Quick Hitt: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, by the hand of Justice John Paul Stevens, has seen fit to yet again twist the plain written word of both the Constitution and a legislative act of Congress in their decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  The Constitution is clear that the powers vested in the president as commander-in-chief are his alone.  Concurrently, the Constitution vests the legislative authority in Congress, which passed a law stating that NO detainees in Guantanamo Bay could petition any US federal court (other than the DC Court of Appeals) for a habeas corpus hearing.  Effectively, they removed jurisdiction from the US Supreme Court to hear Hamdan's case for habeas relief.  But in keeping with their "living Constitution" tradition, the Court under Stevens found somewhere in the plain text of the statute that Congress only meant any habeas petitions submitted AFTER the law was passed.  This is completely ridiculous and runs contrary to relevant Supreme Court precedent dating back to the Civil War.

I'll deal more with the issue of the "living Constitution"  in due time as well as my feelings (which are likely quite plain here) on the Supreme Court's vile usurpation of powers vested in the executive and legislative branches.  At this time, we can only hope that Congress will pass another law that is even clearer about their jurisdictional intent as it relates to habeas petitions from Guantanamo prisoners.  Until then, let's hope the Supreme Court and the New York Times don't put our lives in any more danger.

Truth, Justice... and Love of Country

I saw "Superman Returns" last night. It doesn't quite rise up to the level of the original "Superman: The Movie", but it's a very good film. I especially love the tangible angst between Superman and Lois Lane. Bryan Singer does an outstanding job of telling us the story of how it would be if Superman had disappeared for 5 years without saying goodbye to the woman he loves, and who loves him. Brandon Routh as Superman does a passable job. No, he's no Christopher Reeve, but he brings an amazing vulnerability and inner conflict to the role of Superman and, at times, he almost channels Reeve. In this vain, two scenes come to mind. I won't spoil them for those who haven't seen it yet but I'll describe them in basic detail. First, when he reconnects with Lois. Second, the scene at the end in the bedroom. When you see it, you'll know what I mean. Singer also doesn't pull punches with the comparison of Superman to Jesus, which is refreshing in today's atheistic Hollywood climate. At this moment, many will probably cringe and say "What the hell are you talking about?" Even a Jew can see this, as long as he or she is paying attention. Do we really need to discuss this further than mentioning Jor-El's voiceover of sending his only son to save humanity, and what Superman is doing at exactly that moment after his tussle with Lex Luthor and his goons? (again, not giving away the specific details) I digress, but in doing so I give "Superman Returns" a solid three stars. I could be convinced to give it 3.5.

How does all of this relate to politics? There's one line that always relates to Superman that rings true to every patriotic American. The Man of Steel stands for what? Truth, justice and the American way. This line has been drummed into the head of every child for as long as Superman has been saving the day. But in Singer's "Superman Returns", he and the screenwriters sell out and acquiesce to the anti-American sentiment running throughout Hollywood today. Upon his return from his 5-year sabbatical, the people want to know if Superman still stands for "truth, justice... and all that other stuff." Ummm... all that other stuff?

Just what IS all that other stuff? And when did we become so ashamed of our country that we decided that standing for the American way is something to pooh-pooh around? This blog will deal with those questions and many more in much greater detail than this posting as we go along. But I want to touch briefly on it here.

Whether or not you voted for Bush (full disclosure: I did in 2004; voted for Gore in 2000) isn't the issue here. This questioning of love of country dates back to the Vietnam war and the anti-war generation that felt it fashionable to burn the American flag and spew anti-American rhetoric at every turn under the guise of "questioning authority" or whatever fancy slogan they attached to it. Since then, it has metastasized into something even worse which almost seems to define most of today's Left. Again, for now, I'll digress.

There is a truth to what it means to be an American, and what this country stands for regardless of what administration occupies the Oval Office. This country stands for truth, justice, equality, liberty for all, and the principles of self-government. This is what "the American way" is, and what Singer and his screenwriters chose to conspicuously omit with the cutesy little line about "all that other stuff". Look at it this way: what would it mean to say that Superman stands for truth, justice and the Soviet way? Or what about the Cuban way? Or the Nazi Germany way? Or even the British way? Ummm, I think we just answered that question for ourselves. The truth is that without America, there can't even be an IDEA of Superman because enduring truth and justice are uniquely American ideals. They don't exist in a vacuum, and they certainly weren't codified into a lasting and durable form of government until the United States Constitution was written.

America has a unique place in the world, a shining city on a hill as Reagan often called her. Part of an American citizen's responsibility is to communicate to our posterity of what it means to be an American. We're lucky to be alive, and even luckier to have been born here. But America doesn't exist without understanding what we are, why we're unique in this world, and from there being stewards and teachers of what it means to stand for truth, justice and all that other stuff.

The New York Times' reckless disregard for national security

The Times' publication of a highly classified anti-terrorist financial tracking program does not serve a public interest, as their Executive Editor claims. By all accounts, and by relevant Supreme Court precedent, this program (like the NSA wiretapping program) is completely legal and well within the bounds of constitutionality. This revelation by the Times can only be seen in its proper light: a continued attempt to undermine anything done by the Bush Administration in their ongoing war to challenge its legitimacy. Yes, there are those who still believe that Bush "stole the election" in 2000. (Those people should actually go read the relevant Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore.)

Tracking financial information as the administration has been doing is an essential part of the ongoing (but completely misnamed) war on terror. The lifeblood of terrorist activity is money, but the Times couldn't be swayed to protect American interests and NOT publish this program due to its obvious bias against President Bush. Let's be real here. Had this program been implemented by a "President Gore", would we be having this conversation? Of course not. Anyone who suggests otherwise would probably have swampland to sell you in Florida. Wait, isn't Jeb Bush governor of Florida? I smell a swampland conspiracy!

By revealing the completely constitutional NSA wiretapping program of suspected al-Qaeda operatives and now this ongoing program to track terrorist financial activity, the Times chose to engage in what many (myself included) believe to be treason. No, it's not a pretty word to throw around. But there can be no reasonable doubt that the exposure of this program has served to do two things: compromise the safety of every American (Republican and Democrat alike); provide aid and comfort to the enemy. We must not stand for this.
We're at war against a vicious and brutal enemy that doesn't adhere to the accepted international rules of war and the Geneva Convention. Those who would like to now present evidence of OUR violations of the Geneva Convention should stand forward and provide legitimate, real evidence. Please don't give me the tired "Abu Ghraib" or "Haditha" nonsense. We punished the few deviants for their misconduct at Abu Ghraib and the Haditha investigation is ongoing, despite Congressman Murtha's declaration of guilt of the servicemen and women involved. We should all be careful to remember that our nation's finest are entitled to all the protections of the Constitution that civilians are granted: innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt; due process; etc.

The free press was protected in the Bill of Rights to allow newspapers to serve as the guardians and defenders of the public interest, to expose waste, fraud and abuse by the government. The New York Times has chosen to declare itself irrelevant as a guardian of the public interest by exposing this latest effort by the Bush Administration to protect American national security. How can public interest be served by taking the tools to prosecute a war out of the hands of the Commander in Chief? Like or dislike President Bush, he is still responsible for leading our effort to defeat this attempt at worldwide domination by radical Islam (sorry if that phrase makes people uncomfortable, but I don't drink the PC punch). The public deserves better. It is my hope that Attorney General Gonzales immediately begins proceedings to charge the New York Times and its editorial staff with crimes against the United States of America, not limited to, but hopefully including, treason.