The Souter Replacement Battle

Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take: "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. He hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job since he is not looking for someone to fulfill that vow but someone whom he knows willfully violates it. That is what Liberalism requires, judicial activism, not justice.

It is easy to contrast the above oath with BO's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court Justice. According to his White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx, along with several million other people -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts." In other words, her rulings should be tainted with her personal feelings rather than actual legal precedent.

Mr. Obama says law and precedent should only determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases" but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

Please keep in mind that Supreme Court cases just happen to constitute that 5% and nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For those hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule, not law. I think that is because liberal Socialists wish to change our country in ways that normal law will not allow but judicial activism can accomplish without legislation. Examples: Homosexual marriage, Equal Opportunity laws that emphasize not equality but favor for minorities, Abortion on demand, Social Security and Healthcare monies spent in non-citizens, etc.



So, what's so wrong with empathy vs. legal precedent? Not much, really. Empathy is fine and good for all decent people to employ, including Supreme Court justices. But it shouldn’t be the basis of all decisions, certainly not the law of the land.

Mr. Obama has something very specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants not just the justice's oath to be rewritten but that judges to administer their justice with direct respect to persons. They must be partial, not impartial to whomever they choose and so on.

This is not really open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The assumed reasoning here is dubious at best. Obama and Sotomayor assume firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or African-Americans or gays or whatever automatically require justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense elevated to astronomic heights. Surely Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any other justice currently on the bench. How's that working out for liberals? Why don’t they love him?

Naturally, liberals say anytime you disagree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas, abortion, or anything else, it's because you just don't care as much as they do about - minorities or women or ... That is why they've aggressively demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor which is an arrogantly stupid assumption. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Policy preferences are the province of Legislatures despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that courts are "where policy is made." That is where Socialist WANT policy made since they cannot control all the legislatures in any republic.

Just as importantly, who keeps saying conservatives are against judicial empathy? I think we are all for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution.

When the law (Constitution) means siding with a poor black man, great. If it means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays, gun owners, single mothers, and immigrants. We should all rejoice when justices actually fulfill their oaths giving everyone fair hearings, even if that's not how Obama and his minions see it.



PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, 05/27/09

Obama Climatolotgists

On his Green Hell blog, Steve Milloy details the climate profiteers on Obama's ERAB, beginning with Al Gore's pals at Kleiner Perkins.

President Obama's so-called Economic Recovery Advisory Board held its first quarterly meeting today — it was a spectacle of the sort of self-dealing and corruption that we may rightly to become routine if cap-and-trade legislation passes.

After the meeting, CNBC's Becky Quick interviewed ERAB board member John Doerr, head of the venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins — that's right, the very same Kleiner Perkins that has invested more than $1 billion in 40 cap-and-trade-dependent business ventures and that has Al Gore as a partner. . . .

[W]e have no reason to believe that Doerr wouldn't say and do absolutely anything to help ram through cap-and-trade legislation that would enable his firm to steal billions of dollars from consumers and taxpayers through bogus Al Gore-endorsed "green technologies."

If you're thinking that Doerr is only one voice on the ERAB and that less-biased heads will prevail, think again. Here are the other ERAB members and their positions on cap-and-trade:

• Austan Goolsbee as staff director and chief economist (Obama administration);
• William H. Donaldson, SEC Chair, 2003-05 (has spoken in support of climate legislation;
• Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., president and CEO, TIAA-CREF (TIAA-CREF promotes climate change legislation through shareholder activism and possibly stands to benefit from "green" investments);
• Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO, UBS (sells climate change-related financial products);
• David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University (Yale supports climate change legislation);
• Mark T. Gallogly, founder and managing partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P. (early Obama supporter);
• Penny Pritzker, chairwoman, Pritzker Realty Group (Obama campaign finance chairman);
• Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE (parent company of NBC News) (lobbying for climate legislation through USCAP);
• John Doerr, partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers (lobbying for climate legislation through Al Gore);
• Jim Owens, chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc. (lobbying for climate change legislation through Al Gore);
• Monica C. Lozano, publisher & chief executive officer, La Opinion (her newspaper endorsed Obama);
• Charles E. Phillips, Jr., president, Oracle (wants to use Oracle technology to ration electricity to consumers through a "smart grid");
• Anna Burger, chairwoman, Change to Win (union group that supports green jobs);
• Richard L. Trumka, secretary-treasurer, AFL-CIO (the union has joined with greens to lobby for climate legislation);
• Laura D'Andrea Tyson, dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley (Obama supporter who has advocated climate change legislation);
• Martin Feldstein, professor of Economics, Harvard (opposes cap-and-trade)

