Friday, June 12, 2009
That would be why his one-time minister, Jeremiah Wright, has spoken out forcefully in an interview this week, claiming that 'the Jews' are keeping Obama from contacting or being seen with him.
Yet, Wright claimed that Wonderboy is his sixth 'son,' just like his own children. That they evidently met again, secretly, during the campaign season last year, after the candidate had publicly dissed the anger-filled church leader.
No word yet from the White House on how to spin this one. But it does seem as if there's something in the Chicago water supply to make black religious leaders utter amazingly crude and offensive comments about Jews, doesn't it?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Alas, it was not to be. The full Court declined to hear the case, stating that it failed to merit Supreme Court attention.
Tom Lauria, the plaintiff's attorney, said words to the effect that this non-decision makes one question whether the Court is capable of enforcing and protecting constitutional rights anymore.
To me, it's another reason to agitate for a Constitutional Convention. This seemed to be a pretty open-and-shut case. The federal government violated standing bankruptcy procedures and rights.
What more was to be known to allow the case to be heard?
As I said to a friend recently, the 25th amendment set term limits for the chief executive. Now, we need to finish the job for both of the other branches of the federal government.
It seems that our highest court can't focus anymore on its central job of enforcing the constitution.
I have no doubt some modifications in the form of a revised Constitution, or more amendments, could help rectify this problem.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I'm referring, of course, to unindicted manslaughterer Senator Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Since publicizing his brain tumor, I've wondered why anyone would now take his so-called work, i.e., wrecking the US healthcare sector, seriously. The guy's noggin is broken. His circuitry is fried.
Would you back a one-legged man in the Olympic 100-meter dash? Of course not.
Why are we even pretending to pay attention to this fossil? He's a walking- well, doddering- advertisement for term limits.
And we're going to restructure 17% of the US economy on the whims of a guy with a damaged brain that's slowly killing him?
This is beyond black humor. It's just plain stupid.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Steele begins his piece by observing, early on,
"The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America's first black president, and a man promising the "new," we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed.
This contradiction has always been at the heart of the Obama story. On the one hand there was the 2004 Democratic Convention speech proclaiming "only one America." And on the other hand there was the race-baiting of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Does this most powerful man on earth know himself well enough to resolve this contradiction and point the way to a genuinely post-racial America?"
You can never accuse of Steele, of the same race as our president, of pulling punches. Hackneyed! Unoriginal!
"But the Sotomayor nomination shows that Mr. Obama has no idea what a post-racial society would look like. In selling himself as a candidate to the American public he is a gifted bargainer beautifully turned out in post-racial impressionism. But in the real world of Supreme Court nominations, where there is a chance to actually bring some of that idealism down to earth, he chooses a hardened, divisive and race-focused veteran of the culture wars he claims to transcend.
Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.
And here we come to Judge Sotomayor's favorite such ingenuity: disparate impact. In the now celebrated Ricci case the city of New Haven, Conn., threw out a paper and pencil test that firefighters were required to take for promotion because so few minorities passed it. In other words, the test had a disparate and negative impact on minorities, so the lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci -- a white male with dyslexia who worked 10 hours a day to pass the test at a high level -- was effectively denied promotion because he was white. Judge Sotomayor supported the city's decision to throw out the test undoubtedly because of her commitment to disparate impact -- a concept that invariably makes whites accountable for minority mediocrity.
With the Sotomayor nomination, Mr. Obama has made the same mistake his wife made in her "This is the first time I am proud of my country" remark: bad faith toward an America that has shown him only good faith."
Elsewhere in his editorial, Steele revisits his perspective on minority politicians and how they behave towards whites, as distinct from the face they show to their own race.
