Sonia Sotomayor ruled teenage blogger's First Amendment rights

The judge picked by Barack Obama to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the judges who determined that a Connecticut High School had the right to disqualify a student from running for school government because of what she had said about school officials on her own, personal, blog.  (Link to story here.)

Sonia Sotomayor stood against the First Amendment in the matter of Avery Doninger.

Sotomayor looks to be a constitutional nightmare but her ascendency to the Supreme Court wouldn't affect the balance of power anyway, since she's replacing another liberal and, frankly, I'm not sure the anybody else Barack Obama would ever appoint would be any better.

Misplaced Outrage

On the way home from my real job today, I caught a part of Mark Reardon's show on KMOX.  He was talking about KMOV's airing of a video (see it here) showing a mother spanking her young son with a belt.  The incident was caught by a security camera on the parking lot at St. Louis Mills.

Some callers to Reardon felt that this was child abuse.  Others felt that it was normal discipline.  (Listen to them yourself at this link.)  Police are still investigating the incident for possible criminal charges, though the boy was not injured.

The language folks used in this debate is noteworthy.  Those who called it a "spanking" saw nothing wrong with the mother's actions.  Those who thought it was child abuse called it a "beating."  But, that is neither here nor there.

This is an important story but it isn't a story limited to a particular incident.  It is really about the role of government in the family unit masquerading as a debate over corporal punishment vs. child abuse.  

Do you agree with Hillary Clinton and believe that the village should raise the child?  Or should Mom and Dad?  

Should government ban spanking because some, maybe even a majority of people, think that it is bad?  Or do parents have the primary right to go with the responsibility of raising their own children?

I'm no fan of corporal punishment and think that, generally, it is a bad idea.  Other forms of discipline seem effective, more reasonable, and better for children.  But that's my own opinion.  Others believe that sparing the rod spoils the child.

It isn't my place to mandate that everyone else disciplines their children the way I think best.

And, it isn't the place of government either.  No matter what Hillary would say.  The decision is the parents' decision, and the parents' decision alone.

Note that I'm talking about discipline, spanking, corporal punishment, etc.  Abuse does exist and government has the right, even the duty, to protect its people, especially children too young to protect themselves from physical harm.

Too bad government doesn't take that role seriously and allow thousands of its youngest and most helpless citizens to be torn, limb from limb, killed, and thrown out as trash every day.  Where are the outraged talk show callers over that?

Time to get the government out of the business of defining marriage

"Gay rights" activists and their opponents have placed and kept the issue of same-sex marriage in the forefront of the news for several years.  The latest battlefield has been California, where the state's Supreme Court first struck down a ban on the practice, then voters passed a new ban, which the Court has now upheld.  (Link to story here.)

But what is marriage anyway?  And what institutions should be allowed to determine who can and can't be married to one another - or what "marriages" must be recognized by what institutions?

Should the government, state or federal, be the decider?  (Thanks to George W. Bush for bringing that silly word into common parlance.)

No.  Backing the government as the institution to define private social order seems out of whack to me.  I know that government has assumed the role for years, centuries even.  But should government be allowed to tell churches, denominations, or religions (most of which don't recognize or allow same-sex marriage - link here for a rundown).  Again . . . no.  Government telling Catholics or Mormons or Southern Baptists or Methodists or Muslims that two men or two women are "married" doesn't seem right to me.  And it wouldn't seem right that government could tell members of the United Church of Christ or Reformist Jews that gay couples could not be wed.  To me it is a matter of religious freedom and government has no place.

But the issue does not stop there.  Gay couples don't just want to be "married."  They want the rights and privileges that extend to married couples in the law.  And that is a different issue.  It is the government's place to determine whether or not couples, gay or straight, should be given legal advantages over individuals or other groups.  Those issues could and should be addressed cooly, calmly, and individually rather than collectively in the heated debates that we've seen over same-sex marriage.

The latest "threat" to the planet? Lamb burps.

I'm not kidding.  The global warming nuts are at it again.  Advising Britons to stop eating lamb because the little sheep burp too much methane.  (Link to story here.)  We'd probably better stop wearing wool too.