So of the 16 members of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, only one (Martin Feldstein) opposes cap-and-trade. At least six expect direct financial benefits from cap-and-trade. The remaining members are either Obama supporters or union representatives. Taxpayers, consumers and non-rent-seeking businesses have been left out in the cold.

05/20 01:30 PM

Terrorist Attacks

I do not see our congress nor the retards in the Whitehouse doing anything to actually proactively protect citizens within the USA. It is most unfortunate that we have done such damage to our Airline industry through utter reactive stupidity such as removal of shoes, searching every (any set number) and limiting what can be put aboard bags after searching them within the airports and otherwise making flight uncomfortable and unprofitable. After more than 25 years with the FAA, I can readily understand why these things happen as the Agency long ago stopped hiring Aviators to oversee aviation. All government boils down to the lowest possible common denominator. The proof is in the whitehouse now. One truly serious blow to any major airport and our nation will be under emergency mandated military law wherein no civil freedoms will exist at all. That should give BO and his fellow travelers all the excuse they need to complete their socialistis takeover. There are lots of aviation minded people who are just as equally sure the scenario must happen soon. An even greater concern for me is, "What will the reactions include?"  Will it only be martial law, will we be asked to surrender all weapons, will all travel be restricted, will we all be forced to carry and show passports even within our  own country? Myriad  questions arise. And we have no public ability to do anything about whatever our captors desire to do, to us, or with us.

Keep your powder dry. Especially if you llive in a large city or populated area. When transportation becomes limited, so will food and all other commodities.

 

Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie 'Munich' was based".

He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.   He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.

 

Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.

 

Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.   Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on boarded.

He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!

Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved.   In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.

 

Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e.,Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos), big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc. It will also be in rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).

The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

 

Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts...  The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like ' global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.

 

He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East.These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.

 

Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON. So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel's, Irelands, and England's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

 

Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out.  In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase!

In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

 

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and  kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there.. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)  He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel. Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone?

Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

 

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off everyone's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to them by phone? You need to have a plan.

 

If you believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send this to every concerned parent or guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whatever and whomever. Nothing will happen if you choose not to do so, but in the event it does happen, this particular email will haunt you..."I should have sent this to..... ", but I didn't believe it and just deleted it as so much trash from The Blue Eye View!!!

 

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Even in high-school, I was considered a political conservative but when asked to explain myself, I said that I opposed Jim Crow laws, believed workers were entitled to make a decent wage and work in a safe environment, and that American citizens shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their race, religion or national origin. Those things seemed self evident to me, appropriate goals for everyone and it used to define liberal political views. No more as today’s’ liberals are socialist and libertines.

 

Of course, some of my friends were liberals; most were indifferent to politics, same as today. Interestingly, the best students, the achievers, not just the highest GPA but those who took solid science and math courses, were almost all conservative minded. Even those once most liberal have quit admitting it because they don’t believe members of particular minority groups deserve advantages denied others, that illegal aliens aren’t entitled to anything but deportation, that being devout Christian doesn’t make you a bad person, and that capitalism works while socialism not only doesn’t work but most often turns into tyranny. In my generation, these have always been mainstream beliefs.

 

I honestly don’t know why there seems to be so many liberals today and can’t imagine why they have such a lousy agenda but I have a theory. Liberals aren't born that-a-way, any more than homosexuals are, they're made, by Governmental policies and educational indoctrination. Here are some of my theories. See if you agree or not.

 

The “Great Society” of  Lyndon Johnson institutionalized most of black America into government run financial giveaways (now referred to as “entitlements”) and also managed to demonize marriage, whether intentional or not, until 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Then government began handouts to the educational system resulting in mass ignorance (because equality of result was mandated rather than equality of opportunity). And most recently government has taken control of the financial system and markets resulting in trillions of dollars in personal and governmental debt which can only be repaid or controlled through even more governmental intervention.

