The Act of a Small Man

Of all the banalities issued by President Obama in his 70-minute “State of the Union” address, the most egregious affront to sensibility was his petulant attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr Obama ignored the fact that he was publicly criticizing the legitimate work of an entirely separate and independent branch of the government. He abandoned any semblance of good taste by castigating the members of the court seated directly in front of his podium. If they had been off to the left or right, Mr Obama could fault the teleprompter for obstructing his view of the Justices. But they were directly in front of him when he made his offensive, juvenile remark.

Referring to the Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling on January 21, which struck down the provisions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act limiting the capability of corporations to contribute to political campaigns, he said,”Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates to special interests-including foreign corporations- to spend without limits in our elections.”

I wonder if he also finds fault with the Court’s 1954 decision in Brown vs Board of Education, which also reversed over a century of law, in that case striking down the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Plessy vs Ferguson decision of 1896 that allowed segregated education, and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 that declared that all blacks could never be citizens of the United States and permited slavery in all states.

Despite his rediculous opening comment on the practice of reversing malodorous precedent, Mr Obama continued, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, foreign interest.” I guess it would be alright if America’s most powerful unions and organizations of trial lawyers bankrolled America’s election, just not the awful corporations. Perhaps, in his extensive reading of the Court's decision in Citizens United vs FEC, Mr Obama failed to detect any of the three separate instances where the decision specifically excluded foreign corporations from the substance of the decision. He concluded his brief hissing fit, urging democrats and republicans in congress to pass a bill that would “right this wrong.”

For a man who is supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer, who has taught Law at the University of Chicago, he apparently he has difficulty with the words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” On the face of it, the First Amendment seems to be written in pretty clear language. It does not discuss who may have free speech. It prevents the Congress from regulating ANY speech. It is not that difficult to understand. Maybe they just don’t teach that concept at the Harvard Law School anymore.

What his ridiculous outburst indicates is contempt for the document he is sworn to defend and protect, the Constitution of the United States. He has the temerity to scold a separate branch of the government on their performance after he has failed so miserably in his first year in office. And then he compounds his eggregious behavior by instructing Congress, the other separate and distinct branch of the government, on how to chastise the Supreme Court.

No president has ever commited such a childish affront to the Supreme Court in particular, and the concept of separation of powers in general. Even Franklin Roosevelt, who was openly hostile to the court, never chastised the Justices directly before a joint session of Congress. President Obama has an ego with no limits, but has a record of performance that might more properly justify the practice of a little humility. Instead, we get a petulant outburst to a group of jurists whose intellectual water he could never hope to carry, let alone comprehend.

Howie Carr

Howie Carr, Boston Herald columnist and local radio talk show host had an interesting remark concerning President Obama on today’s radio show. Carr was discussing the Mainstream Media’s absolute lack of interest in reporting any stories critical to the historic president. Referring to Mr. Obama’s next book, Carr suggested that the title of it be, “Base on Balls, A Life of Intentional Passes.”

(http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/entercom/player/?id=WRKO)

A Record of Ineptitude

On the first anniversary of the inauguration of Barak Obama, a review of his performance during the year is illuminating if not alarming. It is a year full of failure and mistakes; the performance of rank amateurs in the highest office in the land.

In the realm of international affairs, the inexperience and bumbling of the Obama Administration is breathtaking. Firstly, he has taken the only member of his cabinet with any “gravitas,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and relegated her to a back bench. For a woman who aspired to the presidency herself, and one occupying the office once held by Thomas Jefferson, she has been detailed only to the poorer regions of the Third World, perhaps to keep her out of sight. In her absence, President Obama has managed to step in one pile of excrement after another.

He managed to horrify our newest allies in Eastern Europe by cancelling the proposed missile defense system planned for the Czech Republic and Poland, despite continued nuclear development by Iran. He has proposed a unilateral reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. He has continued his ludicrous policy of apologizing for his own country all over the world. He has been photographed bowing to both the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan.

With his nation engaged in a war in Afghanistan, he showed the world weakness and indecision in delaying his response to his Commander’s request for additional troops, and then compounded the error by announcing a date for U.S. withdrawal from the conflict. That is an act sure to give aid and comfort to the Taliban and endanger the lives of our servicemen there.

In perhaps the most embarrassing act of his dismal first year, the amateur president invested his political capital in the failed bid to win the Olympic Games for the City of Chicago. When he made plans to travel to Copenhagen to lobby the Olympic Committee, all observers noted that the decision must already be made if the American President was planning to make the trip. What administration would risk the huge loss of face and credibility that would accrue if the lobbying bid failed? The answer: an administration composed of vastly over-confident amateurs; the Obama Administration. He made the American Presidency, and by extension the American people, the laughing stock of the European Socialist dandies, and the rest of the world as well.

