Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
After the deranged Jared Loughner was subdued in Tucson, it took virtually no time at all for Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dubnik to start blaming rhetoric on the right to have driven Loughner to his deed. As the story unfolded, there was no such evidence to support the sheriff’s claim. If anything, Loughner’s leanings were leftward.
I still find myself in awe of our Founding Fathers who created our form of government. The competing ideas that they sifted through to come up with our Constitution and the safeguards in it is wondrous. The designs upon it by the progressives is by equal measure disturbing.
On this Fourth of July weekend we will have many opportunities to celebrate the genius of the founding fathers who created this country. There is no other country like ours nor has their been. It was and is a beacon of hope for people around the world who we welcome, those who come here legally, to help continue to build this great country. Here is how Emma Lazarus described the new Statue of Liberty.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883
Liberals vs. Conservatives
The most stark difference, I see, between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in the individual and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, while liberals believe in groups. And God help you if you stray from the Plantation of your group. Groups, like blacks for instance, have “leaders”. For years if you wanted to know what blacks thought about an issue you asked Jesse Jackson. He would tell you what blacks thought and then he would tell blacks what they are supposed to think. If your skin was black, you belonged in the group called “blacks” and Jesse Jackson was your leader, no independent thought, no dissension, he was it. He would collect the money from the coffers of the guilt ridden whites, take his fair share, and preside over the distribution of the rest. In return to access to power he would tell blacks to always vote Democratic. It was a very lucrative career for Jesse Jackson. For blacks? Not so much.
If you were so bold as to be a black with an independent mind such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, J.C. Watts, and many more, watch out. You were to be condemned in the vilest language imaginable for your failure to surrender your soul and pledge your fealty to the black leadership.
But this country was built on individual rights, the Pursuit of Happiness, not the guarantee of Happiness. This country was not founded on the principles of taking from the successful and giving handouts to those who are not, either through misfortune or sloth. Those suffering from misfortune were cared for by organized religion and charity. Liberals believe that government should use its enormous power to steal from successful individuals and give to whoever they deem to be needy. There is no clearer demonstration of this than in who gives to charity.
– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). — RealClearPolitics
Consider for example, “Buck-a-Day” Biden, who gave an average of $1 per day to charity, although being a millionaire, with an annual salary of $174,000 per year. In a formulation that liberals like to use, Joe Biden earns that much money before his head hits the pillow on New Year’s Day. But he keeps virtually all of it and from his seat of power tells us how it is patriotic to pay more taxes to fund pork projects for his favored groups.
The Hunt for the Latest Escapee from the Plantation
Lieutenant Ben Vargas is a New Haven Connecticut firefighter. He had the audacity to pass a test for promotion and fight for the promotion he won when the city of New Haven invalidated the test because no blacks made the cutoff. You see, Ben Vargas is Hispanic and as such liberals have assigned him to the group that includes all Hispanics. When not protesting how not every Hispanic is successful, Hispanics are required to fight for other groups if they are not all successful. Ben Vargas stood up for his rights and was assaulted by a black man in the bathroom of Humphreys East Restaurant and ended up in the hospital. Having wandered off the plantation, the Hispanic firefighters association publicly refused to back him up.
Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” — NY Times, July 3, 2009
This case has achieved notoriety because of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This case came before her and was dismissed with little explanation. The Supreme Court just overturned the decision 5-4. Now Lieutenant Vargas is set to become Captain Vargas. Here are his views:
“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”
That’s the American Dream.
The Constitution in the Hands of Activist Judges
President Barack Obama has made his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. She has a great American personal story, not quite as great as Clarence Thomas, but a great one nonetheless. Here is what Barack Obama said about Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia.
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree. — Barack Obama with Rick Warren
Much of the ballyhoo over Judge Sotomayor has been about her background. No one, I repeat, no one has a more compelling story than Clarence Thomas, but when he was up for nomination, the ad hominem attacks were disgraceful. Barack Obama doesn’t think Clarence Thomas is a strong enough jurist? You may disagree with Clarence Thomas’ beliefs but remember the context of the question from Rick Warren. Warren asked who on the Supreme Court Obama would not have nominated and out of the nine justices, he picked Thomas. So Obama thinks Souter has a greater legal mind than Thomas? Or was Obama trying to score a twofer? He can bash a conservative to score points on the left, while showing he is not a knee jerk Affirmative Action type by singling out the black guy, so he can score points with independents. Let’s be clear, Obama rarely makes a public statement that is not calculated for effect.
