Music of the Day: Nelson Rangell, The Journey

In a few previous postings here I have encouraged my loyal and thoughtful readers to peruse the issues page at Mr. Obama's campaign web-site in order to familiarize themselves with his ideas, the language in which they are expressed, and so forth. The astute reader will note that I have removed the Obama link from "my favorite sites," so if you wish to read the Obamaunderings, you will have to go independently to the web-site. I didn't remove the link for political reasons, rest assured; I noted, after clicking on the site on half a dozen occasions, that each time I did so, my internet browser would "unexpectedly" quit, so either there was something wrong with my browser or the Obama site was kicking me out because I didn't "sign up" to receive e-mail messages about the campaign. No matter, really--it was just damned frustrating to want to read the Obama "issues" and then having to re-start the whole process all over again.

But really, I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to visit the site yourself. As you might guess I have a strong opinion about what's posted there, but you really should read the stuff on your own and form your own opinions about the merits, or lack thereof, of the "issues," arguments, and notions there.

On another subject entirely, this morning I finished reading Michael Yon's book entitled Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers Is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope. My tennis buddy, Steve, told me about Michael Yon about two years ago and I have periodically seen Yon's work on his web-site, so when this book came out recently I needed to read it. You should, too. It is an important and balanced piece of writing--there's rah-rah stuff, and positive messages, and good stories about successes, but there's a healthy dose of identifying mistakes, bad actors, and weenie American politicians. It's a quick read, but it really does have some important stuff in it. Now it's back to the new book by Douglas J. Feith entitled War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.

Finally, let me quote a short paragraph from James W. Caesar's essay entitled What a Long, Strange Race It's Been from the Spring 2008 copy of the Claremont Review of Books, to wit: ""John McCain is a candidate of a different breed. His prominence owes much to his extraordinary personal story as a prisoner of war for nearly six years in North Vietnam, including 31 months in solitary confinement. This record has obviously given him immense credibility, but what has made this tightly wound man so distinct--and so often the scourge of his party--is a strong independent streak, coupled with a certain irreverence, that backs down at no challenge. His career, even in the military, often found him just at the edge of staying inside the rules. McCain is a great patriot, but not a pious one. He stands up for his country rather than preaching about God and country."

Just something else for us all to think about as we cogitate on the upcoming general election.

AJ

TO LIVE IN FREEDOM'S LIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF MANKIND.

Music of the Day: Marion Meadows, Remember Me

Normally, I would just pass along the title of an article to you, but today's posting requires the full text here for your consideration. This piece, by Guy Benson, appeared in today's version of Townhall.com

Constitutional "Empathy"
Guy Benson
Sunday, May 11, 2008

John McCain delivered an important speech at Wake Forest on Tuesday, but how many Americans even heard about it? Much of the media was too busy obsessing over the latest twist in the Democratic primary to pay McCain's remarks much attention. As the press breathlessly declared Hillary Clinton's demise (again) and wildly celebrated—er, objectively reported—Barack Obama's solid win in North Carolina, conservatives were showering McCain with positive reviews on a crucial issue: The federal judiciary. Republicans who remain unsold on McCain should take heed.

My friend Hugh Hewitt likes to quip that there are seven reasons to embrace John McCain—the war, and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68. The line often gets a laugh, but it's no joke. Stemming the tide of judicial activism, which systematically strips the American public of its right to decide policy issues at the ballot box, is an urgent priority. The next president will likely nominate several justices to the nation's highest court, as well as hundreds of other federal judges around the country. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama should be entrusted with this responsibility. Each is beholden to leftwing special interest groups like the People for the American Way (evidently "American Way" means "governance by liberal fiat"), and each has demonstrated a knee-jerk hostility to exceptionally qualified jurists who happen to offend their leftist sensibilities.

