IN THE BACKWARD WORLD, THE RULE OF LAW IS A COUP D'ETAT

The Hondurans removed their very own OOPS (Official Obama Pal and Soulmate) from the presidency after he repeatedly broke the law in trying to set himself up as dictator for life. The Hondurans' brave actions represent the rule of law and are triumph for democracy.

That is precisely why the reactionariesprogressives, with the Fuehrobama in the lead, disapprove of it so vehemently. After all, they are well under way toward enshrining contempt for the law as the new "rule of law" in the United States. Just ask Maxine Waters, the California brainiac who declared that the legal impeachment of Clinton was a coup d'etat.

She clearly understands these things (and all other things) better than anyone - just check out her sex and skin color!

HOW DARE THEY???

Here I am, I, Obamus Maximus Hisself, channeling my friend Mahmoud's progressive feminine for months now with my all-conquering cosmic mind, and he dares tell me anyways that I'm interfering in Iran's internal affairs?

Time for drastic measures. I think I will weep publicly (we'll use onions to create the illusion of tears) and experience stigmata on my palms (ketchup will do: the media will lap it up). Then I'll reestablish relations with my fellow progressives like Hugo Chav. Then I'll give some of the undeserving American rednecks' money to that outstanding humanist, Bobbie Mug. (Val says I should first learn a few phrases in Zimbabwean, to impress the natives. No sweat, I've got more doctorates around here than Bush could ever imagine!)

Mahmoud, you'll be real sorry when I'm done with you!

SOTOMAYOR AND "EMPATHY"

Appointing judges on the basis of their "empathy" in place of thorough understanding of and respect for the law, sound self-knowledge, humility and just plain humanitarianism is apparently not a new concept. Paul Moreno, at the History News Network, has written a frightening article titled When "Empathy" Goes Awry, in which he details the ironic - and sometimes tragic - ways in which empathy-based appointments had turned out. From Oliver Wendell Holmes who respected little except eugenics to William O. Douglas who was "rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed, and devoured by ambition," the article is a cautionary tale for these postmodern times.

And just to show that there is nothing new under the sun, borking by so-called progressives was alive and well long before Ted Kennedy. In particular, Moreno recounts the 1930 manhandling of Judge Parker:

Self-righteous progressives also abused many good judges whom they incorrectly believed did not meet their “empathy” standard. In 1930 Judge John J. Parker was effectively “borked” by New York Senator Robert F. Wagner.

Moreno's concluding paragraph says it all:

We can hope that President Obama has better luck choosing justices by the standard of “empathy.” But it would be better still if he found some other standard.

Like, maybe, thorough understanding of and respect for the law, sound self-knowledge, humility and just plain humanitarianism...

SILENCING PESKY OPPOSITION, PART 2

Norm Eisen, the Obamite Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, feels that criticism of the "stimulus" plan is inconceivable. He therefore intends to crush dissent by "all persons...exerting influence on the process." (h/t Ed Morrissey) That means you and me.

The full quote is here. (Did a screen capture in case it gets memory-holed.) Read it and weep, people:

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

“Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest—after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

“Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.”

Next, the Obamites will surely be outlawing other forms of criticism, no matter how well founded. Do you object to cap-n-trade, the abomination that even members of The One Party (uh, I mean Democrats) recognize as a "great big tax" that has already proven ineffective in Europe? Obamite reeducation camp for you.

Norm, be happy! Together with The Telegraph, you're in the running for the 2009 PPPAPP, in the correct speech category!

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE GETS THE BETTER OF AN OBAMA SUPPORTER...

...and he is calling for his former idol's resignation. Check out a May 29 article by Ted Rall, who formerly called for a death sentence for George Bush in May 2008 (h/t JammieWearingFool).

Rall's summary of Obama's betrayals, stupidies, lies and other dangerous acts is remarkably complete. One quote from Rall's article says it all - for the rest, go to the article itself:

Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

Trouble is, being a monster and having enough insight to remove oneself from power are two mutually exclusive things. His intent is to drag down into the abyss, though he and the Obamites see this as progress.

Progress, that is, for the elect few, but regression for the endless multitudes.

So the question remains, what do we do now?

PROSPERITY, SOCIALIST-STYLE

This picture from the "bad old days" (i.e. Communist Czechoslovakia) almost brought sentimental tears to my eyes. I remember people (including my mother) going out and standing in line for hours on the strength of a rumor (!) that such-and-such a store will have meat available. At times, people would start staking out their positions in front of the store in the wee hours and get relief from other family members, friends or neighbors in the early morning.



Just thought I would remind my fellow Americans what socialism is really all about...

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE

We all keep thinking that it's coming, and it may well be that the Obamite juggernaut will ram it through. But, as so many sober folks have pointed out (e.g. David Gibberman's article at American Thinker), the best way to go about reform is to think about it first, using all available evidence, and then and only then act.

It might seem intuitively obvious, but we have tons of evidence on how well a centralized system works. The USSR, which was a regime at least as organizationally complex as the USA, had one for 80-some years, and the data are freely available. I offer, for instance, Diane Rowland's and Alexandre V. Telyukov's Soviet Healthcare from Two Perspectives at Health Affairs, which is an in-depth analysis of the system, its structure, its functioning and its financial and human costs. It is a real tale of woe. Among the many tidbits it offers:

"The Soviet maternal mortality rate is over six times the U.S. rate, indicating problems (emphasis mine) with quality of care in maternity hospitals."