 

Roughly 30 years ago, supposedly because of budget cuts, a great many people were released from insane asylums. They wound up living in the streets (which explains homeless people though Dems would have you believe those are normal people who simply lost their jobs.) It became almost impossible to get those poor souls back into institutions where they could be fed, clothed and given meds because ACLU lawyers fought for their rights to starve, freeze, and use the sidewalks of your city as their combination bedroom, living room and bathroom. That’s another segment though largely confined to the two coasts. Could be it’s something in the water.

 

Then there are those graduates of Governmental Public Schools indoctrinated for 18 years in every “lesson” with hypocrisy, meaningless liberal pap, and stupid presumptions not supported by actual science or even experience. Bombarding young skulls full of mush with a continuous stream of indoctrination from age 4 to age 23, is also known as "public education". In fact, a great many of our current crop of congressmen are graduates of the public school system; Pelagrosi, Reid, BoBo, Frankus, Durbin, Chris Dudd, Feinkelstein, Itty Bitty Biden, Kennedy, The Specter, The Shmuckster, Liarman, Leakey, Mother Murtha, etc. Proving the point is that they are regularly re-elected despite their frequent publicly demonstrated stupidity. The truth is, you have to be crazy or truly stupid to vote for most of those people,

 

Here’s an example: In a critical thinking class the text discusses questions the critical thinker asks before making a decision. In one question the text chooses, a critical thinker should investigate fuel mileage before buying a car. (Nothing wrong there.) But then the text’s answer specifies critical thinkers should investigate fuel mileage by asking if the car takes E85 (ethanol) fuel which has nothing to do with gas mileage (nothing positive anyway) but only the liberal position that ethanol doesn't contribute to global warming but gasoline from crude oil does. The text also ignores the costs of ethanol.

 

Governments, which rarely do anything well, should NEVER be involved in schools. Why is it our responsibility to pay for children to be indoctrinated? If the government were to be removed from all levels of education, the free market and charity would take over again just as it once did. Businesses could open general education schools offering specific training tracks such as The General Motors Institute of Technology for auto engineering (and Ford, etc.). Churches, Charities, even "Community Groups" could reopen public schools or offer grants for the "poor" to attend schools run by business. Home schooling is the ideal through high school but for those that can’t have a parent at home; we need suitable free market, religious tolerant, government free options. Even the Military runs good colleges - West Point, Annapolis, The Air Force Academy - but these are institutionalized indoctrinations not intended for public training.

 

I gladly educate my own children and am more than happy to donate to my church and local charities to contribute to the education of other children, just not in the government indoctrination camps! For the moment we are still allowed by our overlords to home school or private school our children though I doubt we will be permitted that liberty for very much longer. Home schooled kids dominate the SAT, CEEB, etc. and are always at the top of all academic lists. That embarrasses government indoctrination mills.

 

Regardless, my property taxes remain the same whether I have a child or not, and whether my children attend government school or not. Besides, by what authority does government compel me to pay for a service that I do not use and find morally repulsive? Why should I allow my children to be taught that abortion doesn’t really kill a human being so it can’t be murder and that homosexuality is a normal (despite contrary scientific opinion), desirable lifestyle?

 

If our liberal socialists aren’t simply insane, they most assuredly are hypocrites. Why else would they insist that spending eight years bashing President Bush and comparing him, Cheney and Rumsfeld to the Nazi High Command was patriotic but merely questioning President Obama’s qualifications, judgment and policies makes one a racist, especially when facts are cited? It’s just another example of Government Indoctrination at work.

 

Why, between 2000 and 2006 when the GOP had control of the Oval Office, the House and the Senate on those rare occasions they didn’t do the bidding of Ted Kennedy, John Murtha or Charles Schumer, were they condemned as divisive? However, when Obama and his left-wing cronies rushed through a trillion dollar stimulus package and a pork-filled budget over Republican objections, nobody in their crowd cried “Foul!” or insisted on reaching across the aisle for a group hug?  