The Mainstream Obamedia informs us that it's a waste of energy to deconstruct Senator Clinton's troubling judicial philosophy, since her chances of being president are less than none. We'll play along and focus solely on Senator Obama's view of what qualifies someone to don the black robes of justice. McCain's speech pointed out that the eminently qualified and overwhelmingly-confirmed John Roberts proved sub-standard for Obama. Mr. Post-partisan attempted to justify his vote against Roberts by pontificating that in order for a judge to be acceptable, he'd have to share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

While this laundry list of feel-good qualities may be helpful in identifying the next Dr. Phil, it has absolutely nothing to do with the job description of a Supreme Court justice. Values, internationalist savvy, and empathy do not, and should not, determine how a jurist interprets the text of the US Constitution. Conservatives and liberals have long quarreled over how the Constitution should be interpreted. The former contingent argues that the framers' intent should take precedence, and the latter contends the document is "living and breathing," constantly adapting to mirror contemporary society. Alarmingly, Obama's stated judicial skill set doesn't even mention the Constitution. Obama appointees, it's not unreasonable to suspect, would be very liberal lawyers who reflect the "core concerns" and "empathy" of Obama himself. Associate Justice Michelle Obama, anyone?

McCain assailed this ridiculous standard in his North Carolina speech. "Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other," he said. Bingo.

The Obama campaign fired back, sneering, "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." Kind of like the ordinary Americans who were forced to fend for themselves after the Kelo decision upheld the government's seizure of their land, senator? Rudy Giuliani had one of the most appropriate reactions to the shrill statement. Appearing on Fox News, Giuliani laughed out loud at Obama's response, then calmly explained that the Illinois senator's vision "is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do...a judge is supposed to interpret the law, and the law is written by other people."

When it comes to "bringing people together" and eradicating the "old politics" of red states and blue states, Obama's actual record on Constitutional issues has been rather slippery. He was asked about a controversial second amendment case currently before the Supreme Court and declined to comment, reasonably asserting that he doesn't like to "take a stand on pending cases." Unless, of course, he's filing an amicus brief in opposition to Indiana's tough voter identification laws, in which case he's actively taking a stand on a pending case. I guess it's a nuance thing. Incidentally, six justices failed to embrace Obama's deep values, concerns, and empathy on that particular issue.

Obama also assures Americans that he's the best candidate to reach across the isle to heal the country's divisions. What evidence does he offer to reinforce this claim? Why, his courageous rhetorical defense of the 22 Democratic senators who dared to vote in favor of the Roberts nomination, of course! Although Obama himself joined the ranks of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer to vote "nay" on the empathy-deficient Roberts, I'm sure Pat Leahy, Carl Levin, Chris Dodd and others were relieved that this freshman Senator had their back. Bipartisan heroism at its finest, to be sure.

To his credit, though, Obama has been unambiguous about his desire to appoint activist judges who share his leftist worldview, and who will craft law rather than interpret it. For some reason, boring old John McCain still clings to the outdated notion that We The People make the law through our elected representatives. He still believes that Americans want their votes to count for something, and that their voices shouldn't be silenced by tyrants in robes. He's asked Ted Olson and Sam Brownback to chair his judicial advisory committee. He pledges to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Rehnquist, and Alito.

For those conservatives who continue to whine about the choiceless choice they face in the upcoming election, and who carp that "McLame" won't be any better than his Democratic opponent, look no further than the judiciary. There's a real choice in November, and those who plan to pout in the corner on election day will help pave the way for Obama's confused and dangerous judicial philosophy to win the day—and the ill effects may reverberate for decades. Wake up and smell the empathy.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks for reading this important piece. Let's get our stuff together, people!

AJ

TO LIVE IN FREEDOM'S LIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF MANKIND.

Music of the Day: Steps Ahead, Now You Know

It now looks as if the Dems have, more or less, settled on the top half of their general election ticket with Mr. Obama; who he selects as his running mate remains to be seen, but I’d be willing to bet the ranch it ain’t gonna’ be Mrs. Clinton. It probably won’t much matter who Mr. Obama selects to run on the ticket—it will be more of the same goofy lefty stuff we’ve come to expect from the Dems since about 1972—he won’t touch a moderate or mildly conservative Dem to run with him and I’m guessing he wouldn’t come near someone like Senator Joe Lieberman.

