And Justice For All...

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented Wednesday on some of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”

Thus I urge you, if you wish to discuss the following with anyone, please take precautions. Close the blinds. Go into the bathroom. Shut the door. Turn on the shower. Speak in hushed tones. In fact, read no further until you are sure that you were not followed, you have swept the room for bugs, and are certain you are alone.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right. Let me repeat that. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right.

I think even a second grader in our public school system understands the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Sonia Sotomayor is hailed as being empathetic by the Left. Empathy is the last quality you want in a judge. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. Justice does not know whether you are rich or poor, white or black, tall or short, male or female. Justice demands that all are held accountable to the law and all are equal under the law. This is not Sonia Sotomayor’s position.

Her position is that her experience as a female Latino leads her to better decisions than say a white guy. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” Can you imagine Justice Roberts stating that his experience as a white male leads him to make better conclusions that a Latino woman? He would immediately be targeted as a racist, and rightly so.

We should not be surprised that such an outright racist, anti-constitutionalist was Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. After all, he sees the Constitution as a constraint and the “fundamental flaw” of our nation.

Obama: “As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that… I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and -- and that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Thomas Jefferson did not see restraints on government as negative. To him and the rest of the Founders this was essential in order to protect individual liberty! “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Obama: “This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice” For President Obama, the Supreme Court has yet to provide justice because justice would be “redistributive change.” Justice would be taking wealth from those who have worked for and acquired it and giving it to the poor. For President Obama, justice is siding with one side because of race, gender, or social status regardless of the law or the Constitution. For President Obama, justice is whatever he and Jeremiah Wright determine it to be.

The Founding Fathers would be saddened today, but not shocked. They predicted the era we now live in. Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Charles Hammond August 18th, 1821. “It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

The Morality of Dissent

“I want him to fail!” With these words radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh sparked a nationwide controversy. But has anyone who is condemning his remarks stopped for a minute and asked themselves why Mr. Limbaugh or anyone would want the President of the United States to fail? Furthermore, is it wrong to want President Obama or any leader to fail or should we always support our leaders one hundred percent?

The first thing one needs to ask is what does President Obama succeeding mean? If it means that the federal government will take over a vast majority of the private sector, then one would be right in hoping that President Obama fails in implementing the agenda he set out to achieve. Government running anything never works. History is replete with examples of this. So far it has been barely one hundred days and the federal government now has major stakes in all aspects of our economy, from housing, to the banks, to the auto companies. Do we seriously think that federal bureaucrats will be able to run these industries and companies better than people who have been doing so all their lives?

Before you hastily point out that we are in a recession precisely because the private sector failed, consider this. The private sector has not been running their businesses and industries for years. Instead, the economy has been indirectly run by Washington lawmakers through their erroneous regulation. Let’s look at every aspect of the economy that failed, igniting the recession we are currently mired in, starting with the collapse of the housing market.

During the Carter administration Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.), designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

In other words, banks were forced by law to make loans to people who could not afford them. In order to get the monthly payment down to where they could qualify banks came up with all sorts of sub-prime, interest only, ARM mortgage options (referred to as “predatory lending” by the very people who passed the law requiring it). Suddenly, there was a tremendous influx of people who could now “afford” to buy a home. This created a false demand in the housing market, which made housing prices skyrocket. (Ironically the CRA was passed with the intention of making housing affordable. In the end, it did just the opposite). As long as the “values” continued to rise, those loans were “worth” something. People could borrow against them, sell them, or what have you. But when the payments started to rise dramatically, suddenly the bottom fell out when thousands could no longer afford the monthly payments and simply stopped paying. The false demand went away and housing values plummeted or reset to where they should have been all along.

At the same time, the domestic auto companies were starting to struggle. For years they had built cars that Americans wanted, cars that met individuals’ needs or egos. Americans have a love affair with their cars. It comes with the American spirit, that yearning to be free, to be self reliant, to be independent rather than dependant on anything, especially public transportation. The reasons Americans buy cars are as diverse as the people themselves. Some buy muscle cars because they like to go fast. Some buy trucks or SUVs to haul their family, groceries, or a boat. Others use their vehicles for business, some purely for pleasure. No matter how they use their vehicles, one thing remains consistent. The majority of Americans buy vehicles, not as simply a means to get from point A to point B, but primarily as a statement of their individuality. Your car says something about you and for years the Big Three made cars that said something about the people that bought them. They designed cars that the consumer wanted and they designed cars based on the premise of a cheap, abundant source of fuel.

But then the government started to get involved. CAFÉ standards, emissions, and fuel economy regulations were passed, but it didn’t end there. Every year new regulations came out and the auto makers had to redesign their cars to comply. Every year the federal government refused to allow oil companies who are experts at exploring and drilling for oil explore and drill the vast quantities of oil that resided under our land and off of our coasts. We became dependent on foreign sources from nations that really didn’t like us very much for any number of reasons. Finally, the day came when supply could not keep up with demand and gas prices shot through the roof. Americans stopped buying as many cars. Gas was expensive and their mortgages were becoming difficult to keep up with. Besides, who wanted to go through all the hassle and frustration inherent when dealing with the DMV to get another license and registration? (Imagine healthcare being run like that).

President Obama has said he wants to “return the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners.” What does he mean by this? If the first one hundred days are any indication, he wants to confiscate it from the people who earned it and give it to those who did not. For example, the bondholders who invested in Chrysler to the tune of 25 billion dollars were forced by the Obama administration to give up their claim on their investment to pennies on the dollar and got ten percent of the company. The federal government invested about 10 billion and received 35 percent. The UAW, who didn’t hold any bonds, received 55 percent of Chrysler. Is that fair? Is that right? Who is going to ever trust a bond again?

The Obama administration has meticulously attacked the private sector in the United States. Executives are now scared to fly their private jets for fear of PR repercussions. Orders for jets are being cancelled. People who work for Lear or Cessna are losing their jobs. Companies are afraid to throw conventions or getaways for their employees or customer to thank them for their hard work or loyalty because of PR repercussions. The hotel and travel industry is laying off hundreds of thousands as a result.

Do I want this to fail? Absolutely! I cannot support something that I know will not work. I cannot support something that I know is causing harm to millions of Americans. I cannot support something that I know will saddle my children and grandchildren with massive debts and tax burdens.

I do not want Obama to continue to implement policies that are destroying the foundation of this country so that he can “remake America.” He does not have the Constitutional right to do so. I do not want people to continue to lose their jobs. I do not want government to run our economy into the ground any more. Centralized planning never works. Just ask Russia. After seeing what he is doing, it would be immoral and illogical to not oppose President Obama. Yet, like cultists blindly following their leader, millions of Americans refuse to ask whether what President Obama is doing is actually good for them and their family.

I believe it was Hillary Clinton who said “we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Where is that cry now? There are not many out there with the guts to declare it.