Recently in Constitution Category


"In Congress, July Fourth, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six. A declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. When in the course of human events..."

Sound somewhat familiar? It's very close to the words Thomas Jefferson used to begin the Declaration of Independence.

After more than 200 years these words hidden among Jefferson's papers became known.

American ingenuity cracked open this two centuries-old secret.

To learn how, click here.

To be the land of the free, it must also be the home of the brave.

On this birthday of America, remember those who defend our country.

RACIALISM? RACISM.

Supreme Justice Holmes said in many cases he found for people he "despised." In other words, he decided on the law and the facts of the case, as the Constitution requires. With Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it seems it's always a matter of black and white, or brown and white or yellow and white. Guess who wins?

Her most shocking decision denying equal rights to whites is in the Supreme Court and the Cour's decision should be issued in the next few weeks. In the Ricci case, a dyslexic white public safey official who spent about 1,000 hours studying for his exam, spent money to hire a reader to help him and scored well enough to qualify for promotion was denied promotion when the New Haven bureaucracy threw out the exam results because no blacks reached the qualifying level. Sotomayor and two other judges didn't have the courage to write an opinion, but only issued a short statement rubber stamping the district court's upholding of the bureaucrats' outrageous action. Mr. Ricci appealed the case to the Supreme Court. It will be astonishing if the Court does not rule he was denied his constitutional rights. This is what some call "racialism" which in fact is nothing but "racism.'

NoWhites.gif

OBAMA: STAND DOWN, AMERICA

Let's see: Now the U.S. cozies up to the Muslims, strong-arms Israel, shrugs at North Korean nuclear and missile threats and let's Iran pursue its genocidal dream.

Well, we certainly got change with the new president. He's issued an open invitation to every nutcase regime in the world to gear up to take a shot at America -- and all the other big guys America used to defend. There's nothing to fear.

Mark Steyn says it best:

We are building a world in which the wealthiest nations on the planet, from Norway to New Zealand, are all but defenseless, while bankrupt dysfunctional squats go nuclear. Even with inevitable and generous submissions to nuclear blackmail, how long do you think that arrangement will last? In the formulation of Janet Napolitano, we are on the brink of "man-caused disaster."

The god king is orchestrating the shriveling of American power and the impoverishment of future generations to please his European and Muslim friends; no longer need they envy America.

North Korea provokes with impunity

A rogue nuclear test staged on the day to honor American war dead is greeted with only half-hearted diplomatese from Washington.

Mark Steyn
Syndicated columnist
Orange County Register
May 29, 2009

What does a nuclear madman have to do to get America's attention? On Memorial Day, the North Koreans detonated "an underground atomic device many times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki," as my old colleagues at The Irish Times put it. You'd think that'd rate something higher than "World News In Brief," see foot of page 37. But instead Washington was consumed by the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who apparently has a "compelling personal story."
Doesn't Kim Jong-il have a compelling personal story? Like Sonia, he grew up in a poor neighborhood (North Korea), yet he's managed to become a nuclear power, shattering the glass ceiling to take his seat at the old nuclear boys' club. Isn't that an inspiring narrative? Once upon a time you had to be a great power, one of the Big Five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, to sit at the nuclear table: America, Britain, France, Russia, China, the old sons of power and privilege. But now the mentally unstable scion of an impoverished no-account backwater with a GDP lower than Zimbabwe has joined their ranks: Celebrate diversity!

Evidently, some compelling personal stories are more compelling than others. In The Washington Post, Stephen Stromberg argued that Kim's decision to drop the Big One on a three-day weekend was evidence of his appalling news judgment. Other blasé observers shrug that it's now an American holiday tradition. It began when Pyongyang staged the first of its holiday provocations on Fourth of July 2006, and, amidst all the other fireworks displays, America barely noticed. No doubt there'll be another Hiroshima on Labor Day or Thanksgiving. Geez, doesn't the hick in the presidential palace get it? There's no point launching nukes when everyone's barbecuing chicken or watching football.

Well, you never know: Maybe we're the ones being parochial. If you're American, it's natural to assume that the North Korean problem is about North Korea, just like the Iraq war is about Iraq. But they're not. If you're starving to death in Pyongyang, North Korea is about North Korea. For everyone else, North Korea and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Iran, are about America: American will, American purpose, American credibility. The rest of the world doesn't observe Memorial Day. But it understands the crude symbolism of a rogue nuclear test staged on the day to honor American war dead and greeted with only half-hearted pro forma diplomatese from Washington. Pyongyang's actions were "a matter of ..." Drumroll, please! "...grave concern," declared the president. Furthermore, if North Korea carries on like this, it will - wait for it - "not find international acceptance."

