Judgement of A Judge

The Supreme Court, the “High Court” of the United States, pilots our judicial branch of government with comprehensive judicial authority. Each Supreme Court judge is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and receives life tenure. With such a prominent and extensive position, it would make sense that great consideration and thorough vetting can only answer the question of qualifications. But what many politicians today consider a worthy Supreme Court judge is at odds with the original intent of judges.

However appropriately used, the definition of “qualifications” can vary. For instance, what our founding fathers thought the qualifications of judicial nominees in the late 1700s is vastly different than the qualifications used to determine a solid candidate today. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States and the “Father of the Constitution” spoke on the importance of just representation by judges: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void.” Alexander Hamilton, the first United States Secretary of the Treasury and co-author with Madison of the Federalist Papers, the primary resource for constitutional interpretation, said “[The Judiciary’s] duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Hamilton, as well as Madison, believed the constitution was the fundamental document by which judges need to base their rulings upon.

Today we have politicians, including the President of the United States, who gives a vastly different opinion to the role and responsibility of a Supreme Court judge. President Obama provided his qualifications for a Supreme Court judge when speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in Washington DC on July 17, 2007. "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."

What we need, as Obama claims, is a judge who can empathize with the everyday ailments and challenges of struggling Americans (or minorities). It is true the creators of the Constitution believed firmly that the will of the people must be represented by those in the government who make policy, but in no way did that group of men believe personal experience is a worthy qualification to being a judge. A judge’s understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is the primary qualification.

The current Supreme Court nominee, Sonya Sotomayor, has given her own elucidation of the qualifications for a Supreme Court judge. In 2001, she made remarks at Berkeley that were published by La Raza Law Journal. She claimed that for jurists who are minorities, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” She went on to say, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” Sotomayor also went on to make the following comments: “to judge is an exercise of power … there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives” and “[p]ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”

Sonya Sotomayor is 54 years old, a graduate of Princeton and Yale who served as a prosecutor, corporate litigator and federal district judge before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. Although her judicial resume is impressive, her beliefs on what the proper role of judges are is unconstitutional.

In a panel discussion in front of law students given in 2005, Sotomayor claimed “[the] court of appeals is where policy is made.” Although she immediately went on to say she didn’t intend to make such a strong statement on camera, the fact is she did. America’s earliest statesmen, including Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and countless others, never intended to give the judicial branch the authority to make policy. One man who thoroughly studied and taught on America’s Constitutional Republic was William Rawle. Rawle was the United States district attorney appointed by George Washington in 1791, and in 1825, he said:

“The Judicial power is general or limited according to the scope and objects of the government. In a word, it must be fully and exactly commensurate with that of the Legislature. It cannot by any terms of language be made to exceed the Legislative power…But it is said that there is generally a propensity in public functionaries to extend their power beyond its proper limits, and this may at some future time be the case with the courts of the United States…In such an extreme and therefore improbable case, as there would be no color of jurisdiction, the whole [judicial] proceedings would be void.”

The earliest American politicians were very clear in their opinion that the judicial branch must be viewed as the weakest (least powerful) of the three branches of government. Immediately following the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers to explain how America’s new government would operate under its constitution. In Federalist #78, Hamilton wrote, “the Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.” But does President Obama or judge Sotomayor share that same belief?

In the Wall Street Journal from November 29, 2008, Mitch McConnell wrote an article titled, “Obama’s Judges and the Senate.” He commented, “On the campaign trail, the Illinois Senator suggested that one of his criteria for selecting judges would be their ‘empathy.’ That's a far cry from judges as impartial arbiters of the law -- and would be the most untethered standard any President has offered for judicial picks. Without a fealty to the Constitution, a judge is able to bend on the emotions of a case.” And with such prevailing authority, a Supreme Court judge who ruled based on such sentimental assessments is truly a partial and predisposed danger to the original intent of the judiciary.

The America we live in today is different than the America our pioneers lived in 233 years ago, and with sociological changes come changes in political philosophy. Yet underneath the diversity we live amongst is a foundation of principles that leads to a proper and free government which makes up our Constitutional Republic.

