Sometimes what passes for news is funnier than “Saturday Night Live” – more hilarious even than a Robert Gibbs press briefing.
Such was the lead of a Bloomberg news article over the weekend: “President Barack Obama, weighing advice from both the left and right on his first Supreme Court choice, is likely to seek a judicial version of himself: a moderate coalition-builder.”
Now imagine where you have to be standing to see Barack Obama as a “moderate coalition-builder.”
Here’s a guy who, in his first 100 days, has run roughshod over any opinion that differs with his, Nancy Pelosi’s or Harry Reid’s.
His Department of Homeland Security has shown what it thinks of Christians, members of the military service, those who think laws against illegal immigration should actually be enforced, Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and people who believe the Second Amendment actually means what it says.
His federal government is busy stifling the only organized dissent in America – that which you find on talk radio and on the Internet – through a variety of insidious, anti-free speech plans from local media “commissar commissions” to legislation breathtaking in its despotism placing the Internet under the totalitarian control of the president in times of so-called “national emergency.”
On top of all this, the Obama White House has encouraged and supported the most massive spend-and-control program in the history of the world – taking over General Motors, forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy, nationalizing much of the banking industry and placing our grandchildren and great-grandchildren in debt they are unlikely ever to pay off.
How does a president get away with such an un-American, anti-constitutional, radical agenda in his first 100 days?
He does so by having political activists disguising themselves as journalists carrying his water for him.
That’s who Greg Stohr, Tina Seeley and their editors and bosses at Bloomberg News represent. There is no other explanation for how an article this loaded politically could be written, edited and disseminated internationally not as a satirical piece in the Onion, but portrayed as a straight news story.
Of course, if you read the fine print of this story, you will quickly learn what kind of a “moderate coalition-builder” it is promoting.
It appears to be little more than the floating of a thinly veiled, White House trial balloon for three radicals who are disgraces to the bench, the Constitution and the well-established principle of equal justice under the law.
They are: federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Who is Diane Wood? What are her “moderate, coalition-building” credentials?
You may not know her name, but you probably know her through the infamy of her famous case. In 2006, the 58-year-old 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge voted in favor of an Illinois university that revoked the student-organization status of a Christian group because it opposed homosexual conduct.
So how is that “moderate”? Isn’t that prima facie evidence of a judge who doesn’t believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience? Isn’t that an example of someone legislating from the bench? Isn’t that an example of a jurist who has no respect for the rule of law?
Not according to our friends at Bloomberg News. They explain: Even though the university could rid itself of a Christian club that took a clear, 100 percent biblical position on homosexuality, it couldn’t, she ruled, discriminate against the group “based upon its evangelical Christian viewpoint.” Try finding the distinction between those split hairs.
Who is Kagan? What are her “moderate, coalition-building” credentials?
This 48-year-old opposed on-campus military recruiting while at Harvard. Now, I want you to think about the kind of people you know, if any, who take a hard-line against military recruitment on campus. What can we say about them generally? They hate the military. It’s that simple. There’s nothing moderate about them. In fact, most of them have a pretty low regard for America, too. Their antipathy for the military largely springs from its position as a defender of America, the land they detest.
How about Sotomayor? She is a 54-year-old Hispanic appointed to her current post on the 2nd Circuit in New York by President Bill Clinton. I shouldn’t have to say much more than that. But I will. Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, put Sotomayor on a list of prospective nominees who are “so clearly committed to judicial activism that they make a bruising battle unavoidable.” In other words, she’s worse than the other two on Obama’s short list. She showed her commitment to racial preferences at all costs when she backed officials in the city of New Haven who canceled all planned promotions in the fire department because no blacks scored high enough in testing to qualify.
How’s that for equal justice under the law?
How’s that for “coalition-building”?
How’s that for moderation?
How’s that for journalism?