As the comedian Andy Borowitz put it, "President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with 'the strongest possible adjectives.' Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test 'supercilious and jejune.'"

The president's general line on the geopolitical big picture is: I don't need this in my life right now. He's a domestic transformationalist, working overtime - via the banks, the automobile industry, health care, etc. - to advance statism's death grip on American dynamism. His principal interest in the rest of the world is that he doesn't want anyone nuking America before he's finished turning it into a socialist basket case. This isn't simply a matter of priorities.

A United States government currently borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends cannot afford its global role, and thus the Obama cuts to missile defense and other programs have a kind of logic: You can't be Scandinavia writ large with a U.S.-sized military.

Out there in the chancelleries and presidential palaces, they're beginning to get the message. The regime in Pyongyang is not merely trying to "provoke" America but is demonstrating to potential clients that you can do so with impunity. A black-market economy reliant on exports of heroin, sex slaves and knock-off Viagra is attempting to supersize its business model and turn itself into a nuclear Wal-Mart.

Among the distinguished guests present for North Korea's October 2006 test were representatives of the Iranian government. President George W. Bush was much mocked for yoking the two nations together in his now all but forgotten "axis of evil" speech, but the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung reported a few weeks ago that the North Korean-built (and Israeli-bombed) plutonium production facility in Syria was paid for by Tehran. How many other Iranian clients are getting nuclear subsidies? It would be interesting to learn who was on the observation deck for the Memorial Day Hiroshima re-enactment, but North Korea is one of the most closed societies on the face of the Earth, certainly when compared with the more closely scrutinized corners of the Middle East. In other words, it's the perfect partner for any state that wants to pursue certain projects under the Western radar screen.

It is remarkable in just five years how the world has adjusted to the inevitability of a nuclear North Korea and a nuclear Iran. Nudge it on another half-decade: Whose nuclear ambitions will be unstoppable by 2015? Syria's? Sudan's? Selected fiefdoms in Somalia?

Barack Obama came to power pledging to talk to America's enemies anywhere, anytime. Alas for America's speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-teleprompter diplomacy, there are no takers for his photo-ops. In the ever more pitiful straw-clutching of the State Department, America is said to be banking on a post-Kim era. He's apparently had a bad stroke and might be dead within a decade or three. So what? It's a safe bet that whoever emerges from a power struggle between the family, the party and the military is committed to nuclearization as the principal rationale of the state.

Likewise in Iran's imminent election, both "extremists" and "moderates" are pro-nuke. You want an Iranian moderate? Here's Hashemi Rafsanjani, the moderate guy who lost to that crazy Ahmadinejad last time round: He called Israel "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb." Nuking the Zionist Entity is as bipartisan as motherhood and apple pie.
More to the point, the feeble bleatings from the State Department that there may be internal change down the road emphasize the central feature of the present scene: the absence of meaningful American power.

While America laughed at North Korea, Iran used it as a stalking horse, a useful guide as to the parameters of belligerence and quiescence a nuclearizing rogue state could operate within. In what Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post calls "the post-American world," other nations will follow that model.

We are building a world in which the wealthiest nations on the planet, from Norway to New Zealand, are all but defenseless, while bankrupt dysfunctional squats go nuclear. Even with inevitable and generous submissions to nuclear blackmail, how long do you think that arrangement will last? In the formulation of Janet Napolitano, we are on the brink of "man-caused disaster."


OBAMA'S "POWER GRAB"

Even the British are wising up to the Obama agenda:

Well, I grew up with the Left and what this looks like to me is a power grab: a seizing of the moment by the forces which always believed in state domination. The Left sees an opening here, first for telling a critical lie about the historical origins of this crisis, which was propelled as much by the Left-liberal determination to spread prosperity through easy credit to the poor, as by the greed of bankers. And then, out of the wreckage, to restructure the economy along the lines that it always wanted, complete with central controls over the pay levels in private financial institutions.

We are being led to believe that public debate should be all about economic mechanics when it should really be about political principle: just how many freedoms do we want to lose while governments pretend that they are the solution?

Britain's Labor Party has the same instincts as sees the same "opportunity" to grab more power for government as Obama and the Democrats.

Read what Janet Daley has to say.