The men who created the unique and commanding Constitution purposefully created clear boundaries and responsibilities for the judicial branch of government and its Supreme Court judges. With the ability to be the final authority over a law and, in essence, over the people, Supreme Court judges must be grounded and enlightened in the very document that gives them such authority. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[E]ach of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.”

Thomas Jefferson also echoed this warning to the American people: “The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” When our president nominates a judge for the high court based upon her empathy of struggling minorities, and when a soon-to-be Supreme Court judge believes not only that policy is made in the judiciary, but that personal experiences play a significant role in policy-setting rulings, the American people are inevitably left with a judicial branch of government that has been molded in a way unrecognizable to those who first created it. And quite possibly one that cannot be re-shaped.

Note: All quotes from the founding fathers were gathered from Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion by David Barton, 2000.

Part 1 of 8: Obama Cairo Speech - the Introduction

President Obama's speech in Cairo, as delivered in June 2008. Text provided by the White House.

In this series of posts, I will discuss Obama's Cairo speech in detail in a point-for-point manner. His lengthy speech will be dissected more efficiently and effectively by breaking it up into 8 distinct parts: his introduction, six major points, followed by his conclusion. In this forum it will be broken up along those lines. I also chose not to curtail the text of his speech simply for the sake of easier editing, because I wanted to give the reader the absolute entirety of his remarks so as to not lose sight of the overall aim of his context. The goal here is to go point for point, facts vs. facts (or in the case where he makes assertions with no facts, facts will be provided). My comments will be color coded in red and/or indented to avoid confusion. Here we go.

Part 1: The Introduction

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al—Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim—majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

[Wait, modern technology has caused Islam to view us as hostile? Hmmm……the Amish don’t exactly view us as hostile despite not wanting much do with our technology. There might just be a cultural (cough…re…ligous) way to explain that. Let’s just get this straight, he is implying that he understands why muslims are mad at us……and that reason is….drumroll……because we made them that way by being who we are and by advancing the world through technology and innovation. Sorry, Islam, for allowing women to vote, and putting a man on the moon….and for our ancestors jumping civilization ahead 5,000 years by writing the ever-so insightful Constitution. We know all this excuses, or at least allows us to sympathize with, any or all hostility by you (Islam) towards us.]

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.

[The number of muslims worldwide is around 1.5 billion. That means if 1 in 20 muslims was a violent extremist (which is a conservative estimate) or at least sympathetic to those who are, then Obama’s ‘small but potent minority’ is actually 75 million. From Wikipedia: a survey taken in UK shortly after the 9/11 attack "revealed that 40% of British Muslims believe Osama bin Laden was right to attack the United States. About the same proportion think that British Muslims have a right to fight alongside the Taliban. A radio station serving London's Pakistani community conducted a poll which 98% of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would fight for bin Laden."

A 2004 Pew survey revealed that "Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."

What does he mean by potent? Stoning religious dissidents, pouring acid on women who don't submit themselves as sexual subjects, and/or killing or severely beating children for flying kites or listening to music? Is he talking about the ‘honor killings’ of women for wanting a divorce (where they perform a beheading to restore her 'honor' - it happens in America too, you know)? Is he referencing the beheadings of non-combatants in war, rampant hostage taking, the pirating of maritme shipping lanes, or the indescriminant bombing of crowded marketplaces? Or is he just talking about the genocide of millions of muslims by fellow, more extreme muslims (not in ancient times, but in the last 2 decades alone)? I just want to understand his terms.]

The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

[What would make anyone believe that?

----------------------------------------------------------------->

No shit. I think we were a little mad at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor too. I don’t like the idea that we need to feel bad for feeling mad when we are attacked (or beheaded). Why yes, a new antenna went up by those caught off guard in 2001 after a major attack (most of our country failed to recognize all the warning signs readily available for analytical consumption to anyone who cared to listen the 30 years prior to 9/11). Prior to 9/11, most people didn't have an antenna that was capable of detecting who our enemy was. With that said, once our system was up and running, there were Muslims in America that immediately showed up on our new-found radar as allies. They went out of their way to condemn the attacks and became very vocal about their unyielding position against Extremism. As a principled people we quickly guarded against violating their civil rights. In this way, we proved ourselves as true American citizens who love our country by recognizing that Allied Muslims love their country too; both our top priorities was the USA. Period.

