July 04, 2008

AFA Asks American Families to Boycott Pro-homosexual McDonald's

After trying for two months to persuade the McDonald's Corporation to reverse its support for the gay rights agenda, the American Family Association has called for a boycott of the popular restaurant.

When the hamburger giant put its Vice President of Communications, Richard Ellis, on the Board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, the American Family Association asked McDonald's to reconsider.

According to the American Family Association's website:

Pat Harris, Global Chief Diversity Officer, Vice President, Inclusion & Diversity at McDonald’s, told AFA the company would “reaffirm our position on diversity.”

The National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce advocates for changes in laws regarding domestic partner benefits, "hate crimes" legislation, and inclusion of "gender identity and expression" in workplace legislation, among other controversial positions.

The AFA is a watchdog group that communicates information about corporate behavior and cultural trends to community activists and family values advocates. According to its website:

We believe in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values. We also believe in commending those companies which act responsibly regarding programs they support.

The American Family Association has previously boycotted Ford and Disney, and credits pressure its members exerted on the Southland Corporation for that company's corporate decision to stop selling pornography in its stores.

Posted at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 02, 2008

Obama's Bait-and-Switch on the Faith-Based Intiative

It is to be hoped that most religious charities will not be foolhardy enough to buy Barack Obmaa's newly-minted love for the Presidential Faith-based Initiative program. For in his hands, it will bring religious folk not to new heights of ministry--but to new depths of compromise.

Obama hearkens back to his community-organizer past, when he and Father Michael Pfleger trod the streets of Chicago, spreading love, charity, and radical Democratic politics. He can't wait to get his hands on the President's program, so that he can turn it into nothing more than another source of funding for politicized agencies masquerading as charities. Considering how Chicago runs its own distribution of largesse system (via bribery and clout), one can only image what a nightmare a federal agency given the full Chicago makeover might potentially be.

We know it won't be all that concerned about "faith." You can tell this from two simple points in his comments.

First, Obama:

chose a different emphasis for why religious charities are an important answer to solving poverty and other social problems: because they better know the people who are hurting, instead of Bush's argument that religion itself is a transforming power the government must not be afraid to harness.

But this entirely negates the purpose of the faith-based ministry. The uniqueness of ministry is that it is a face-to-face meeting with someone who is acting out of love, ready to be compassionate, and committed to a cause much greater than himself. To pick "location, location, location" as the most important aspects of ministry is to miss the point entirely.

More disturbingly, Obama seeks to follow the path of gay-rights activists within past Congresses who tried to force religious providers of charity to conform to non-discriminatory hiring regulations--which would make it impossible for such ministries to retain their religious character.

The FBCI (Faith-Based and Community Initiative) grows out of a provision of the 1996 "welfare reform" act, known as "charitable choice," specifically Section 104(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996:

(d) RELIGIOUS CHARACTER AND FREEDOM-

(1) RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS- A religious organization with a contract described in subsection (a)(1)(A), or which accepts certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement under subsection (a)(1)(B), shall retain its independence from Federal, State, and local governments, including such organization's control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs.

(2) ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS- Neither the Federal Government nor a State shall require a religious organization to--

(A) alter its form of internal governance; or

(B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols;

in order to be eligible to contract to provide assistance, or to accept certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement, funded under a program described in subsection (a)(2).

In brief, it levels the playing field in such a way as to enable religious organizations to compete with other helping organizations for federal grants, without having to relinquish their uniquely religious character. In other words, if you come to the soup kitchen, the church doesn't have to remove the cross on the roof, the Ten Commandments, on the wall, or the minister's religious apparel.

More importantly to the ministries, retaining their religious character means using employees who agree with the mission of the ministry--which is usually religious in and of itself. Thus, the FBCI allows ministries to hire...well, ministers. And others who are of a like mind as to the importance of faith.

Obama, however, has other ideas:

And while Bush supports allowing all religious groups to make any employment decisions based on faith, Obama proposes allowing religious institutions to hire and fire based on religion only in the non-taxpayer-funded portions of their activities — consistent with current federal, state and local laws. "That makes perfect sense," he said.

Does it, Senator?

You know who it doesn't make any sense at all to?

The people who run faith-based organizations.

If a ministry cannot hire those who share their faith, it becomes nothing more than a social agency--exactly the problem President Bush's program was meant to address.

To force a ministry to hire people who are inimical to its own best interests is to lose that ministry--either to the clients, or to the government. We have already seen this two years ago, in Boston, when Catholic Charities stopped providing adoption services rather than comply with Massachusetts' demand for gay adoption.

Have no fear, activists. Under an Obmaa regime, you won't be bothered at all by the federal dollars going to the religious, as Obama will make sure to negate the "religious" part of the whole thing. In Barack's capable hands, the only charities left in the FBCI program will be the gullible, the financially desperate, and the religiously illiterate.

It's the perfect trick to turn religious ministry dollars back into plain old social agency handouts.

The rest of Obama's promises on the FBCI are nothing more than a continuation of what President Bush has already done:

He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be "a critical part of my administration," a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort.

Whoever wrote that is either kidding, or has no idea what he's talking about. Increase training? Lip service?

As an active member of a faith-based ministry, I can assure you that the President has done everything possible to help religious organizations find their way through the labyrinthine process of applying for and retaining federal grants. While ministries have often been wary or unwilling--or, frankly, in some cases incompetent--it's not because the White House hasn't offered enough training. And, except for the travel expense, these seminars--from day-long to weekend--are invariably free, and studded with high-level government functionaries helping ministers and leaders of faith-based programs learn what they can and cannot do with federal money.

Moreover, the idea that FBCI is not a "critical part" of President Bush's administration is laughable. There is FBCI representation within the majority of federal Cabinet departments, and the programs cover a wide variety of ways to help. President Bush can barely start a speech--from the Naval Academy to the factory floor--without praising some "soldier in the armies of compassion" he found hanging around the place when he got there. So Obama's promising nothing new--except stripping the "faith" out of "faith-based" organizations.

We've already seen that game. In the bad old days before charitable choice, many were the ministries asked to scrub their buildings clean of any offending religious display. I know of a ministry that jumped through all the right hoops, was awarded a federal block grant--then lost the money after being told it had to remove the steeple from the building before it could receive the funding.

So, were Obama's new regulations to be put into place, we should all say what the head of this homeless shelter did: Thanks, but no, thanks. Keep your money.

And we'll keep our souls.

Posted at 02:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 29, 2008

The Door Opens: Embryo Screening For "Potential" Disease

It's long been a staple of both science fiction stories and pro-life nightmares: the notion that, sometime in the future, couples would "design" their babies, screening out certain genes displeasing to them. Generally, it's been portrayed as something ghoulish, inhuman, and selfish.

Today, we can add a new adjective: real.

A couple in Britain recently successfully screened out a genetic predisposition for breast cancer from the child the woman is now pregnant with:

Doctors screened out from the woman’s embryos an inherited gene that would have left the baby with a greater than 50% chance of developing the cancer.

The woman decided to have her embryos screened because her husband had tested positive for the gene and his sister, mother, grandmother and cousin have all had the cancer.

But the "brave new world" solution to the fear of having a child that may some day become sick comes at a steep price: the lives of every other embryo that might have eventually gotten sick with the disease (and several "extras" that wouldn't have). Seven of the eleven embryos created by the in-vitro fertilization were destroyed.

The screening process, known as pre-implantation diagnosis, could be used for a variety of genetic defects, promising to stop the objectionable hereditary line in couples carrying the problematic genes.

But the door such a possibility opens could well lead into a darkness we have not yet considered. Even those who find nothing morally disturbing about parents choosing to do such a thing should pause for a moment to consider what such a technique could become in the hands of governments bent on reducing health care costs, or in those whose "disapproved" genes run not just to actual diseases, but to tendencies, ethnicities, or sexual orientation.

