerto Rican, reached her conclusion by means of politically correct, empathy-influenced racial biases. And regardless of Sessions’ inappropriate statements in the past, his line of questioning here was completely legitimate. Maddow—who played the video clip more than once!—was instead fixated on Sessions’ supposed focus on race/ethnicity.

Here’s the transcript of the exchange in question. (All transcript clips provided by the New York Times):

SEN. SESSIONS: Judge, there was a—apparently unease within your panel. I was really disappointed and I think a lot of people have been that the opinion was so short. It was per curiam. It did not discuss the serious legal issues that the case raised. And I believe that’s legitimate criticism of what you did.

But it appears, according Stuart Taylor, the respected legal writer for the National Journal, that—Stuart Taylor concluded that it appears that Judge Cabranes was concerned about the outcome of the case, was not aware of it because it was a per curiam unpublished opinion, but it began to raise the question of whether rehearing should be granted.

You say you’re bound by the superior authority, but the fact is, when the question of rehearing that 2nd Circuit authority that you say covered the case—some says it didn’t cover so clearly—but that was up for debate. And the circuit voted and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Cabranes, himself a—of Puerto Rican ancestry—had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren’t bound by that case, had you seen it a different way. You must have agreed with it and agreed with the opinion, and stayed with it until it was reversed by the court.

Next, Maddow brings on the staunch liberal Slate editor Dahlia Lithwick … again. Although covering the hearings from inside the room, Lithwick exposed the bubble leftists like her and Maddow seem to dwell. After, for some strange reason, bringing up Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber (?), she said that Lindsay Graham told Sotomayor, “You’re a big bully and I don’t like bully judges and … maybe she needs a little time for reflection … ‘You go to time out young lady and think about your wise Latina comments.’

If my interlocutor Leah wants to accuse Rush of taking quotes out of context to misrepresent them, here Dahlia Lithwick is not only pulling statements out of context, but also adulterating the quotes altogether! Here’s the relevant part:

SEN. GRAHAM: Okay. Now let’s talk about you. I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. (Soft laughter.) Since I may vote for you, that ought to matter to you. (Soft laughter.)

One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament, and here’s what they [i.e., not Graham himself] said about you: “She’s a terror on the bench.” “She’s temperamental, excitable.” “She seems angry.” “She’s overly aggressive, not very judicial.” “She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament.” “She believes in an out-of- control—she behaves in an out-of-control manner.” “She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers.” “She’ll attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.” “She can be a bit of a bully.”

When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the 2nd Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: No, no, not at all. I can only explain what I’m doing, which is, when I ask lawyers tough questions, it’s to give them an opportunity to explain their positions, on both sides, and to persuade me that they’re right.

I do know that in the 2nd Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral arguments each, that the processes in the 2nd Circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country, and that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a “hot bench.” It’s a term of art lawyers use. It means that they’re peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the 2nd Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

SEN. GRAHAM: If I may interject, Judge, they find you difficult and challenging, more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out when you—you know, there are many positive things about you. And these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad. And I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. [He’s talking about a hypothetical judge, not Sotomayor in particular] It’s hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

SEN. GRAHAM: In fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line. But I would just suggest to you, for what it’s worth, Judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They’re not about your colleagues. You know, the 10-minute rule applies to everybody. And that, you know, obviously, you’ve accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection. This is pretty tough stuff that you don’t see from—about other judges on the 2nd Circuit.

It’s clear here that Graham was simply asking Sotomayor what she thought about her own temperament, and since others described her as tough and one said “bully,” which some judges can be, he simply noted that the hearings may cause a nominee to self-reflect. All these statements, in my opinion, were completely legitimate. Lithwick would have us believe that Graham gave Sotomayor some sort of finger-wagging talking-to, attributing to Graham the liberal stereotype of a authoritarian conservative male condescending to an insubordinate female. Talk about spin!

Third, Maddow notices a number of Republican Senators mentioning Miguel Estrada, the Honduran-American nominated by George W. Bush to the D.C. district court. Maddow wonders out loud why these Senators keep bringing up Estrada, being that many of Bush’s nominees were never appointed. Her conclusion: The Republicans are just fixated on race.

But, as I coincidentally mentioned yesterday, the 2003 Estrada nomination is a special case that Maddow either doesn’t about, or is simply spinning to divert the viewer’s attention away from it.

