Dateline 1938: American President Neville Chamberlain told the world today that Germany has a serious problem with insects and other pests and that they should be allowed to produce the pesticide Zyklon-B, on the condition that they swear on a stack of Bibles that they won’t use it for anything bad.
When asked for a comment, German Chancellor Hitler responded, “Jah, we promise. We will use it only to kill pests.”
President Chamberlain hailed the promise as a great victory and promised even more examples of lofty rhetoric producing peace in our time.
When asked what would happen if Germany were to use the pesticide against, say, Jews, President Chamberlain promised condemnation and, possibly, “a strongly-worded letter of criticism from the League Of Nations.”
I will state first and foremost that I don’t believe George Tiller was a good man. He was not merely a doctor who provided abortions. He was a pro-abortion zealot who pursued his cause relentlessly.
This does not mean that his murder was not a great evil. It was.
The number of pro-life advocates who plant bombs or shoot doctors is so small it barely registers in any real sense, despite the hype and the desires of the Left to portray pro-lifers as drooling, troglodytic, mouth-breathing Christians. My God, the horror! Christians!
Pro-lifers have made great strides in recent years (a recent Gallup poll indicates that for the first time a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life). These great strides have come because the pro-life argument is being backed up by advances in science and the strength of principled convictions. The argument is not being won by murder or terrorism, and it never will be.
The abortions that George Tiller performed are something that he will have to answer for in the next life. His murderer will have to answer for his equally great sins.
The Left in this country will no doubt rush to the fore to denounce pro-lifers as being the same type of Right-wing extremists that Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano warned about. The fact that this is a lie and a gross misrepresentation of the beliefs of tens of millions of people across this great country is irrelevant. The insane murder of George Tiller puts an arrow in the political quiver of the pro-abortion movement, and they will use it. Pro-lifers must resist the temptation to play politics. I hope the man who killed him spends the rest of his life in prison, but that will never return the man to the family who loved him and who he loved. George Tiller is dead. R.I.P.
Whenever I think Charlie Rangel, the U.S. Representative from Harlem, has hit a new low in public discourse (which is every time I hear him or see him), he manages to lower the bar even more. He’s a disgraceful old cow who really needs to be put out to pasture.
The other night there was a terrible accident in New York. An off-duty police officer found some punk trying to break into his car. The cop pulled his gun and pursued the punk. During the pursuit, another cop intervened. Without knowing the situation, he ordered the off-duty cop to stop and drop his gun. Instead, the off-duty officer turned to the cop with gun in hand and compounded his error by not identifying himself as a cop. The end result was that a cop killed another cop. So stupid and senseless, this was a tragic accident that will change the lives of everyone involved in it.
This is New York. Enter the race hustlers. You see, the off-duty officer who was killed, Omar Edwards, was black. The police officer who shot him, Andrew Dunton, was white.
The disgusting Charlie Rangel then made a comment when asked about what President Obama should do on his “date” in New York. Rangel advised the President not to “run around East Harlem unidentified.” In Rangel’s world, the Secret Service is the one thing protecting the President of the United States from being capped by rogue white police officers who randomly shoot black men on the street. Think I’m exaggerating?
“If [he] did not have the Secret Service . . . around him, [city cops] wouldn’t know if he was president of the United States.”
Now, Rangel has apologized. Sort of.
He now says that it was inappropriate to mention the President in his statement about the shooting. But he maintains that the police officers need better training (i.e., sensitivity training, I’m sure) and called on the Justice Department to “review the problems in the New York City Police Department when black officers are killed by whites, which too often is the case.”
So the closest we’ll get to an apology from this pig is to say that he shouldn’t have mentioned the President of the United States when he was only trying to call attention to the dozens, or hundreds, or is it thousands? of black police officers that are ruthlessly shot to death by white police officers every day in Harlem. Right?
Over at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott points out that the Obama administration is taking a very dim view of people who disagree with the stimulus program. Criticism of The One or His programs will not be tolerated.