President Obama is now trying to get his first nominee confirmed and to do so is pointing to the tradition that President’s should generally get who they want, unless there is a serious problem with the nominee. However, while in the Senate, he had a different view as shown during the confirmation of Samual Alito. Obama voted to filibuster that nomination.
“As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.” — Barack Obama speech on why he was voting against Samual Alito.
With the nomination of John Roberts, Senator Obama clearly stakes out a position favoring judicial activism. He said that in 95% of the cases following the Constitution is fine. The other 5% of the time judges should feel free to re-write the constitution.
“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of 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.” — Barack Obama’s speech on why he was voting against John Roberts
Okay, so show me where Ruth Bader Ginsburg has voted with Antonin Scalia 95% of the time. If you take what Obama says at face value, if they followed the Constitution 95% of the time, Ginsburg and Scalia would vote the same way. Since Scalia plainly says his philosophy follows “original intent”, that is, adhering to the Constitution as written, Obama must be admitting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a judicial activist since she rarely agrees with Scalia.
“A lot has been made about the Supreme Court and my criteria,” Obama said in a 20-minute speech to 250 of the night’s biggest donors. “I want people who have a common touch, who have a sense of what it’s like to struggle.”
He praised Sotomayor because she knows that “every once in a while, people need a hand up.” — Barack Obama speaking on why Sonia Sotomayor should be nominated to the Supreme Court
In this statement about Sotomayor, he confirms what he really believes that personal prejudices, and by that I mean “pre-judging”, are an essential element for a judge. He believes the Constitution plays a role, but where the outcome is not pleasant, by all means re-write the Constitution to give you the outcome you want. But once again Obama flip-flops:
“There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” — Barack Obama’s weekly radio address.
First, I want to point to the Obama straw man, “some in Washington,” without naming who those some are. So, here he says she is “fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” Well, which one is it? Biased, to swing those 5% of the cases that need a better outcome, or dedicated to the rule of law.
Teaching Moment
Judge Sotomayor’s nomination will probably be confirmed. What conservatives must do is refrain from the name calling, any ad hominem attacks, and focus on whether or not she is a judicial activist or not. The questioning should be respectful but unwavering. Most Americans are opposed to activist judges. The American people should be clearly informed that Justice Sotomayor is just that. But if the long knives come out to damage her, that message will be lost, as will a valuable issue to use in the next election. When adhering to conservative principles 60% of the American people are with us. When we put up wishy washy candidates to appeal to groups, the Democratic playbook, we get slaughtered every time.
Wobbly Republicans
The drumbeat is starting. The Democrats are gleefully opening their playbook to the right page and holding it open for the weak kneed Republicans to see. “If you vote against Judge Sotomayor, the Hispanic vote will go against you and make you pay.”
Ah, the politics of class warfare. Republicans fall for it almost every time. That’s why we got John McCain as our nominee. The news analysis will point out how fewer Hispanics voted for McCain than for Bush, with Bush getting 40% and McCain only 31%. Maybe it was because McCain was a weak candidate? Bush put forward Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court, he appointed Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General, McCain and Bush were both for open borders. Boy, did that pay off!
Bush appoints Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State, followed by Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman Secretary of State. So how did the black vote turn out for Bush?
So let’s get over copying the Democratic practice of appealing to groups and get back to our conservative principles of appealing to individuals. Don’t worry about the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the gay vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote. Worry about doing the right thing for all Americans. The Democrats want us to worry about all these blocs so that they can get us to meekly wave through their nominees. But when the tables are turned (e.g., Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada, et. al.) they will be vicious, slanderous, mean and ugly. They don’t give a damn about offending the black or Hispanic vote because they think they own them. And when we put up candidates that are a weak imitation of the Democratic candidate, they do.
We need to stand for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and not back down from that. The votes will follow.