The evidence, both on video and in print, is overwhelming that Estrada was railroaded by Senate Democrats because he was Hispanic. Having a conservative Hispanic on a district court, potentially one step away from a SCOTUS position, is something Democrats decided they would not allow, especially since they let a conservative black judge slip by back in 1991. See here and here this example of Democrat racism. Because Maddow will have you believe Estrada was just another name in a long list of rejected Bush nominees.

Finally, I actually do agree with Maddow that the Republican Senators have milked the “wise Latina” comment way beyond what it was worth. However, Maddow would have the viewer believe that this comment is all Republicans have to go by, that there is nothing else Republicans have in their arsenal to grill Sotomayor. Again, by carefully selecting clips from the hearings, the viewer would be left with that conclusion.

The truth is, not only has Sotomayor made that “wise Latina” comment (as much as Sotomayor’s apologists try to dismiss it), she has also said these, all available from the aforementioned NY Times-provided transcript:

“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

“I wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all, in even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society.”

“I accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on a bench,” and that “my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.”

Whether Maddow might have a problem that it is Jeff Sessions who brought reminded Sotomayor of these quotes, they are, however, valid points to bring up.

I understand that Maddow, as a liberal TV show host and the guests she chooses, would be cheerleaders for Sonia Sotomayor. But no matter how much you cherry-pick the clips, there is a lot more Republicans have to put against her than just the “wise Latina” comment.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that. Day 2 completed. Whew!

To Hell and Back, a.k.a. Watching Rachel Maddow, Day 1

Yesterday was day 1 of a week-long bet I made with my lefty-lib friend Leah: I watch a week of Rachel Maddow, and she listens to a week of El Rushbo. Then you, dear readers, get to follow the commentaries and critiques.

Here’s my commentary for Maddow’s Monday show:

Segment 1: Secret CIA Program Kept Secret from Congress

Maddow was drooling over revelations that Dick Cheney might have been responsible for a secret CIA program that he kept secret from Congress.

On this entire issue, all I have to say is this: The left likes to bring up the interrogation and “torture” stories, yet they always leave out the most important aspect, i.e., who was being “tortured,” i.e., Terrorists! The worst of the worst. We never liberals/Democrats discuss what scum these detainees are and how they live every breathing moment in a Islam-inspired mission to kill us. All we hear about is how immorally torturous and dangerous (and now secretive) Bush and Cheney were. That’s why the Republicans still get higher approval ratings than Democrats on national security. Republicans are more concerned with kicking terrorist butt, capturing and killing the enemy as much as possible. Democrats are more concerned about getting our enemy habeas corpus rights and access to our civilian courts—unprecedented in American history—and Geneva Convention protections, even though as unlawful enemy combatants they are uneligible for them.

They got 5-star hotel treatment at Guantanamo – Islamically correct meals, prayer rugs, Korans, reports that detainees were treated better there than in their own homelands not in jail.

By focusing on the Bush administration and trying to punish them for alleged practices, Dems are essentially protecting and defending our sworn enemies. And God forbid I should ever suggest that libs/Dems ever side with our enemies. Right, Michael Moore, Lynne Stewart, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ward Churchill, etc.?

The Wall Street Journal article Maddow cites when mentioning the secret CIA program was an assassination program is here.

Let me state this as clearly as I can: I am glad that the CIA was considering this al Qaeda assassination program and that Cheney and co. had the wherewithall to hide it from Congress. Even as we speak, the Democrat Congress and Senate are demonstrating they are more interested in scoring political points by bashing the Bush administration rather than keeping our country safe. It was clearly a national security decision and thank God Cheney made the choices he made.

Segment 2: Sotomayor Hearings

Intrigued by Rep. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) description of the hearings as “fighting for the vision of what a US. Supreme Court judge should think like and look like.” Sounds like, like most of the Democrats, he’s just looking to fill a gender/ethnicity quota.

Maddow asks him to clarify if he is saying that Republicans are trying to use her gender and race (ethnicity really) against her. His roundabout answer is yes. He adds Repulicans have tried to set as what’s normal and as a benchmark the white male. Almost exclusively white male 6 out of 8 (75%? That’s hardly “exclusively”). This is race-baiting pure and simple. Having followed conservative criticism of Sotomayor for months, not once has her gender or race been a factor. For liberals/Democrats like Maddow and Whitehouse to suggest it is offensive and insulting (not to mention old and tired.)