On the flip side, we should however further analyze our judgement and response therein by continuing to allow muslim extremist groups to have their way in our streets and in our convention halls with their bloody chants. The UK has a bit bigger problem with this than we do. Ours is significant, though, and we can prove with video and concretely identify which muslims came out shrieking with joy at our pain, either blatantly in our streets or behind closed doors at their "conferences". What is not clear is how many muslims have simply remained silent throughout. That is perhaps most alarming of all.]

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

[Agreed, but I would caveat by pointing out that we would do ourselves a favor by truly getting a conceptual grasp in defining our enemy. Let's be 100% frank about precisely who they are. We need to stop censoring our TV; people need to see exactly who they are ... maybe even take a lesson from ol' Tommy Lee and realize that the success of Rock ‘n’ Roll has much to do with the marketing of visual images (in our case no special effects would be needed; we would only need to let the captured enemy video tapes roll uncensored). In Tommy Lee's case, success had to do with some talent, sex, and the flamboyant rock star drug culture. America's fault to date is the lack of luster; we've been talking about evil despite concurrently toning down real images on the news.

In modern day, the ever-streaming newscasts with overly negative we-can't win-the-war images, coupled with the censoring of the various harsh-but-real images which depict the barbarism of the world we live in is NOT cutting it. This defeatist, politically-motivated, potentially unable-to-cope attitude was not always the case in the media. For example, in 1943 everyone understood who the Nazis and Japanese were in vivid detail. They were informed by the silver screen with an update (in lieu of the "previews" we’re used to getting with our popcorn today) that powefully depicted the battle America was in. Today we still need to "show all" and "tell all" in vivid detail the absolute truth to both U.S. Citizens and Allied Muslims alike. That way, we can unite against the real enemy that exists by calling a spade a spade, no holding back. That is the only path to victory.]

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. ------------>

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. [Again, it would be helpful to call a spade a spade.] There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. [Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects under Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe.] It was innovation in Muslim communities — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra [actually that was the ancient Babylonians]; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation [those were all the Chinese]; our mastery of pens and printing [the Chinese again]; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. [Huh? Could you be any more specific or any less vague?] Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

[Christianity is NOT given credit for the invention of the airplane, the assembly line, the automobile, the telephone, the computer, or modern democracy. Either the individual gets the credit, as is the case with the Wright brothers, or credit is given to us as a nation. Christianity had nothing directly to do with the invention of the airplane. The point is, use the correct terminology. In this world we have cultures, ethnicities, religions, languages, nations (with borders, otherwise known as states), and nations without borders (dispersed people throughout the world that share a language, a religion, and a culture). The President needs to get it right, 100% of the time, when labels and definitions are thrown around in public speeches.]

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."

[This is correct; in fact it occurred in 1778. However, he omitted the fact that shortly thereafter Moroccans captured an American ship and its crew to force the United States to sign a pay-for-peace treaty with Morocco's ruler. This tactic was almost identical to modern day muslim somali pirates off the coast of East Africa. The United States government paid the ransom (1 million dollars per year to Algiers alone) throughout the 1780s and 1790s, and by then Algeria and Tripoli (modern day Libya) muslims also began violently attacking our ships too, because it paid. By then over 100 Americans were held hostage from years of attacks – some for more than 12 years. And so its true that the United States officially did not have a problem with Islam by name, we just had a problem with pirates in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of North Africa who happened to be muslims. John Adams, ever-so cognizant of religious history, did not want to unite muslims in a jihad, and almost as if he were an ultra appeasor, would go on to say to the pirates, in the same statement Obama quoted, that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." He despised the attacks, but until a better U.S. Navy could be built, he felt the ransom had to be paid. Thomas Jefferson vehemently disagreed, and felt this approach would only encourage more attacks and was a very unprincipled approach to the situation. From Wikipedia:

“In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Jefferson asked questions to the Ambassador "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury." The ambassador replied with sort of frankness in religious extremism, and Thomas Jefferson upon his return relayed the result of the meeting by saying this:

“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

In the end, the only statement President Obama had as a factual and historically relevant reference was the Moroccan recognition of the United States as an early example of American-Islamic communication. However, the notion that this communication was one of friendly courtship could not be further from the truth. The John Adams-type diplomacy of the 1790s did not lead to tolerance or friendship at all. The Islamic states, including Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers continued to capture American trading ships. Over time, the United States built a more powerful Navy, and began frequently sending frigates to escort U.S. trading ships near the coast of North Africa.