This is ridiculous.  Lambs aren't destroying the planet . . . but "government advisers" like the U.K.'s Committee on Climate Change are trying to destroy human liberty.

Roland Burris . . . caught on tape

How could he buy Rod Blagojevich's favor and consideration for appointment to Barack Obama's seat?  According to Blago's brother Rob, Burris and his friends could "just write checks that'd be fine."

Burris's response?  "Okay, okay, well we, I, I will personally do something, okay.  . . . tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya?  (chuckles)"

All this, and more, here in a transcript of an FBI wiretap from November 13, 2008.

You've got to love Chicago politics.

Changing the subject entirely . . . I was wondering, where is Barack Obama from?

What is the role of the Judicial Branch? Do you stand with Sonia Sotomayor or Alexander Hamilton?

Sonia Sotomayor, typical of a liberal judge, is an activist.  She believes that she has a job "where policy is made."  That's not me putting words in her mouth, by the way, that's what she said at Duke University's Law School back in 2005.  Check her out at this link.

Sotomayor is "not promoting" judicial activism, of course, or "advocating it" because she knows that she's being recorded.  But "ya' know" it is clearly what she thinks.

What did the founding fathers of our country think was the role of the judiciary?  Making policy?  Certainly not.  Maybe she didn't read Federalist No. 78 at Princeton or Yale.  In it, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."  Interpretation!  Not creation from whole cloth.  The courts are not the place to make policy.  

"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."  They were not designed to expand or even to have own authority.

Again quoting Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in capacity to annoy or injure them.  . . . It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its own judgments."

Alas, the judiciary has become as dangerous as the executive or legislative branches.  And it has done so creepingly over the past few decades.  Either under the blind eyes or with the complicity of presidents and congresses of both parties and all political persuasions, each for their own purposes.

The courts must be reigned in and limited to the nature of their original functions or liberty will continue to creep away . . . stolen by unelected judges . . . right from under our noses.  Sonia Sotomayor does not appear to be up to or accepting of that task.

Will she be The "Worst Mistake" Barack Obama Ever Made?

Today, Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  (Link to story here.)  If appointed, she will have life tenure, no matter how she rules.  She could be the liberal dream that Obama wants, or she could turn her back on his principles, as Earl Warren did to Dwight Eisenhower's.

At this point, I don't have much hope of that.  I'm virtually certain that the liberal vetting process on Sotomayor has been more thorough than Gerald Ford's was with John Paul Stevens or Ronald Reagan's with Anthony Kennedy or George H.W. Bush with David Souter.

But, miracles do happen, so it wouldn't hurt to say a prayer or two.  (Does it ever?)

If Sotomayor was replacing a conservative Justice, this would be worse.  But replacing Souter with another liberal is likely to make no major immediate difference.  It is only a lost opportunity to change the high court's dynamic.

At this point, I know very little about Sotomayor.  The fact that Obama appointed her is ominous enough.  (Sort of like his presence looming behind her in the photo here.)  As the confirmation process proceeds, more detail will become known.  Look for more analysis here, as the mood strikes me.

House Shocker!

In a surprising development, the Democrat-dominated U.S. House of Representatives has decided NOT to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent failures to tell the truth about what she knew about enhanced interrogation techniques and when she knew it.  (Link to story here.)

Pro-Life Film to debut in St. Louis

"Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

This passage comes from Psalm 139, verse 16, and is the inspiration for the title of Thine Eyes - a documentary about the 2009 March For Life in Washington, D.C.  Check out the promo for the film:

The film will have its St. Louis premiere in Rose Hall at CBC High School on May 28 at 7:00 p.m.  CBC is located at 1850 De La Salle Drive (North Outer 40 Drive) near the intersection of I-270 and I-64/Highway 40.  The cost is $5.00 at the door.

In the meantime, check out thineeyes.org.

KSDK - Journalism?

This is the state of journalism today.  "News"channel 5 hyped a story that would expose corporate greed at Anheuser-Busch.  I watched in the hopes that the hype was true.  I've lost my loyalty to and taste for their products since those products are no longer "local."  It would have solidified the sour taste that Budweiser leaves in my mouth.

