Many of us are concerned, and with good reason, about President  Obama’s lack of war strategy in Afghanistan. Today President Obama met with his national security team, but refrained from making a decision on the reshaped military strategy for the Afghanistan War. During the meeting, the Obama administration dodged the question of whether the President has been stalling on Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for more soldiers. Today the White House also reported that the President will not be making a decision on an Afghan war strategy for at least a few weeks. American soldiers are dying NOW. General McChrystal became the top General in Afghanistan over the summer, and until last night, Obama has had no interaction with him since he submitted a request for40,000 more troops. It would seem that the President does not have the Afghan war as one of his top priorities, as it should be. Instead, he has been spending his time pushing to make Chicago the location for the 2016 Olympics! And while the President wastes his time on such things, hundreds of men and women die in Afghanistan because there aren’t enough troops to win the war.

McChrystal warned that the mission in Afghanistan could fail without more troops in his Aug. 30 classified assessment, which was followed by the troop request.

This is the second installation of a three part series regarding the officials that President Obama has endorsed during his Presidency. In today’s article, we will take a look at van Jones, who recently resigned from his position as President Obama’s “green czar”, after an attack by conservatives questioning his extremely radical positions on key issues.

Some of the controversy included some of Jones’  less than decent comments at an environmental conference concerning President Bush and Republicans. I also found this video on newsmax.com, where Jones said that only “suburban white kids” shoot up schools.

Those who campaigned for his resignation pointed out that his name has shown up on a petition for the 9/11 Truth movement, an organization that questions the mainstream interpretation of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and calls for a new investigation into the attacks. Many adherents of the 9/11 truth movement suggest that there is evidence that the United States government could either have been responsible for, or knowably complicit in the September Eleventh attacks on the World Trade Center.

Most controversial was Jones’ role as a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). On the night following the attacks on the World Trade Center, STORM released a document on their website entitled: Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)
In this document, Jones is quoted as saying:

“Anti-Arab hostility is already reaching a fever pitch as pundits and common people alike rush to judgment that an Arab group is responsible for this tragedy,” said Van Jones, founder and national executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. “We fear that an atmosphere is being created that will result in official and street violence against Arab men, women and children.”

“Reclaiming Revolution” also blamed the U.S. for 9/11. A passage on page 45 (27 of the PDF file) reads:

“That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack — and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.

After his resignation, Glenn Beck, who is credited by many with playing the leading role in pushing Van Jones to resign his office, said this following the resignation:

“The American people stood up and demanded answers, Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.”

following his resignation from office, which occurred without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, the mainstream media, as we would all expect, largely ignored the topic.

Calvin

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Just how radical is President Obama? Some of his decisions regarding the nomination of officials to key Government positions indicate that he is more radical than the majority assume. In this series of articles we are going to look at some of these nominees, and see what dangerous ideologies they have in common. The three that we are going to focus on in this series are: Van Jones, Sonia Sotomayor, and Cass Sustein. After we take a close look at the beliefs that these people hold, we can better understand the beliefs of our President, who I believe is more radical than most would assume. Today’s article will be about Sonia Sotomayor:

Sonia Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor was recently nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama. Before the hearings for her confirmation to the US Senate took place, there was little doubt that she would be successful. However, when she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her answers to questions set before her astonished them. Even some liberals were disappointed by her testimony:

The Washington Post’s Eva Rodriguez, who had touted Sotomayor’s nomination, wrote:

“I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.”

During the hearings, Sotomayor said that she agreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who expressed the view that a wise old woman and wise old man would reach the same decision in deciding cases. But she has said the opposite in the past:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. 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.

She has recently tried to excuse this speech by saying that it was intended to show people the need to put bias aside. This is obviously not true, take a look at what she said here in 2001:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Stephen Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. … Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives–no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

It would seem that personal experience plays a part in her decision-making process. Shouldn’t she be making decisions based on Constitutional law?

Pajamas Media DC editor Jennifer Rubin reports on Sen. Jim Demint’s (R-SC) comments from Heritage’s tele-townhall on July 14th:

In a Heritage Foundation-sponsored teleconference held after the Tuesday’s hearings, I asked Senator Jim DeMint and Former Attorney General Ed Meese about this issue. DeMint expressed concern that she had been less than candid not only in the hearing but in her private meeting with him. According to DeMint, he asked her in his office whether unborn children have “any rights.” She told him that she “had never thought about it,” a remarkable statement for any lawyer but especially for a judge who in fact has ruled on abortion cases.

As for her performance in the hearing, DeMint said that at the Republican lunch Tuesday there was a “growing concern” that she is not being forthcoming. He called her reversals a series of “hearing conversions” and confided that “increasingly more of our reasonable members” are raising the credibility issue. He dubbed her statement that she never read and was unaware of the [Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund] legal arguments a “jaw-dropper.”