Omnia21 has documented a number of times (for example, here, here and here) the common history of Obama, David Axelrod and Rham Emanuel from the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

All the tricks learned in Chicago to mislead, lie and dissemble to advance the agenda are now operative in the White House. Rahm Emanuel makes it clear that this crisis is a prime opportunity to push their programs. During the campaign it was Axelrod who kept the candidate on the message of "hope" and "change" rather than discussing what he really intended to do as president.

Before the campaign began, no doubt Obama shared with Axelrod his socialist background and his goal to re-engineer the American economy from capitalism to socialism. No doubt it was Axelrod who decided it best to declare off limits the Obama years at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School. Obama had carelessly written he had sought out for companions Marxist socialists and black power advocates. That was a dangerous error that should not be compounded with more information. The public would have been able to judge Obama better if they knew what subjects he studied, what his theses and other papers were about and what postions he took. But all of that was forbidden to inquiry as were the circumstances of Obama's birth, wherever that took place.

There would be no hint of the totalitarian state that Obama planned. When a 2001 radio interview surfaced in which Obama called the U.S. Constitution flawed because it did not provide for redistribution of wealth, only protecting the people from its government, the campaign and the mainstream media brushed it aside as just old news, old thinking out loud and trotted out a University of Chicago law professor (now in the Administration) to quiet fears.

Chief Strategist of the campaign David Axelrod was there every step of the way. Obama even made pro-life noises to mislead when he was and is the most pro-abortion, anti-life public official in the United States, as he is proving with a stream of anti-life executive orders and budget proposals to fund abortion mills. As Professor Robert George of Princeton noted, Obama has a morbid, cult-like perverse fascination with death:

Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.


Economist Robert Samuelson writing for the Washington Post today calls Obama "The Great Pretender." The orchestratrator of the Great Charade to mislead America during the campaign and now in the White House is Chicago Mayor Daley's former strategist David Axelrod.



March 9, 2009
President's Political Protector Is Ever Close at Hand
By JEFF ZELENY New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The pepperoni and cheese pizzas had been delivered, and a meeting about how to sell President Obama's economic plan was set to begin -- not at the White House, but a few blocks away in the seventh-floor apartment of David Axelrod.

Mr. Axelrod took a seat in his living room, with the Washington Monument visible in the distance, and asked how the president's proposals were being received in the country. He went around the room, calling on a cluster of strategists who were on hand to discuss the latest batch of polls and focus groups conducted for the White House.

It is known as the Wednesday Night Meeting, an invitation-only session for a handful of advisers, nearly all of whom played a key role in paving Mr. Obama's path to the Oval Office. The location varies, but on a recent evening Mr. Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, was feeling under the weather, so a group that he says is "like family to me" met at his place.

"It helps clarify my thinking to talk to people who I have faith in," Mr. Axelrod said, reluctantly describing the weekly meetings he had hoped to keep under wraps so he would not suddenly be overrun by requests from people hoping to dispense advice.

The two-hour sessions are just one way in which Mr. Axelrod is making the transition from Chicago political consultant to the White House. His title does little to capture his full importance to Mr. Obama. His voice, and political advice, carry more weight than most anyone else's on the president's payroll.

The question for someone with the access and authority that Mr. Axelrod enjoys in the White House is how he exerts his influence with the president, the White House staff, Congress and other constituencies.

The circle around Mr. Obama has grown exponentially since he arrived in the White House. An army of new assistants, deputies and advisers surrounds him, but it is Mr. Axelrod who sits the closest to the Oval Office. His proximity is a symbol, in a unique West Wing kind of way, of how close he remains to Mr. Obama.

"I get to see him when I need to see him," Mr. Axelrod, 54, said in an interview in his office, which is slightly larger than a service elevator. "It turns out he has a few things on his plate, so I try not to abuse that privilege."

Gone are the leather jacket and wrinkled plaid shirts he wore during the campaign. He has four new suits -- and an array of neckties -- for his new position. The wardrobe caught the president's eye at a recent White House dinner for the nation's governors.

"Everybody looks extraordinary," Mr. Obama said. "Even Axelrod has cleaned up pretty well."

Mr. Axelrod has played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He has devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation's fiscal crisis.

A glimpse of Mr. Axelrod's day offers a look at how he spends his time.

He arrives at the White House shortly after 7 a.m., a torturously early hour for a man known during the campaign for sending messages until the small hours of the morning. A cup of Earl Grey tea is waiting for him -- he hates the taste of coffee and recalls having only two cups in his life -- as he walks into his first appointment of the day, a meeting in the office of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, who has been a friend for 25 years.