Whitehouse then has the gall to say Sotomayor would bring a different perspective and reps for some reason have a problem with that perspective of six white men should not be a problem. This is a gross distortion of Sotomayor’s actual 2001 statement that a “wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion” than a white male. She didn’t say different, she said better. She didn’t say perspective, she said conclusion. This twisting of words to suit Whitehouse’s charge that the GOP is racist and they want no one but white males on the SC is loathsome.

Reality check: It was Republican Ronald Reagan who nominated the first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor to the SCOTUS.

Reality check – It was Republican George H.W. Bush who nominated black Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS, and Democrats ridicule and bash him to this day.

Reality check – It was Republican George W. Bush who nominated Hispanic Miguel Estrada to the D.C. circuit court. Democrats, knowing that circuit court is a stepping stone to the SCOTUS, deliberately blocked Estrada’s appointment specifically because he was Hispanic and they didn’t want to give Bush the success of a Hispanic appointment. Actual emails between Democrats plotting this are found in the appendix of Mark Levin’s 2006 book “Men in Black.”

So Whitehouse is playing the race card against Republicans and has to resort to lies and ignoring facts and history to do it.

Rep. Whitehouse thinks like a racist – it’s all about about skin color. He says nothing about rule of law or upholding the Constitution. After commercial, there’s a clip of Dick Durbin (D-IL) kvetching how most SCOTUS justices have been white males. Again, it’s all about color of skin, nothing about content of character. All about fulfilling quotas, nothing about honoring rule of law, judicial restraint, or following the Constitution.

P.S. Why did she say “conservative Washington Times newspaper” but simply “New York Times,” “Newsweek,” and “Slate,” three famously liberal publications.

P.P.S. Liz Cheney kicks ass!

Re: The Jeff Sessions smear. Maddow says that Sessions

(1) called the NAACP un-American and communist-inspired. This is not inaccurate: both organizations have socialist-communist roots and associations.

(2) said KKK OK until he found out they supported pot-smoking. If Sessions actually said this, it was a stupid schmuck comment and I obviously don’t condone it.

(3) said a DOJ lawyer was a disgrace to his race because he represented African-Americans. Again, if Sessions said this, it was a stupid schmuck comment.

All I found on-line was left-wing sites/blogs claiming Sessions made these statements, but no sources confirming them. If Sessions said what Maddow accuses him of saying, then he’s a schmuck. If he didn’t say these things, then Maddow is just being a mud slinger.

Enter Dahlia Lithwick, liberal contributor to Newsweek and editor of the liberal Slate. She says the GOPers opposing Sotomayor aren’t considering her 18-year record and how she interprets the law, but instead focusing on a couple of statements.

Again, this point of view is 180 degrees off of reality: Republicans (more accurately, conservatives) have been discussing her record for months, from her approach toward Constitutional interpretation, 60% overturn record to the recently overturned Ricci case. Neither Maddow nor Lithwick bring this up. I believe the reason the left, including Maddow, are ignoring her record because it’s dismal. They have nothing but to accuse Republicans of stoking race, which they are not doing.

Segment 3: Nuclear Plant Meltdown?

What a surprise, Maddow doesn’t like nuclear energy.

I never even heard of this Ventura meltdown. As far as I’m concerned, if Jane Fonda didn’t make a movie about it, it didn’t happen!

Segment 4: Sarah Palin

Citing a recent NY Times article (again, not labeling it as liberal), she says part of Sarah Palin’s supposed downfall in Alaska was her “picking fights with her critics and responding when critics picked fights with her.” What the hell should have Palin done??? Lie down like a doormat while liberal/Democrat women and men smear her and her family? Or maybe she should have launched a website called FightTheSmears.org like our thin-skinned president. Please.

Troopergate – was a complete non-scandal blown out of proportion by liberals like Maddow. If Maddow was so disturbed by Palin’s overstepping her authority by firing the trooper, she should be especially disturbed by Barack Obama’s sudden firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

General Observations / In conclusion

I will give Rachel Maddow this: She isn’t totally unbearable to watch, because her manner and delivery are very calm. She doesn’t become unhinged and pop blood vessels like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann. I actually might watch more of her after this week-long bet.

The show is completely one-sided. Every one of Maddow’s hosts were liberal Democrats. In contrast, Fox News commentator shows always invite guests with opposing viewpoints. In fact, the video clip of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) commenting on Cheney’s allegedly secret CIA program comes from an appearance on Fox News. Not a convenient truth for those on the left who consider themselves fair and balanced while accusing Fox of slanted right-wing commentary.

