Posts Tagged ‘resignation’

What Did Gen Flynn And The Russian Ambassador Discuss? Secret Revealed: It Was A Purely Social Chat About Grandkids And Golf

February 14, 2017

Democrats smell blood, and they sent out Rep. John Lewis – who boycotted the Trump Inauguration and said that Trump wasn’t a “legitimate” president on account that he’s not a Democrat – to call for the Republicans to rise above politics to get to the bottom of what Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador and who had authorized Flynn to have that talk.

I was disappointed to learn that Flynn was stepping down.  Because we saw during the Obama administration that nothing like that happened despite scandal after scandal such as Fast and Furious when U.S. agents were gunned down and murdered with weapons Obama put into the hands of the drug cartels, such as the IRS scandal where Obama turned the Internal Revenue Service into his own Internal Revenge Service and targeted conservative groups with incredibly lengthy delays and audits and not only were no charges filed, but Obama CONTINUED to target conservative groups throughout his entire presidency; such as Benghazi when Democrats did NOTHING to protect the ambassador and his team in Libya and then created a clearly dishonest political spin-job as cover; and yeah, such as when Bill Clinton secretly met with Attorney General Lorretta Lynch to talk about how Democrats could hack the presidential election.

I’m just saying: Flynn and the White House should have simply stuck to the tried-and-true Obama story that Flynn socially chatted with the Russian Ambassador about their grandkids and about their golf games.  So what’s the big damn deal?

Let’s not forget that under Obama, terrorism skyrocketed one-thousand, nine-hundred percent.  Obama is an outright DISGRACE and the world is now a bloodbath because of Obama and because of Obama’s policies.  Trump had made no secret about his plan to gain Russia’s cooperation against ISIS much as FDR gained Stalin’s cooperation against Hitler in WWIILet’s not forget that Obama was an utter, appalling disgrace.  Let’s not forget that Obama took an unprecedented step to tie the hands of an already-elected incoming president.  Everybody who has a functioning brain-stem knew that Obama was deliberately trying to foment this very sort of event as an incoming president is forced to scramble to deal with a backstab that flew in the face of his policy objectives that in any legitimate vacating president would have been respected.  Obama literally has intentionally sought to foment more terrorism, plain and simple.  If he had wanted to deal with illegitimate attempts to hack an election, he would have fired Lorretta Lynch for her secret, illegal meeting with the husband and co-conspirator of the target of a criminal investigation who was also running for president at the time.

General Flynn shouldn’t have resigned; rather President Trump should have PROMOTED him the way Obama promoted Susan Rice after she went on every single national political show and lied over and over and over again about the Benghazi attack not being a terrorist attack but a “spontaneous protest” complete with heavy mortars and pre-zeroed target coordinates all as an unplanned protest resulting of a YouTube video.

Advertisements

Where Are The Liberal Feminists Demanding Rahm Emanuel’s Resignation?

May 8, 2010

Kirsten Powers is a reliable liberal and a feminist.  But she had no time for the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) when they began demonizing Sarah Palin.  She said:

Kirsten Powers: “It’s not the National Organization for Women, right?  But it’s not.  It’s really the National Organization for Liberal Women.  It’s not the National Organization for Women, because she’s a woman.  And they put out a statement saying, “Not all women speak for women.  Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women.”  Well, look; this woman, when I look at her – even if I don’t support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about.  She’s a mother, she’s successful, her husband helps with the children.  You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don’t support her.”

And Kirsten Powers hit it on the head.  NOW isn’t pro-woman; if anything it is profoundly ANTI-woman (if you are a woman who cares about being a good wife and a good mother, they despise you).  Rather, NOW is pro-liberal.  It is also pro-hypocrite: they will NOT go after liberals who do things that they would scream about if a conservative had done them.

Which is why you won’t hear very much out of NOW over Rahm Emanuel’s recently revealed remark:

“Take your fucking tampon out and tell me what you have to say.”

-Rahm Emanuel’s (President Obama’s Chief of Staff) comment to a male White House staffer, according to a soon-to-be released book, The Promise by Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter.

So we can readily understand the chief of staff of the Obama administration’s position.  Women are inferiors.  They are neither intellectually or emotionally qualified to do anything but bend over barefoot so they can get pregnant.  And if anyone acts in any way like a worthless woman, he or she is not worth squat.

Women deserved to be demeaned and marginalized.  As does everyone who in any way suggests any scintilla of “tampon-ness.”

Heck.  This might be useful for understanding why so many women are liberals and Democrats.  They’re just not “up” to being anything better, poor useless little tampon-wearing dears.  You can’t expect anything more out of them.

Just imagine the hell-hath-no-fury if Karl Rove had said something like that.  They would be calling for his resignation in droves, and every “journalist” would make certain that everyone heard about it, and that everyone knew it was a loathsome thing for Rove to say.