Instead, the hype was nothing but hype.  Get this, the A-B Human Resources Department held a meeting at a company owned facility located at Lake of the Ozarks.  While there, they took a ride on the company yacht where they "chatted [I suppose they should have sat in silent protest of something or another], drank [shocker! they all work for a brewery] and cruised the lake [what else would you do on a boat?]."

According to the source called "Joe" in KSDK's I-Team report, "this is the face of corporate greed."  The entire meeting, by the way, cost about $1,400.00, according to A-B.

Sorry Joe, this isn't an example of corporate greed.  It is an example of yellow journalism and horrible so-called reporting.

Shouldn't somebody, a producer, anybody, have recognized that this was a non-story before it aired.

What really makes me mad is that I was duped by the hype and wasted my time watching the "news" on Channel 5 when I could have been watching Two and a Half Men on Channel 11.

What's the key to happiness? Apparently being me.

According to this piece from Robert Roy Britt, "happiness is being old, male and Republican."

Folks, of course, don't have much control over their age or their gender but political affiliation is voluntary.  That's the piece most interesting to me.  Why are Republican's happier than Democrats?  Even these days when our party has virtually no power in American politics?

Casual readers may, at first, answer that Republicans are "the rich" so, of course, they are happier because they have more money.  Not so.  The survey behind Britt's piece adjusted for income and found that poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats; and everything in between.

So, what gives?

I think religion might be a factor.  I think that Christians are more likely to be happy than non-Christians for obvious reasons like hope of eternal salvation, etc.  (Reasons obvious enough to Christians anyway.)

I also think that Republicans are more likely to be self-reliant.  Republicans aren't typically looking to others - like government - to provide them with anything, happiness included.

Any other theories out there?  Why are Republicans happier than Democrats?

Pro-Lifers: We are not isolated crackpots! We are the MAJORITY opinion!

Don't expect much reporting of this in Big Media.  Reporters will continue to portray those of us who believe in the right of unborn children to live as a fringe minority . . . but they're wrong.

According to a Gallup poll released today (link here), 51% of                                                                          Americans are Pro-Life!

Only 42% of Americans call themselves Pro-Choice.  And only 22% believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances.  23% of Americans believe that abortion should never be legal and 53% believe that it should be legal only under certain circumstances.  What those circumstances are is not defined but when that middle group is questioned further, 60% of them indicate no circumstances or only a few circumstances when abortion should be legal.

The long and short of it is this . . . a significant majority of Americans believe that life has value before birth and is deserving of legal protection.  Most of us believe that aborting a fetus should be illegal in most circumstances.  (Too bad most of America voted for a man who does not believe that but, alas, that's water under the bridge.)  Isn't the time here to make the majority view the law of the land?

Is there any hope that President Obama is a poll-watcher and will take this into account when determining who to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court?  Well, no.  But, the issue should never have been fought there anyway.  

The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in Roe v. Wade and the Pro-Life movement has been fighting back in our opponents' chosen forum for too long.  The killing of children should be stopped by the people through their elected representatives.  We can't rely on unelected judges to do the right thing or even to take themselves out of the fight.  The people must reassert their power.  If it takes an amendment to the Constitution, so be it.

Is the GOP listening?  Do Republicans want an issue to run on?  One with the support of a majority of Americans?

SLC agrees with Obama . . . at least with a few words he spoke today.

Barack Obama said today that the federal government's deficit spending is "unsustainable."  I agree.  (Link to story here.)

"We can't keep on just borrowing from China.  We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

You're absolutely right Mr. President.  So why does your budget propose that we do just that?  Why don't your actions match your words?

Now that's a stimulus plan

Pfizer announced today that it will provide free Viagra to men who lose their jobs and health insurance.  (Link to story here.)

Boy that bailout is looking better and better all the time

General Motors, recipient of a massive bailout from taxpaying Americans, is closing plant and cutting workers here in the United States.