 

Why do I say they are mentally ill? Because one has to be in order to treat economics like a New Age self-help book. Excuse me, but when tax revenues drop 30% in a month and the budget deficit for Obama's first year will approach $2 trillion, you need to cut spending, not increase it. Tax, spend, borrow, spend, print, spend, "invest", spend ... when the national debt is projected to be $23.9 trillion in ten years and the annual debt service will be $1 trillion per year beginning in 2019. Insanity must be the rule for liberals, not the exception, even in Washington. How else explain a supposed one-third of Americans believe that Barack Obama’s policies will save our economy?

 

I find it bizarre that people who pooh-pooh the idea that Christ raised the dead or walked on water are totally convinced that a guy who’s tossing trillions of dollars into the air is a financial miracle worker. Talk about blind faith! Don’t think the GOP doesn’t share in the condemnation, either. That’s what the last two elections were all about, Conservatives nowhere cared to vote, for anyone, not even GOP, since they equated them to liberals.

 

The recent hub-bub over the Gitmo prison also make me wonder if, in a nicer, kinder world, might not liberals be housed in a warm soft places where they could be kept safely away from sharp objects and voting booths? Their notion of what constitutes torture is silly. In most of the world, cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head, throwing Anne Frank in an oven or having to listen to Chris Matthews, is torture. It ain’t playing loud music, keeping people awake, making them share space with a caterpillar or even dousing them with water. In order to get them to cough up information that might prevent another 9/11 or keep American soldiers from being ambushed is it really torture if it doesn’t cause pain?

 

Only a liberal or socialists bent on the destruction of America could (or would) confuse actual torture with college hazing. I know there are members of fraternities who could share more harrowing tales than those Muslims with their Korans, their three squares and their personal prayer mats at Gitmo. Funny, we never hear of any protests of Cuban, Chinese, Korean, or Iranian torture! And those guys really know how.

 

I’d also like to know when did liberals decide that homosexuals get the final word when it comes to matters of morals, values or anything else for that matter? It’s bad enough that some self-righteous academics kept military recruiters off college campuses, pretending that their objections stemmed from the army’s don’t ask/don’t tell policy, and not simply because left-wingers hate anything and everything that smacks of patriotism.

 

In much the same way, Leftists have led a crusade against the Boy Scouts of America because they oppose the policy of not allowing homosexuals to be Scout leaders and take young boys into the woods on camping trips. Sensible people regard that as a sensible policy. It’s not to suggest that every gay man is a pedophile (Thank God), but simply recognizes that most pedophiles are gay men. Just as every Muslim is not a terrorist, just about every terrorist these days is a Muslim. Why then, should parents take unnecessary chances with their most precious children just so homosexuals won’t have their feelings hurt?  Fortunately, the BSA is a private, not public nor governmental organization, so is still able to make those decisions. Our public schools teach homosexuality is nothing but a normal, everyday, sexual lifestyle choice whether the public or science believes it or not.

 

Socialist Liberals don’t really care about homosexuals, anyway, unless they themselves happen to be gay. The truth is liberals rarely serve in the military now that service is voluntary and they don’t usually let their kids join the Boy Scouts, not because they’re offended by the aforementioned policy, but because the group fosters faith-based and patriotic ideals. God and country are anathema to liberals, until another 9/11 happens.

 

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, MO  www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 05/12/09

 

 

 

Socialist Statists and National Preservation

Friday, May 08, 2009

Immigration and Self-Preservation

by Mike Adams

I will be the first to admit to being annoyed by automated phone instructions that direct me to press "one" for English and "two" for Spanish. It is more than a minor inconvenience. It is a matter of principle. If immigrants are to make a meaningful contribution to society they must do a little work before they are given all of society's benefits. That includes taking the time to learn English. It's the same logic that was used to put me through a semester of pledging before being admitted to the ranks of the Sigma Chi fraternity in 1986.

But the statist says he does not want American institutions to teach immigrants our language, our history, and our culture. He says he does not want to do so because of his commitment to the religion of moral relativism. He says that to do so would send the wrong message that American culture is somehow better than other cultures.

Of course, the statist is being less than truthful. The very fact that we are flooded with immigrants shows that we are superior to other countries like Mexico. The fact that past nations like East Germany have had to build walls to keep people in, not out, shows they are aware of their inferiority. We don't need to worry about hurting their collective feelings.

So the statist may as well admit that it is not out of principle – as if moral relativism can, indeed, be principled – that he makes immigration so easy. The reason is one of raw power. He wants more votes in order to advance the statist agenda.

