Posts Tagged ‘Japanese’

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

July 7, 2010

This case of voter rights abuse was already won, and all that remained was the sentencing.  And then suddenly – at the last moment – someone under Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder came in and dropped all charges.

New Black Panther leader Samir Shabazz stood outside the door of a voting location clad in a threatening uniform and bearing a police-style baton.  Several witnesses testified that he made a number of threatening racially-charged references.

He’s not guilty in Obama’s hopey-changey America.  Because overt acts of racism are fine, as long as the perpetrator is black and the victims are white.

Here’s the current hero of liberalism:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

That’s pretty much what the Democrat Party stands for under the Barack Hussein regime.

That’s what Shabazz says outside the voter site.  What did he say inside? According to several witnesses:

Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Like I said; that was why the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department had this guy so dead to rights.  Until the Obama administration – due to political partisanship, leftist ideology, and racism of its own – dismissed the case.

Not that it’s just Barry Hussein.  We’ve got the racism of Bill Clinton who said of black man Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”  And clearly wishing for those good old days, so that his wife could win the Democrat nomination.  More recently, Bill Clinton – the former leader of the Democrat Party – said of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and “pillar of the Senate”, said:

“They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means,” Clinton said. “He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”

Byrd wasn’t a “fleeting member” of the Ku Klux Klan any more than Kobe Bryant is a “fleeting member” of the Los Angeles Lakers.  Former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle Byrd wrote:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

He wrote:

“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”

He personally filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act on behalf of the Klan when he was nearing fifty years old.

So why was it that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was “MAYBE” wrong for being a member of the Klan? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: because it’s always been okay for the Democrat Party to use racism and race-baiting and racial segregation in order to drive their agenda home.  And that is just as true today when the Democrats buy off blacks through welfare so they will act as the human shields of the Democrat Party as it was when the Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan was riding around with torches.

The Democrat Party is the historic proponent of racism in this country (see also my comment here).  Oh, they changed their tactics from threats to bribes, but they never abandoned their racist “progressive” values.

Well, just thank God that the Obama administration which looks down so magnanimously on hard-core black against white racism is so on the ball when it comes to attacking the decent citizens of Arizona.

Obama didn’t need to know any of the facts to know that the white cop was to blame in arresting the black Harvard professor bigot.  Just as his administration didn’t have to have actually read the Arizona law to know that it was racist.  Everyone in the Obama administration today knows that white males are to blame even when proven otherwise.

So it’s a slam dunk for Democrats to demagogue white people in Arizona, and simply assume that white cops will act stupidly there, too.  Their skins are white, ergo sum they are racist and evil; what more evidence do you need?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s comments can be dismissed.  After all, she is what Obama-supporter in good standing Samir Shabazz describes as a “white, dirty cracker whore”:

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

[Note: I supplied the above link to illustrate the sheer insanity that Arizona faces from the most racist and most demagogic administration in American history].  I mean, maybe you can go back to President Andrew Jackson and his vicious genocidal Trail of Tears.  But Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, too.  Or you could go back to President Woodrow Wilson who literally fired all the blacks in federal government and RE-segregated the military.  But you guessed it – Democrat.  We can go back to January 26, 1922, when Democrat Senators filibustered a Republican bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House to make lynching a federal crime.  Or we could mention the vile and evil political party that had a national convention in 1924 that was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it is today known as “Klanbake.”  But, oops.  That was the 1924 DEMOCRAT PARTY CONVENTION.  Or we could consider that President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a bigger racist for put American Japanese citizens in camps for nothing beyond racism.  Or for allowing the infamous Tuskegee experiment to begin under his presidency.  Or allowing his New Deal program to be used to help Democrat-supporting labor unions hurt black people and shut them out of economic success.  But, well, you know…

So when you hear Democrats today like Patrick Kennedy comparing the Arizona with the Trail of Tears, note that they’re merely trying to pass the buck for their own Democrat historic racism to innocent Republicans.  I mean, what Patrick Kennedy did was analogous to Osama bin Laden saying, “You Americans are the terrorists, just like the murderers who attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center!”  But wait a minute, Osama – YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DID THAT!!!