Now, adding insult to injury, GM is going to import Chinese-made vehicles into the U.S.  And, over the next five years, plans to double the number of vehicles imported from Mexico, South Korea, China, and Japan.  (Link to story here.)

Aren't we all glad that America is subsidizing Chinese, Mexican, South Korean, and Japanese jobs on money that the government is borrowing (much of it from China) and which we (or our children) will have to pay back?

Washington at work . . . stupidity on parade.  

Hunker down.  Hope for the best.  Pray.  And throw the bums out in 2010 and 2012.

AP: "The White House plays a little loose with the facts."

Today Vice President Joe Isuzu, er, Biden issued his first quarterly report on the results of the "stimulus" spending monstrosity.  But, instead of reporting what is actually happening, Biden's report is a self-promoting, pat-on-the back for the Obama administration.  And, it just isn't honest.  Even the Associated Press couldn't stomach all the lies Biden spewed.  Give credit to reporter Matt Apuzzo for this "Fact Check" article.  

My personal favorite . . . Biden reported that "the [so-called] stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs."  In fact, Apuzzo reports, since February America is down over 1.3 million jobs.  But the administration argues that it would have been 1.45 million lost without their efforts.  But what's that figure based on?  Essentially thin air or, "estimates by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, based largely on a formula Obama's transition team put forward [, which] estimates the effect of tax breaks, government spending and social programs on job growth."  (Emphasis added.)

So, in other words, there is no real data to back positive spin (a.k.a. bullsh*t) that came from our Joe Biden today.  

But I have to ask, did anybody ever expect the truth from Joe Biden in the first place?

How many overseas military votes had to be "lost" to put Al Franken on top in Minnesota?

A study released at a Senate hearing today showed that "one out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted."  (Link to story here.)

That's appalling, no matter the consequence.  But it begs the question . . . who would win the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota if all the ballots were counted?

Thomas Schweich for Senate? I don't think so.

Apparently St. Louis insiders Jack Danforth and Bert Walker aren't happy with Roy Blunt as our state's GOP candidate for U.S. Senate.  So they're encouraging a run by Thomas Schweich in the primary.

Thomas Schweich????

The Post-Dispatch describes him as a visiting law professor at Washington University and an official in George W. Bush's administration.  He was "an ambassador for counter narcotics and judicial reform in Afghanistan."  (Link to story here.)

Schweich might be great.  But nobody's ever heard of him.  And he's, apparently, never run for an elected office before.  Him running for Senate is like Brock Olivo running for Congress.  He's aiming too high, too fast.

Supposedly Danforth and Walker are worried about Blunt's chances against the Democrats' presumptive nominee, Robin Carnahan, this fall.  If they're truly worried, they should be throwing every dime and every bit of political capital that they have Blunt's way because, guess what, he's going to win the primary.  

Wouldn't you rather have a nominee with money and without primary bruises this fall rather than repeating the mistakes that cost Kenny Hulshof any shot that he had against Jay Nixon?

I would.

What's good for the goose . . .

CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty told a joke that had U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, all dead on an elevator.  The joke was stupid and inappropriate.  Feherty has apologized.  (Link to story here.)

Comedian Wanda Sykes appeared at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and told a "joke" about Rush Limbaugh dying.  And Barack Obama laughed.  (Link to story, and video, here.)

Will Sykes apologize?

Or is it okay in 2009 America to joke about the death of prominent people, as long as they're conservative?

Obama's first budget QUADRUPLES deficit

The White House is now projecting a budget deficit of over $1.8 trillion for the current fiscal year.  According to Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press (link to story here), that's "about four times the record set just last year."

Not coming close to living within its means, the federal government is borrowing 46% of the budget, put another way, Washington only has 54 cents for every dollar that it is spending this year.  46 cents of every dollar is borrowed.

Don't you all wish you could live like that?

Responsibility is fast becoming a necessity.  But the folks left in charge of our country's checkbook don't seem to understand that.  New spending must be stopped and old spending must be cut.  Radical action is needed to prevent national bankruptcy.

