An enduring, if annoying article of liberal faith is that since average Americans are, by definition, behind the elitists' cultural curve, they're inherently in need of correction.  The latest instruction is being administered by President Obama and his leftist pals in Congress and their foot soldiers in the media, and the subject, in case you're the type to not pay attention class, is empathy.

I could choose any of dozens of news reports or editorials which are all part of the national curricula, but Gloria Borger, a "senior political analyst for CNN" has an illustrative piece at CNNPolitics.com, so we'll use that for our counter-culture lesson.  Well before Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee, I wrote that he would target a "stealth" candidate, someone culturally difficult to pigeonhole, a person politically immune from rigorous scrutiny. 

In light of the cloud of civic confusion that hovers over America, Obama's choice was tactfully ingenious because it had the intended result of confounding Republicans and delighting Democrats.  Having successfully seeded identity politics into our cultural loam, the left now sits back and smirks, confident that we all implicitly avow the veracity of race and ethnicity as reflective of values and principles.  Add to that noxious mix the notion that gender makes the jurist, and you have just the right formula for a left-of-center legal temperament.

So, we have the practical Republicans among us cautioning conservatives not to lose sight of 2012, that our strategy in dealing with Sotomayor must be conditioned with an adroit understanding of the nuanced moderate or Independent voter, lest we cede electoral real estate to the Democrats.  In truth, for far too long many on the right have unwittingly adopted the left's duplicitous recommendation that bipartisanship requires them to accept disparately deep political concessions.  And, with their army of media flooding the zone and quick to characterize principled opposition as mean and uncaring, it's no wonder their arguments have achieved cultural traction.

A telling, early response by many liberal commentators and legal analysts was their pre-emptive shock that any Republican would see political advantage in challenging this nominee.  You see, it doesn't occur to these masterful political tacticians that we might just be opposing her on principle.  Indeed, that we sincerely believe that judicial activism--use empathy, or the euphemism of your choice--is anathema to our judicial system, is entirely lost on them.

The problem is that many Republicans are myopically subscribing to the same myth, fearful that a principled opposition to a candidate who is on record as asserting that a Caucasian male is innately less wise than a Latina female--i.e., herself--is ill-advised, that we should tone it down a bit.

Succinctly stated, although we should always be respectful and never harsh or shrill, principles shouldn't be conditioned by political expedience.

One of the fascinating developments since President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is the contrast between the deluge of conservative writers who are highlighting her astonishingly liberal record and the deafening silence from the mainstream media.  They and their leftist brethren in Congress are too busy celebrating the inevitability of Sotomayor's ascendancy to the highest court, riding the cultural coattails enshrined in judicial activism which has finally achieved its lifelong goal--an unfettered license to create law based on personal preferences.

Although it's not been widely published in the media, anyone perusing the center-right blogosphere couldn't have missed Sotomayor's racist comment that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."  Upon questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee she'll doubtless find a deft way to deflect or minimize that starkly hostile comment, but it provides us average folks a window into the left's curious universe, a place where values and principles are presupposed based on skin color and ethnicity.

Conservative writers such as George Will have reflected on the torrent of front-page invective that would have obtained had a Samuel Alito stated the converse--that "I would hope that a white male with the richness of this traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't had that life."  But the deeper paradox is that otherwise intelligent people such as Sotomayor sincerely believe that judicial decisions should often be predicated on one's life experiences versus the Constitution.

One of the key questions she must answer, therefore, is whether she truly believes that people's identity can be divined by their skin color or ethnicity?  And, have we run so far afield that a member of one ethnicity is deemed incapable of rendering a fair legal judgment concerning a member of another ethnicity?

The transparently craven motivation of this president is abundantly evident by this choice because were this individual neither a female nor an American of Hispanic ancestry, her rather unremarkable legal career would never qualify her for the highest court in America. 

As I've argued in numerous posts, culture is the civic engine of any society, which informs its character and plots its trajectory as a nation.  Its strength and resilience depends upon a vigilant adherence to a set of principles, one immune from the sway of fashion and the allure of values codified by relativism.  Tragically, Obama and millions like him in America today are convinced that the most superficial human traits--that is, pigment and ancestry--supersede the values and ideas we hold dear.

The president will likely have two more opportunities to put his stamp on the Supreme Court.  If this nomination is prelude to the next two, we can expect a grim resurgence of judicial activism which can only inhibit the guarantee of equality under the law. 

See today's Colorado Springs Gazette where my letter to the editor appears (scroll down to "Left Ignores Facts in Debate").  As you'll see it focuses on two issues:  the first is the resilience of the liberals' revisionist instincts with respect to pre-Iraq war intelligence; the second, House Speaker Pelosi's pathetic prevarications concerning notification by the CIA of the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been implemented.