What is important for us Reps now is to stop the mad yammering about Mr. McCain not being conservative enough, or being too “moderate,” or being too willing to attempt some kind of bi-partisanship, however noble or misguided that might be; if we have any desire at all to see a Republican in the White House in 2009, we had better get our stuff together and start working to make sure that happens. Here’s an excerpt from an essay by Mark Helprin in the most recent issue of the Claremont Review of Books (Spring 2008, page 66) entitled McCain Mutiny: “Half a dozen talk-radio hosts, whose major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip, decided, not long ago that John McCain did not hew sufficiently close to their gospel, the depth of which is Oprah-like. If a great institution of the Left could weigh in as she did in the choice of a nominee, why not her fraternal twins on the Right? It didn’t matter that Mitt Romney, suddenly their Reagan, became a conservative in a flash of lightning sometime last year, or that Mike Huckabee was in many ways as conservative as Vladimir Lenin—the task was to stop the devil McCain. Though chastised by events, the talkers are still at it, even if only at a smolder. Ostracism following tests of ideological purity and ‘right thinking’ is a specialty of the Left. Not that it doesn’t exist on the Right, blooming with great malice as it does on the radio. But especially in light of their prospects now, conservatives have no room for it. For by their neglectful forfeit they have lost the battles of culture and education, and to remain other than an occult force they must express their beliefs through politics, from which, after November, they may be for a time excluded.”

Think, for just a minute, of the alternative, Mr. Obama as president. Increased taxes (he said it May 8). A declaration of defeat and withdrawal from Iraq ASAP. “Universal” health insurance (if you think the United States Postal Service is bad, apply the same management and production concepts to “health care”). Holding “talks” with terrorist groups that are openly anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democracy, anti-Israel. Attacking Pakistan, an ally in the war against terrorism (still one of the more bizarre notions of the campaign). Calling politics as usual “change.” And so forth. Please see the Obama link, to the right on this fine blog page, and read about the “issues” yourself.

So, now you know, I hope, what we have to do to defeat what David Horowitz calls the party of defeat, the Dems—we have to get our stuff together, we have to unite behind Mr. McCain’s campaign, despite his foibles, warts, and semi-weirdness, and we have to raise funds, put up posters, tack on bumper stickers, talk with friends, family, and everyone else about the absolutely stark difference between the two candidates, the two parties, and the two visions of the future of America. Be polite! No shouting! No fisticuffs! No name-calling! No assuming that Dems are stupid!

One of the things the Dems are ABSOLUTELY counting on in November is Republican apathy and a lack of passion about our own candidate, or indifference to our candidate, or fear that our candidate isn’t conservative enough—they are counting on that because they know that Obama is the candidate of the so-called intellectual elite, that he’s the candidate of the far-left, that he’s the candidate of the race-based vote (hey, 90% of any racial group that supports any one candidate is a “racial” candidate), and they know that he’s a blue-state candidate and that’s not good enough to win IF WE GET OUR STUFF TOGETHER AND SUPPORT MR. McCAIN.

AJ

TO LIVE IN FREEDOM’S LIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF MANKIND.

Music of the Day: John Hopkins, Private Universe

We have all seen really bad movies in our lifetimes, but because we humans have a great capacity to forget pain, even excruciating pain, the worst of the worst often has been expunged from our memories. The two worst movies I have ever seen were The Conqueror, with John Wayne, (recognized by almost all viewers and critics as one of the worst films ever made) and Conan the Barbarian, with Arnold Schwarzenegger. There may be others that were nearly as bad, but I have forgotten them; again, this has to do, I think, with psychological self-preservation and self-protection. Sadly, I have added to my list of really bad movies tonight—it may be, as the title suggests, the worst movie of all time.