Well, at least Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks it’s funny that people might criticize her for making the law in her own image when she disagrees with it.
Well, Sonia, this is not a joke. Nobody elected you to any position for you to “make policy.” That is the jurisdiction (perhaps you’re familiar with the word) of legislatures.
When a law is first conceived, it is usually done to address some sort of grievance or some loophole in an existing law. Legislators are allowed to take everything into account: How will this new law affect the poor? The rich? Will it have an adverse impact on blacks? On whites? On Hispanics? What will be the long term effects of the law?
In an ideal world, laws would be carefully written and even more carefully read, thoroughly debated both honestly and publicly at great length, and voted on without regard to party politics or identity politics. The votes cast for or against the law would be based on the best argument in the honest and public debate, and lawmakers would be moved by their own consciences and by the opinions of both their fellow legislators and the public. Laws should be passed slowly and carefully because once enacted they become very difficult to overturn. We don’t live in an ideal world, of course, and we never will. We can’t immanentize the eschaton, remember?
Jurists like Sonia Sotomayor believe something far different. They believe that justice is more important than law, and that justice is defined as whatever they wish it to be.
Law is the pursuit of justice, and when a law creates unjust results, the law can be changed by the same (or succeeding) legislatures. Unforeseen effects of the law can be taken into account and legislators, after another lengthy, public, and honest debate, can amend the law or eliminate it entirely. It is unfortunate when justice is not served by the law, but it happens and there are checks in place to further the cause of justice.
It is the role of the people of this country to elect legislators that will put into place the laws the people want. It is the role of the legislators to pass, and amend, laws. It is the role of the judiciary to see that the laws are being followed according to what they say. Sonia Sotomayor, and her soon-to-be fellow justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and to a slightly lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy turn this notion upside down.
In Sotomayorland, the people elect the legislator, the legislators debate and pass the laws, and then Sonia Sotomayor decides what the law really means. If the law says one thing, and Sonia Sotomayor wishes it said something else, then poof! like magic, the law is interpreted to mean something else.
Recently a group of New Haven firefighters were blocked for promotion because they were white (and, in one case, Hispanic). They did better on the tests, but were told that because no blacks did well enough on the test to get promoted the results of their hard work and hours of study were eliminated. They sued on the grounds of discrimination in what certainly appears to be an open and shut case.
Enter Queen Sonia.
The case ended up in Sotomayor’s court, where the Queen apparently believes that it’s okay to discriminate against non-blacks in the name of diversity. She dismissed the court case without so much as an explanation in what one of her fellow judges (a liberal judge, no less) said was an attempt to bury the case. In Sotomayorland, whether the litigants were right or wrong under the law was irrelevant. They were wrong under Sonia Sotomayor.
This disregard for the law as it is written has led her decisions to be overturned numerous times. She has had several decisions appealed to the Supreme Court. Out of a possible 44 votes in her favor, Sonia Sotomayor has received only 11. What this means is that she is out of touch with even the liberals on the Supreme Court.
So what can be done? How do we keep a far-Left radical ideologue off the Supreme Court?
The short answer is that there is nothing we can do. Sonia Sotomayor (unless some scandal comes to light that forces Obama to pull her name) will sit on the Supreme Court and she will continue to make legal decisions based on her personal and political beliefs with an utter disregard for the letter of the law. This is why she was picked.
What judicial conservatives of all parties should do is open this debate publicly and honestly about what it means to be a justice and whether or not judicial activism is something that is desirable. Sotomayor should be grilled without mercy about her beliefs and her prior rulings. The left will try to paint anyone who opposes her as an anti-Hispanic bigot and her opponents will need to be able to counter that disgusting and bogus charge, not shrink in fear of it. Then she should be voted on by the Senate. No filibusters, just a straight up or down vote.
Elections have consequences, and Sonia Sotomayor is going to be a doozy.
Posted by Blaknsam 
The Clampdown 