Now that Iraq is becoming a relatively stable nation, with the promise of being the first legitimate democracy in the Middle East (apart, of course, from Israel), the left remains intellectually mired in its fantasy land where conservatives misled a naive nation into war.  It will be fascinating to watch as their story is serially revised to include progressively candid admissions of success, which, for the common folk, is already impossible to ignore.

President Obama is leading that initiative with his occasional concessions made in unguarded moments, noting that the much maligned surge has worked.  It's kind of difficult not to admit it since he's using the exact same strategy in Afghanistan.

The Pelosi matter is a real delight and conservatives pray her speakership continues right up to the 2010 mid-term elections, with Congressional hearings sprinkled here and there to keep the issue front and center.  Political chameleons, who try to finesse their way out of every self-made contradiction, are an unsightly lot, and she's a textbook example.

Civic dissension and argument is a vital part of life in America, and, when the terms of engagement are reasonably equitable and people act in good faith, regardless of the outcome, both sides can take solace in the fact that it's only in totalitarian states where debates are summarily settled.

However, if we didn't have enough supporting evidence before President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, his remarks there made it unambiguously clear that the debate over abortion not being waged on a level playing field.  To listen to his speech, its lofty rhetoric about finding common ground notwithstanding, one might be inclined to conclude that a fetus isn't, in fact, a separate human being.  Indeed, it's the casual manner in which liberals such as Obama characterize the abortion decision, as though it's merely one of many on a narrow moral continuum, ranging from the annoying to the disconcerting, but never reaching the threshold of the morally noxious.

With the liberals' habitual defense of every creature in the animal kingdom, from the dolphin to the snail darter, not to mention their defense death row inmates, one might think their apparently limitless ethical reservoir would extend to an innocent unborn human--think again.  The reason the abortion debate is so contentious, Obama said, is that Americans hold no values more dear than "life" and "choice." 

We could proffer the argument about school choice as our first exhibit, but that would only further muddy the already murky liberal waters.  Rather, let's examine how we got to the point where 1.2 million innocent lives are snuffed each year.  Recall that back in the 1950s the incidence of pre-marital sex, abortion, and single parenthood was profoundly lower.  Enter the 60s with its myopic iconoclasm and insistence that God, love, and matrimony were quaint--read expendable--virtues that oppressed free expression and women's rights.

The marriage contract was annulled and sexuality was severed from procreation within relationships blessed by God, and the result was the incidence of single parenthood and abortion skyrocketed.  At that point a Supreme Court antagonistic to any semblance of Constitutional literacy crafted a right of privacy out of thin air, which provided a legal, if not moral license to slaughter the unborn.

The cruel and wholly disingenuous way in which liberals characterize this debate reflects an astonishing level of dishonesty and self-delusion:  They originally argued that a fetus wasn't a separate human being; then, with the advent of ultrasound, they conceded--duh!--it was, but that it was still the mother's "right" to murder it.  Obama has taken the argument to unprecedented amoral heights with his votes in the Illinois senate against legislation that would have proscribed "live birth abortion." 

Only those immune to the darker side of human nature should read about that savage proceduree, those who don't wince when viewing those gray photographs of emaciated bodies in Auschwitz piled high like cord wood.  But for most of us who are moved to visceral revulsion, suffice it to say it's a practice we would never, ever perform on a dog.

So, as Obama calls for a calm ecumenicalism in search of common ground, let's not forget that with the passing of every hour, another 137 innocent unborn humans are killed--all for the sake of "choice."

My recent post on Christie Brinkley's exposition on nuclear nonproliferation struck a nerve with a writer whose moniker is "Balance and Security," and who submitted a caustic comment.  Although this individual provides some informative historical context and a few curt rejoinders and admonitions, he fails to address the core contention of my post:  To wit:  In our age, which is witnessing a growing cohort of nuclearized belligerents, a call for universal disarmament is quixotic, because only the world's civilized nations would consider it.

Indeed, even if we stipulate that all 187 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) agreed to comply, what compliance leverage would that provide for rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran, not to mention a volatile one such as Pakistan?  The left's implied reliance on such agreements has produced checkered results at best, because there's only one language despots understand and that's the kind backed with the threat of military action.

Perhaps most convoluted is his statement concerning American values versus power:

The assymetrical (sic) foe is fear driven provincialism that thinks that people are different in the rest of the world and cannot live with the thought that we might actually be able to overcome threats with our core American values of rule of law backed by a strong military not the law of power and a mocking of international law.