Obama has joined with Mexico in waging legal war on an American state of the union.  For what act of racism?  Arizona had the gall to write a law identical to the federal law so that they could make what was already a federal crime a state crime.  If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

I notice that the White House lawsuit against Arizona never ONCE mentions racial discrimination, civil rights violations, profiling, or anything else they had falsely attacked Arizona over.  They demonized and demagogued honest people, but when it was time to actually put their money where their mouths were, they had nothing.

When they had massive evidence of black-on-white, leftwing racism, they did nothing.

That’s why I can call Obama the “Racist-in-Chief” and be completely accurate.

Barack Obama is a “Jeremiah Wright Democrat.”  Which means he is a racist bigot who has always undermined REAL civil rights reform by real civil rights leaders such as Frederic Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Jeremiah Wright said of Dr. King’s message:

“It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.”

I’m a believer in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to the message of Frederic Douglas.  Which is why I’m so dead-set opposed to the Democrat Party and the pseudo “civil rights” movement they fabricated.


Progressivism Revealed In Words Of Hollywood Liberals Like Tom Hanks And Sean Penn

March 14, 2010

If you want to know what an idea looks like, it is a good idea to look for some examples of that thing in action.

Take “progressivism” or “liberalism,” for instance (please! as the old comic’s joke goes).

What do these people think?  What are they about?  What is their vision for the future, and for this country?  What do they want to do?

Well, why not ask Tom Hanks and Sean Penn, both famed Oscar-winning Hollywood liberals in good standing.

Let’s start with Sean Penn.  That way we can get rid of him faster.

Sean Penn, speaking about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said:

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez?  Let’s find out.

From May 2007:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.

Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.

From November 2008 in the New York Review of Books:

Hugo Chávez Versus Human Rights

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):

Jul 31, 2009

The Venezuelan government has adopted and proposed measures that reduce the ability of government critics to voice their opinions and will seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela.

From August 2009 via the UK Telegraph:

Thirteen channels ordered to be closed by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday and more than 200 are expected to close in coming weeks.

The government broadcasting watchdog, Conatel, said that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

However, critics claimed the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and hundreds of protesters demonstrated in Caracas against the closures.

And, of course, that is simply scratching the surface of Hugo Chavez’s abuses of freedom:

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

How about Hugo Chavez in his very own words:

CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”

So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country.  And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

This one’s pretty easy.  Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.”  And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.

Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???

You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).

So, to put a thousand words into a picture:

Mind you, Sean Penn is not the only Hollywood liberal who has embraced this dictatorial thug. There’s Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Benicio del Toro, and others.

And earlier progressives eagerly flocked around the communist revolution under Vladimir Lenin and the fascist revolutions under first Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler, too.  Which is to say that this behavior from progressives – as bizarre and as morally insane as it is – is part of a century-old tradition.

Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement.  In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operatesIt is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay.  They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex.  And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:

only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution?  Wilson wrote:

Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws

And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value.  Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay?  In The State, Wilson said that:

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

In his “Congressional Government,” Wilson wrote that:

“I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”

In other words, Progressivism sees no limitations against the power of raw government power.

But I can certainly imagine such power being a negative thing.  As a student of history, I am vividly aware of the fact that in just one such form of government – communism – more than 100 million people were systematically and brutally murdered by their own government during peacetime.

Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers.  Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments.  When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.

Thus you should understand why it  shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez.  Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.

And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:

( – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

And it’s completely reasonable that Chavez would think this way about Obama.  After all, the American president who did nothing while the Venezuelan dictator nationalized U.S. businesses has done plenty of nationalizing himself.  Which prompted Hugo Chavez to point out:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

Does the Obama administration share the totalitarian views of Hugo Chavez, and even admire them?  It certainly does, according to the words of Obama’s Diversity czar, Mark Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”


“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him.  But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”

“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd.  Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.