He attends the economic briefing in the Oval Office, where the latest news and grim statistics are relayed to the president by a battery of advisers. When the classified intelligence briefing begins, Mr. Axelrod leaves the room. Later, he and a speechwriter sit down with Mr. Obama to review the three-ring binder containing each speech or statement the president will make that day.

Often in the late afternoons, he walks to the Situation Room to attend some meetings of the National Security Council, stopping to grab a handful or two of the M&Ms that are in a large bowl outside the room.

He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would "fail."

Mr. Axelrod's background has been rooted almost entirely in politics. Strong similarities exist between his trajectory and that of Karl Rove, a friend and longtime counselor to former President George W. Bush. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Axelrod forged partnerships with their clients long before they began campaigning for the presidency, guided them through elective office and, ultimately, to the White House.

Mr. Axelrod rejects the comparison, saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama's image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country's political DNA, as Mr. Rove often talked about. The two men have never met, but in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House.

"He's in the fomenting commentary business," Mr. Axelrod said recently over brunch. "I'm not sitting here moving pieces around from the White House. I'm not trying to run the Democratic Party. I'm not trying to supplant the brilliant policy makers who are here."

But the Wednesday night meetings suggest that the strong belief in polling and focus groups from the campaign are alive in the White House. Joel Benenson, a pollster for Mr. Obama, is among the participants in the sessions. He said that Mr. Axelrod often asked one question above all: "How do we make sure that the arguments from the president's agenda are made in the most persuasive way?"

Mr. Axelrod has never worked in government, and the adjustment has been abrupt. ("Look, they made me a bureaucrat," he told one of his first visitors to his transition office, a government badge hanging from his neck.)

He refers to his new job in the parlance of his long-ago career as a newspaper reporter: he is "on assignment in Washington." His wife visits a few times a month, and he tries to return to Chicago just as often.

"It's surreal, so much of this is," Mr. Axelrod said. "It is an incredible privilege to be here, but it's kind of hard to absorb and get your hands around all we're trying to do."

His imprint is felt across Washington and the Democratic establishment in the country. He works at explaining Mr. Obama's proposals on taxes, health care or the economy, no matter if his platform is a senators-only luncheon or a television talk show.

"It's very important to have someone there to understand why Barack Obama ran for president," said David Plouffe, the campaign manager, who remains a close political adviser to Mr. Obama and a participant at the Wednesday meetings.

There are few words that come across the president's lips that have not been blessed by Mr. Axelrod. He reviews every speech, studies every major policy position and works with Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, to prepare responses to the crisis of the day.

The gold-colored sofa in his office is often a bullpen for brainstorming new speeches, with the writers surrounded by two walls of campaign photos and a large picture of Manny's, his favorite Chicago deli.

Jon Favreau, the president's chief speechwriter, said there was a familiar refrain during these meetings, with Mr. Axelrod urging the team not to become consumed by the insularity of Washington. "Can I speak on behalf of the American people here?" he said Mr. Axelrod often asks aloud.

That is precisely why, Mr. Axelrod said, he convened the Wednesday Night Meetings: to take the pulse of what people were thinking. Locked in the White House all day, he added, he can no longer hear those voices on his own.

The two greatest threats to America today are the Obama Administration and radical Islam. As Mark Steyn notes, the Muslim demographic is not only exploding worldwide (ten times faster than the natives in Britain) it is also becoming more intimidating, more violent, more extreme due to the tens of billions of dollars spent over the past 30 years by the Saudis on selling Islam as Mohammad realily meant it to be -- the ruler of the world.

At the same time, the principal defenders of freedom and Western heritage, Britain and the United States, are in the process of dismantling their free market economies and substituting "Can't we all just get along?" capitulation for a strong national defense and civilizational pride.

As the ex-Muslim emigré from Syria Wafa Sultan, now a psychiatrist living and working in southern California, reminds us, we are not engaged in a clash of civilziations with Islam, it is a war between civilzation and barbarism. But who is listening?

A small vignette from a young woman in the Swat Valley of Pakistan (which Mark Steyn talks about in his piece), who has learned of the Pakistani government's agreement that Islamic law will be enforced throughout the valley:

"Today the party of the Mullah announced that 'democracy' is un-Islamic. It is too late. We have lost the battle against the militants. We have seen day by day how government and army have [been] weakened, how they have finally been reduced to talk and to deal. Nobody is accountable for the thousands killed, for the closure of schools, for the beheadings of men and women. Nobody. Someone said to me the other day - 'Don't complain, because the one you complain to will be your enemy.'