But the dashing young president has not confined his incredible ineptitude to international affairs. Domestically, he has led the charge to nationalize the automobile industry as well as the financial industry. He has taken his party to the brink of destruction with his reckless attempt to hijack the health care sector of the economy while threatening the insurance industry with government “competition.” This has caused a conservative backlash throughout the nation, as a leaderless grassroots rebellion has sprung up in the form of the Tea Parties.

On top of those questionable initiatives, President Obama has championed the proposed Cap and Trade legislation, a policy that would add crushing financial burdens to American businesses struggling to emerge from the depths of a persistent recession. And he is forwarding this proposal despite rising unemployment and in the face of the exposure of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming as a giant hoax.

It does seem like the bloom has come off the rose for the Hope and Change crowd. The historic new president has tried to help the political fortunes of his party, but that does not seem to be working out quite as planned. Since the spontaneous rebellion of the Tea Party folks in response to the Obama Care power grab last summer, Mr. Obama has lent his political prestige to three candidates for high office. Unfortunately for the president, in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell defeated Obama-endorsed Democrat Creagh Deeds by 17 points. In New Jersey on the same day, Republican Chris Christie defeated Obama favorite, Wall Street billionaire and Democrat Jon Corzine in a heavily democrat state.

And in the most earth-shattering result to date, a Republican state senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, defeated state Attorney General Martha Coakley for the senate seat once occupied by the late Ted Kennedy, despite the last-minute, high-profile endorsement of Barak Obama.

Now, President Obama is threatening to go to Nevada and campaign for his chief ally in the Senate, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid. With Reid already trailing in the polls by double digits, one has to wonder if the Majority Leader might just prefer to go this one alone.

I cannot think of many instances where I have been overly impressed with anything French, aside from cuisine and wine. The French have not been particularly ardent allies of the United States, despite being twice rescued from humiliating wartime defeats by American soldiers in the past century.

However, there is one aspect of the French government which we would do well to emulate. There is an institution in the French government known as the Constitutional Council, whose purpose is to rule on the constitutionality of all legislation passed by the French Parliament BEFORE it is signed into law by the President.

What a refreshing concept. Imagine reviewing laws for constitutionality prior to them becoming the law of the land. Under the American system, the Supreme Court reviews legislation that has been passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President only after it has been challenged in court, and only after it has been ruled upon by lower courts and appealed to the Supreme Court. This system has functioned fairly well throughout our history, but the time may be coming to re-think the issue.

The propriety of judicial review of legislation already passed into law assumes that a constitutionally astute congress only considers legislation that is constitutional. It further assumes that a similarly astute president would not sign into law any bill he considered to be unconstitutional. However, the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, and its eventual approval by the Supreme Court despite obvious First Amendment issues gives the lie to those assumptions. Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) perennially attempts to introduce legislation, the Enumerated Powers Act, requiring that each bill that comes before the U.S. Congress cite the provision of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to execute the bill’s provisions. Congress has so far refused to pass Shadegg’s bill.

With the executive branch now owning both the automobile industry and the banking industry of this country, and in the process of grabbing the entire health care industry, perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of constitutional review of legislation before it becomes law.

Imagine some responsible body actually placing the proposed Health Care Reform Act up beside Articles I and II of the Constitution in an attempt to identify the actual enumerated power granted by the document that provides the congress or the president the power to control the health care of every citizen of the nation.

No such power is authorized by the Constitution, unless one attempts to pervert the General Welfare clause of Article I, Section 8, which grants congress the power to …”provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” But to do so would be to ignore the words of Thomas Jefferson, who addressed the General Welfare clause by saying:

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

In the case of this congress and this president, it would be nice if someone would remind them of their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, and of the need for constitutional authorization for their actions. This could be done by a Constitutional Council if we had such a thing. Or it could be done by an active and interested press, who just might be interested in the government’s willingness to adhere to the document which guarantees its own right to exist.

Another liberal mistake

As 2009 fades into the recent past, some interesting observations from the year continue to debunk the liberal myths on gun control.

The arrival of the Obama Administration in Washington caused a predictable effect on gun owners. Fearing an administration in power in Washington that was hostile to private ownership of guns, gun owners across the United States went on a buying spree, purchasing more than 14 million firearms in the year. Ammunition for those weapons became increasingly difficult to acquire as shortages developed nation-wide. This orgy of spending on firearms occurred despite the sharp downturn in the economy and rising and persistent unemployment.

So, with millions of additional firearms flooding the population, did these new purchases result in increased violence in the streets, more murder, mayhem, and assault. Did running gun fights happen in American cities and towns at a horrific pace? Quite to the contrary the national crime statistics went down in virtually every category and in cities and towns of all sizes, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for January through June, 2009.