The very day Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as President in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000. Jefferson refused, and so the Pasha declared war. As a result the U.S. fought its first overseas war against Tripoli in 1801-05 and then in Algeria in 1815. In the end, it was brute force and several naval victories that caused a lasting peace, rather than the John Adams-type diplomacy of the 1790s. It was only then that the North African muslims stopped capturing American trading ships and taking its citizens hostage. The U.S. Marine Corps hymn sings ‘….to the shores of Tripoli...’ because of the famous valor displayed by its men in this conflict which became known as the Barbary Pirates Wars.

To Barak Obama's credit, he was in the right for ordering the shooting of the somali pirates who held the Captain of an American freighter hostage. I just wish it hadn't taken so long to play out.

And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, [is he referring to the United Slaves, who in the 1960s invented Kwanzaa? They also started the conversion of people of African decent to militant Islam (which is why names like Jamal, Mohammed, and Laquisha, etc, began to emerge in black communities). The United Slaves were so violent that they even killed Black Panthers whom they didn’t think were extreme enough in their cause. I think Martin Luther King, the Christian, pretty much personified everything we need to know about the Civil Rights movement. From him we learned that leading a divinely-inspired, peaceful, and principled movement in grace is the way in which those wanting change should dream.], they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas they've won Nobel Prizes, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. [Thomas Jefferson kept a copy of a lot of books on different subjects so he could better understand them. Since he was President during a U.S. war with North Africa, primarily composed of muslims, it is logical that he got to know his enemy through reading their holiest of books.]

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam [Again, term usage: the United States of America is a state; Islam is a religion. Until we start using these terms correctly we really have no hope of getting anywhere. America cannot, and should not, make allies along religious lines. That sets a dangerous precident. It is a rule that should be true for all religions. Who we make allies with should be based upon any or all of the following: common culture, shared interests, human rights issues, and those countries who share common principles with us. Officially, it should be declared to have nothing whatsoever to do with religion] must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Is it also your responsibility to call for Imams and Clerics living within the U.S. to declare that they completely and totally denounce violence? ‘Bomb bomb USA, UK you will pay!’ – heard that before? No? Well I’ll give you something the FBI calls a clue – that rally cry is not from a Christian church service demonstration in Davenport, Iowa. It’s from an Islamic mosque sermon in New York City.]

The above title corrected: extreme American muslims hate America

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum — "Out of many, one." [If we’re "one" then why are so many modern-day liberals kosher with using terms like "I’m-different-and-therefore-deserve-special-treatment- HYPHEN-American" to define ourselves on every form of registration, right down to the grocery store super saver application form?]

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today [Actually, the CIA world fact book as well as Wikipedia put the number of American Muslims at 2.3 million or .8% of our population. This ranks us 52^nd in the world based on total Muslim population.] who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. [Then why do I have to take my sunglasses off my head when I get my driver’s license picture taken? What if I worshipped Rah, the Sun God? The glasses don't cover my face. Muslim women are allowed to get their picture taken with a hijab (which is a headscarf) that covers the shape of their head leaving only their face exposed.]

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. [What is that standard, exactly, to be part of America? Could it be identifying, understanding, and standing behind the Constitution? Or is it just showing up on our shores that makes one "part of America," with no real love of country or even merely a respect for it?] And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace [Does this statement make light of muslim protests in NYC and London where they chant "bomb, bomb, USA, UK you will pay"?] and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order [Which you are the ruler of?] that elevates one nation or group of people over another [Aren’t you elevating yourself over others?] will inevitably fail. [So by this logic we need to shed 233 years of progress to level the playing field to whatever year various countries around the world are living at?] So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely [By altering our national identity to appease those whom I fear and wish to appease]. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. [You confront nothing other than your own people. You turn your back on the enemy, and by doing so you don’t see them laughing at you. You have the audacity to say it is the majority of the American people who must change our ways. This is a very unprincipled approach to the problem. How wrong you are, Sir.]