"We no longer can turn [to anyone] here to complain. We now have to think about how to survive this. We now have to give up much of what many of us believe in - tolerance, peace, educated women, and freedom."

She believes the North-West Frontier Province is lost. And she questioned whether President Obama understands the extremists. "He seems to think that these people can be contained within their land, or [any] land. He thinks there is a meeting point, a dialogue possibility. Those who think that giving the militants their haven will contain them - well, the rest of the country and the world will see what this will lead to. This is not the end, it is only the beginning."


February 21, 2009, 7:00 a.m.

From Islamabad to Bradford
Degrees of accommodation.

By Mark Steyn in National Review Online


'It is hard to understand this deal," said Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy. And, if the special envoy of the so-called smartest and most impressive administration in living memory can't understand it, what chance do the rest of us have?

Nevertheless, let's try. In the Swat Valley, where a young Winston Churchill once served with the Malakand Field Force battling Muslim insurgents, his successors have concluded the game isn't worth the candle. In return for a temporary ceasefire, the Pakistani government agreed to let the local franchise of the Taliban impose its industrial strength version of sharia across the whole of Malakand Region. If "region" sounds a bit of an imprecise term, Malakand has over five million people, all of whom are now living under a murderous theocracy. Still, peace rallies have broken out all over the Swat Valley, and, at a Swat peace rally, it helps to stand well back: As one headline put it, "Journalist Killed While Covering Peace Rally."

But don't worry about Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of "extremists": The Swat Valley is a good hundred miles from the "nation"'s capital, Islamabad -- or about as far as Northern Vermont is from Southern Vermont. And, of course, Islamabad is safely under the control of the famously moderate Ali Zardari. A few days before the Swat deal, Mr. Zardari marked the dawn of the Obama era by releasing from house arrest A. Q. Khan, the celebrated scientist and one-stop shop for all your Islamic nuclear needs, for whose generosity North Korea and Iran are especially grateful.

From Islamabad, let us zip a world away to London. Actually, it's nearer than you think. The flight routes between Pakistan and the United Kingdom are some of the busiest in the world. Can you get a direct flight from your local airport to, say, Bradford?

Where?

Bradford, Yorkshire. There are four flights a week from Islamabad to Bradford, a town where 75 percent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins. But don't worry, in the country as a whole, only 57 percent of Pakistani Britons are married to first cousins.

Among that growing population of Yorkshire Pakistanis is a fellow called Lord Ahmed, a Muslim member of Parliament. He was in the news the other day for threatening (as the columnist Melanie Phillips put it) "to bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the House of Lords" if it went ahead with an event at which the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders would have introduced a screening of his controversial film Fitna. Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, reacted to this by declaring Minheer Wilders persona non grata and having him arrested at Heathrow and returned to the Netherlands.

The Home Secretary is best known for an inspired change of terminology: Last year she announced that henceforth Muslim terrorism (an unhelpful phrase) would be reclassified as "anti-Islamic activity." Seriously. The logic being that Muslims blowing stuff up tends not to do much for Islam's reputation -- i.e., it's an "anti-Islamic activity" in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was an anti-Japanese activity.

Anyway, Geert Wilders's short film is basically a compilation video of footage from various recent Muslim terrorist atrocities -- whoops, sorry, "anti-Islamic activities" -- accompanied by the relevant chapter and verse from the Koran. Jacqui Smith banned the filmmaker on "public order" grounds -- in other words, the government's fear that Lord Ahmed meant what he said about a 10,000-strong mob besieging the Palace of Westminster. You might conceivably get the impression from Wilders's movie that many Muslims are irrational and violent types it's best to steer well clear of. But, if you didn't, Jacqui Smith pretty much confirmed it: We can't have chaps walking around saying Muslims are violent because they'll go bananas and smash the place up.

So, confronted by blackmail, the British government caved. So did the Pakistani government in Swat. But, in fairness to Islamabad, they waited until the shooting was well underway before throwing in the towel. In London, you no longer have to go that far. You just give the impression your more excitable chums might not be able to restrain themselves. "Nice little G7 advanced western democracy you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." Twenty years ago this month, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative ministry defended the right of a left-wing author Salman Rushdie to publish a book in the face of Muslim riots and the Ayatollah Khomeini's attempted mob hit. Two decades on, a supposedly progressive government surrenders to the mob before it's even taken to the streets.