Murders decreased nation-wide by 10 percent, and by an even higher rate in the big cities of the Northeast (13.7%). Rape decreased by 3.3% while aggravated assault declined by 3.2%. Robbery declined by 6.5 %.

Is it possible that the proliferation of weapons in the hands of honest, peaceful citizens produced a deterrent effect on the criminal class, uncomfortable preying upon a well-armed citizenry? Of course that is the only reasonable explanation. But will this interesting statistic cause the anti-gun, anti-violence groups to relent in their relentless campaign to remove firearms from the possession of law abiding citizens. Probably not, and for one very good reason. The anti-gun crowd does not care about the statistics. They do not care about reducing crime and increasing the domestic tranquility. They care about the ability of big government socialist democrats to control its citizens.

Through the magic of technology, Pizza Night had received access to a taped conversation between two al Qaeda operatives, caught by a U.S. Predator drone while dining on the entrails of a goat in the back country of Yemen.

Mustafa: Ah, my friend Farooq Najeeb, I have heard that our brother, the Nigerian, failed in his mission to destroy the aircraft of the great Satan on their Christmas Day.

Farooq: Of course I have heard also, Mustafa. But, Allah be praised, did we not learn a great deal about the American president?

Mustafa (pulling the last stringy meat from the bone of the goat): What do you mean Farooq?

Farooq: Did you not hear the statement of the Great Satan Obama, Mustafa?

Mustafa: What did he say, Farooq?

Farooq: Mustafa, he said that we would be held accountable for the attack.

Mustafa: But Farooq, is that not bad for us?

Farooq (picking goat intestine from his teeth): That is exactly what the imbecile Clinton said he would do to us in Afghanistan. What did the fool do? He makes noise to fool his idiot followers, and does nothing!

Mustafa: But what if he is like the Greatest Satan, Bush, and comes here to find us?

Farooq: Mustafa, my good friend, just look at what the feeble Obama has done so far.
He travels the world apologizing for his tribe. He bows before Muslim Kings, as the dog should, and other heads of state. He prohibits harsh questioning of our brothers captured on the battlefield. He says the Great Satan will no longer use torture on our brothers. They call that torture? The Muslim brothers who have returned from Gitmo are too fat to fight when they return. If the fool Obama ever comes here, I will show him what torture really is. The infidel president has much to learn of the world.

Mustafa: But what if he comes to kill us here?

Farooq: Fear not Mustafa, we gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. He will never do it. He is weak and easily manipulated by our friends in the press. He wants to be liked and respected, but he does not show strength, he shows weakness. Look at what he has done, Mustafa, not what he says. He says what the dimwits in the press, and those who elected him, want to hear. What has he done, Mustafa? He has told us when he will leave Afghanistan. He has brought our brother, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, of great fame and courage, to New York for trial in US Federal Court.

Mustafa: But Farooq, is that not bad for brother Khalid? Can they not convict him there and send him back to Satan’s own prison at Gitmo for life?

Farooq: Mustafa, you know nothing of the Americans. They can never convict him in court. Even the fool Obama has admitted publicly that brother Khalid has been tortured. He will therefore be found not guilty by the Infidel American courts. That is why this is a huge victory for Islam. (Kicks a mangy dog trying to find a scap of goat intestine) When he says he was tortured, instead of laughing at him and striking him with a sharp stick, they will feel sorry for him, and release him. Besides, Mustafa, the fool Obama has said he will close the prison at Gitmo, praise Allah. We will see our brother Khalid walking the streets of New York with his lawyers. Imagine the pictures on al Jazeera when he visits the scene of the Greatest Islamic Triumph, what the Infidels now call Ground Zero.

Mustafa: Can he do that; will they not just arrest him again?

Farooq: Mustafa, truly you do not comprehend the level of stupidity of the Americans. Yes, they have a powerful Army and should be feared. But in America, they are governed by the emotions of women. If they were Muslims, they would behead him and kick his head down the road and curse the CNN cameras. But they are weak. They desire to be nice. They all, especially the fool Obama, think that if they act nice and play by their rules, we will respect them and make our peace with them. They are as this goat was just before we slaughtered him, bound in their own ropes, and unable to resist. They are tired of conflict after just a few years. We have waited hundreds of years, we will be here long after they have submitted to have their heads severed from their worthless bodies.

Mustafa: I hope you are right, Farooq.

Farooq: Of course I am right, with the fool Obama in office, we might as well have one of the Muslim brothers in the White House. What would a Muslim brother do differently than the fool, Obama? Nothing, Mustafa, nothing at all.

Mustafa (running to the window and looking up): What is that whistling noise, Farooq, do you hear something……….?