The Modern Liberal Premise

Below are comments exchanged between Concord and Lexington discussing an important principle behind communication: the art of the premise.


Concord's Thoughts:


Liberals have rules. Hard to believe, I know, in their pursuance of the "everything is tolerable, and everything is permissible" society, but they do. The liberal elites which are now in control of our government are well educated in these rules, and have taught their followers the same (not hard to do, when you have most major universities and public schools on your side). Although I don't pretend to have a copy of the rulebook, I'd like to take a stab at quite possibly the quintessential principle.

Modern liberalism rule #1: Change the language to change the argument. Dennis Peacock famously said, "whoever controls the language controls the culture." Think about that for a second... the debate on how to combat global warming, the success of the stimulus package, the heated debate over Roe v. Wade, what constitutes patriotism, amnesty for "undocumented workers," are all arguments based in the usage of language.

Most topics that draw invisible lines across the family kitchen table or headline the evening news require a set of basic facts, or truths, that lay the foundation of the debate. Take for example the issue of global warming. Most liberals argue that we, mankind, have played a significant role ruining our environment by driving SUVs, sitting in congested traffic on our way to work, and working in factories that pillow white smog from tall smokestacks. The left argues that lawmakers must combat these heinous crimes by passing the "Cap and Trade (Tax)" bill. Our carbon footprint must be reduced to keep mother earth around for a few more generations. But check the premise of that argument. It is assumed that global warming is man-made global warming. For those of us who do not believe the planet is warming due to any contribution from man (as well as the thousands of meteorological scientists), it is impossible to argue the necessity of legislation to fight it, or any regulation whatsoever.

Too many people (and many conservatives) get sucked into debating a topic created by a liberal, only to fail the argument. Why? Because they choose to argue on a wrong premise. Another great example of this is the recent fire Rush Limbaugh underwent by the state-run media for saying "I hope he [Obama] fails." Everyone was up in arms that he would say such a discriminatory, hurtful thing. Liberals were screaming from the rooftops that "Limbaugh wants our country to fail!" No, he doesn't. Wrong premise. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail at his policies and plans for America. Because, in his words, that is how the country will succeed. But the liberals and the mainstream media were able to successfully portray his statement in an almost treasonous way: "If Obama fails, our country fails," they claim. But does it mean that?

There are countless examples used by the left to present a false debate: Employee Free Choice Act, Pro-choice, undocumented workers, global warming, patriotism...liberals change (or define) the words to change the argument. How should we fight back? Don't argue with a liberal. First, define the terms. It's so easy (and rather entertaining). When a liberal colleague of yours pulls into the parking lot in their Toyota Prius with a bumper sticker that reads "How Can You Be Both Pro-Life and Pro-War?" just ask them as you climb out of your Tahoe, "What does it mean to be pro-war?" or, "So pro-life equates anti-war?" There is where it begins. Get to the truth, and then have a reasonable, principled debate.

Liberal speak is really just a form of lying if you ask me (which you didn't). My opinion? Don't argue with a liberal on a wrong premise. You'll never win. Simply question their use of language, and see where that gets them.


Lexington's Thoughts:


Ms. Concord make a very good point about 'checking the premise'. It is one of those things that is vital in trying to understand why America seems to be sleeping at times, or why many (including me) say that they walk away from watching the news sometimes and their head hurts. We know it's not right, but time always runs out before a commercial break. The socialist talking head (and some conservative ones too, but overall less of them – the number of their offenses seems to vary more depending on the topic) will come on camera with a pre-written dialogue that they stick to, and don't actually respond to the questions being asked of them. Hence they control the language.

Premise can be a fast paced thing in the middle of a debate, and it takes a lot of experience to keep up with it. The point you make is at the heart of what is wrong; things have grown all too fuzzy for your average Joe. This, in turn, leads only to more generalities when your average Joe tries to regurgitate what he watched on TV to his buddies over coffee. Based on whatever ludicrous facts and figures were thrown around, and terms misused, it becomes hard for anyone to make a good point. We need specificity, the proper usage of terms, and principled talking points from which everyone can identify.