Until tomorrow!

Whitey 1 - Sotomayor 0: SCOTUS Overturns Ricci v. DeStefano

Well, wonder of wonders. Justice gets served for firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut who were initially handed an unjust, ideologically-tainted verdict by Sonia Sotomayor because they had the audacity to be born white in politically correct America.

Many liberals/Democrats—including Facebook friends with whom I’ve engaged in many an impassioned debate!—seem to be so in love with President Golden Calf’s “empathy” pick for SCOTUS that they don’t care that the woman’s decisions have been overturned an embarrassing 60% of the time. Imagine using a mechanic who six times out of ten fails to fix what you brought your car in for—and then charges you for it! Or going to a doctor who misdiagnoses you six out of the ten times you visit her for an appointment—and then charges you for it. Sotomayor is the judicial equivalent to this, yet Obama and my Obama-worshiping liberal/Democrat friends consider her qualified to serve in the highest court in the land. (Maybe sign her up in major league baseball. A .400 batting average is excellent!)

Now chalk up one more overturned ruling to stain Sotomayor’s record: This morning, squeaking by in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS overturned the wise Latina’s infamous Ricci v. Destafano decision. Here’s a report from Townhall’s blog:

Ricci v. Destafano [sic] Overturned
Posted by: Jillian Bandes at 10:14 AM

A decision by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was overruled by the current Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision this morning. The move probably won’t impact her confirmation, but will undoubtedly provide more fodder for critics who are focusing in on Sotomayor’s views on race.

The ruling, Ricci v. Destafano, said that 20 white firefighters who were denied a promotion after they took a leadership test were unfairly discriminated against; the reason the test result was thrown out was because no black firefighters had scored high enough to qualify. Sotomayor had previously ruled that discriminating based on race was acceptable in this situation.

Sotomayor’s controversial attitudes towards race were first aired when it became clear that her comments about “wise Latinas” were a common refrain in her public speeches and private comments:

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

The court’s decision to overturn Sotomayor comes at a critical time, given that her confirmation hearings will occur in just two weeks. The news media swarmed the Supreme Court as the case was decided.

Ricci v. Destafano was launched in 2007. Firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut had taken a test to see who would qualify for higher-level management positions. Only white and hispanic firefighters did well enough on the test to qualify. Because no black firefighters qualified, the city threw the test out, saying it was racially insensitive.

The firefighters who qualified had spent time studying for the test and spent hundreds of dollars on test prep materials. They sued, saying that throwing out the test results was reverse-discrimination. Sotomayor ruled against them.

Publius at the Patriot Room blog provides some more background and offers commentary:

SCOTUS released their opinion today on Ricci v. New Haven. They overturned the case in it’s totality - Kennedy wrote it 5-4 decision. Here’s Sotomayor’s opinion. The SCOTUS opinion is here. In part — “city’s fear of litigation cannot justify the refusal to apply the test.”

The central holding: “All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white.Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making is prohibited.”

Here’s the quick overview and context of the case before the SCOTUS decision:

Judge Sotomayor’s most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case. The Supreme Court is currently considering the case, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is the likely swing vote. Among the questions in the case is whether the law should treat diversity in the work force differently from diversity in the classroom. Judge Sotomayor dissented in part in an earlier case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, finding that race discrimination had occurred when a school demoted a black child from first grade to kindergarten.

SCOTUSBlog has an older writing on the implications of this decision. Their money quote:

I agree with Tom’s assessment that Judge Sotomayor’s detractors will have a hard time making the case that her work is anything but thorough and thoughtful, based on a reading of the bulk of her opinions. This may, however, make the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci all the more important in the coming debate. The Court’s review of the decision will provide those involved in the public debate with a seemingly objective measure of the quality of her work. (Emphasis added.)

This case goes to the heart of the issues surrounding Sotomayor—her membership (recently ended) in an all-female club [which personally, never bothered me], her thrice-stated opinion that Latina women can make more wise decisions than white men, and whatever else is yet to surface on her ethnic and gender superiority model of both living and judging.

So, it looks like the President Obama’s “empathy” pick is not as wise a Latina as some thought. Question is, will this development have the littlest bearing on her appointment being approved?

Given the fact that our current administration and Democrat-controlled House and Senate have done more to destroy this republic than any foreign terrorist attack, I am not holding my breath.