The statist may, from time to time, claim that his stance on immigration is pragmatic rather than principled. This is at best an unprincipled distortion of the truth. He cannot claim that amnesty is a "solution" to the "problem" of filling low wage jobs that poor people will not fill. It is his stance on immigration that drives down wages in the first place. Surely one cannot claim credit for solving the problems he created himself.

It is hardly surprising that the statist mentality leads not just to a desire to erode borders but, also, to a desire to erode our national defense. Those who are unwilling to see our nation as superior are hardly in a position to argue for military superiority. The same mentality that leads to faith in moral relativism leads to faith in the United Nations. But George Washington saw things differently. In 1793, he said the following:

There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

At a time when America is flirting with statist policies, other nations are moving beyond their own borders in search of resources, which, if obtained, could drastically change our standing in the world. Russia is claiming the North Pole as its own in order to obtain more oil. China is making contracts with Latin America in pursuit of the same goal.

Meanwhile, the statist is unconcerned. America is only five percent of the world's population. But it consumes twenty-five percent of the world's energy supply. The statist "solution" to the "problem" of such global inequality is to make America poorer.

This statist mentality is so pervasive that it threatens our economy, our national security, and every aspect of our individual liberty. Its advance has been made possible, not just by Democrats, but also by unprincipled Republicans. Herbert Hoover made FDR's New Deal possible with protectionist policies following the stock market crash of 1929.

George W. Bush has similarly enabled President Obama with his TARP policies of 2008. His statement that he "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" will live in infamy. It has secured his place in history as the Republican Jimmy Carter – a president so inept that he took down an entire party for a whole generation.

But thank God groups like the Young America's Foundation and the Leadership Institute are working to produce a new generation of conservatives who will help rebuild this nation based on conservative principles. And thank God Mark Levin has written Liberty and Tyranny to show them just how to do it.

I believe Mark Levin is correct in asserting that we must limit the Supreme Court's judicial review power. We must do so by establishing legislative veto power over Court decisions with a supermajority vote of both houses of Congress. That would be more in line with the Framers intent than the status quo.

I believe Mark Levin is also right in asserting that we must end the monopoly of government education by applying anti-trust laws to the National Education Association. We must do the same for the American Federation of Teachers.

Whatever we do, we must act soon. For, it was Ronald Reagan who warned us: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Source: Mark Levin (2009) Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. New York: Simon and Schuste

Posted by The Blue Eye View

CIA Prisoner Exchange - "rendition"

The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.
Under executive orders recently issued by Obama, the CIA still has authority to carry out what is known as "renditions", secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity while discussing the legal reasoning.
"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

What, we aren't allowed to tell other countries how they are to handle "detainees, prisoners of war, or enemy combatants"?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na- rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story?page=1

..extraordinary rendition, in which the United States outsources its interrogation of international terrorism suspects to countries that practice torture--but it was the Clinton administration that pioneered this supposedly despicable practice, mainly because Clinton is such a coward.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/clinton .htm

Clinton Administration used the rendering practice with the avowed expectation that suspects would be tortured, or worse. The Clintons thought it is OK if another country perfoms what is called torture in our country but not if we are to perform what is laughingly referred to as torture here, even if done to those outside the country and outside the law. Why, it's immoral, don't you know? Relativistically speaking, of course.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110 006406

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President William Jefferson "Blythe" Clinton.
In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."  So why are there so many prisoners in Gitmo? Has Egypt gone out of business?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203re s20051206.html          

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_P2rm0HBdM&feature=related   is about the Japanese handling of prisoners, "The Bridge over the River Kwai" one of the best WWII movies ever made. Highly recommended viewing.

We prosecuted Nazi and Jap military for mistreatment of prisoners of war because of the Geneva convention. There were NO prosecutions of military from countries that were NOT signees of the Convention. There were no prosecutions of any Arab nations, then or now. There have been no prosecutions of any African countries, then or now. Why then, is America being singled out for allegations of torture? I believe it is because we are foolish enough to allow Liberal, Leftist, Socialist media reporters into and report upon our military units, camps, prisons, etc. which isn't allowed in the vast majority of the world. Worldwide Socialisms' FIRST duty is to destroy Western Civilization, Freedom, and its chief supporter, America, so it can impose its own brand of religion and control upon the rest of the world. BO is the head cheerleader right now.