This used to be the goal of leadership - to create unity and make people truly understand. Now, to have the majority truly understand is the last thing they want - now their end state is a little smoke and few mirrors so that they can get all their legislation passed (being mindful of the fact that not all those who vote on the bill even read it). Lastly, Dennis Peacocke's quote 'he who controls the language controls the culture' is the umbrella that all of what we're talking about falls under. It is a great starting point in terms of where to begin fixing things.

Silent Declaration

Fifty-six men humbly paused. The stale summer’s heat in Independence Hall on July 4, 1776 was outmatched by the heaviness of a nearly unanimous vote. A declaration of independence lay before them, carrying with it the weight and price of liberty. The rumblings of the anxious crowd just outside the congress doors and the fate of their lives was now recorded— 12 “yes” and one “abstain.” Twelve votes to fight to the death. To fight a war with no supplies, no organized coalition, no time. To stand at the edges of towns with trembling knees, feeling the rumble of a massive militia pounding forward with daunting precision- step by step, tap by tap, pounding on the doors of hell.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington and the other great men of the second Continental Congress sat in their frail chairs bearing the weight of their decision. They thrust their wives, children and fellow statesmen into a battle against the very country which gave them food to eat and tools to till their soil. These first Americans would be severed from the hand that fed them; left to defend themselves in the callous cold of the deep northeastern winters and the feral frontier craving demise upon their innocence.

The room was silent. Their silence indicated a perceptive and judicious grasp of the cost of liberty. The Declaration of Independence represented a unanimous voice of treason against the King and his country. Each signature meant an acceptance of the struggle that was inevitable- the blood to be shed, the families which will be torn apart, and a battle greater than David and Goliath. These men did not have stones; they only had the hope of stones that could be found.

But with hope came passion. A passion greater than the threat of death. England instilled mounting oppression like a thumb crushing an ant in the sand, and the cry of the first Americans became united. It was now worth it. The time to declare separation from the unjust tyranny had come. It was time to create their own path to prosperity.

It is ironic that the Declaration of Independence was met with paradoxical stillness in its first moments of birth. The Declaration represented a clear act of defiance. I imagine the silence was not because of its insignificance or its mystical purposes, but because of the very power of its existence- a country of free men, taking its providential place in the world, bearing the burden of instituting and defending liberty and happiness, establishing their immutable rights as humans— which is, in truth, the declaration of God-given life itself.

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

(Concluding paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence)

To visually witness the sincerity of the Declaration's creation, watch these two short clips from the "John Adams" series by HBO:

Super Heroes and Cynicism

Pajamas TV

I wish more could be known about this super hero (if you can't get the link to the video, in real life she goes by the name Janet Napolitano). If they would just do one less Cher interview per hour on the death of Michael Jackson telling us how he brought hope and peace to the world, maybe we all could be better educated.

Who wants to bet that I'm on this lady's terrorist watch list next time I try to get on a plane? 'Excuse me, sir, you look like you're former military, and you also look mad. Please step aside.' That's okay, Al Sharpton will come running to my rescue with his 'this is an outrage' comments. Or will he?

Man, I really did apply for the wrong job. I guess that Secretary of Homeland Security position would have been a sure thing. What are her security-related qualifications again? And that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, what's his name? That's right, it's Leon Panetta. No intelligence qualifications either? Uh-oh.

Just so long as we keep those Apache pilots checking 6 times in 10 minutes to see if they can fire on 14 known and well armed Al-Queda death squad members - which to be fair, turned out all right:

Watch more LiveLeak videos on AOL Video

12 Islamofacists were dead initially, then one blew himself up, and the last one was thrown a fragmentation grenade by our ground element, and for good measure was finally shot. I hope all the lawyers analyzing the thermal video tape of the incident deem that when he was shot he was still a threat, otherwise the American Patriot who pulled the trigger may be hauled away in cuffs like a criminal.

Does that make you mad?

