Obama, Iran, Honduras and Independence Day

Barack Obama is the worst president at least since Jimmy Carter, certainly the weakest, and perhaps in 6 months he has already stamped himself as the worst president in our nation's history. It's a bold statement, but let's look at it.

The butchering dictators of Iran, or as Obama respectfully calls it, the Islamic Republic of Iran, have spent the last 2 weeks murdering and beating their own people in an attempt to consolidate their hold on power. The stand for freedom these brave men and women of Iran have made in the face of death reminds one of the same stand our Founding Fathers took in defense of liberty some 230 years ago. Our brothers and sisters in Iran are sons and daughters of liberty. They may not speak the same language or practice the same religion or seek to have the same incarnation of constitutional republican government as we do in America, but they certainly drive home the point that the rights we possess as human beings derive from G-d, and not from the hands of those who seek to rule us.

So in the face of this extraordinary and inspiring courage by the Iranian people what does Barack Obama do? Absolutely nothing. He sat quietly for days, only to come out forcefully against the atrocities being perpetrated by the "Supreme Leader," as Obama respectfully refers to him, after being beaten up in the press from all comers. What strength! Then, after condemning the horrors, he immediately tucked tail and recommitted himself and the people of America to negotiating with men who should be summarily hung for crimes against humanity. And if that weren't enough, he sold the lie that only through the forced implementation of a Palestinian terror state would peace with the Iranian thugs be possible. In doing so, he furthered his quest to box Israel into a corner by demanding the cessation of settlement building, a non-starter for Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and for the immediate resumption of negotiations to divide Jerusalem and carve the Jewish state into an indefensible mess of a country. What a guy!

As if all of this business with Iran weren't enough, we have the developing situation in Honduras, in which the leftist thug of a president Manuel Zelaya disregarded the Honduran Constitution by illegally and unconstitutionally seeking a referendum to abolish and rewrite the Honduran Constitution in order to remove the article that implements presidential term limits. When the Honduran legislature and the Honduran Supreme Court ordered him to stop, he fired the top generals and defied the Courts orders and started to implement this referendum illegally. Finally, following the constitutional procedures outlined for this sort of unlawful behavior, the legislature ordered the Honduran military to exile Zelaya and lawfully installed an interim president until elections can be properly held in a few months.

One might think that the leader of the free world would stand in solidarity with those in Honduras who followed their Constitution and the rule of law. One would be wrong. Barack Obama and his wretched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried the lawful actions of the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court, claimed they had affected a coup d'etat against Zelaya and should reinstate him immediately, claiming that the rule of law must be respected.

How can anyone possibly take these people seriously? Do they not realize that the rule of law was followed precisely in Honduras? Or, is it something more sinister? Barack Obama has openly courted and been courted by America-haters for his entire life. Steeped in the teachings of Saul Alinsky in his early days, Obama spent 20 years sitting in the pews of a church led by a man who preached vile anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and then with a wink and a nod told the American people that he had never heard any of these sermons. He spent his early adult life palling around with notorious anti-American, Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, we have a president who apologizes at every opportunity for the greatest country in the history of man, pushes overtly anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli policies, enacts domestic policies that are crippling the American economy, props up Honduran and Iranian dictators, and opens up to the world in Cairo about his long and proud history with Islam throughout his life, introducing himself as Barack Hussein Obama. This after he told everyone during the campaign that mentioning his middle name was racist and designed to scare everyone.

As the president openly coos and rubs noses with America-haters who murder and oppress their citizens around the world we find ourselves on the cusp of our finest holiday, our Independence Day. We are reminded each July 4th of the struggles of our great Founding Fathers, who pledged and often gave their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in the fight for and defense of liberty. On that day when the wondrous Declaration of Independence was read aloud to the people gathered on the steps of Independence Hall in the great city of Philadelphia, we made a pact not only with ourselves but with those around the world who would stand in defense of liberty. The Declaration states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson didn't write that all Americans were created equal. He wrote that all men were created equal and he articulated the proper role of man's relationship to man. In doing so he made the Declaration of Independence a compact not just with the American people but with the entire world, committing the American people to fanning the flames of dissent into a wildfire of liberty wherever those flames can be found. Today, that fire burns in the hearts of men and women in Iran, Honduras and all over the world, and they are aching to know that freedom-loving people all over the world join them in solidarity.

So one can only ask: Where is Barack Hussein Obama?

Empathy, Sotomayor, Ricci and The Constitution

We've been hearing a lot about empathy lately, since Barack Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. We've also heard about Hispanics needing representation on the Supreme Court so Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed by the Senate post haste. Let's just slow down a moment, shall we?

I'll be blunt. Empathy for certain groups of people over others has no place on any court in these United States of America. It is illegitimate, improper and is disqualifying for a seat on the highest Court in the land. If nothing else, Sotomayor should be quietly returned to her seat on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In saner times, her continued service on the bench would be rigorously questioned after the statements have come to light concerning her beliefs about wise Latina women being better judges than white men.

This dovetails nicely with the idea that Hispanics need representation on the Supreme Court. This is assinine at best. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a representative body. The goal of the president and the Senate is to confirm someone whose credentials are above reproach, whose legal skills are the finest in our nation, whose temperament is reflective of the highest traditions in the Court's history, and whose judicial philosophy reflects the proper role of the judiciary in a representative republic governed by our Constitution. It is not to play identity politics or advance an affirmative action candidate. I should say here that I don't believe Sotomayor to be such a candidate, though she herself has called herself a perfect affirmative action baby. Sotomayor has remarkable accomplishments in both education and career, and viewed through that lens she is qualified to sit on the Court. It is upon the points of judicial philosophy and empathy on which the foundation exists to reject her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Take the case decided yesterday, Ricci v. DeStefano. Frank Ricci was discriminated against on the basis of his race. That he happens to be white is irrelevant to the protections granted under the 9th and 14th Amendments and Title VII of the Civil Rights Code of 1964, amended in 1991. Sotomayor's 2nd Circuit Court rejected Ricci's claims out of hand and without comment. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court wisely rejected the dubious claim that a white person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, and all 9 justices rebuked the Sotomayor-led 2nd Circuit for refusing to hear the case on its merits. Considering the ideological makeup of the Court, this last point was surprising to say the least.

One is then required to ask: "Just exactly what groups pass the empathy test that Judge Sotomayor requires?" Certainly it wasn't the 17 white firefighters who passed their promotion tests but were denied said promotion because no blacks passed the test. It certainly wasn't the 2 Hispanic firefights who also passed. One must wonder who, exactly, benefits from the race and identity politics espoused by Judge Sotomayor. If the firefighters were female would they have received her empathy? And what of the Constitution and the statues at hand? Should we adhere to Chief Justice Roberts' view that judges are umpires who call balls and strikes as the rules are written, leaving the crafting of the rulebook to the legislature? Or should we adopt Barack Obama and Judge Sotomayor's view of judging, in which certain favored groups go to the head of the class at the expense of other people, duly enacted statutes, the Constitution, and the entire concept of the rule of law?

In point of fact, we are all represented equally by judges and justices who apply the law evenly, taking great care to abide by the example set forth by Lady Justice, who while holding the scales of justice wears a blindfold to ensure that the law is applied evenly, without bias. It shouldn't matter if the judge before you is white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Catholic, Jewish, etc. If the judge is committed to equal justice under the law, then we are all properly represented by the Court; it is this fidelity to the law and the Constitution that makes a fine justice, and not the color of their skin or religious background. Would that our president and our friends on the Left be wise enough to see things the same way.