The first challenge is parsing that sentence, but once it's digested the complaint seems to be that conservatives instinctively resort to the "law of power" and that they mock international law.  Actually, although we were deeply concerned with the balance of power and threat of regional hegemony by tyrants during the wars of the 20th century, it was ultimately American sovereignty and national security concerns that motivated our involvement. 

The same principles ought to obtain with respect to our decisions to back the NPT, which is to ask what, exactly, is the U.S. interest.  That's not to say we can't strive for world peace, only that we must have a defined course of action predicated on the recognition of the danger of nuclear disarmament by the world's civilized nations, which would leave only rogue nations with nukes.

The writer also excoriates the Bush Administration for its alleged violation of treaties, without offering a scintilla of evidence.  Is the charge related to our invasion of Iraq?  If so, does he forget that it was Democratic presidents who initiated or continued every major war in the last century?  And, was it a violation of international law when President Clinton ordered the attacks in the Balkans without U.N. approval?

This individual's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, international law is largely a fiction, written and enforced by such moral exemplars as the United Nations.  In that regard it has no leverage and no functional authority, which means barbaric nations such as North Korea routinely flout it.  The same process is unfolding in Iran, so I would close by asking the likes of this writer how exactly the NPT would force Ahmadinejad to shut down its enrichment program?

He may "like Ms. Brinkley's love the (sic) land of the free and brave!", but in the end our Republic is free because of the brave--not because of international treaties.

A scene in the film classic The Grand Illusion is shot in a bistro and includes a sign that reads, "Alcohol kills slowly, but who's in a hurry."  We might use that quip as a metaphor for the incremental manner in which the grotesque expansion of the federal government in the past half a century has insidiously worked its way into every corner of our lives.

It's not merely the arrogant assumption that government can make wiser decisions, or that it's an expensive quid pro quo that only grows over time, but rather, that it slowly hollows out a place in our collective civic core and leaches the lifeblood of our Republic--freedom.  In an unprecedented report issued earlier this year by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, professors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens provide a state-by-state analysis titled Freedom in the 50 States:  An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.

The except below from the Executive Summary explains the scope and content of their report:

This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways:  (1) in includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens' rights to education their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) in includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.

For many, this might seem like a quaint look at a problem of minimal magnitude.  But that view only has validity when glimpsed through the prism of modern culture, where rights and obligations have been slowly eroded by a lifeless bureaucracy at every level of government.  It's our tectonic adaptation to these encroachments that is arguably the most hostile aspect of their hegemonic designs, because, with the passing of each year our recollection of civic life sans a Leviathan government presence becomes more vague.  That renders the deepening penetration of government into our lives ever more plausible, and we become progressively more susceptible to larger doses.

Delving more deeply into this vile development we find something even more profound:  When decisions are pre-emptively made for us, from the lack of choice in K-12 education to the stranglehold taxation has on us, our choices are not only restricted, but our failure factor is restricted.  Indeed, beyond power acquisition and retention, the left's dream of mortal happiness at the hands of government focuses on the elimination of risk and the redaction of consequences.

Those, in turn, blunt motivation and inhibit our ability to learn by failure.  In contemporary civic parlance, no one should be allowed to fail and no one should be held accountable for mistakes.  Yet, that pounding in your chest when make a significant mistake is a kind of life marker, a moment indelibly stained with a lesson we'll carry which provides a vital, self-correcting mechanism.  It also creates the kind of resolve and resilience so crucial to charting a trajectory of professional success and personal happiness.

So, as you review the report, don't merely think about the discrete implications of the loss of freedom, but rather, how it leads to a more cossetted civilization, one where challenges are handicapped and adverse outcomes mitigated.  It's that creeping sense that we're ignorantly creating a civic and cultural landscape less robust than the last, where collectivism predicated on a liberal agenda has replaced individualism and accountability, that is most disturbing.

The early indications of the Obama administration, as well as our invertebrate Congress, provides convincing evidence that freedom is slowly moving from endangerment to obsolescence.

We can stipulate that moral leadership has its place in domestic and international politics, but when it comes to dealing with the world's belligerents it can't stand alone, which is what President Obama seems to be telegraphing. 

In an editorial in the Huffington Post concerning nuclear non-proliferation, Christie Brinkley (yes, that Christie) makes a compelling, if unwitting, case for her nomination as the modern day Jane Fonda for her deft ability to utterly misread contemporary geopolitics.  Other than global warming, there's probably no less grave an issue facing the United States than the need for nuclear disarmament.  However, from WWII to Stalin to Vietnam, right up to radical Islam, the left has been on the wrong side of history every time, so why should this be any different?