MLB and I stepped out this evening, after the arrival of some Mother’s Day flowers for her, and after we fed Max the Wonder Dog and took him out for evening walkies/dumpies. We grabbed a quick bite to eat and I drank a huge margarita in an anticipation of what I thought would be a funny movie—I had heard that some people thought the movie Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay was humorous. I should have looked around first before squandering $10 on two “senior” tickets—one poor misguided soul in Tucson seemed to think that Harold and Kumar scored “points” for supposedly exposing the “paranoid and repressive” nature of post-9/11 American society. This was a thoroughly unfunny, pointless, vulgar, and downright stupid film. This made Borat seem like the pinnacle of comedy on film. Any “points” that might have been made in Harold and Kumar were obliterated by (1) toilet humor (first scene); (2) penis humor (too many scenes to count); (3) gratuitous and wholly pointless nudity (mere eye-candy—failed to advance plot, story, tensions, resolution, etc.); (4) masturbation humor; (5) weed humor (too many to count, most of which were not especially humorous—certainly not at the Cheech and Chong level of yesteryear); (6) rip-off scenes (from The Graduate and Dr. Strangelove, to name just two); (7) stupid Americans in uniform or government jobs humor; (8) in-bred redneck humor; (9) African-American stereotype humor (if you could call it that). Sigh. Ten bucks and one hour and forty two minutes of my life gone forever. At least the margarita was good. My advice—pass on Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. If you really want to see this movie, wait about ten days and it will be available on DVD in your local video store and used clothing outlet.

AJ

TO LIVE IN FREEDOM’S LIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF MANKIND.

Music of the Day: Chick Corea Quartet, Time Warp

Not long ago here in the ol’ blog, I made reference to the Former Peanut-Farmer in Chief, Mr. Jimmy Carter and his recent visit to the Middle East to confer with members of Hamas, that jolly band of homicide bombers and Holocaust-deniers (when they aren’t actively seeking to finish the uncompleted work of the Nazis—the Holocaust). Mr. Carter has returned, damnit!, to the United States and is now making the rounds of various television shows hosted by the clueless and the cadaverous (think Larry King—but how long before an extended “interview” with Mr. Bill Moyers, scion of the blame-America first crowd, funded with YOUR TAX DOLLARS) and Mr. Carter is responding to the softball questions lobbed his way with his usual mushy-headed peanut butter answers. No matter how much things change, they always stay the same.

Sadly, his return to CONUS also means that the State Department ignored my trenchant advice to revoke Mr. Carter’s passport, despite the 957 e-mail messages I sent to them encouraging them to take this palliative measure.

But back to the point of today’s post; one of the comments I received for The Peanut Farmer Fails Again reads, in part, this way: “. . .I’ll bet the average Palestinian considers the Jews as thugs, dictators, and totalitarian [sic]. There are [sic] always more than one perspective to a problem.” Where to begin?

How ‘bout with some facts, or as my old friend Dr. GDA, Jr., used to say, some “true facts.” Israel is a parliamentary democracy that has at least thirteen active political parties; 23% of the Israeli population is comprised of non-Jewish, mostly Arab, folks. Sixteen percent of Israelis identify themselves as Muslims. The population of Israel is about 7 million human beings, 97% of whom are literate. Israel receives about $240 million in economic aid from the United States.

Egypt calls itself a “republic,” but only four political parties are “approved” by the government; Egypt is also home to the Muslim Brotherhood, universally recognized as a terrorist organization. The population of Egypt is about 81 million human beings, with 98% Egyptian ethnicity. Jews comprise 0% of the Egyptian population and Christians comprise a mere1% of the Egyptian population. Ah, diversity. Seventy one percent of Egyptians are literate, but only 59% of Egyptian females are literate and 20% of the Egyptian population lives below its poverty line in spite of the fact Egypt exports more oil and electricity than it uses and it receives somewhere in the neighborhood of $925 million in economic aid from various sources.