The last time the world saw a systematic attempt at eugenics, it was cut short in its first generation, and seems to have had no positive effects and the most horrific negative ones. When young blonde women in Germany and other nations overrun by the Third Reich were impregnated by German soldiers to create a "master race," in the lebensborn program, it did not lead to a marvelous new order, but merely tore apart families and ruined the lives of everyone it touched. While the program bred the master race only by determining which pregnant women would give birth and be nurtured and which would not, it is chilling to imagine what they could have done with a systematic program designed to breed only those guaranteed to be perfect specimens.

Will the same Western nations that defeated the racist ideology that bred humans like cattle now, little more than a mere half-century later, use the same heartless calculus in attempting to bring about a disease-free society?

It may be too much to hope that eventually we mere mortals will learn not to play God. But while we are playing, it would be wise to take account of the minefield we are playing in.

Posted at 01:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 26, 2008

If You Can't Kill 'Em, Make "Em Wish They Were Dead: Jindal Signs Chemical Castration Bill

As the ink continues to dry on the US Supreme Court's ruling banning the death penalty for rapists of children, the Governor of Louisiana reacted quickly to the Court's rejection of his state's law.

On Thursday, Gevernor Bobby Jindal signed a bill that gives judges the option of ordering child rapists and certain other convicted criminals to be chemically castrated.

As he signed the bill, Jindal made it clear that he intends to do whatever he can to limit the impact of the Court's decision:

I want to send the message loud and clear – to the Supreme Court of the United States and beyond – make no mistake about it, if anyone wants to molest children and commit sexual assaults on kids they should not do so here in Louisiana. Here, we will do everything in our power to protect our children and we will not rest until justice is won and we have fully punished those who harm them.

The bill also allows judges to substitute physical castration for chemical castration, and does not substitute either form of castration for the prison sentence to be given out.

Jindal has frequently been mentioned as a possible vice-presidential choice for Republican Senator John McCain, despite his youth (Jindal, at 37, is barely old enough to be president himself.) He is considered to be one of nation's most effective governors, and was one of three American politicians thought to be in the veepstakes who were invited to McCain's private Memorial Day party.

Posted at 08:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kennedy Finally Swings the Right Way: Court Smacks Down DC Gun Ban

In another 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today declared that the handgun ban in our nation's capital runs afoul of the Constitution.

In a devastating blow to those who have for years argued that the Second Amendment applies only to militia groups and not to individuals, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia, et. al., v. Heller, wrote it in plain English, so even the most elite Harvard professor could understand it:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Got it? It's not difficult (though the opinion itself does run to 157 pages.)

Yes, all those backwards morons who have, for decades, pointed in frustration to the Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"--those knuckle-dragging neanderthals were right.

And for those who have spent their lives pressuring legislatures to tell individuals how to manage the guns they own, even in their own homes, we have this deathblow:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

So, get out of our closets now, Sara Brady.

This decision is catastrophic for the gun-grabbing industry, because it declares their mission in life to be unconstitutional. Now perhaps the liberals will agree with me that who is on the Court is a crucial consideration for the future.

Right now, your Constitutional rights are entirely dependent on Justice Kennedy.

Make no mistake, liberals, you have a fair shot at eviscerating the Constitution if you just get the right (well, "left") person on the Court. The four Justices in the minority (do you really need the roll call? Okay--Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter) attempt with all their might to build a case to do away with the functionality of the Second Amendment.

There is even more than one dissent in this case. The first comes from Justice Stevens, joined by the other three liberals. The four Justices fly into a snit over the idea that the majority is rejecting precedent:

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.

Yet the same four justices were more than willing to pitch Johnson v. Eisentrager out the window in order to extend the right of habeus corpus to enemy combatants just a few days ago. And they had no qualms about trashing the clear precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick when they had the chance to create a right to homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Justice Breyer's dissent (joined by the other three) begins by asserting his agreement with Stevens, with regard to the intention of the Second Amendment:

[T]he Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

However, he then moves on to argue that even if the majority were right on that issue, the DC handgun ban would still be a reasonable measure to assert the state's compelling security interests.

Yes, conservatives. Roll that over in your minds for a minute. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court do not believe you have a right to own a gun for self-defense. They believe the Second Amendment does not apply to you. Four justices. Had they one more ally, they would have won the day.

Do you doubt that a President Barack Obama would willingly supply that ally?

Posted at 01:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 25, 2008

It Just Gets Weirder and Weirder This Election Cycle

The Times of India is reporting the bizarre information that a group of Indians plans to present Barack Obama with an idol. Now, that's not so strange on it's face. After all, politicians get gifts like that all the time.

But it's the reason they selected the gift that rather puzzles some of us. According to those making the gift, it is based on his preference:

The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms.

Even more disturbingly:

"Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said [Congress leader Brijmohan] Bhama.

He has what? The Democratic nominee for the Presidency carries a monkey god with him?

There's a question I'd like to hear him answer in a debate: "Senator, do you carry a monkey god on your person for good luck, and are you a devotee of the god Hanuman?"

"Well, Chris, I'm not carrying one now."

Maybe when it arrives, he can throw it under the bus in a show of loyalty to America and his claimed Christian faith.

Posted at 04:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Death Too Cruel for Rapists of Children: Appalling 5-4 Decision Again Points to Need for New Court

This Supreme Court has done it again.

In another horrific 5-4 decision, with the deciding vote cast again by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, that the death penalty constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" for people convicted of raping children.

Go ahead. Read it again. I'm not kidding.

People who are convicted of the most vile and vicious crime most of us can think of, perpetrated against the most innocent among us, are not candidates for the death penalty. Justice Kennedy wrote:

The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child...

Well, no. Of course not. It is not possible in this life to punish someone proportionally to the rape of a child. Death is far too good for someone who would physically and sexually abuse a child, steal their innocence, and scar them for life. For that, you would need torture.

But it's the best we can do. Except in the eyes of the five flexible and incomprehensibly forgiving justices of the Supreme Court. (Do I really need to tell you who were the 5 and who were the 4? Go look up the discussion we just had about the Guantanamo decision. Same game, same players.)

In the case under consideration, a wretched creature named Patrick Kennedy (no, not that one) was convicted of rape. No, not just rape. Rape of an 8-year old. But not just an 8-year old.

His 8-year old step-child.

And did I mention that he initially blamed his horrible crime on two 10-year old boys?

What a charmer.

Would anyone like to show me where the Founders would not have executed a man who raped his own 8-year old daughter? Is this what they had in mind?

Here's a little snippet from the evidence the Court reviewed that led them to their decision:

L. H. [the victim] was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.

Part of the Court's convoluted reasoning argues that we should consider that few states capitalize rape, although Louisiana points to the fact that the trend is toward doing so, not toward reducing the penalty. The Court downplays the importance of the trend, finally concluding that:

After reviewing the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

And....so?

It is curious indeed that the Court has chosen to measure the appropriateness of a punishment by a sort of popular survey of state opinion. Do they plan to do the same when faced with the issue of gay marriage? Will our four-plus-one liberal justices grant an automatic assumption of victory to the more than 40 states that have expressed their desire to ban gay marriage?

Somehow, I doubt it.

And the Court suggests that it is somehow better for the children if the rapists are not in fear of their lives:

In addition, by in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim.

This seems like a rather ridiculous notion to bring up, given that the existing death penalty for child rape did not in fact cause the girl's stepfather to kill her in this case. But it's clear from the ruling that Kennedy and his clique were not interested in finding a way to preserve the law in the first place.

In the end, the majority determines the ruling on two points: a "national consensus" that the death penalty is inappropriate for child rape; and an undefined, inexplicable notion called "the Court's judgment" that the first is the right position.

Alito's blistering dissent takes the majority to task for its seeming coldness to the horrific nature of the crime to be punished:

The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.