Liberals live in a world of abject hypocrisy.  It is their defining essence.

Fortunately for Democrats, it is also the defining essence of the mainstream media.

Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome: The Show Must Go On, And On, And On…

July 7, 2009

Sarah Palin is stupid.  She is a self-gratifying narcissist, a terrible mother, a terrible governor, and a frankly demented human being.

And the very same people who are saying all that are simultaneously absolutely outraged that she is stepping down as governor.  Apparently, the left wants stupid, self-gratifying, narcissistic, and demented people to stay in office.  One can only conclude that if all politicians meeting the description that the left and the mainstream media assigned to Sarah Palin were to resign, there would be no more Democrats in office.

The left calls Sarah Palin “erratic,” “unhinged,” etc. etc.  But they can’t stop talking about her – with “talking” being a polite euphemism for some of the most psychotic anger and fear that I have ever heard directed towards anyone in my life.

Not long after Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, the left launched absolutely vile attacks.  The Daily Kos ran a story that maintained that Sarah Palin had faked the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of Trig Palin.  The reason? To cover up for the fact that the baby was actually Bristol Palin’s, by way of an incestuous relationship with Sarah’s husband (and Bristol’s father) Todd Palin.  Being the loathsome cowards and weasels of the left which they so ably exemplify, the Kos purged the article as the facts came out and they were revealed for the liars they truly are.  And so the left introduced Sarah Palin to the world.

Stories ran in the mainstream media calling her a terrible mother who put her political career over the needs of her own children.  One vicious personal attack after another, with no play considered out-of-bounds, and no media referee blowing the whistle to call a foul.

It’s been deleted, of course (again, the leftists being the genuine cowards that they are); but Heather Mallick wrote the following that was published on Canada’s CBC News under the title, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” from September 5, 2008.  An excerpt:

John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I’d had the wit to come up with it first. It’s safer than “white trash” but I’ll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.

Doyle’s job includes watching a lot of reality television and he’s well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that’s something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave.

Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?

So much for demonizing Sarah Palin – both as a woman and as a parent – merely for being attractive and growing up relatively poor.  And of course, why not savagely launch into Sarah’s daughter Bristol why you’re at it?

Recently, of course, David Letterman felt free to tee off on Sarah’s 14 year old daughter Willow, suggesting that she was “knocked up” by a baseball player during the 7th inning stretch when Sarah attended a New York Yankee game with her youngest daughter.  Letterman later issued a smarmy, self-serving “apology” for attacking a completely innocent young girl, but he felt no need to apologize for describing Sarah Palin as a “slutty flight attendant.”  That’s just par for the course, after all.  At least given the frankly demonic hostility of the mainstream media toward Sarah Palin.

As for Sarah’s infant son Trig, the left is unhinged with hatred toward him merely for the fact that his mother chose to allow him to live.  Legal Insurrection has some “creative” liberal Photoshop examples of the utterly vile attacks on this innocent little baby boy.

After nearly a year – and eight full months after the November election – the left couldn’t stop their slimy, satanic, beyond-evil hatred for Sarah Palin and her young children.  She was an attractive, well-spoken, self-made, independent woman who stood for family and for traditional values — and she therefore had to be destroyed at all costs.

And she was “erratic” and “unhinged” to want to get away from that daily hate festival?  That is, of course, the opinion of the very sort of people who actively despised and tore down Sarah Palin from the outset.

Take Paul Begala’s “description” of Palin published in the Huffington Post:

Sarah Palin makes Mark Foley, the congressman who sent filthy emails to pages look almost normal. She makes David Vitter, the senator who was hanging out with hookers, look almost boring. She makes Larry Craig, caught hitting on a cop in a men’s room, look almost stable. She makes John Ensign, the senator who was having an affair with a staffer, look almost humdrum (and compared to the rest of the GOP whack-jobs, he is). And she makes Mark Sanford, the governor with the Latin lover, look positively predictable.

One of the most obvious things that Begala does is repeatedly compare Sarah Palin with warped sexual behavior.  Notice that every single comparison he provides is precisely that.  Why does he think Sarah deserves such rabidly sexualized comparisons?  Has she had an affair that he can direct our attention to?  Did she have sexual relations with prostitutes?  Did she try to lure women in a public restroom for lesbian sex?  Did she leave her state without leaving anyone in charge so she could fly to another country to be with her lover-not-her-husband?

Why is it deemed okay to attack this woman in this way?  Even as the people engaging in such attacks claim that she, rather than they, are twisted and sick?  Why are David Letterman, Heather Mallick, and Paul Begala able to continue to operate without being publicly destroyed for their despicable conduct?