Indicating problems, indeed. If this were not so tragic, I would laugh.

These "problem indicators," on a grand scale, are the kind of thing that we can expect if the Obamite health care plan is implemented. But because a single-payer system is basically a single HMO for the whole country, heavily centralized and run by faceless bureaucrats, we the people will have about as much recourse as Soviet citizens did.

Just thought I would mention that...

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

A food fight has developed between Wired Online and California Representative Linda Sanchez (D), who has sponsored H.R. 1966, a.k.a. the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. H.R. 1966 is purportedly designed to prevent cyberbullying of the kind that had driven 13 year-old Megan Meier to suicide. Wired writer David Kravets states that H.R. 1966 “goes way beyond youth cyberbullying…[and] seemingly outlaws logging onto the internet.” In other words, censorship. In her HuffPo response, Rep Sanchez insists that “Congress has no interest in censoring speech, and it will not do so if it passes this bill.”

Under any other administration, I would have said that this is a there-oughta-be-a-law overreaction. Megan Meier’s suicide is tragic, and her persecutress’ behavior inexcusable. But is this really another epidemic requiring prompt government action?

Under this administration, however…

We have already seen that the Obama administration sees freedom of expression (speech, bumper stickers, ideologically diverse radio and Internet, tea parties, etc.), indeed civil rights in general, as a major threat – not to the Republic, mind you, but to The One and The One Party. And Congress has proved to be Obama's willing handmaiden in undercutting the Constitution. So Rep. Sanchez' reassurance that Congress does not want to censor speech sounds a little too much like Obama's claims that he doesn't want to run the banks or GM. (Hint: they do, and he does...)

In my view, H.R. 1966 has major implications for our constitutional rights. Now, its language may not specifically state what David Kravets reads in it, but the resolution itself is a kind of ideological earmark. It alerts the community organizers and other eager-beaver manipulators among us to yet another potential venue for expanding their control. If H.R. 1966 does not pass, the idea will sit and fester, eventually reappearing in different garb. If it is passed, it will quickly experience mission creep to encompass anything and everything that the gauleiters of The One Party find objectionable.

So, bravo, David Kravets. Keep fighting the good fight.

And nice try, Madame Sanchez! We, the People, are watching closely.

WANTED: A SILVER TONGUE!

In a smart editorial published in Jewish World Review today, Caroline Glick reviews the dismal state of Israeli-American relations. This, on top of the report that Rahm Emanuel, at the behest of the White House, is threatening Israel with no help vis-à-vis “kill-the-Jews” Iran and its nuclear program unless Israel gets busy engaging the Iranian ‘kill-the-Jews” proxies in Arab lands surrounding Israel.

Caroline Glick makes a good point, though. Given the de facto hostile attitude of the Obama administration toward the Jewish state, Israel must take its message directly to the American people. (Funny, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty used to do the same thing by transmitting directly to the people then in Communist bondage, over the strenuous objections of their tyrannical governments.)

My impression is that Americans continue to feel a great deal of solidarity with Israel, and tend to understand the dangers well, so this is potentially a winning strategy. Trouble, is, where to find such a great communicator? In the early years of Israel's existence, there was Abba Eban, of blessed memory. But who can perform the same function for the Jewish state today? I confess that I don’t know, but we’d better find him or her soon.

Well, anyway, here’s a first cut at a job description: statesmanlike, multilingual, thoroughly steeped in history, brilliant extemporaneous speaker, superb writer, tireless, willing to travel at a moment’s notice, willing to endure endless abuse and heckling with unlimited grace, willing to face injury or even death in the name of his or her convictions.

Any ideas?

Any takers?

BIG MOTHER SPEAKETH AGAIN...

...and as always, it maketh little sense.

The Washington Times reports that Speaker Pelosi wants to prevent federal investigators from investigating questionable doings by members of Congress. She has reportedly invoked the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution as Her justification.

Now, call me crazy (many do, so don't feel bad!), but I always thought that the Separation of Powers clause was to make government more accountable and to keep any portion of government from accumulating too much power. To cite the U. S. Constitution Online Website:

"The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances."

To those of us who (a) have lived in totalitarian countries and (b) take Orwell seriously because he knew what he was talking about, this sounds very much like some people wanting to be a little more equal than others.

Pelosi's gambit should be very disturbing news to anyone who thinks democracy cannot afford to die.

IF YOU'RE AN INTELLECTUAL, YOU MUST PROMOTE GOOD GOVERNANCE THROUGH CLASS HATRED

Duch, the former Khmer Rouge commander of the notorious Tuol Sleng prison, explained last week that his underlings were taught class hatred that allowed them to kill their enemies. He said that "...we educated people [must] have a firm class stand and then [teach]...them to be strict about [interrogating]...and also...how to smash people and to keep them from escaping."

I find that this is very useful knowledge for any well-educated person or persons trying to control the masses.