Syria, too, calls itself a “republic,” but it is a republic in name only because it is an authoritarian military-dominated regime with seven “legal” political parties and many other “illegal” political parties. Syria has a population of almost 20 million human beings, 90% of which are Muslim, 10% of which are Christian, with only “tiny” communities of Jews. Seventy three percent of women are literate and 86% of men are literate in Syria, but 12% of all Syrians live below the poverty line. Syria receives about $213 million in economic aid from various sources.

Iran, too calls itself a “republic,” although it is really a theocracy; political parties as we know them here in the West are rare and new in Iran—mostly Iranian “political parties” are coalitions formed by various factions, none of which, not even opposition groups, pose a legitimate or viable challenge to the theocracy. Nearly 69 million human beings populate Iran and 98% are Muslim. Ah, diversity. The literacy rate amongst women is 70% and 83% amongst men and 11% of all Iranians are unemployed, while 18% of all Iranians live below the poverty line. Iran exports electricity, oil, and natural gas and receives about $104 million in economic aid from various sources—Iran would doubtless receive more economic aid but for its richly deserved reputation as an international rogue state.

Lebanon is a republic with seventeen political parties, including our old friends Hezbollah and Amal, both of which are universally recognized as terrorist organizations. Lebanon has a population of almost 4 million human beings, 95% of which are Arabs, 4% of which are Armenian. Lebanon has some religious pluralism, with 59% of its population identifying as Muslim and 39% identifying as Christian. Twenty percent of the Lebanese population is unemployed and 28% live below the poverty line. Lebanon receives an astounding $4 billion in economic aid from various sources.

I suppose I could go on, you know with more information about Jordan and Saudi Arabia and sundry other Middle Eastern garden spots, but I’m tired now—we’ve been staying up late watching Carrier on PBS and thus I am not as rested as I ought to be. Let’s just sum up a bit and review a bit, too.

Israel is a democracy—its Arab neighbors are not in any way, shape, or form democratic, although Lebanon at least approaches something like democracy. Israel is a representative democracy—not so its neighbors. Calling Israeli Jews “dictators and totalitarian” [sic, again] is today’s moral equivalence. This small nation, in both geography and population, was attacked by its Arab neighbors almost instantly after its formation in 1948—and if you have forgotten, please let me remind you that Israel was formed by a mandate from the United Nations, an organization usually praised by the loony left (especially, these days, when it condemns Israel mostly for just existing). Israelis practice political, ethnic, and religious diversity—Israel’s neighbors, for the most part, do not. Israelis treat their women as human beings; for the most part, their neighbors do not. Israel has a dynamic economy; for the most part, its neighbors do not, despite the obvious disparity in economic aid received by Israel’s neighbors. Israelis, like most Americans, would prefer to live in peace and to be left alone to grow crops and raise kids and advance medicine and write music and buy stuff like big screen TeeVees. Israelis respond to attacks and do not seek to annihilate their Arab or Muslim or Christian neighbors or to “wipe them off the map.” Not so their neighbors. And while I must agree with the person who commented on my last piece that “Jews are not blameless,” I don’t recall making the argument that Jews or Israelis were “blameless,” only that they were constantly threatened, and frequently attacked, by terrorist states, terrorist thugs, and other not-so-nice people.

Finally, beware when someone uses the word “perspective” in an argument; it usually means that one is unable to discriminate between right and wrong or the better and the worse. Yes, we all make mistakes and we all can take some blame for this, that or the other, but some mistakes are worse than others—and one of those mistakes is thinking that “Jews. . .are thugs, dictators and totalitarian” [sic, for the third time]. If the “average Palestinian” thinks those thoughts, it is because he has been taught that the problem is not his own “leadership” and his fellow-Arabs and co-religionist Muslims, but the “vermin” Jews; for anyone living here to think those thoughts admits of either a profound ignorance or a willful mendacity.

AJ

TO LIVE IN FREEDOM’S LIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF MANKIND

P.S.: Public thanks to RB for telling us about the television-series entitled Carrier—it’s worth watching.