People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Where I Stand On The Sotomayor Nomination

As expressed by Charles Krauthammer:

What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy.

On the Ricci case. And on her statements about the inherent differences between groups, and the superior wisdom she believes her Latina physiology, culture and background grant her over a white male judge. They perfectly reflect the Democrats' enthrallment with identity politics, which assigns free citizens to ethnic and racial groups possessing a hierarchy of wisdom and entitled to a hierarchy of claims upon society.

Obama wanted this racial identity politician on the court. Hang her un-American theories around his neck. And then confirm her.

I Thought Obama Was Going To 'Change' This

It appears that the Europeans are no more enamored of Barack Obama than they were of George Bush. Does that mean that we drive Kid Marvelous into exile now too?
Europe Objects Anew to Detainees
Reluctance Centers On U.S. Refusal to Also Admit Inmates
By Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Foreign Service

Berlin, May 28 -- The Obama administration's push to resettle at least 50 Guantanamo Bay prisoners in Europe is meeting fresh resistance as European officials demand that the United States first give asylum to some inmates before they will do the same.

Rising opposition in the U.S. Congress to allowing Guantanamo prisoners on American soil has not gone over well in Europe. Officials from countries that previously indicated they were willing to accept inmates now say it may be politically impossible for them to do so if the United States does not reciprocate.

"If the U.S. refuses to take these people, why should we?" said Thomas Silberhorn, a member of the German Parliament from Bavaria, where the White House wants to relocate nine Chinese Uighur prisoners. [link]
You know where this is headed. Despite all the cries of anguish, the hand-wringing, and frenzied gesticulating that has come from the liberals in this country in recent years over the plight of those poor savages being held against their will down in Guantanamo, Guantanamo is going to be around for a long, long time. The U.S. sure isn't going to take them. Now the Europeans won't either.

Looks like Bush had it right all along.

Politicians In Caricature

Investor's Business Daily's incomparable cartoonist Michael Ramirez's rendition of our soon-to-be Supreme Court justice:

Can't Be Doing That

Someone over in Memphis is upset that the local Burger King franchise owner put a message on the signs out in front of two of his restaurants that reads "GLOBAL WARMING IS BALONEY." The "reporter" may never eat there again because of it.

I can think of a really good reason to walk away from the Whopper forever, but silly messages?

Whatever floats your boat, man.

'The Ugly American'

Benjamin Netanyahu is so much more mild-mannered than I am. I'd tell Obama where he can stick his demands. But that's why the Israeli prime minister is where he is. Good thing. Because this seems way too heavy-handed for a flamethrower like me to ignore:
Obama presses Israel, Palestinians on West Bank
By Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer

Washington (AP) - Gingerly trying to advance Mideast peace, President Barack Obama on Thursday challenged Israel to stop settlement construction in the West Bank on the same day the Israelis rejected that demand. Obama pushed Palestinians for progress, too, deepening his personal involvement.

In strong language, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had said Wednesday that Obama wants a halt to all settlement construction, including "natural growth." Israel uses that term for new housing and other construction that it says will accommodate the growth of families living in existing settlements.

The president also pushed Palestinians to hold up their end, including increased security in the West Bank to give Israelis confidence in their safety. [link]
That last sentence, and the headline, show how futile - or misguided - Obama's efforts are. Why talk of "security in the West Bank," when Israel's primary security concerns emanate from Gaza (and Iran)? It's because (a) the man sitting with the president yesterday - Mahmoud Abbas - has no control over Gaza, Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization, Hamas, and (b) Obama knows that Hamas isn't going to listen to anything the president says.

So Obama makes meaningless demands of the Palestinians and strongarms the Israelis.

It's a good thing I'm not Israel's leader. I'd be thinking of that expression about "where the sun don't shine ..."

Why Is The Gov't In The Marriage Business?

My feelings exactly, as expressed by Ed Morrissey:
[T]he “state” gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago. The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.” In fact, I’d argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do.

The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead. That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation. That would also give the courts an opening to finally get rid of “palimony”, that noxious avenue where the courts have to make determinations whether contractual relations exist between people who neither execute a contract or take wedding vows.

Churches could then recognize marriage along their own precepts. Catholics who want to get married in a Catholic church would still have to be a heterosexual couple above the age of consent, at least one of whom is Catholic, without issues of consanguinuity [he means consanguinity, i.e, related by blood], but would have to also sign a partnership contract for the civil recognition of the relationship. [link]
There. All sides should be happy.

Or not.

My guess is, to the average homosexual, it's not about "marriage" so much as societal recognition and acceptance of their aberrant behavior. Make "marriage" openly available to them and they'll find another reason to howl.

So let 'em howl. It's entertaining.

But I pose the question again: Why is the government meddling in the marriage business?