Music of the Day: Tia Fuller, Just a Journey

Mr. Obama is now showing a hypersensitivity that ought to be both troubling to Democratic voters and instructive to “undecided,” independent, and waffling-Republican voters. He allowed himself to get worked up over the mention of appeasement (the A-word) in a recent George W. Bush speech, although as many have noted, Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name (nor did he mention Mrs. Clinton by name either and she, too, got her undies in a bunch by the use of the A-word).

Mr. Obama’s reaction was based upon what his camp called the “implication” that Mr. Bush was referring to Mr. Obama. This is interesting on more than one level because it seems to indicate: (1) that Mr. Obama is now convinced that he is the center of the political universe; (2) that Mr. Obama knows his position vis-à-vis Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist-based organizations and states is a precursor to policies that can accurately be called “appeasement; and (3) that he doesn’t take even implied criticism of his foreign policy notions very well (probably because of reason number two, above).

Interestingly, someone in the Bush camp indicated that Mr. Bush’s remarks about appeasement were aimed at the Former Peanut-Farmer-In-Chief, the execrable Mr. Jimmy Carter; at this juncture this seems to me a wasted and belated effort to reconnect Mr. Carter to reality—belated because similar remarks could have (and should have) preceded his recent trip to the Middle East to consort with actual terrorists, and wasted because Mr. Carter is fundamentally inconsequential in American and world politics and because the Bush administration was not going to prevent Mr. Carter from again embarrassing himself by palavering with fascistic thugs of Middle Eastern extraction. What makes folks in the Bush administration think that Mr. Carter will change after a nebulous reference to the A-word? And furthermore, why bother?

There are, no doubt, some smart Republican strategists (or, if you prefer, “strategerists”) out there right now gauging Mr. Obama’s reaction to Mr. Bush’s remarks as a sign of weakness, defensiveness, and vulnerability. Mr. McCain, too, may sniff the fear in Mr. Obama’s girly-man remarks about wanting all political discourse to remain lofty and civil and at his “elevated” (and vacuous) rhetorical level. He wants to play nice, he wants Mr. McCain to play by his rules, and wants not to get down and dirty—all of which, by the way, is perfectly legitimate and wonderful, and when you think about it, it can make you feel warm and cuddly and oh-so-good.

Mr. Obama may indeed want “change” to occur that takes the rough and tumble out of American politics, and perhaps that’s a good thing; when it comes to dealing with people who have openly, and frequently, avowed to destroy America, to kill as many of us as they can, people who have said and continue to say that Israel must be “wiped off the face of the earth,” Mr. Obama’s call for a “change” to the sweet nothings of diplomacy with terrorist thugs is a frightening and dangerous prospect.

AJ

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

*By the way, if you have not yet read George Orwell’s 1946 essay of that title, Politics and the English Language, or if has been a while since the last time you read it, this election year might be a good time to revisit Orwell’s thinking on the importance of clarity in language. As a matter of fact, I’m gong to take my own advice and re-read the essay right now. Have a wonderful weekend, everyone!

Music of the Day: Jaco Pastorious Big Band, Havona

I see that the world famous high school graduate, and constant critic of American foreign policy (or more specifically, Republican-based American foreign policy), Mr. Sean Penn has inserted himself into Democratic party politics with some recent comments on Mr. Obama’s potential as a human being, leader, and elected official. Recall, if you will, that Mr. Penn has become enamored with the minor thug and dictator in Venezuela, Mr. H. Chavez, who, in Mr. Penn’s view, perhaps has reached his potential as a human being, leader, and elected official. Mr. Penn apparently went on to say that Mr. Obama would pay some unspecified price for not being radical enough as an elected official in the American government, which sounds like some bizarre Hollywood-style threat to make unflattering “documentary” movies or some such thing. Mr. Penn smokes a lot, even in France, where smoking is banned, so he is a bona fide rebel and a man of great physical and intellectual courage (despite his diminutive stature). His expertise in foreign policy issues dates back to his days playing the wild high school student Jeff Spicoli in the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High, plus as a child he once saw his father snub Elia Kazan. Also, Mr. Penn the younger had two years of acting lessons in lieu of college coursework, so despite his negative comments about Mr. Obama’s potential, he may well still harbor a desire to supplant Dr. Rice as our next Secretary of State should Mr. Obama assume occupancy of the White House in 2009.

Alas, this is another instance of someone “famous” taking himself seriously in matters about which he likely knows little or nothing. The great virtue of being “famous” of course is that one is able to say, or do, almost anything without risking one’s “fame.” The other great virtue is that “famous” people are rarely held to account for their outrageous words or behavior. The greatest virtue of all is that “famous” people can say and do really infamous things and, paradoxically, earn more “fame.” Mr. Penn is no longer much seen practicing his admittedly prodigious talents as an actor, but his fame persists, mostly these days on account of his political pronouncements and proclivities. He is taken seriously nowhere but in the world of film (Cannes, Hollywood, and so forth) but still his emanations continue. In matters that are truly important he is, still, just the mouse that roared. . . .

AJ

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

Music of the Day: Brent Mason, First Rule of Thumb

My favorite cuz, LAB, sent me an e-mail message today, complete with a copy of the video showing Mr. Obama yakking away in Beaverton, Oregon; in the early stages of his remarks, he made reference to having traveled to all “fifty seven states” while on the campaign trail. He’s been a busy man.

As I wrote in my e-mail message to LAB, he was probably exhausted when he made this (in my view) minor rhetorical gaffe; I imagine that the campaign schedule has been brutal, particularly since he has yet to shake the pit bull who has hold of his pant leg, the ever-tenacious (deranged?) Mrs. Clinton. So, I’m willing to give the man credit for knowing that we only have fifty states, not fifty seven; fatigue (and perhaps fear) can make a person say strange things. . . .

I try not to see everything in the world through a political lens because, as I note in my introduction to this blog, there are so many other important things in the world, but I gotta’ tell ya’, I think I know what the response of the media would have been to a similar fatigue-induced gaffe by George W. Bush—the howling about the man’s idiocy would have been loud and long, the references to other rhetorical gaffes (the word “strategery” comes to mind) would have been trotted out, again, for public display, and various and sundry lefty-luminaries and “celebrities” (some of them actual high school graduates) would have again excoriated the president and again used the word “moron” to describe him. So far as I know, no similar charges were leveled against Mr. Obama, nor should they have been—it was doubtless a mistake born of fatigue, not stupidity or vacuity—not even by the most virulent of the righties on radio who might otherwise wish to ascribe more meaning to this mistake than it warrants.

AJ

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

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.