The left loves – and even worships as a surrogate for God – big government, and seemingly the bigger the better.  And of course, the very biggest governments, the ones that can control the populations and guide their nations to the next socialist Utopia, invariably are or descend into totalitarian regimes.

It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views.  Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy.  He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest.  And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best.  And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?

So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks.  Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

Damn racist American bastards.  They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen.  But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists.  The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan.  Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.

Stupid unAmerican fool.  We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.”  We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender.  We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop.  Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze.  I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.

If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance.  Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.

And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”  he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.

Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism?  Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains?  How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered?  Maybe THAT had something to do with it?

Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold.  Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.

Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.

And that is, and always has been, the progressive way.

Obama Grovels Before Yet Another Foreign Leader

November 15, 2009

There’s a scene in the movie Crocodile Dundee that reminds me of the current Obama fiasco (there’s ALWAYS an Obama fiasco, but this is the fiasco of the hour).  Mick “Crocodile” Dundee visits New York and is confronted by a mugger with a switchblade.  His gal-pal, Sue, says, “Mick, give him your wallet!”  And Dundee says, “What for?”  Sue, looking at the switchblade, says, “He’s got a knife.”  An amused Crocodile Dundee says, “That’s not a knife,” as he draws this gigantic Bowie knife that dwarfs the trivial-by-comparison switchblade.  “This is a knife.”  The mugger runs away.


ABC reporter Jake Tapper tries to put Obama’s bow into “perspective” by pointing out that Richard Nixon had at least sort of bowed in 1971.

But let’s apply what we just learned from Crocodile Dundee.


That’s not a bow.

Apparently, Bill Clinton did something that wasn’t quite a bow, either.

But about what Obama just did on his Asia tour (while he runs away from his decision to send the troops his general requested for Afghanistan, while he runs away from the latest unemployment report of 10.2%, runs away from his inability to label the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack)?  Well….

THIS is a bow.


And it’s not just a bow.  It is a grovel.  It’s the profoundly disturbing and disgusting genuflection of a man who clearly has no business representing a people who drove away kings by force of arms bowing down low before his betters.

It’s an insult to everything America stands for.

ABC’s Jake Tapper put it this way:

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”

Just like this prior contemptible event, in which Obama groveled before the Saudi king:

Mind you, Obama did not merely cravenly grovel before King Abdullah (making America grovel before Saudi Arabia by proxy), he cravenly lied to the American people about cravenly bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia.

You’d think he would have learned his lesson, but grovelling just seems too deeply ingrained into his psyche.  He just can’t help himself.  It’d part of his unfortunate condition of statolatry.

Obama’s “Disgrace America Tour” is kind of like the Rolling Stones — it just keeps going on and on and on and on.

Obama doesn’t have to grovel before Nancy Pelosi — as long as he lets her have complete control over “his” healthcare agenda.

Here’s a picture of Vice President Cheney offering his respects to the Japanese emperor.


Ah, thank God for an actual grown-up who actually understands that American leaders do not grovel before foreign ones.

I’m betting that “inexperienced” Sarah Palin wouldn’t have groveled before the emperor, either.  Apparently, bowing and groveling is something that they teach at Harvard.

You know what I wonder?  I wonder if FDR or Harry Truman, who defeated Imperial Japan at the great cost of 100,000 American lives following their vicious attack against Pearl Harbor, would have bowed down before the Japanese emperor?

Just wondering.

Why Obama’s Supreme Court Selection Will Be A Disgrace To The Constitution

May 4, 2009

Does the Constitution mean anything specific, or is it just a “living, breathing” document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean?

And what does it mean if the Constitution is essentially meaningless?  What does it mean if the rule of leftwing “empathy” trumps the rule of law?