In the dissent, Alito points out that states which were on the way to capitalizing child rape stalled only after the Court granted certiorari in this case, leading to a wait-and-see attitude on the part of legislators. Moreover, many are hesitant to move on the issue in light of the ruling that disallowed the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman. In the absence of a clarification of the applicability of the Eighth Amendment, it would be a Constitutional risk for states to move further toward harsher punishment. Yet, despite the risk, some did. The majority ignores its own role in the trend it uses to justify this ruling.

there is no evidence of which I am aware that these legislative initiatives failed because the proposed laws were viewed as inconsistent with our society’s standards of decency. On the contrary, the available evidence suggests otherwise. For example, in Colorado, the Senate Appropriations Committee in April voted 6 to 4 against Senate Bill 195, reportedly because it “would have cost about $616,000 next year for trials, appeals, public defenders, and prison costs.” Likewise, in Tennessee, the capital child-rape bill was withdrawn in committee “because of the high associated costs.” The bill’s sponsor stated that “ ‘[b]ecause of the state’s budget situation, we thought to withdraw that bill. . . . We’ll revisit it next year to see if we can reduce the cost of the fiscal note.’ ” Thus, the failure to enact capital child-rape laws cannot be viewed as evidence of a moral consensus against such punishment.

Alito also ridicules the majority's contention that the failure of Congress to enact such legislation has some kind of meaning, reminding them (one would think, unnecessarily--aren't they all lawyers?) that "very few rape cases, not to mention child-rape cases, are prosecuted in federal court.Congress’ failure to enact a death penalty statute for this tiny set of cases is hardly evidence of Congress’ assessment of our society’s values."

Alito finds the "national consensus" the majority claims to be largely in the imaginations of those five justices. And he makes short work of their arguments concerning effect of the death penalty on the rape victims.

Finally, Alito squarely takes on the majority's seemingly intuitional "judgment" that, while murder can be punished with the death penalty, rape can not, because it is not as "morally depraved":

With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?

This serves as yet another reminder of how crucially important the next president is, if only because he will invariably appoint one or more new justices, who will steer the court for perhaps decades to come.

Enemy combatants treated like American citizens. International custom read into American law. Traditional morality swept away with the stroke of a pen. And, now, this. You can't execute people who rape children. As Alito said, no matter how many children, no matter how cruelly, no matter how, where, or with what. You can't. No matter what.

One different justice would have changed that verdict.

Give us the president that can give us that justice. So the Court can finally give justice to the children across the nation crying out against their "nonhomicidal" rapists.

Get out and vote for that president.

Posted at 02:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's Getting Crowded Under That Bus--Here Comes the Whole Public

Barack Obama may be a great politician, but he's a lousy friend. Word to the wise: if Barack claims to "support" or "admire" you, watch out. You may be next to feel the wheels of the Obama bus crushing your spine.

Oops. Too late.

Throwing aside all his previous hints and promises to the contrary, and ditching his much-vaunted "support" for public financing, Barack Obama has announced that he will refuse the public dollar in favor of raising millions and millions of campaign dollars to run a campaign with no legal financial ceiling.

But why should the public be surprised at having its interests tossed (as the popular expression puts it) under the bus? It's Barack Obama's stock in trade to discard inconvenient people, positions, and political principles to suit his own needs. (And while I was writing this, he did it again, claiming that his new "seal" was only a one-time thing and would never be used again. No, not after it was received with giggles and embarrassment for its political clumsiness and outright mockery of the Presidential seal.)

Let's go back to his beginnings, shall we?

Barack Obama made his political bones when he was hand-picked by Alice Palmer to take her place in the State Senate when she tried for the U.S. House seat vacated by then-indicted (later convicted) child molester Mel Reynolds. Palmer lost the primary to Jesse Jackson, Jr., then re-filed for her old seat.

Rather than run against her--or anyone--clever neophyte Barack Obama challenged the signatures on the petitions for all the candidates running against him, eventually winding up unopposed for the State Senate seat. During this primary season, though not even a superdelegate, Alice Palmer threw her support to and worked for Hillary Clinton.

The wider public first saw it when Barack pretended not to be aware of anything his own pastor had said for the past twenty years. He tried to make us believe that he was like some kind of cartoon husband, just along for the ride, snoozing through the sermon, just there for the atmosphere. At the same time, he professed to be a devout Christian.

While he held onto Wright as long as that fiction worked for him, as soon as Wright got a bit impressed with himself and brought his full show--complete with strutting, mugging, spot-on impressions, and even a little dancing--to the National Press Club, Obama was finished with him.

At first, Obama, while disapproving of Wright's words, nonetheless stood by his pastor, choosing instead to deflect a splash of racism onto his own white grandmother:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

(This, by the way, was when the term "under the bus" began to become associated with Obama's way of dealing with politically difficult allies.)

Then, while Barack wasn't looking, Trinity and its new pastor allowed another friend of Barack's--one he's known even longer than Wright--to step to the pulpit. When Father Michael Pfleger took the stage at Trinity, he just couldn't help himself. He got on a riff about white entitlement and ended up slamming Hillary Clinton by name, saying the reason she was crying in the primaries was because she realized her "entitlement" candidacy had been usurped by a black man.

Both presidential campaigns expressed dismay at Pfleger's sermon, but Obama chose the moment to cut ties to Trinity (conveniently without mentioning his very long friendship with Michael Pfleger, the same way he speaks of his close friend Bill Ayres as merely "an English professor," implying that he doesn't know the man very well. In fact, he has worked closely with the Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, on numerous occasions, and it is Ayres' contribution to the field of Education, not English, that Obama most prizes.)

Pfleger and Obama go back a long way, to the early days of street organizing on the South Side of Chicago, where Pfleger introduced Obama to street politics, grant-getting, and the Saul Alinsky method of political agitation. By all accounts, Barack was very good at it. Pfleger was one of the very few South Side ministers or political figures of any type that endorsed Obama over former Black Panther Bobby Rush in Obama's ill-fated bid to unseat him. (Obama was smacked down by Rush by a wide margin, largely because he couldn't connect with African America voters the way Rush already did.)

But, all good things must come to an end, and so it was with Obama's public association with the racist politicization of the Chicago pulpits. Just after beating back Hillary Clinton's bid to get the same number of delegates she actually received votes for in the Michagan primary (Obama was awarded some of hers, just to be "fair"), Obama stepped forward before the press to sadly tell us that he was leaving Trinity UCC.

Apparent end of story.

Soon after, his longtime pal and financial seed-planter Tony Rezko fell on hard times. But he asked nothing of Obama in this, his time of trouble, and Obama gave him nothing. In abundance. When asked what he thought of the conviction of his old friend on 16 counts of various flavors of political corruption, a sorrowful Obama said:

"This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew."

A curious claim, since the crimes for which Rezko was convicted took place while Obama knew him, took money from him, bought land next door to him, and seemed close enough to him that one might reasonably assume he would know how thoroughly corrupt he was. Unless one was a simply clueless person, instead of a slick Chicago politician working the system.

In fact, Rezko's crimes had to do with many people that Obama knew well, personally and politically, including the current governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. Rezko also has ties to the current Cook County Board President, Todd Stroger, who was endorsed by Barack Obama to take his father, John Stroger's, long-time position.

While that may sound a bit odd, you have to know Chicago. The only thing more important in Chicago than political influence (also known in the Windy City as "clout") is family. And, very often, politicians have both. There are certain names that pop up with great frequency in Chicago and Illinois politics--names like Stroger, Ryan, Madigan--and above all, Daley. And Obama, in his time, has known them all.

And let's not even bother to mention the blip that was Jim Johnson--until Obama figured out that having a friend of Countrywide picking his vice president--while he himself was hammering away at the mortgage industry, and Countrywide by name--was unhelpful to the goal of becoming president. (One wonders how he will manage to disavow Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, should the need arise.)

The historical record shows that Obama--the purported "new face" of the Democratic party--is anything but "new." The candidate of "change" is in fact a throwback to the bad old days of machine politics and cronyism. He is the same-old, same-old, brought to you by the apogee of political corruption, the Chicago machine.