 

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO 05/05/09 www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com

 

News Flash

NEWSFLASH this just in

Obama has found the perfect Supreme Court candidate.

She is an Atheist and 1/2 of the typical white person from middle America and 1/2 a Black Separatist from Chicago.

She is a Transgendered 'Crack Addict' and a Medical Doctor.

She owns a 'Medical Marijuana' shop and leads 'Gay Parades' in San Francisco.

She works part time as a 'Lap and Pole Dancer' at the largest Gay nightclub in America.

She aborts babies in the third trimester and is a staunch defender of the Obama policy in letting babies die without help after 'botched' abortions.

She and Obama have stated that when a woman wants a dead baby - that woman should get a dead baby.

She teaches sex education and ethics at a Local Government High School and emphasizes empathy.

She has been the Obama top 'trusted adviser' on religion, morality and personal ethics.

Obama states she will help him bring a true representation of the best of American Patriots to the SCOTUS and help with the Democrat ideal of 'True Diversity'.

The Threat at Home by Horowitz - Wonderfully accurate !!

Monday, May 04, 2009

The Threat at Home

by David Horowitz  in Townhall.com

My parents were members of the American Communist Party and I was part of the progressive left which was the communist left and which has grown ominously large toda1y, and has seen its candidate elected to the White House. I was the editor of the largest magazine of the new left, which was organized by the children of communists, so-called 'red diaper babies' like myself. We regarded America as the enemy. We began as an isolated political minority, but the hate America crowd has grown alarmingly in size since then. Today, nobody is embarrassed about slandering their own country even in time of war, and this includes our current President who recently apologized for the actions of his country to Latin American communists, Jew-haters and self-declared enemies, such as Venezuela's Chavez and Nicarauguan jefe Daniel Ortega, a degenerate who molested his own daughter.

In Obama's presence Ortega went into a rant against America claiming that our government conducted a "terrorist" war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, when in fact American pressure forced an end to the Sandinista dictatorship and the re-institution of a free press and open elections. What was President Obama's response to the Ortega attack?"Well, I was only six years old at the time." In other words, an apology for our "terrorist" acts against the Marxist dictatorship. This is disgraceful and also dangerous.

To answer your question as to how I arrived at the views I now hold, during the early 1979s I was working with the Black Panther Party whose leaders were the heroes of all progressives, who took them to be the victims of American oppression and police brutality. As I soon discovered, the Panthers were, in fact, criminals and murderers and not the victims the left claimed them to be. In 1974, they killed my friend Betty Van Patter, which brought all this home to me. The left protected the Panther murderers and made apologies for their other criminal deeds. Today, campus progressives invite the killers to their schools and give them ten-thousand-dollar speaking fees to denounce America as a "racist" country and criminal nation, which is what progressives want to hear.

The second principal cause of my change of heart was the Vietnam War. I was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement of the time. Of course, these anti-war movements of the left aren't really anti-war movements in any meaningful sense of the word. They are anti-American movements, designed to make America lose whatever war it is engaged in. If there had been a peace movement during the lead up to the war in Iraq, for example, there would have been at least one demonstration in front of the Iraq Embassy calling on Saddam Hussein to obey the U.N. resolutions and the arms control agreements he had signed. But there wasn't. Not one. The so-called anti-war activists were not demonstrating for peace. They were demonstrating against America and its efforts to hold Saddam to the UN peace agreements he had signed.

During the Vietnam years, the goal of the so-called anti-war movement was to cause America to lose the war-- and that includes every leader of the anti-Vietnam left -- John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and so on. The anti-Vietnam movement wanted America to lose because for the left, for progressives, we are the bad guys: America, the oppressor. America did lose the Vietnam as a result of our protests. The anti-American anti-war movement forced America to give up the fight for freedom in Vietnam, to retreat from the field of battle, to withdraw overnight. It was the same prescription that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed and the congressional Democrats wanted for Iraq. Fortunately they failed, and consequently Iraq is not ruled by terrorists today

But in Indo-China the ending was different. Once America quit the field of battle, the Communists proceeded to slaughter two-and a-half million poor Vietnamese and Cambodian peasants – one of the worst genocides in history. But there wasn't a single demonstration by progressives against this atrocity. Bloodbaths are okay if they are committed by progressives of color in the name of "social justice."