Summed up, Steele reveals Wonderboy for being the ever-shifting, politically-expedient hack that he really is. Obama has dreamt up some cute concepts to fool many voters, but in the end, he's an empty suit, both in terms of accomplishments and feasible, useful concepts.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Having begun reading and listening to others of similar bent, I am aware that the progressive-backed amendments of the 1910s were passed by Congress to head off a state-called Constitutional Convention. Nothing strikes more fear into the hearts of lifetime federal politicians than the prospect of a Constitutional Convention which could result in massive revisions to the Constitution, and the possibility of more explicitly-worded limits on federal power.
Consider just two simple aspects of the Constitution which probably made sense at its writing, but no longer do.
Congressional term limits. Back in 1789, an average lifespan was in the neighborhood of 35 years. To become a Senator required sufficient maturity and accomplishment that one probably didn't realistically become eligible until one's mid-30s. A 60-year old person in those days was quite old. Thus, three terms in the Senate was likely seen as about as much as most men would serve.
Further, serving in Washington required leaving one's farm or business. Being a Congressman wasn't considered a full-time job. It's likely that nobody seriously envisioned anyone being foolish enough to make federal representative office one's entire career.
Thus, between a shorter lifespan, career obligations and the need to support a family, it's quite possible that the Framers simply didn't conceive of a context in which career service as a US Representative or Senator was possible. Or even desirable.
And what about the Supreme Court? I don't have exact data, but I'm guessing that men didn't ascend to that body much before the age of 40. If a man was old upon reaching 60, then a 20-year term on the highest bench would be what was probably understood to be the 'lifetime' appointment.
Now, it's not uncommon for a Justice to serve on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. For example, consider this passage from this webpage,
"Although the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 through 1970 was 14.9 years, for those Justices who have retired since 1970, the average tenure has jumped to 26.1 years. Because of the long tenure of recent members of the Court, there were no vacancies on the high Court from 1994 to the middle of 2005. We believe the American constitutional rule granting life tenure to Supreme Court Justices is fundamentally flawed, resulting now in Justices remaining on the Court for longer periods and to a later age than ever before in American history.
This trend has led to significantly less frequent vacancies on the Court, which reduces the efficacy of the democratic check that the appointment process provides on the Court's membership. The increase in the longevity of Justices' tenure means that life tenure now guarantees a much longer tenure on the Court than was the case in 1789 or over most of our constitutional history. Moreover, the combination of less frequent vacancies and longer tenures of office means that when vacancies do arise, there is so much at stake that confirmation battles have become much more intense. Finally, as was detailed in a recent article by Professor David Garrow, the advanced age of some Supreme Court Justices has at times led to a problem of "mental decrepitude" on the Court, whereby some Justices have become physically or mentally unable to fulfill their duties during the final stages of their careers."
Considering the increasing distance so many voters feel from their elected US representative officials, and the courts, I would personally favor terms limits as follows: 3 consecutive terms for US Representatives, 5 in total; 2 terms for US Senators, and; 15 years for Supreme Court Justices, with similar tenure for lower courts, as well.
Given the Constitution's brevity and limited expression of federal power, I don't believe the Framers intended that there arise a professional class of federal office-holders who would remain in that government for over a generation, i.e., 20 years. For the era of our nation's founding, 20 years would have already been a substantial portion of a man's productive adult life. Now, with much longer average lifespans, our Congress and Supreme Court seem to have become less committed to upholding the Constitution, and more committed to self-preservation.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Just read some of his idiotic ravings in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial.
"Most Americans probably agree that we have elected a highly articulate, talented president in Barack Obama. He has also given us a potentially great Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton. It makes me proud to witness these two recent political rivals working together to strengthen and enrich America at home and abroad. Recognizing the major economic crisis our new leader has inherited, we must hope his proposed economic plan will be helpful.
He must be on something- something strong and hallucinogenic. Figures. These two disconnected liberals have already damaged US foreign policy more in five months than even Bubba managed in two terms.
Hope "his proposed economic plan will be helpful?" Oh my God! McGovern never saw a spending program he didn't like, either.
First, why not order all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan by Thanksgiving?
Oh, I don't know, George. Maybe because their missions are still incomplete? Something you wouldn't understand.We now spend $12 billion a month on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- two mistaken invasions that have increased violence and terrorism in the Middle East.