In 1962, the Chicago machine delivered Illinois to John F. Kennedy, in one of the most shameless acts of national corruption in history (though nothing for Chicago itself). Today, it has submitted for your approval not a candidate for the twenty-first century, but a throwback to the worst bare-knuckle politics of the twentieth--or the Tammany Hall of the nineteenth.

Elect him at your own risk. And don't say I didn't warn you.

Posted at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 23, 2008

It’s the Stupid Judiciary, Stupid: Why No Conservative Can Afford to Stay Home in 2008

When Clinton was running for president, legend has it that James Carville had a sign on his desk to help him focus on the core issue: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

This year, however, there are three good reasons to vote Republican: the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court.

Whether you are a war hawk distressed over the 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, when the Justices decided to extend the right of habeus corpus to enemy combatants merely because they are held by Americans, a moral conservative concerned about the right to life and the protection of traditional marriage, or a plain old patriot who believes that the American Constitution should be more important than the pronouncements of the European Union—you have something to lose (or gain) in the 2008 election.

The Guantanamo case revealed a deeply divided Court, with that old swinger Justice Kennedy proving the most important. The four strict constructionists on the Court—Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia—dissented, while the four on the “flexible document” side signed on with Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens.)

I know that most Americans are bored to death by talk of such dull stuff as Supreme Court cases, but this is the historical moment to ignore the distractions and focus. This is a turning point we cannot afford to miss.

Next, let’s look at the issue of gay marriage. Americans across the country have been watching helplessly as unelected and agenda-driven judges in state courts have overridden the expressed will of voters in more than forty states. California’s Supreme Court declared that domestic partnerships and civil unions are not sufficient equivalents to “marriage,” and homosexuals must be allowed to “marry”—which they did, just after (in a sickening coincidence) Father’s Day. The Oregon Appeals Court, on the other hand, has recently upheld that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Within a very short period of time (as soon as the newlyweds go home to their original states and start suing for recognition), there is assuredly going to be a Constitutional question the Supremes cannot avoid.

The genesis of all the onslaught of same-sex marriage activism comes from, essentially, one source: the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which—overturning the defining precedent, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)—asserted a right to homosexual sodomy as part of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Lawrence decision was a 6-3 decision. The set of 6 justices that rendered this abomination are now only five; one justice on each side has been replaced by two justices who could be easily presumed to be on the side that would have upheld Bowers and never agreed with Lawrence. Justices O’Connor and Rehnquist are gone from the Court now, but they have been replaced with Alito and Roberts—who, with Scalia and Thomas, form a fairly strong strict constructionist voting bloc.

One constructionist vote could overturn Lawrence and reverse the gay marriage trend with the stroke of a pen (or the click of a keyboard, at least).

There is also the little matter of whether American law has an intrinsic meaning of its own and should be the only source of American law.

The reasoning in the Lawrence case also included this bizarre reference to the laws of other nations:

To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homo-sexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11–12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.

It is difficult to think of a statement that should more outrage patriots and constitutionalists. When the Founders brought forth their profound document, they knew they were not following the notions of other nations. Rather, they were creating something new. And it was the unique combination of English common law, common sense, Biblical values, and philosophical convictions not previously codified that led to a nation far more successful than anything anyone had expected. Indeed, the document our Founders devised has served as a model for many other countries since.

America is not what it is because it follows the latest tradition in European jurisprudence. It is a great and mighty nation, free and open, where ordered liberty is more possible than in any other country on earth—precisely because it has not bound itself to the laws of any other nation. We have no allegiances that trump the Constitution, no treaties that can be allowed to prevail over it. We will not kowtow to the pronouncements of the international “community,” but will instead keep our own counsel, secure in the notion that our Constitution represents the highest and best experiment in law and culture that has ever been seen on this earth.

But the liberals on the current court disagree.

Justice Scalia, on the other hand, has said:

It is my view that foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of - to the meaning of - the United States Constitution.

While it is unclear how many of the Justices are internationalists, public statements by Justices Kennedy and Breyer, at least, indicate that they favor a more globalist interpretation of the law. And, since none of the six in the majority on the Lawrence case wrote any objection to that particular aspect of it, we certainly can assume they don’t hold the same disregard for it as does Scalia.

Finally, we come to the sine qua non of the American conservative/liberal split: abortion. While there is never a shortage of abortion litigation in the lower courts, the Supreme Court of late has only rarely taken them on. However, last April, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the four constructionists found Kennedy swinging their way to uphold the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion. If Kennedy could be counted on, there would be no need for a new justice. But, for either side, Kennedy represents a question mark—and a dangerous one at that. Thus, for the cases coming up the pipeline on the divisive issue of abortion, it would be helpful to have another reliable strict constructionist on the bench.

Which brings us to: who will those justices be, when cases come up on these crucial issues? Is it possible to hope for a new resolution on some of them?

Looking at the simple gerontological realities, it seems unlikely that the next president will come though four entire years—much less eight—without the chance to replace one of our aging Justices—which weighs in favor of the constructionists, since Justice Stevens is 88, and Justice Ginsburg is 75 and has already had cancer. Of the constructionists, only Scalia is in his seventies, while the others are 60 or younger.

The next president almost certainly has the future of the Court--and American justice--in his hands.

And so, in the interests of justice, for the good of the nation, no matter how suspicious you may be of John McCain, no matter how “faux-conservative” you may consider him to be, as a conservative, you have no choice but to vote for him.

The alternatives—whether staying home, voting for Barack Obama, or throwing your vote away on a "protest" vote—are too risky to even contemplate.

Posted at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 21, 2008

Montana, Colorado Stir the 2008 Pot Yet Again: Life Itself Could Be On the Ballot

If you thought the politics of November 2008 were fun before, you'll love the state constitutional amendments that could be coming to the ballot in Montana and Colorado this year. They aren't difficult to understand. But they represent the farthest-reaching pro-life moves in decades and could help to make this election season--like that of 2004--more a question of moral values than anything else.

In Montana, if the backers get the 44,615 signatures to qualify, the voters will be faced with Initiative CI-100:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Article II, section 3, of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended to read:
"Section 3. Inalienable Right to life and inalienable rights. (1) Every person has a paramount and fundamental right to life.
(2) All persons are [born--changed to created] free and have certain inalienable rights from the moment of conception. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
(3) As used in this article, "person" includes a human being at all stages of human development or life, including the state of fertilization, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.
(4) Subsections (1) and (3) and the language regarding the moment of conception in subsection (2) must be implemented by legislation."

Colorado's amendment is actually on the ballot, having qualified with 25% more signatures than needed. The fourteen simple words that could change Colorado forever are:

The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

It is curious that there has been little attention to these groundbreaking measures, though one is tempted to think the white noise machine of the Democratic primary could have something to do with it. However, between now and November the people of Montana and Colorado will be talking about this, and if the Amendments pass, there can be little doubt that the Supreme Court will get to talk about it before long, as well.

Once again, we note that who is on that Court will have ramifications for the next several decades. Who picks the next few (and it would only take one to turn the present Court over) justices is probably the most important question this nation has faced in years.

Whether your issue is gay marriage, abortion, or the adjudication of non-American citizens captured on foreign soil trying to kill American soldiers, the next few years of the Supreme Court will be crucial turning points in American jurisprudence.

Conservatives, we must take the Court seriously. And we must do everything that we can to take the law back from the out-of-control liberal globalists that have taken over the judiciary.

Posted at 07:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 20, 2008

Indian Girl Lucks Out By Not Being Born in Illinois Before 2005

In India, a woman gave birth in the midst of a pregnancy crisis. Her child was born "limp." But not, as it turned out, dead. A day later, as the parents carried her body to be buried, she woke up and gurgled.

Had this happened in Illinois prior to 2005, she might yet have been killed--legally, thanks to Barack Obama.

While Barack Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he voted "present" on the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which was intended to protect children intended for abortion who managed to survive the procedure. (Actually, Obama voted "present" on a lot of things that could come back to bite him, but that's another issue for another time.)