From communism to Islamo-fascism, the left in America – as elsewhere – has had a lifelong love affair with tyranny and terror, which is the title of an important book that my Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov has just published. It's called: United in Hate, the Left's Love Affair with Tyranny and Terror. That is who they are. Progressives are adept at speaking the language of peace and love and justice; but these words are just a smokescreen for their real agendas which are search and destroy. Anybody who has ever encountered a progressive up close in any kind of political disagreement knows that this is a hate movement. They hate conservatives; they hate Republicans; they hate white males, and increasingly they hate Christians and Jews. They hated George Bush.

How can you hate George Bush? He may have done a lot of things that you wouldn't have done; but how can you hate the man? But they do. They are haters. Their mouths drip with hate. You can't name a single conservative spokesman from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter, to Sarah Palin to, well, George Bush, who hasn't been stigmatized, slandered, demonized, libeled, and trashed as indecent, beneath humanity, contemptible, toxic, and viral. And yet conservatives continue to call such haters … liberals!

It is conservatives who are actually liberal. We believe that there should be two sides to a question and that when people disagree with us they are often mistaken, and not necessarily evil. I have written a book with Jacob Laksin about universities called One Party Classroom. Among other things, the title highlights the fact that so-called liberals have purged American faculties of conservative voices. It has been the most successful witch-hunt in American history. Conservatives are as rare as unicorns on the faculties of American universities and there isn't a liberal in sight who has expressed concern about this deplorable fact or the mentality that makes it possible.

So-called "liberal" professors will assign books on one side of controversial issues – the leftwing side -- and then ram down students' throats the idea that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist country, which therefore deserves to be attacked by freedom fighters who are mis-labeled "terrorists." If these terrorists happen to commit an unspeakable act every now then, it's only because they are forced to do it by Jews and crusaders who have left them no alternative. What despicable rot. People have been oppressed for thousands of years without resorting to the evil tactics of Islamic "martyrs." Until the Palestinians there has never been a people so in thrall to a death cult -- so culturally and morally sick -- as to murder their own children by strapping bombs to them and telling them to blow up other little children and, if they are lucky enough to be male, they will be rewarded by Allah with seventy-two virgins. How depraved is that? And yet there is not a single Muslim state that denounces the evil behavior of the Palestinians and their Hamas leaders, while the American left supports them.

The avatars of the next Holocaust – Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and the terrorists of Hamas -- are far more open than the Nazis in their determination to kill the Jews. Hitler hid the final solution from the German people. He hid the fact that he wanted to exterminate the Jews because he believed the Germans were too civilized a people to support it. But the Iranians and Hamas and Hizbullah -- they shout it from the rooftops to the cheers of the Palestinians and the Muslim world and Daniel Ortega, and American leftists like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill and their academic "progressive" friends.

Conservatives need to understand this about progressives. They hate you; their malevolence will destroy you if you give them the chance. Look at the performance of the Democratic Party leadership during the Iraq War. America's armed forces were in the field facing enemy fire. The Democrats had authorized the war that sent them into harm's way. But the minute trouble started – three months after hostilities began -- the Democrats pulled out and went into full attack mode against their own country, against their elected commander-in-chief, accusing America of being the aggressor in the war, a criminal nation, an occupier, and torturer.

And how did they explain their about-face? What reason did they give for first authorizing the war and then conducting a propaganda campaign against it – for first supporting their country and then condemning it, for indicting their own country as an aggressor nation conducting an unnecessary war against a country that posed "no threat." (These were the precise terms that Al Gore used to attack his president and his country in his book The Assault on Reason, which was an apt description of the book itself.)

The Democratic leaders explained their betrayal of a war they had authorized by saying that they were lied to, that the President "manipulated the intelligence" to fool them into supporting the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But this was in itself the most obvious and biggest lie of the war. Democrats sit on all the intelligence committees and have access to every intelligence secret America possesses. How could Bush manipulate the intelligence data that John Kerry had on his desk? The answer is: he couldn't.