It’s a wonder how she got away with saying that she had never thought about whether unborn children have any rights. Former Attorney General Meese expressed this view regarding the hearing: “What she is saying now is totally contradicted by the facts.”

Conclusion

Sotomayor obviously makes decisions based on personal experience,not Constitutional law. It is dangerous and unconstitutional to appoint people who have a record of making decisions based on personal experience to the Supreme Court. The question is: Why would Obama support Sotomayor? She is obviously not one of the most dangerous people in Washington, but I feel that the President should be called out for supporting someone who judges in such an unconstitutional manner. Is it a possibility that our President shares the same beliefs as Sotomayor when it comes to legal affairs?The next article in this series will be about President Obama’s recent pick for head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, aka the “regulatory czar.”

I hope that you have enjoyed this article, and I hope that you will read the following additions to the series.

-Calvin

This article is in reply to a comment made by Jabby.

Cass Sunstein was recently nominated by President Obama to administer and head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House Office of Management and Budget. The Senate has scheduled the floor confirmation vote for Cass Sunstein today. No more left-wing extremists in Washington! Cass Sunstein is known for a variety of radical positions, consider this list made from an e-mail sent out by Eagle Forum that I just received:

* Expanding radical animal rights, specifically granting the right to legally sue to animals and banning hunting.
* Rationing medical care for the elderly as a major component of health care reform legislation.
* Increasing gun control legislation because he views “almost all gun control legislation as constitutionally fine.”
* Advocating federal law to provide for ‘presumed consent’ rather than ‘explicit consent’ for human organ donation to science after death.
* Censoring freedom of speech, particularly on the internet to crack down on “falsehoods” and “rumors.”

Not the ideal guy to be making decisions on how to regulate Obama’s loosely-defined health care policies you think? Let’s hope the Senate doesn’t vote him in. For more info on this creep, see Eagle Forum’s opposition letter.

These days it is hard to find honest people in Government. It seems like every time we have elections for President or Congress or Governor, the candidates always base their political platforms of of what positions will get them elected, instead of devoting their careers to serving their Country. And somehow, as time goes by, these people continue to get elected into office. Why is this? Well, I would say that it is because of the propaganda that they feed to the public. There are many good people who support President Obama because of the many campaign promises that he made on TV. Politicians like Obama rely on propaganda to rally support and further their career. They take advantage of so many different events in order to gain political support. For example, a few weeks ago I wrote an article here on the site explaining how politicians use the theory of global warming to take advantage of U.S. citizens. In order to get the economic stimulus bill passed, Obama and his supporters blamed the national deficit on former President George W. Bush. While President Bush did contribute to the national deficit, the Obama administration has only done more damage. Campaigning politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties will make empty promises in order to get elected into the desired office. For example, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson once made a promise to limit Texas Senator’s terms to two terms, but broke the promise on June 17, 2005 when she ran for reelection to the U.S. Senate. Now the Senator is running for Governor of Texas, and promising that if she is elected in 2010 she will introduce legislation that will limit the amount of time a Governor of Texas can serve to two terms. Politicians are constantly making empty promises in order to further their careers. Politicians like Obama promise to lower taxes, send us checks, and make life easy for everyone by giving us handouts. This is a trick that all too many fall for. Rather than voting for the candidate that will make the best decisions for the Country’s welfare as a whole, many Americans simply vote for the candidate that can make life easiest for them. It is a shame that our county’s leaders and potential leaders would take advantage of Americans in this way, but just as much so that there are so many American citizens who either don’t know or don’t care about our nation’s political direction in the slightest. We need to educate ourselves so that we will not be fooled by the propaganda that these people propose to us. After we start making informed voting decisions, and make them with the right motives, maybe then we can elect leaders who will work toward the benefit of the entire country. Furthermore, as Christians, we should always realize that we have an obligation to obey earthly authorities, as long as doing so does not compromise our faith. If our country is one day led into Communism, or some other form of tyranny, and our leaders tax us sore, they are still our authorities, and we must obey them as long as they do not instruct us to sin in some way or another. When it comes to taxes, I strongly disagree with taxpayers funding abortion and other sinful acts. So should I pay taxes if it means funding abortion? consider this passage of scripture:

And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?
Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Caesar did terrible things with the money he collected in taxes, yet Jesus told them to pay taxes to him, so shouldn’t we pay taxes to our government? We live in a great country that allows us to choose our leaders, and to have a say in the direction in which our country is led. We have the freedom to come together and worship God without fear of being persecution. But if we lose these privileges, we would still have a duty to be respectful to our authorities. Please post a comment with your thoughts.

Calvin