As Chair of the subcommittee the bill landed in later, he simply killed the bill--allowing doctors whose abortions unfortunately don't do the job to merely dispose of their problem the old-fashioned way. As Jill Stanek's testimony described it, at the time Illinois hospitals faced with babies intended for abortion who stubbornly survived merely wrapped them in blankets and let them die. The bill Obama opposed would have given them the same right to medical treatment as an "intended" baby is entitled to.

Although the baby wasn't intended as an abortion, that might not put her beyond the reach of Obama's utilitatarian mercies. Perhaps he would have considered her a "punishment.".

Aruna and Bhagwan Gaikwad's baby girl should thank her lucky stars she was not born under the reign of Barack Obama.

Posted at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 13, 2008

Hall of Shame: 52 Members of Congress Announce Formation of the LGBT Equality Caucus

In a weak show of “bipartisanship,” 50 Democrats and 2 Republicans have coalesced to constitute the Congress’s first caucus to address legislation concerning lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons. Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) Christopher Shays and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have lived off the reservation for quite a while now, crossed the aisle and joined hands with the lavender lobby to form this abomination of a Congressional caucus.

There are many Congressional caucuses, from the Physics Caucus to the Out of Iraq Caucus. But this appears to be the first Congressional caucus in US history based on the private sexual behavior of individuals that most Americans would prefer remain nobody else’s business.

There can be no doubt that the caucus, led by the only two elected “out” Congress (you’ll excuse the expression) members—Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) will quickly busy itself finding myriad ways to frustrate the will of the American people and advance causes like gay “marriage,” gay adoption, and other self-serving special privileges for LGBT persons.

The other members of Congress signed on for this mischief are:
Vice Chairs: Reps. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Lois Capps (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and Peter Welch (D-VT.)

Members: Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Robert Brady (D-PA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Phil Hare (D-IL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Doris Matsui (D-CA), James Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), José Serrano (D-NY), Chris Shays (R-CT), Pete Stark (D-CA), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA.)

Do with this information what you will.

Posted at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 11, 2008

You Couldn't Make This Stuff Up: Chief of the Ninth Circuit Secretly Keeps Fetish Pornography

In a story related to several things we have discussed on this site lately, it was recently revealed that the Chief of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, has maintained a personal website available to the public that contains material for which ordinary people have frequently found themselves jailed.

The judge, coincidentally, is currently presiding over a Los Angeles trial of a fetishist pornographer. Ira Isakson is charged with selling pornographic movies involving "bestiality and sexual activity involving feces and urine." The subject matter as described for the jurors is so repulsive that some jurors have said they fear becoming sick to their stomachs when they have to watch it as evidence during the trial.

The judge presiding over the trial has said that he is not sure that the material on his own website would qualify as "pornography." The material:

was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

The Model Code of Judicial Conduct says, of those who would wear the black robes of the judiciary:

Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives.

Does this qualify? Or does maintaining a fetishist website confer an "appearance of impropriety" in one's "personal life?"

The Code also says this:

The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law,* shall take precedence over all of a judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities.

One might argue that it could be difficult for a person who is unsure whether he himself owns pornography to preside impartially over a trial of a man accused of having similar material alleged to actually be pornography. On the other hand, perhaps it will actually improve the chances of justice being done.

After all, Potter Stewart famously said of pornography that he couldn't precisely define it, but "I know it when I see it."

Perhaps Judge Kozinski will know what it is--because he has apparently "seen it" with a nauseating frequency.

Posted at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 04, 2008

Obama Captures Nomination, On Wings of Superdelegates

Bouyed by more than two-dozen party-elite endorsements today, Barack Obama has crossed the threshhold to become the Presidential nominee of the Democratic party.

His opponent, Hillary Clinton, has not yet conceded, but plans to weigh her options over the next few days.

Posted at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 03, 2008

Pfleger Pfired--Pfor a While, Anyway

In a rather surprising move, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George has forced Father Michael Pfleger from his perch at Saint Sabina's on the South Side, following his race-baiting tirade in the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ last weekend.

The Cardinal suggested Pfleger spend a few weeks out of the church to, essentially, think about what he's done. Cardinal George's statement acknowledges that Pfleger "does not believe this to be the right step at this time."

The Cardinal, however, is insisting.

Pfleger has long been a controversial figure in Chicago religion and politics. But it may be his longtime association with Barack Obama that sinks his 33-year career for good.

Posted at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

FLDS Sect To Officially Ban Underage Marriage

In a move no-doubt designed to safeguard the intentional community at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas and others, an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) has announced that the church will officially ban underage girls from marrying.

When the original inhabitants of the Ranch moved to Texas, the legal age for marriage, with the permission of a parent, was 14--the age that the state of Texas claimed girls were marrying at the Ranch when it raided the community. Those accusations have since been somewhat undermined by the inability of the state to correctly identify the ages of many of the children there.

The FLDS has announced no change in their pluralistic marriage tradition--and they are unlikely to, as it is a key part of their theology that such unions are a source of eternal glorification. However, as long as the marriages are "spiritual" and not engaged in by those who are underage, it is unclear whether the state of Texas would have any further right to object to the general existence of the FLDS community.

The FLDS are a breakaway sect of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, colloquially also knows as "Mormons," after the Angel Moroni, who, according to the doctrine of both, showed LDS founder Joseph Smith the location of the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon claim to chronicle the early history of ancient tribes on the American continent.)

The LDS church officially renounced polygamous marriage in 1890, and a ban on such marriages was officially written into the Utah state constitution as a condition of acceptance for statehood. The FLDS is one of the larger of several breakaway sects of Mormonism which has never renounced polygamous marriage and is known to have settlements in Utah, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota, Mexico, and Canada.

Posted at 07:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

California Marriage Amendment Initiantive Easily Qualifies for November Ballot

With more than one and a half times the number of signatures needed to qualify, an initiative will appear on the November California ballot to amend that state's Constitution to read:

"...only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The amendment, the only available avenue left to traditional marriage protection advocates following the state Supreme Court's declaration that civil unions and domestic partnerships--regardless of the level of benefit parity involved--do not satisfy California's requirement for marital equity. Were the amendment to pass, the question would be settled in California (pending U.S. Supreme Court review), overturning that decision.

Californians expressed their intent on the marriage issue in 2000, with Proposition 22, also known as the Knight Initiative, or the California Defense of Marriage Act, which passed the same language into law.

According to polls, the Amendment is supported by more than half of California voters. After the Supreme Court decision, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar said he would oppose the Amendment, setting up a potential battle between the Governor of California and both his own people and his national party. The GOP has consistently stood against same-sex marriage on a national level, and the Republican Presidential nominee expressed expressed his opposition to gay marriage following the decision and has always maintained that the question should be left to the people of individual states.

Posted at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 02, 2008

Heather May Have Too Many Mommies, But Texas Still Has to Give Her Back

Though not all at once, mothers and their children taken from the Yearning for Zion intentional community of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) are getting back together after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas had no right to seize more than 400 children on suspicion of child abuse and endangerment.

The court order, agreed upon by both sides and signed by the judge, mandates that the parents take parenting classes, understand that they are subject to future CPS visits as part of an ongoing investigation, and stay in the state of Texas. Some experts and observers had feared that the FLDS members, if allowed to get their children back, would flee to one of the other known FLDS communities in Utah, Colorado, South Dakota, Mexico, or Canada.

It remains to be seen how many will actually return to the YFZ Ranch, after this traumatizing event. Some have already relocated, while others are merely considering their options. Returning to the community carries with it some degree of trepidation, since there is no way to know whether the Texas authorities will continue to disrupt the FLDS.

However, this episode should give them pause and teach them to stay within the law when and if they do.

Posted at 06:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Move Over, Hitler! Here Come Fritzl and the Global Warming Skeptics!

In what can best be described (kindly) as a complete lack of proportionality, the Bishop of Stafford (U.K.) has accused those who do nothing about global warming of "destroying our children" and being as "guilty as Fritzl."