The Democrats needed this particular lie, however, because they could not admit the real reason for their betrayal. The real reason that Kerry and his colleagues changed their views on the war had nothing to do with the intelligence data or Iraq. It was because a candidate named Howard Dean, who was running on a platform opposing the war, was about to win the Democratic presidential primary as the war moved into its third month. That was the real and only reason why John Kerry turned against the war and for the second time in his wretched career stabbed America's fighting men and women in the field in the back. For five years while American troops were fighting the terrorists in Iraq, the Democratic leadership conducted a propaganda war against them, showing that they were perfectly willing to risk the lives and safety of our troops for political gains for their party. Shame on them.

You can't conduct a campaign saying that America is the aggressor in a war without encouraging the enemy and increasing his strength. You can't destroy national security programs by leaking them to the New York Times and defending the leaks, without endangering American lives. You can't conduct an open-ended campaign to define America as a criminal nation without sapping Americans' ability to defend themselves in a dangerous world with enemies who believe that murdering Americans is a fast-track to the kingdom of heaven. But that is what progressives and the Democratic leadership have done – and they are same individuals who are running our nation today.

 

CO2 is not a Pollutant nor a Danger to Life on Earth

May 4, 2009

Carbon Dioxide by Kerby Anderson

Click on the image to view the video. While Congress is debating cap-and-trade legislation to deal with climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in with their ruling that may have a profound impact on the debate. The EPA published what is called an "endangerment finding" stating that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. So what is wrong with that? First, the EPA has granted to itself unprecedented power. This finding gives the agency power to impose taxes and regulations across the economy. This was done without any legislative input from our elected representatives. So it is effectively "taxation without representation." That's a catchy phrase, I wonder where I've heard that before? Second, the EPA's ruling changes the meaning and intent of the Clean Air Act. Just ask Representative John Dingell (D-MI) who helped write the original act as well as the 1990 revision. He says that the act never was intended to apply to carbon. The major reason for the EPA's action was a ruling two years ago by five Supreme Court justices calling for the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant. Finally, someone needs to say the obvious. So I will say it. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas that is essential for all plant life to exist. And since plants and vegetation are at the bottom of the food chain, it's not really a stretch to say that all of life is ultimately dependent upon there being carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Perhaps it would be helpful to put a few facts on the table. Has carbon dioxide concentration increased? Yes, in the last 150 years, carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million. But it is also worth noting that the oceans emit about 96 percent of all greenhouse gases. When you look at the scientific facts as well as the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is hard to justify the EPA's decision to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

---

Point of View | P.O. Box 30 | Dallas, TX 75221

---

Editorial Comment from the Blue Eye View: Mr. Anderson is exactly right here when he states CO2 is not a pollutant. Since every green plant in the world uses CO2 for fuel, it is silly to assume nothing can be done about the very slight increases measured in a few specific places. Fact, CO2 has NOT been measured all over the globe and is NOT the same percentage in every measurement. The very reason it is refferred to as a greenhouse gas is that GREENHOUSES all over the world introduce CO2 into thier environments to SPEED plant growth. Want to decrease concentrations, increase plants, all of which give off oxygen. YES, that is right, plant trees, increase agricultural production in preasently barren areas. ANd as a side effect, you will also increase rainfall in those areas. Yup, rainforests are self immulating and self-suppying as they suck water out of the ground, exhale it into the atmosphere (along with oxygen) and saturated air then sends it back as precipitation. Agricultural science has known this for at least 200 years. Of course, agricultural growth isn't part of the Environmentalist Agenda.

I do believe the EPA is now being run by the communist minded Environmental Wackos. See above for evidence.

Vote for adults to be elected into congress, vote the Constitutional Party.

Law vs. Moral Values, WE Williams

Law vs. Moral Values
Thursday, April 30, 2009
By Walter E. Williams

A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values.
 
Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct.
 
The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.
 
Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults.
 
When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn't have child-raising "experts" to tell them that "time out" is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.
 
To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted "Senior Citizen Seating." Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.
 
You might be tempted to charge, "Williams, you're a prude!" I'd ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled?
 
Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal's office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.
 
During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn't lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs.
 
Starting in the '60s and '70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and '50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today's pathology on poverty and discrimination.
 
Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become.

Posted by The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO

__________