In his first TV interview as president, Barack Obama told viewers of al-Arabiya TV that he wanted to restore the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." I'm not sure quite what golden age he's looking back to there -- the Beirut barracks slaughter? the embassy hostages? -- but the point is, it's very hard to turn back the clock. Because the facts on the ground change, and change remorselessly. Even in 30 years. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30 percent of the global population to just over 20 percent, while the Muslim world increased from 15 percent to 20 percent. And in 2030, it won't even be possible to re-take that survey, because by that point half the "developed world" will itself be Muslim: In Bradford -- as in London, Amsterdam, Brussels, and almost every other western European city from Malmo to Marseilles -- the principal population growth comes from Islam. Thirty years ago, in the Obama golden age, a British documentary-maker was so horrified by the "honor killing" of a teenage member of the House of Saud at the behest of her father, the king's brother, that he made a famous TV film about it, Death Of A Princess. The furious Saudis threatened a trade boycott with Britain over this unwanted exposure. Today, we have honor killings not just in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but in Germany, Scandinavia, Britain, Toronto, Dallas, and Buffalo. And they barely raise an eyebrow.

Along with the demographic growth has come radicalization: It's not just that there are more Muslims, but that, within that growing population, moderate Islam is on the decline -- in Singapore, in the Balkans, in northern England -- and radicalized, Arabized, Wahhabized Islam is on the rise. So we have degrees of accommodation: surrender in Islamabad, appeasement in London, acceptance in Toronto and Buffalo.

According to ABC News, a team of UCLA professors have used biogeographic theories to locate Osama bin Laden's hideout as one of three possible houses in the small town of Parachinar, and have suggested to the Pentagon they keep an eye on these buildings. But the problem isn't confined to three buildings. It ripples ever outwards, to the new hardcore sharia state in Malakand, up the road to nuclear Islamabad, over to Bradford on that jet-speed conveyor-belt of child brides, down to the House of Lords and beyond.

Meanwhile, President Obama has removed Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office and returned it to the British. Given what Sir Winston had to say about Islam in his book on the Sudanese campaign, the bust will almost certainly be arrested at Heathrow and deported as a threat to public order.


-- Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

It's shocking that Obama has been able to hide his true aims until just a few days before the election. Joe the Plumber inadvertently exposed the truth with his question to Obama about higher taxes on small businesses: Obama blurted out that he wants to "spread the wealth."

Now a more shocking disclosure comes in the form of a 2001 radio interview in Chicago (found by an individual, not the media) in which Obama expresses his dismay with the U.S. Constitution's limits on governmental power and his desire for judges who will "interpret" away the "essential constraints" incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by the founders so the government can redistribute the income and savings of some people to others. The judges he wants are those with "the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." How about respect for the facts, the law and the Constitution? Obama wants more than just socialism, he wants totalitarian socialism, an all-powerful government to take from those with means to give to those with needs. That kind of unrestrained power the Constitution is designed to prevent.

As is often the case the brilliant lawyer John Hinderaker of Power Line puts the cards on the table so they can be clearly read.

It is extraordinary that only now, a week before Election Day, have Barack Obama's beliefs and policies come into focus. After months of "hope," "change" and "I'm not George Bush," the truth has finally tumbled out: Barack Obama wants to redistribute America's wealth, raise taxes on those who create jobs, create vast new handout programs styled as "tax relief," and appoint judges who will radically redefine the relationship between American citizens and their government.

This last point is especially remarkable. The Founders feared arbitrary government power, and drafted a Constitution and amendments intended to protect your property from expropriation. Obama would stand this constitutional framework on its head by appointing judges who believe that the Founders were wrong, and their "error" can be corrected by court decisions to the effect that the federal government has a constitutional duty to carry out a radical redistribution of wealth.

Hinderaker quotes some points McCain made today that show the sharp contrasts between his policies and Obama's, such as this one:

Senator Obama is running to be Redistributionist in Chief. I'm running to be Commander in Chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I'm running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I'm running to make everyone successful.

Read all of John's post and more McCain quotes by clicking on the link above or here.

As for the disasters that would flow from Obama' judicial appointments, click here to read Professor Thomas Sowell's critique.

Professor Thomas Sowell sounds another urgent warning about the riskiness of an Obama presidency. He can "kill" the U.S. Constitution by appointing the judges he says he likes, those with "“the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don’t stop and think — and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?
We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don’t like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

Judge This
Obama and the law

By Thomas Sowell

One of the biggest and most long-lasting “change” to expect if Barack Obama becomes president of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

more...

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Constitution category.

Conservatism is the previous category.

Crime is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.