The Huffington Post later took this down (again, the whole coward and weasel thing), but it was one of their own writers – Erik Sean Nelson – who wrote the piece:

Palin Will Run in ’12 on More Retardation Platform

In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40’s just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.

Look, she says she’s resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she’d surrender the country that night. As she said, “That’s not politics as usual.” It isn’t. Politicians don’t usually quit for so stupid of reasons.

Just one more example of demonic attacks from demonic people.  Huffington Post.  Daily Kos.  Well established liberal media outlets.  The Democratic Party presidential candidates attended a major debate via the Daily Kos, while passing up an invitation from Fox News decrying the latter as unacceptable.  We’re talking about the very core of the leftwing machine.

Why is it okay to attack Sarah Palin this way — not merely as a woman but as a mother?  Why is it okay to attack her daughters and her infant child so hatefully and so horribly?  What kind of ugly people are Democrats to have tolerated this, over and over and over again, for so long?

The left didn’t just attack Sarah Palin with shockingly distorted words and even more shockingly distorted images of her children.  They attacked her in court, with one ginned-up lawsuit and ethics complaint after another.  They declared total war upon her; and there was nothing that could potentially hurt her that they did not pursue.

She successful fended off every single one of these bogus charges, but at great cost to her state and to her family.  It cost the state well over $2 million and it cost Sarah Palin more than $500,000 in legal debts that she and her family will have to pay.

And she’s “unhinged” for wanting to leave office so she can spare her state and her own family these extravagant costs – which came from bogus and frivolous charges that just kept coming one after the other?

Allow me to address some of the mainstream media’s disinformation regarding Sarah Palin’s resignation remarks.

First of all, they have created the narrative that her remarks were “rambling.”

Have you ever heard Barack Obama try to speak without his constant friend and companion, the Teleprompter of the United States of America?  It would be a compliment to say that he rambles; the man is literally speaking in tongues.  Sarah Palin had a few scripted lines, and frequently spoke “off the script” from her heart.  Decent people would welcome such candid and non-telepromptered honesty.  But the left appears to be devoid of decent people.

In their shockingly biased distortion of her resignation comments, the media describe her as having “portrayed herself as a victim.” Excuse me?  “Portrayed herself as a victim“?  Yeah, the way the women that Jack the Ripper butchered portrayed themselves as victims, I suppose.  Anyone but the most pathologically demented fools have to realize that she didn’t “portray herself” as anything; she was repeatedly attacked in the most hateful, vicious, unhinged ways again and again and again.  And it was obvious that they had absolutely no intention of stopping.

The left is saying she “quit” on her state.  And she did.  But lest you forget, Barack Obama – who promised on national television that he would not run for president, but would serve his full Senate term – also quit on his state, and lied to his voters and to the American people before doing so:

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

And lets throw in Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sabelius – the last two being governors of states – who abandoned their commitment to their states to fulfill their terms.  Did they not have every bit as much of a duty to fulfill their terms as Sarah Palin had?  Why is it that their departure – even when they outright lied as Barack Obama did – not matter, but Sarah Palin’s is some kind of personal betrayal?

The media are howling that Sarah Palin abandoned her state.  But she is leaving it in the hands of an excellent governor who shares her views and her values.  She is saving the state millions of dollars in continuing defense of frankly psychotic leftist legal harassment that has no other purpose than to intimidate and paralyze a sitting governor.  She is freeing her state of the gridlock that has been erected for no other reason than to stifle and thwart any national ambitions she might have to the clear detriment of the state.

And it certainly proves the lie that Sarah Palin is some kind of power-hungry Lady MacBeth.  Or, at least, I’d love to hear the argument that walking away from a governorship to an uncertain future is an evidence of “an insatiable hunger for power.”

It all boils down to this: Sarah Palin made a personal and professional decision that was most likely motivated primarily out of concern for her family and her family’s finances.  Freed from her position as governor, Palin is freed from the constant legal attacks; she is able to write, give speeches, and even host a lucrative television program that will recoup the financial losses incurred by the psychotic leftist troll army.

Will it hurt her future political career? Who knows for certain that she even plans to have one?  Would you, if you knew that you – and your family – would be subjected to the demonic left?  Rather than run for the White House, she may choose instead to play the role of spokeswoman and king-maker, attempting to bolster support for conservative values and conservative candidates.

Bill Kristol has maintained that Sarah Palin’s move – assuming she does intend to run for President in 2012 – is a bold albeit risky move that may yet pay off for her.  And she is young enough that she literally has 25 years to consider such a candidacy.

I hope he’s right, and the critics – who have ALWAYS been critics of Sarah Palin before there was anything to criticize – are wrong.

In the meantime, I will be wondering what would happen if the kind of attacks that were so routinely launched at Sarah Palin and her children were deemed appropriate by the mainstream media to be launched at Michelle Obama and her children.

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.

obama_yes-we-can-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.