Depending on your answer to the first question, and what you think about the second, you are either about to be very angry, or very happy.

Justice David Souter just announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, and Barack Obama had this to say:

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Back in November, when asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he wanted, Obama said:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.

. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

Obama has said:

We 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.

Is that what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean?  Taking the little guy’s side against the big guy?  Taking the outsider’s side, such that we use the power of law to bring the outsiders inside?  Having “empathy” toward liberal voting blocs?  Why should it even matter if the law is on the rich and powerful guy’s side?

Kelly Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said in response to Obama’s statement today:

“What he means is, he wants empathy for one side, and what’s wrong with that is it is being partial rather than impartial.

And she’s right: I didn’t hear Obama mentioning the need to have any empathy toward any traditional or conservative people or groups.  As an example of this highly partial and politicized and partisan “empathy,” a hate crimes bill just passed the House that could target pastors who argue that homosexuality is a sin.  Where’s the “empathy” for them?

Empathy is recast as a political weapon of the left.  And when a judge makes rulings on such feelings, his “empathy” for one group translates into naked contempt for another group.

Contrast Obama’s view with the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.

In other words, Roberts 100% disagrees with Obama: being a Supreme Court Justice is not at all about having “empathy” or taking the little guy’s side; it is about following the Constitution and ruling in accordance to what the founders who wrote it intended.  Something has to ground our laws.  And the purely subjective opinions of nine unelected lawyers should not be what anchors this nation.

We find out something: as much as liberals want to argue that Bush trounced the Constitution, it is THEY who frankly could care less about the Constitution.

Rasmussen found out that:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Only 29% of Obama supporters agree that justices should rule on what is in the Constitution.  That is absolutely terrifying.

It is conservatives who care about the Constitution.  Liberals only care about what they want, and whatever ends justify whatever means.  And if the Constitution doesn’t support what they want, so much the worse for the Constitution.


That’s why liberal judges can mysteriously find penumbras and emanations supporting the “Constitutional” right to abortion, and simultaneously deny the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

The problem with this view is that one can literally do whatever one wants as a Justice without any guide but one’s own desires or convictions.  And yet that is the essence of Obama’s philosophy.  All kinds of horrors have resulted from this approach.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

Similarly, in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.  Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices.  In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Not that Obama cares one bit about what Jefferson realized about the stupidity and folly of judicial activism two centuries ago.  That would be honoring the original intent of our incredibly wise founding fathers, and liberals like  Obama won’t have any of that.

Antonin Scalia and Nadine Strossen debated over the strict constructivist approach, which honors the founding fathers’ view of the Constitution; versus the “living document” approach, which enables justices to impose their will on the Constitution.  A partial transcript of their debate is available.

Toward the end of the transcript, Scalia said this:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

Imagine if “rightwing” justices bought into the “living document” view of liberals, abandoned their historical interpretation of the Constitution, and began to start seeking “penumbras and emanations” justifying whatever laws they wanted to impose upon society.  Liberals, just imagine for a moment what they would do to society by basing their decisions not upon the Constitution and the law but upon whatever they felt like doing based upon their ideology.

Liberal activist judges love to turn to foreign law to “inform” their rulings.  So let’s see a hardcore rightwing justice start referring to sharia to “inform” his rulings against women and homosexuals.  Let’s see how the left feels if the right uses their own “legal reasoning” against them to impose a rabid moral view in the name of and with the force of law.  One thing is sure: no matter how far such a rightwing judge might go, it is yet unlikely he would go as far as the left did against babies.

The farther Obama pushes the envelope toward liberal judicial activism, the greater the ultimate backlash will be when the worm turns.  And if the economy tanks or we are hit by terrorists, the worm WILL turn to the right.

We don’t know who Obama will appoint to fill the Souter vacancy, but the one thing we DO know is that his pick will be a disgrace to the Constitution.