In his remarks in the pastoral newsletter, the Right Reverend Gordon Mursell devised an analogy as blatantly inappropriate as Chicago's Father Pfleger's claim that Hillary Clinton is driven by white entitlement (which may have been the final straw for Obama that drove him to finally resign from Trinity UCC this weekend.)

The Bishop's analogy turned on the idea that both people who are not doing something about global warming (now known as "climate change," to allow for greater leeway on that "warming" thing) and the monster Josef "I am not a Monster" Fritzl are throwing away their children's future.

Of course, it could be argued that there is a huge difference between remaining skeptical that "global warming" is both man-made and somehow treatable and forcing one's 18-year old daughter (whom one has been raping since she was 12) into a homemade dungeon, keeping her there for 24 years, and siring seven children by her. While living above ground with one's wife. And sneaking some of the children out to live normal lives upstairs. And killing one of the cellar dweller babies that didn't turn out quite so well and secretly incinerating him. And then saying "I am not a monster," because one is finally caught when bringing one of the cellar children to the hospital on her deathbed. Because, after all, he could have killed them all.

One might see a few teensy differences there.

According to the Times report, the Bishop says he did not mean to "shock people unnecessarily."

Of course. Though what he did mean to do--necessarily or otherwise--is not immediately clear.

Posted at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hillary Shellacs Barack In Puerto Rico: Still Considered Out of It

In a stunning victory, Hillary Clinton took more than the lion's share of delegates in Sunday's Puerto Rico primary--she took the lamb's share, too. Gaining 38 delegates from the island to Obmaa's meager 17, she comes into the home stretch still with a slim possibility of wresting victory from the jaws of defeat.

Although Puerto Rico has no electoral college vote for the general election, the heavily Hispanic population win gives Clinton yet another argument to bring to the table that would make her a formidable foe in November--and that could hamstring a weak Obama candidacy against McCain.

Hispanics are a generally winnable constituency for the Democrats, but this kind of result indicates that Obama might have a problem winning them--especially if marriage is on the table in November. Hispanic voters are among the most family-conscious in the nation.

Hillary's camp now argues that she has won the popular vote (at this point, with only Montana and South Dakota to go, plus some uncertain number of superdelegates--who, remember, are never fully "pledged") It yet remains possible that--even if Obama reaches the new magic number before the convention--some event or development (a bad turn in the Rezko trail, a new racist minister, too much attention to Obama's ties to Weather Underground members Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn--whatever might be out there) might re-position Hillary as the nominee. And were that to be the case, it would be important to the campaign and the party for her to have remained in the race, polishing her image as a true contender.

At this point, Obama needs 46 more delegates to take the nomination, while Hillary needs 202.5. There are 31 pledged delegates left to be assigned.

Posted at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Democrats Showcase Their Problems for All To See: All Votes Count, But Some Votes Count More Than Others

It was terribly amusing this weekend to watch the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee finally make a decision as to how to somehow reverse the mess it made of the Florida and Michigan primary elections.

First, though, let's get two things clear: the leadership of the Democratic party blames all of this on the states, specifically the Republican parties in those states, and they believe that the 2000 election was "stolen" from Al Gore.

These aren't the kook fringe of the party, by the way. The election conspiracy mania was trotted out at least four times during the proceedings, and hooted and hollered for every single time. It is not only the unkempt riff-raff protesters of the party that have drunk this Kool-Aid, it is as well the nicely dressed, generally well-spoken (some of them were not), supposedly mature leadership.

That said, let's get on to what we learned about Democrats on Saturday.

First, they believe themselves able to read minds. This apparently infected the Democratic brain during the 2000 election, when they became convinced that it was possible to discern what was in the mind of the voter by peering at the way the pointy object on the end of his or her arm had poked (or almost poked, or barely brushed) a hole in a piece of paper.

This weekend, they strove mightily to find a way to read the minds not only of the voters who came out in Florida and Michigan, but also those who would have come out, had they but thought their vote would count. In other words, many of the Committee members fretted over the possibility of coming up with a solution that failed to represent people who had not asked (by voting) to be represented.

In the discussion, they also made outlandish predictions of Democratic turnout, contending that probably twice as many voters would have turned out, had they believed that their votes would count. For that matter, since the Florida Presidential Preference primary poll is closed to those who are not members of the two major parties, why don't we set the psychics of the DNC to work figuring out how many non-voters would have voted for a third party candidate, and which one, and put them in play, as well?

Second, we learned that the Democratic National Committee apparently has fans that are very very rude. Both sides of the debate were constantly interrupted by boos, cheers, applause, and hisses from the assembled audience, and had to be reprimanded by the Chair several times. We also were reminded that Florida is the state foolish enough to send Congressman Robert Wexler to Washington (though perhaps they just want to get him out of Florida.) Wexler gives California Congresswoman Maxine Waters a run for her money in the hysterics department.

Another important thing (the third, if you're counting) that became clear to anyone who had the stamina to sit through this mess is that Democrats are totally obsessed with identity politics. Donna Brazile (late of the failed Gore campaign) fretted and frowned over the possibility that the delegations proposed for seating might not conform to the DNC's rules of "inclusion." What does that mean, you ask?

Pay attention, here, because this is key to the Democrats' problem. Under DNC rules of affirmative action and inclusion, the delegations at every level must be representative of the population as a whole. That means, whether a state has such a "representative" population or not, it's delegation must contain x% blacks, Hispanics, Asians, elderly, gay, handicapped--and must also be more than fifty percent female.

Honestly. That's really how they do it.

Moreover, one of the reasons they are in this mess to begin with is that prior to this election, the DNC decided that, for the sake of diversity, they needed to let some other states (states that were not so, oh, let's say "un-diverse" as Iowa and New Hampshire) have a stab at making the all-important first decisions (and raking in some of the tourist and media money that enriches those states every few years, as candidates, campaign staff, and reporters descend with money to spend). They allowed various states to compete for those spots, and the winners turned out to be South Carolina (because Democrats feel they are at a disadvantage in the South and wanted to throw the region a bone) and Nevada (same for the West).

Unfortunately, they were not Florida and Michigan, who threw a temper tantrum and pushed their way in, anyway.

But the point of that is that, had they not messed with the historic "firstness" of Iowa and New Hampshire, with their own idiotic identity-based formulas, or had they simply allowed states to vote whenever they wanted to, without punishing them for jumping through the "pre-window," we might never have been here at all. But the Democrats can't for a minute stop thinking about group classifications. They can't take the most qualified candidates. Not for their own leadership, not for government jobs, not for anything. If you aren't "representative," to the Democratic party, you're not "legitimate."

Which kind of makes you wonder why they don't just withdraw from the Senate of the United States and run their own classification-based shadow government from the sidelines. It couldn't get less done than the current one is doing.

But, never fear. The Democrats of Florida we were told by a Florida state senator) check every day to make sure that their delegation (if it's allowed to come) will contain all the relevant required people groups.

But we also learned that the Democrats aren't really bound by their own rules after all. For example, Howard Dean exulted, in a speech that came before the proceedings, that in some states, the Democrat vote was "more than 60% female." Doesn't that mean that the DNC should concoct some kind of formula to make sure that something shy of ten percent of those women lose their representation?

And the solution proposed by the Obama camp in Michigan would have seated the Hillary delegates as Hillary delegates (that's hard to avoid, one would think--but wait, that comes later), and the "Uncommitted" as uncommitted delegates--but the Michigan leadership was assured that the Michigan uncommitted delegation was going to the convention intending to vote for Obama.

How, exactly, is that "uncommitted?" If a judge or a juror entered into a trial "uncommitted," but really intending to favor one party over another, that person would be thrown off the case. Despite the fact that there is no way to know what the voters that chose "uncommitted" intended their votes to express, the Democratic National Committee just knows, in its heart of hearts (its feeeeeeeeeelings, if you will), that those people didn't mean "Richardson" or "Biden" or "Edwards," all of whom removed their names from the Michigan ballot in the same way Obama did. (And Heaven help you if your "uncommitted" really meant "I don't like any of these clowns. Go to the convention and vote for Mickey Mouse, for all I care.")

