Thursday, May 28, 2009

Four Stories That Should Worry You

Over the last few days, there have been a number of stories that have caught our attention that signify exactly the kind of country we risk living in when we put people in charge who don't share a basic understanding of the Constitution, of free markets, and of freedom. This, folks, is what happens when we put unchecked liberal elites into power who want to control every aspect of our lives.

1. The biggest story is the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Obama could not have reached further left than he did to pick this reverse racist , La Raza member who believes, much like Obama, that the courts should be a place to make policy. Here is a snippet from the ABC article referencing Newt Gingrich discussing how reverse racism, like any racism, shouldn't be tolerated in a Supreme Court nominee:

The conservatives are decrying a comment made by Judge Sotomayor in 2001, addressing former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's famous quote that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."

"I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society,” she said.

Yes, keep in mind, this is a statement in disagreement with the moderates' hero, Sandra Day O'Connor.

And here is the famous quote regarding her view on the role of the courts:

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

It isn't just her quotes either, it's her judicial performance. The fact she's been reversed 60% of the time by the Supreme Court in cases it took. There is the fact she ruled in favor of reverse discrimination. A thoughtful piece against Sotomayor was laid out in the New Republic here.

Of course, we only have our own party's president -- George Bush 41 -- for putting this woman on the courts. The only saving grace is the fact she's replacing another Bush 41 mistake -- David Souter, and so the court's balance will stay where it is.

The fact that should worry us all is that liberals want to pack the courts full of Sonia Sotomayors.

2. San Diego County Stopping Home Bible Studies.
This is perhaps the scariest of the four stories. A county government, using its power to limit the number of people who can come into one's home, is forbidding private religious assembly. Here is the meaningful excerpt:

The county employee notified the couple that the small bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of county regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Obviously, the folks in charge of San Diego County haven't read the Constitution which protects freedom of religion as well as freedom of assembly. A whole separate issue is the wisdom of draconian laws in our cities and counties which seek to control aspects of our daily lives. This is one reason this blog has talked about the importance of increased participation in local elections, to prevent these types of laws from happening.

As the linked article discusses -- what is next, if the County decision is allowed to stand -- prohibitions on back yard barbeques, poker nights, book clubs, etc? Is everyone who wants to get together with a few friends going to have to meet at a church? Is this really the nation we want to live in?

This story shined in bright green on Drudge today. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, our nation's leading advocate for a drift towards extreme left policies, made the above comment while, appropriately, on a 5 day trip to Communist China.

While in Beijing, she said that the U.S. would cooperate on "climate change" and that a clean environment was a "basic human right". The first troubling part isn't anything new -- she perpetuates the liberal myth about climate change:

In a meeting Wednesday, the head of China's national legislature, Wu Bangguo, told Pelosi that climate change was a common challenge and that Beijing stood ready to work with Washington.

Turning around her usual criticisms about human rights, Pelosi linked global warming to environmental justice, saying the right to a clean environment is also a human right.

"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer," she said at Tsinghua. "It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right."

That liberal mumbo jumbo isn't the real kicker. That comes when she answered a question about how the U.S. Government would get Americans to cut back on "carbon emissions":

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

One need not be an alarmist to read between the lines of Pelosi's quote. She, based on the "human right of a clean environment", is justifying the use of the long arm of government to inventory how we are living our lives so they -- liberals -- can judge how "we" are taking responsibility.

Of course, in Pelosi's world, in your "environmentally friendly home", you won't be able to do much more than eat or sleep, because having a bunch of cars parked on your street for a Bible Study would negatively impact the environment, right?

This is scary stuff, folks.

4. Paint your roof white to save global warming!
This story isn't necessiarly as frightening as the above three stories but is nonetheless troubling -- if it wasn't so amusing. Yes, a liberal nutcase has declared that all the world's roofs should be painted white to slow global warming. Okay, so just an other liberal environmental wacko piping off, right?

Um, well, yes and no. The problem is that the man who made this statement is Barack Obama's Energy Secretary! Yes, Professor Steven Chu said the following:

"If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour and if you do that uniformally, that would be the equivalent of... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years," he said.

Yes, soon, in the Chu-Pelosi-Obama world of hope and change, your business may be forced to paint your roof white or some kind of other "light color".

Word is Home Depot and Sherwin Williams are on board with this plan. And word is that White Castle has already issued a statement saying "and you thought our buildings were ugly -- we were just ahead of our time!"

In all seriousness, does it get more ridiculous? Again, the real liberal agenda is not improving the environment, it is about using the myth of environmental destruction to control our lives so we can live in their Utopian world of small "carbon footprints" and where we are all in harmony with nature.

What's even more amazing is that liberals are so arrogant to believe humans, through changing rooftops, can impact the environment in any kind of major way.


Whether one is talking about activist racist court nominees, religious persecution of in-home Bible studies, government taking an inventory of our lives and telling you what to do with your private property, a theme emerges that is unmistakable:

These people need to be stopped.