Follow Your Heart, Not the Law?

One of the most lasting impressions any president makes on our nation is made indirectly. I am talking about the judges he (perhaps someday, she) appoints to the Federal Court system. While policy direction and decision making changes with each administration, and laws enacted can be altered or repealed, judges can, if they wish, serve for life. Because their decisions become the basis for future decisions (this is called "precedent"), the ideology of a judge can impact decisions directly for decades, and, indirectly for literally centuries.

Many, myself included, believe that while the Constitution can demonstrate flexibility by being applied to a nearly infinite number of situations, the principles themselves within the Constitution are essentially unchanging, and ought to be construed to mean what they meant to the founders. Words mean what words mean. This is called "constructionism".

Senator Barack Obama, however, sees things a bit differently, as this article points out.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e 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'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

If elected, Barack Obama will have the responsibility of nominating up to 6 Supreme Court Justices and many, many more judges to lower courts. This is one more arena in which a vote for Obama is a vote for pragmatism over principle.

Obama's Tax Cut: Just Words.

You may recall one particularly impassioned speech (some of which was borrowed, with permission) Senator Barack Obama gave during the democratic primary race, decrying the claims of Senator Clinton's campaign that Senator Obama was merely a gifted speaker who had little more than words to offer. Here's a snippet.

Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' - just words. Just speeches.

Sounds good, right? But Senator Obama's true regard for words and their meaning are exposed in this article by Phillip Klein.

[Senator] Obama is getting away with defining tax cuts so broadly, that future candidates will simply claim any form of increased government spending as a tax cut. Under Obama's logic, higher food stamp allowances and expanded state funding of the arts could be dubbed "food tax credit" and "arts tax credit" respectively, and also qualify.

Senator Obama's usage doesn't merely reduce the term "tax cut" to just words; it reduces it to words devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

P.S. And Philip Klein gets an A+ in journalistic questioning.

Hitler Only Killed 6 Million Jews

The United States of America allows the murder of over 1 million unborn babies every year, about 40 million since 1973.

For Senator Barack Obama, that number isn't quite high enough.

In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

God have mercy on our nation.

Obama '08!

Ok, I watched the Democratic presidential primary debate last night, and gained instant respect for Sen. Barack Obama (IL). Not because of his policies and views, although if pressed, I might have to concede that his policy on immigration makes more sense to me than that of President Bush. Actually enforce existing laws? What a novel concept!

But what I found to be more impressive was that he actually-- in fairly stark contrast to the rest of the field-- stated what he believed! Most of what I heard from the rest, Clinton and Edwards especially, could have been rephrased as, "Vote for me because the policies of George W. Bush are dismal failures."

While many pundits have referred to his admittedly verbose answer to the question on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants as "fumbling" or "rambling", Obama did what we long for most candidates to do; he answered and then went on to identify what he believed was the underlying issue. Thinking past the sound-byte? What another unusual quality.

Additionally, most post-debate commentaters I have heard say he avoided answering yea or nay. Well perhaps that's how it sounded to anyone who didn't really care to hear anything other than a one word answer, but, in fact, he clearly stated at the beginning of his little speech that he supported such licenses and believed they were in the interest of public safety.

Oddly, many analysts failed to note that only Clinton and Biden gave a yes/no answer to this question (Kucinich was the real non-respondant here). It almost seemed to me that this segment of the debate was little more than an opportunity for Hillary to get on the record with her new position on this topic.

The last thing I wanted to point out was the way Obama would brook no spin-doctoring from Clinton regarding his tax proposals. Obama supports raising the cap (currently $97,500) on the amount of income that is subject to the Social Security tax. Clinton said that such an increase would hurt "middle class" Americans. Perhaps an income pushing $100K is middle class in New York, Clinton's home district, but Obama quickly and correctly pointed out that only 6% of Americans make over $97,500. That can hardly be considered middle class.

Now, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with Obama on alot, but the point he raised also serves as the basis of tax-cut mentality. It is simply impossible to cut taxes for much of the middle class. The fact is that there are lots of middle class families who pay no federal income tax at all. So when you hear tax-raisers holler that tax cuts primarily favor the rich, they are right. It is the rich people who are the primary tax payers in the United states. While Obama wants to tax them more, at least he is honest about the numbers as he proposes it.

So, now that you know my thoughts on the man who should be the next Democratic nominee for president, let me give a quick rundown on the rest of the runners. This is going to be, of course, entirely subjective, and perhaps even occassionally tongue-in-cheek.

Sen. Joseph Biden (DE): I really didn't get to focus on much that he had to say since I was so distracted by the fact that, while his forehead is hideously wrinkled, the portion of his face below eyebrow level is totally tight. A little too tight. Anti-wrinkle tape, Joe? He also appears to think he and his little judiciary committe are pretty hot stuff: "I've presided over more Supreme Court Justices than any one in history." Justices or nominees? I have no doubt that anyone currently on an appointment approval committe has presided over more nominees than any of their predecessors, what with the rate at which qualified candidates are capriciously turned away.

Gov. Bill Richardson (NM): This guy is so earnest it hurts. He really wants to help. He means it! I don't doubt his sincerity, but alot of his proposals are, well, unrealistically idealistic. While the same could be said about me sometimes, I don't get on as big a stage as poor Bill and confess my hopes to a nation who is never going to give me the first chance to pursue them. Someone buy this dreamer a blankie and a cup of hot chocolate; next November will find him out in the cold.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH): Last night was my first exposure to this strange and, apparently, very angry little man. I don't know how tall Hillary is, but she towers over him, and his demeanor and manner of speaking makes her look and sound as pleasant as your Aunt Martha. He objects to and is offended by Wolf Blitzer referring to someone as an illegal immigrant. He says people cannot be illegal. Really, that is what people are trying to say? I know Dennis was born in Cleveland, and he was probably educated in the public schools there as well. How else can you explain the fact that he doesn't seem to understand that when a person is referred to by a word describing how they arrived in this country (like, say, immigrant) that a modifying word describing the legality of that means of arrival is not totally innapropriate.

Although I do have to give ol' Dennis props-- anyone who can make a former trial lawer squirm on stage deserves it. Especially when that trial lawyer is John Edwards.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY): It may just be I am prejudiced against anyone with this last name, but last night seemed like more puff and spin and saying the bare minimum about what the latest polls indicate that people want to hear. Please, please, PLEASE do not let this lady be the nominee.

Sen. Chris Dodd (CT): From what I could gather he disagrees with George Bush, like, alot, and sounds as if he would have a lovely singing voice. Perhaps better suited for American Idol, Baby Boomer Edition?

Former Sen. John Edwards (SC): This guy, to me, is the single scariest candidate on stage. He comes across like a total fake. A trial lawyer who made his multi-millions by suing big business, he apparently learned along the way that it is entirely appropriate to use the tragic death of your teen-aged son for political purposes-- not heard that story? Ask John Kerry about it. I'm just amazed he was able to go the whole night without his wife stepping in to protect him.

Politics and poetry dominating the O-files. Kinda weird. Fear not folks. There is herp related stuff coming soon!