Shouldn't at least one or two of those delegates really be "uncommitted?"

We also found, after a suspiciously long lunch "hour" that Democrats still do their business in back rooms and still make secret deals. While the delegates delayed their reappearance in the public committee room for (give or take) three hours, the media buzzed with rumors that they were working out a 50/50 deal behind closed doors. When they finally managed to return to the big official table, there were some obviously put-up motions to seat the full delegations in full that were quickly defeated, and then they got back to the business of implementing the deal the media had been reporting on for hours: All delegates seated, half a vote apiece. But in MIchigan, Obama not only was given the "uncommitted" delegates, but four of the actual Clinton ones, as well.

Oh, and by the way--that magic number we've been using as the threshhold for victory? 2025? Well, forget it. Now it's 2118.

All this could be undone by Clinton's reserved appeal to the Credentials Committee at the convention (meaning that her campaign reserves the right to object to the seating of delegates at the actual convention in Denver in August), or by one of several lawsuits already brought by disgruntled voters and delegates from the two states.

It is a tricky situation, and while the DNC Rules Committee members may think they have sidestepped it, it seems clear from comments by Clinton supporters that the outcome is neither satisfactory nor over:

“She's a fighter. That's why she's still here. That's why she's reforming. It's a farce. This is not the people's party,” one supporter said.

“We are going to defect. We are not going to vote for Obama,” another Clinton supporter said.

“I value my faith,” one supporter said.

“So who are you going to vote for?” the reporter asked.

“McCain if it's not Hillary. Absolutely,” the supporter replied

Regardless of how the last few months of this play out, we have learned one thing for sure: the Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand--much less take over the health care system and the military.

Posted at 07:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 29, 2008

I Now Pronounce You Party C--Now Go Live In New York

In one of the most romantic changes of language ever devised, the marriage licenses for the state of California will now legally wed "Party A" and "Party B." I suppose the wags in the crowd should be disappointed they didn't use "Party of the First Part" and "Party of the Second Part," since the identification of the first and second parts could have provided hours of fun.

But in a related story, New York's latest adulterous governor has announced that the Empire State will legally recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other states (while refusing to marry actual New York homosexuals.)

This move makes the gay marriage issue for the fall officially (you'll excuse the expression) "bicoastal," from corner to corner (well, almost--just push Washington state aside for a minute), with California and Oregon throwing down on the West Coast and New York and Florida representin' in the East. Those in the middle of the country will be unable to escape the issue now, and the presidential candidates will have to use a lot of frequent flier miles to get enough face time in to deal with the split voters in New York and take a side in the California battle.

As politicians, celebrities, and the media continue their push for gay marriage, the people of the various states will push back. Americans are seething with rage at politicians of all kinds right now--the Democratically-led (if "led" is not too facetious a word) Congress is even more unpopular than the President. The American people are sick and tired of Courts telling them what to do. "Activist judge" has almost replaced "communist" in the popular lexicon and is properly said with a look of disgust and a curl of the lip.

Suffice it to say that--thanks to the incomparable timing and political incompetence of liberals--every day in every way, November looks better and better.

Posted at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 27, 2008

Oregon Appeals Court Continues the March To November Chaos

Oregon's appeals court has upheld the Oregon marriage protection amendment, setting up yet another inevitable showdown for the general election.

Measure 36, one of the 11 state measures voted in during the 2004 "earthquake" that brought values voters out to vote against gay marriage and for President Bush, states that:

It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.

If the Democratic party chooses to field a candidate that professes his or her fealty to the gay rights movement, while the gay rights movement continues to press to overturn the will of the people of Oregon, the Democrats just might have a problem holding on to Oregon. That would pose a problem for them, as it will in California, having to placate voters in a state that normally would go Democrat in a landslide.

As November approaches, this issue promises to catch fire across the nation. California has a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, certain to drive turnout now that the California Supreme Court has decreed that domestic partnerships don't satisfy the equality requirements of its constitution. Florida--already a tremendous problem for the Democrats in November, thanks to their completely incompetent handling of Floridians' precious votes in the primary--has a gay marriage ban on its ballot, as well.

Together, Florida and California represent 82 electoral college votes--thirty percent of the votes needed to win the presidency, and two of the twelve states needed as a bloc to win the office outright. Moreover, spending too much time on the West Coast could interfere with the candidate's ability to reach other big states that need his or her attention--and which also have serious opposition to gay marriage, already expressed in the form of legislation. Ten of the "Magic Twelve" have legislative bans, and many of those have Constitutional amendments already, while three of them have legislation but no Constitutional amendment--but by November, those could be in play as well (Pennsylvania, Illinois, and North Carolina--states that Democrats would not ordinarily worry much about.)

This is the election that will determine the direction of marriage for the 21st century. Both advocates and opponents of gay marriage cannot afford to sit this one out. The party that usually advocates for homosexuals is currently fighting over which candidate against gay marriage it will send in to fight the general election. With the California court demanding nothing less than marriage, there is little doubt that the normally in-pocket gay rights lobby will demand more this year from the politicians they will pour money into.

But will they get it? If so, what will happen to the "Reagan Democrats"--the blue-collar, solidly Democratic morally traditional segment of voters who have already voted for Hillary? And what will happen to the African-American evangelicals, who are more morally traditional on sexual questions even than their white counterparts?

Stay tuned throughout the summer, as things heat up.

Posted at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Court to George Ryan: Stay Right Where You Are

Without comment, the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of former Illinois Governor George Ryan.

The governor, after dodging prosecution in office, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison on 18 corruption-related charges.

The case dealt with a variety of forms of corruption, the most sensational of which was a licenses-for-bribes scandal in which unqualified drivers received commercial truck licenses in exchange for campaign contributions. The license corruption came to light after six children were killed in Wisconsin when the car they were riding in was hit by a truck driven by a recipient of one of those illegal licenses.

The charges on which Ryan was convicted included racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, tax fraud and making false statements. Ryan's appeal was based on issues with the jury, and did not convince any of the lower courts, either.

Ryan is currently serving his sentence in the minimum security facility of the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, and is scheduled for release July 4, 2013.

Posted at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Former President Spills Israeli Secrets

Okay, "news" with "opinion" this time.

Proving once again that he is the worst of our ex-presidents, former President James E. Carter revealed on Sunday what the world had long suspected but never known for sure: Israel is a nuclear power.

The irresponsibility of his remarks is hard to overstate.

Israel, long the only democratic government in the region, surrounded by enemies bent on killing all Jews everywhere, has never admitted to having nuclear weapons. For obvious reasons, allowing such information (if true) to be widely known would (and, now, does) endanger the security of Israel and the national interests of the United States.

Recently, the former president met with representatives of America's enemy, the terrorist organization, Hamas. Now he throws Israel under the bus.

How ironic that the man who builds houses for charity now turns his hammer on the most continuously oppressed and persecuted people in the world.

Posted at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 22, 2008

"Every Vote Should Count" Returns to Bite DNC

It was the plaintive cry of the Democratic party during the post-election hangover of 2000, while their candidate stubbornly refused to admit he had lost the election: "Every vote doesn't count until every vote is counted." Strangely, it was Florida that caused all the trouble then, too.

Now the Democrats are back in the Sunshine state, but this time it is their own power elite being framed as the ones trying to steal the voting power of the people of Florida.

Let's review.

The Democratic National Committee decided this year to punish states for falling all over themselves to be "first in the nation" with their primaries, by decreeing that any state jumping the mysteriously sacrosanct date of February 5 would have its delegates zeroed out and not seated at the Denver convention. (The GOP only struck half of theirs.)

Florida and Michigan defied the party and rolled the dice. Hillary Clinton won both of them, alone on the ballot in Michigan, and with Obama in Florida. (Well, functionally "alone" in Michigan--there were six choices: Hillary, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Uncommitted, and Write-in. Those wishing to vote for actually viable Democratic candidates were told to vote "uncommitted," because thsoe candidates were not eligible to be written in under Michigan law.) Nevertheless, she did win them.