If the Democrats running the show don't act now (and who would expect them to), we must act in 2010 and throw them all out on their ears.  If we don't . . . we might as well throw in the towel.

Australia's Prime Minister sees the end of American pre-eminence in the Pacific

"The biggest changes to our outlook . . . have been the rise of China, the emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the United States, was without question."  -Joel Fitzgibbon in an Australian national defense review.  (Link to Wall Street Journal article here.)

Fitzgibbon's assessment is honest and, unfortunately for America and the world, probably true.  Unless something is done soon and the country refocuses on its role in foreign policy.

I thought trying to balance a budget was a good thing . . .

but, apparently, not if you're California and you try to cut the wages of union members.  (Link to story here.)  Though California is faced with running out of money in July, the Obama administration is threatening to pull $8.6 billion in so-called stimulus money if bipartisan compromise plans to cut the maximum wages of unionized home healthcare workers from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 per hour goes through.

Unions appear to be an untouchable sacred cow to the federal government . . . no matter the cost.

Today, I'd be proud to be a Sooner

First Texas.  Now Oklahoma.  Let freedom ring.

A better illustration . . .

Last night I wrote a piece warning Democrats not to trust their new found friend Arlen Specter.  I chose an image of notorious traitor Benedict Arnold to illustrate the entry.  But I could have done better.  Arnold merely sold out his patriot friends.  He didn't turn around and sell out the British afterward.  Arnold had some scruples.

Richard Hatch's story bears more resemblance to Specter's.  Hatch was the villain on the first season of Survivor who lied his way to victory, though nobody really seemed to like him and he spent most of his time walking around naked.

But Hatch won.  I don't think Specter is coming out the winner on this season of Survivor Senate.  Nope.  He's lost all his seniority in the Senate already.  (Link to story here.)  The best illustration that I can come up with does come from Survivor, though, in Season 7's Jonny Fairplay, who lied his way to being voted off the Pearl Islands.

Never trust a turncoat

Memo to Senate Democrats:  Don't trust your newest member, Arlen Specter, former Pennsylvania Republican.

In a tease to an interview to be published Sunday, Time Magazine's "The Page" quotes Specter on the contested Minnesota Senate race between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman . . . "There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner."  (Link here.)

Clearly Specter is all about Specter - or at least the old boys' club that is the U.S. Senate and counts Coleman as a member already.

Or, maybe, Specter is concerned about the rule of law and can't believe the injustice being done to Coleman by counting ballots differently in different parts of the state.  Nah, couldn't be that.

Duh!

From the Post-Dispatch . . . "One of the top financial advisers overseeing Chrysler LLC's restructuring testified in bankruptcy court Monday that there is a 'low likelihood' that the automaker will be able to pay back its billions of dollars in government loans."  (Link to story here.)

That's your money - and my money - pis*ed away down a giant black hole.  Thanks Washington!

Jack Kemp - Conservative Hero

Saturday, America lost a true hero.  Jack Kemp died at 73.  A conservative's conservative.  

What would the world be like today if Ronald Reagan had chosen Kemp as his running mate in 1980 instead of George H.W. Bush?

For a fitting tribute by Larry Kudlow, click here.

Coincidence?

SLC admits that this story went unnoticed last month, but I noticed it today . . .

Missouri's governor, Jay Nixon, appointed David Steelman to the board of directors of the Missouri State Employees Retirement System.

Now, why would Nixon, a Democrat, appoint Republican Steelman, who ran against Nixon in a no-holds-barred race for Attorney General in 1992?

David Steelman's wife, of course, is Sarah Steelman, who fought a primary fight (that she couldn't have won) against Nixon's destined opponent for governor, Kenny Hulshof, in 2008.  That primary fight cost Hulshof time, money, and political capital.  It all but ensured Nixon's election.

Sarah Steelman apparently hasn't learned from history . . . she's setting herself up to run an un-winnable primary race for U.S. Senate against Roy Blunt.  (Link to story here.)

Or . . . has she learned quite well?  What's the prize for getting Robin Carnahan elected to the Senate?

Probably just a coincidence.  Surely, I'm reading too much into this.