Questions: what if the situation suddenly became more complex? How much Big Brother can quick thinking Non-Commissioned Officers take before they are put at risk from being forced into hesitation? How much progress will this philosophy yield before we realize that missed opportunities may become the norm and not the exception? Despite what some ACLU loonies may tell you, it is in fact within good judgement to consider the implications of such things while not guilty of being a war criminal or wishing death to innocents. Its kind of like letting a trusted auto mechanic fix your car. You let him because he is the expert and it is within good judgement to trust his judgement. So why do ACLU lawyers and now our new administration want to tell our military how to do its job when the lawyers aren't the experts on warfare? Is it because they all collectively assume that raping and pillaging will commence if they don't step in and restrain the situation? Thanks guys, for taking such great lengths to understand who we are as a military and what we stand for.....

Our military, under the necessary and principled civilian leadership granted by the Consitution, is conscious enough of the situation on its own to take great lengths and incredible pains to limit the negative effects and loss of life afflicted on innocent people in combat. To ignore this is to create more enemies, something of which is the last thing the military wants to do. If violations occur, the path of recourse is already laid out by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. No one wants to give free passes for atrocities; however we should be passing legislation (or lack thereof) which allows free passes that give permission for acheiving nothing short of total victory. One widely-known philosophy for guidance by a commander in Iraq on the topic:

"We are no greater friend; no worse enemy."

No worries (kidding); actually we should be incredibly worried. Our 'far left of center' government (ie the total control side of the Liberty spectrum, opposite anarchy) is too busy coming up with protocols that require non-uniformed enemy combatants to be read their Miranda rights upon capture. It appears that we're now trying to apply U.S. criminal court evidence standards to Islamic Totalitarians captured during combat. I wonder when we will begin teaching our Soldiers how to lift fingerprints off of RPG-7s while under small arms fire? Apparently by then (which I don't think is too far off) the Soldier's good word citing that he saw the Jihadist drop the RPG-7 is not good enough. Will that Soldier be called in to testify when the criminal trial begins in a US courtroom, much like Police Officers do in criminal trials? Won't his platoon still need him in order to run patrols? While he is gone to testify, how long will it take him to return to the battlefield from a courtroom located in the continental United States?

It appears that more bureaucracy on the battlefield is what some think equates to taking the moral high ground. Yes, in the twilight zone of the Obama White House, apparently decreased flexibility will always win the day in post-modern warfare insurgencies. That's the ticket! Slap hands! Slap hands!

Based on the logic applied by our upper echelons of government regarding relevant job experience requirements, in my own professional life I've deemed myself a perfect candidate for a job at Mary Kay. I've always liked the bumper stickers 'Enriching Women's Lives'.

Just kidding, because starting a few years ago I realized that it was education alone that enriched women's lives (make-up actually enriches just their faces, according to some). Education on current events is a hard thing to truly find these days, as even Fox News is covering Michael Jackson's death until we're all ready to scream. Well, at least I am ready to scream.

If you are too, then go to one of the links at the bottom of this page (or don't). Either way, find something or some group to commit to that will guide you in understanding that little project our Founding Fathers undertook 233 years ago (this is where I say Happy 4th of July. Sorry, no sparklers).

If something doesn't feel right, quietly whisper 'whatever it takes' to yourself right now. Fight for the information you need to take a stand. Don't wait for it to fall out of the TV and onto your lap during the 6:00 news. Until we wake up as a country, apparently the enrichment standard for this life we live will remain at that Mary Kay make-up level, contained within sports-center, in the drama of reality TV, and as an included fee in e-stock trading options. I know we're better than that.

We are better, but only if we take action. Peacefully, but forcibly. Exercise your rights. Stop tyranny before it starts. In my opinion that means we have to be more principled than they; we have to come together underneath something; we need to come together under something that should have put us right from the start - the Constitution.

A great place to start: The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen. Incredibly simplistic book. Establishes a brilliance in the basics of principles. Utilitzes common grammar and recognizable English. An excerpt:

"The American People are now two centuries away from the Nation's original launching. Our ship of state is far out to sea and is being tossed about in stormy waters, which the Founders felt could have been avoided if we had stayed within sight of our initial moorings.

"They also felt that each ingredient set forth in their great success formula was of the highest value. They would no doubt be alarmed to see how many of those ingredients have been abandoned, or have been allowed to become seriously eroded."

~ Dr. W. Cleon Skousen (1913-2006), from the book 'THE 5000 YEAR LEAP'

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject......These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the People alone."

~ Federalist Papers No.46, page 294