After the fact, certain people--mostly Hillary people--started complaining that it was "unfair" to the voters to have just taken away their votes like that, and their votes should somehow be made to count. There was a brief moment of flirtation with the idea of doing the primaries over, but of course that would cost a fortune and still could not re-create the political atmosphere that would have existed, had everyone in Florida been free to vote in a meaningful way. So that was dropped.

But, now that she's beaten Obama in a few states by something like forty percent--and considering that the states she has won are likely to be keenly important in the general election--Hillary Clinton can think of nothing but helping the poor, disfranchised voters of Florida make their votes count, and get their delegates (her delegates) seated.

Now comes word that there is in fact a lawsuit coming. Some Florida voters are suing the Democratic National Committee for taking away their right to vote.

They do have a point. After all, if the party didn't intend to have a meaningful election, what was the point of all those balloting centers all over the state? Certainly there must be some Florida voters who were too out-of-touch to realize that they were wasting their time driving down to the polling station to vote, just as there were voters in Florida too (apparently) stupid to figure out how not to vote for Pat Buchanan. It's not much of a stretch to see that the average Florida voter was, in some sense, defrauded by the Democratic Party, disfranchised by the Democratic National Committee, and victims of a civil rights violation.

Hillary is hammering home the point. And it has a good deal of resonance, coming from the first-lady whose Vice President had the election "stolen" from him by electoral malfeasance of some unspecified kind. Moreover, the DNC had better fix this problem, and soon. They plan to meet on May 31st to figure out what to do, but common sense dictates that they can't offer the media the opportunity to pan empty delegate seats in the hall, can't re-do the voting process, can't afford to make it too obvious that the whole thing is controlled by the elites, and--most crucially--cannot afford to risk losing Michigan and Florida (and their 44 electoral votes) in the general election.

What's Doctor Dean going to do?

And, of course, all of this (excuse the expression, Mr. Limbaugh) "chaos" plays into the hands of the Republicans. Imagine how disturbing it will be in November, when the calm, grown-up Republicans run footage of the screaming, angry Democrats, and ask, "Are these the people you want to put in charge? They couldn't even design a nomination process they could figure out how to run. What are they going to do when you hand them the US healthcare system?"

See, boys and girls? I told you--politics is fun!

Posted at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (28)

Court says Texas Social Services Had No Right to Seize Kids of FLDS Sect

Six weeks after descending on the Yearning For Zion ranch in Eldorado, Texas, Child Protective Services has been told that the taking was legally inappropriate. The agency, according to the Court, did not provide sufficient evidence that the children removed were in any immediate danger.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the agency erred in treating the entire "compound" as a single household. Each family must be considered a single household. And, despite the FLDS's teachings on both plural marriage and young betrothals, the Court ruled that:

The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.

Although the ruling reverses the former orders to take and keep the children in state custody, it is unclear what the next step will be. The lower court judge has 10 days to vacate her order.

Posted at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Federal Appeals Court Cuts the Legs Out From Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

In a ruling sure to have far-reaching implications for the military and the country, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the military must demonstrate that an individual service member's homosexuality represents a danger to morale and that discharging that individual is the only remedy to restore it.

While the Court did not explicitly strike down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy devised by the Clinton administration, it opens the door for an avalanche of lawsuits to go forth based on discharges prompted by the rule.

The District Court judge had turned back Major Margaret Witt's lawsuit, which sought a remedy against her separation from the service. Witt, after 18 years of service, was given an honorable discharge after being discovered in an affair with a civilian woman. In 2006, District Judge Ronald B. Leighton ruled that the finding in Lawrence v. Texas did not affect the status of the military policy. Now, the appeals Court says it does.

The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas was criticized at the time by pro-family groups as being likely to have far-reaching ramifications for many aspects of American life. The two appeals court rulings handed down this week strongly suggest those critics may have been right. However, should this ruling be pursued to a higher court, it will be necessary to make a determination that some part of the current regulation is unconstitutional.

Whether homosexual conduct is a protected right of privacy across the board is likely to be a serious issue for the Supreme Court in the near future. Thus, who the individual will be that has the opportunity to appoint the next Supreme Court justice(s) should be on the minds of the voters this fall as they weigh their voting options.

Posted at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)

May 20, 2008

US Currency Discriminates Against the Blind, Federal Appeals Court Rules

In a case that could become a major headache for the government, a Federal appeals court has ruled that the lack of tactile differentiation among the bills of the US currency system effectively denies meaningful access to currency to the disabled.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals found that the currency design must be changed in order to comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides that:

no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity that either receives Federal financial assistance or is conducted by any Executive agency or the United States Postal Service.

The Court was unconvinced by the government's argument that the coping mechanisms already used by the blind rendered them equally able to meaningfully use the currency as it is. It also rejected the claim that the costs of altering the currency to comply with the Act would be too high to justify it.

The government has 90 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, though it could choose instead to take the intermediate step of appealing to the full appeals court.

Posted at 05:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Memo to Obama: This is Politics, Not High Tea

Recently, Michelle Obama has been on the campaign trail, and some of the things she has said have rubbed certain commentators the wrong way.

For example, when she said that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” alarm bells went off all over talk-radio and the conservative end of the blogosphere. Rush Limbaugh wondered aloud why this woman, who has been the beneficiary of one of the finest educations available in this country, had not been proud before. And callers from all over the nation seethed with anger at the notion that it was somehow inappropriate to have been proud of America before Barack Obama appeared on the stage.

The Tennessee GOP didn’t overlook those comments, either. It introduced a video entitled “Proud,” featuring Mrs. Obama’s remarks, interspersed with some Tennesseans talking about what made them “proud” of America. Not surprisingly, the rise of Barack Obama is not among them.

On ABC, Senator Obama groused that it wasn’t fair for the GOP to bother with Michelle, apparently merely because she is his wife:

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "I've been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I've said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That's what they do.

But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable," he said.

Really? Why?

Is it “unacceptable” to talk trash about Bill Clinton when he says something stupid on the campaign trail? Or is that different—because he’s a man, and he can defend himself?

Some may find Obama’s defense of his “better half” rather quaint and chivalrous. But it flies in the face of everything feminism--all feminism--has ever wanted for women. She’s not being attacked for being a woman—as, arguably, Mrs. Clinton often is. Instead, she is being ridiculed for something she said that was both impolitic and flatly ridiculous. The idea that she has not been proud of America before is disturbing. The fact that she may really mean it is more so.

But it is her statement—hers to defend or deny, hers on which to be engaged in the battle of ideas in this political season. She is giving as good as she gets, and she should not need her man to step up and shield her from the consequences of her independent actions.

Feminism (the egalitarian kind that has allegedly triumphed over the "little woman" condescension of the past--the kind even Mother Phyllis Schlafly lives in and celebrates) is supposed to be about leveling the playing field, and not treating women like “girls.” When the new guy in the political game has already climbed the ladder past the older, more experienced woman, and then starts calling professional women “sweetie,” it can’t improve his image to put a protective arm around his wifey and tell everyone to stop being so mean to her.

The problem women have in Obama is that he says what they want to hear, but he is still a man. Feminism of the radical sort would love to see a woman in the Oval (after all, it's shaped like a womb, isn't it?). But the sad fact of liberal and pragmatic feminism is that, as long as there is a man in the running--someone who already has a good shot at carrying the feminist's water--they will fall for the tall, dark, handsome devil every single time.

Like Bill Clinton before him, Obama is the kind of man Democratic women like--and, like Bill Clinton before him, women's advocacy groups will inevitably side with him, rather than her, because deep down they believe that only a man can really make a difference. He can clear the path for Hillary, but he cannot let her go first.

Mrs. Obama has entered the game. She is a player. She makes speeches and says things, and all those things are fair game. This may well be a shot across the bow the Obama camp feels the need to make. It needs to clarify where the boundaries are, before the wider press and the people get a look at Michelle Obama’s thesis, in which she wh