Another liberal canard- that we brought all this on ourselves. Again, evidence of McGovern's addled brain processes.
The second step I would take is to ask Congress to shift half of our military budget to other sources of national security. For almost 50 years, American foreign and national-security policy were believed to require a military budget big enough to win wars against Russia, China and a smaller country such as North Korea simultaneously. We waged what was called a Cold War against an alleged "Sino-Soviet bloc."As we now know there was no such thing as a bloc involving Russia and China. The relations between these two large communist nations could have better been described as a rivalry.
In his second term, Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who proposed that the two countries end the Cold War and the arms race. Reagan agreed, and the danger of war between the two nuclear giants has since subsided. As for China, no one any longer fears war with this most-populous, fast-developing country to which we have extended "most favored nation" trading status. It would seem that no nation now threatens us.
Wow, what planet is George currently calling home? Has he missed the recent Chinese escalation in its blue water navy? Its belligerence in claiming all of the South China Sea as its own, for oil exploration and production? Not to mention that the Chinese, and other nations, will gauge the continuing influence of the US by its willingness to preserve its military power and ability to fight and defeat any enemy on the globe.
Well, I wouldn't expect McGovern to understand foreign policy and military danger any better now than when he got blown out in the election of '72.
There is the terrorist danger, but this is not a military problem. Terrorism is a by-product of military weakness. The terrorist has no battleships, bombers, missiles, tanks, organized armies or heavy artillery.
No, but they do have weapons to attack such armies. And they do conduct land campaigns to take and occupy territory, George. So, wrong again.
The only significant terrorist attack on the U.S., on Sept. 11, 2001, was carried out by 19 young men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt armed only with boxcutters. They used these devices to intimidate the crews of four airplanes into surrendering control of their planes. The terrorists then suicidally flew the planes into buildings.
This event, which took place nearly a decade ago, dramatized the limitation of a huge military budget in assuring national security. Nonetheless, our military budget is higher than ever -- $515 billion annually, not including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This figure is greater than the combined military budgets of the rest of the world. We could defend ourselves with an arms budget half that size. If we directed the $250 billion we could save annually into national health care, improved education, a better environment and restoring our infrastructure, the nation would be more secure, better employed and have a higher standard of life. Or the savings might be used for annual reductions in the national debt.
To cut spending for more and more costly armaments and these two wars would require both common sense and a measure of political courage on the part of the president and Congress. Why? Because all 50 states have either a military installation or a defense contract or both.
These create payrolls and jobs.
That is a major reason for investing an equal sum in the public programs suggested here, which should provide as many or more jobs than are now offered by surplus military spending. Much of the arms spending is for things that are capital-intensive but low on job creation. The reverse is true for public investment in such things as upgrading our decaying infrastructure, protecting the environment, providing quality teachers and schools, and improved health care.
Funny how McGovern turns basic defense spending into pure pork, and government-driven social spending into necessities, isn't it? By the way, George, defense contractors happen to employ people to build necessary armaments for our national defense. You know, that pesky part of the constitution about 'providing for the common defense?'
Finally, I would like to see America build the fastest, safest and cleanest-powered railway system in the world. This nationwide system of passenger and freight rail service should be integrated with equally superior public transit facilities in our cities.
Very few Americans are in the market for a tank or aircraft carrier. There are many eager consumers for the world's best, fastest and safest rail and transit systems."
Really? There's little demand for long haul rail in the US because of its point-point nature and high cost. Especially acquiring right-of-ways. If there were a demand for it, someone would have offered to assemble a passenger system from existing trackage.
But nobody has. Not Conrail. Not Chessie. Or UP, or SantaFe.
Could it be because only a non-profit, government-backed money-losing entity could possibly afford to do this? By wasting taxpayer dollars?
McGovern. 1000% loony in 1972, and still as misinformed, misguided and lacking comprehension nearly 40 years later!