Brinkley quotes Obama, whose speech in Prague last month included the utterly fatuous line that "moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon," yet another example of how lofty rhetoric plays well to the somnolent masses.  She goes on to note supporting evidence from the world's moral exemplar, the United Nations, which she said "made an unequivocal undertaking to obtain the total elimination of nuclear weapons."

The left's myopic endorsement of parchment as a proxy for a strong national security policy has been demonstrated to be dangerous many times over the past several decades.  The problem, of course, is that it's predicated on the wholly mistaken belief that the nations of the world observe the same set of rules as the U.S., which means they're reliable and credible players.  Any nation willing to agree to nuclear disarmament is, by definition, one we would want to maintain its stockpile.

Note that Brinkley's assertion concerning the Russian president's agreement to pursue a nuclear free world did not begin with his nation taking the lead by unilaterally disarming.  Indeed, why doesn't she take her message on the road, with the first stop being Pyongyang, and then drop in on the folks in Pakistan, and thence to Tehran to convince Ahmadinejad to cease his enrichment program?

The liberals' fictional abstractions concerning the lethality of our world would be stunning were they not so patently absurd.  We're deep in a war with an asymmetrical foe that has declared its goal to decimate America and the West, one which makes absolutely no distinction between combatants and civilians, and the Brinkleys among us want to focus on eliminating nuclear weapons?

I'll leave you with an astonishing quote from Brinkley, one which could have been made by Mr. Obama himself, which should convince you that, under his stewardship, America is on a fast track towards global emasculation:

Does anyone think their country should rule the world and make everyone live like them?  Does anyone think that the rules of the sand box where we learned to share can be tossed aside when it comes to international relations?

May God help us.

It's been observed that wisdom, along with political perspective, improves with time.  Perhaps that's why former vice president Dick Cheney has been on a kind of post-election campaign trail, making the case that his former boss excelled at keeping America safe, that Colin Powell might as well leave the Republican Party, and that President Obama's policies are increasing the risk of another attack.

News reports of Cheney's interview yesterday on Face the Nation are making headlines nationally, as well they should.  An article in yesterday's NY Daily News outlines the interview, which clarifies that the remedy to Republican Party problems doesn't lie in capitulating to moderates.  In an age of effusive post-partisanship, that's not a culturally popular line to take because it presupposes--correctly--that the differences between the parties are real, not merely a matter of political cosmetics.

Cheney made a number of bold assertions, but key among them were issues related to national security.  In the Obama view, former President Bush circumvented laws and compromised American integrity in the eyes of our allies, all quite needlessly.  From the enhanced interrogation techniques to Gitmo to warrantless wiretaps, Bush undermined our Constitutional precepts which did nothing to maintain America's security.

As I've argued in past posts, great regimes weren't historically overrun by barbarians, they decayed from within.  When a nation's leaders fail to recognize--or minimize--the seriousness of threats, they misguidedly rewrite the rules of engagement, allowing their foes to exploit newly exposed vulnerabilities.  If it's the result of miscalculation, their actions can be excused, however, when it's a willful dismissal of the facts, as in the case of Obama and the liberals, it's an indictment of historic proportions.  

Indeed, it takes a Herculean kind of ignorance to overlook the dozens of attacks on American interests in the past three decades, but sanitizing history is precisely what liberals across the globe seem to be doing.  Approximately three percent of Muslims are radical, which means there are about 1.3 million jihadists standing ready to attack America and other Western nations.  Among many other conservatives, Mr. Cheney understands that merely because we've not been attacked for the past eight years doesn't mean these savages have lost their appetite to decimate America.

Yet when Obama and his Congressional liberals argue that water-boarding is torture and that nothing significant came of its use, that warrantless wiretaps provided no actionable intelligence and compromised civil rights, they're effectively opening the front gate to those barbarians.  Great Britain is rewriting its laws to accommodate Sharia law, putting it on a par with its own civic code.  The result, which will likely begin to migrate to our shores, is that the radicals will be leveraging Britain's laws against their own people.

By attacking the Bush era tools that were used to inhibit the risk of another attack, the left is playing a highly dangerous game of political gamesmanship, one in which American lives are at stake.  In speeches in the early 1930s, Adolf Hitler laid out in grave detail precisely what he planned to do, and then, in front of a stunned international community, proceeded to follow through.  Over a decade ago, Osama bin Laden mirrored Hitler by providing a detailed blueprint for his grand scheme to achieve global domination, and has been diligently working towards that goal ever since.

Given Obama's arrogant dismissal of his predecessor's record, there is real reason to be concerned that his administration will unwittingly lay the groundwork for another catastrophic attack on American soil.  Cheney obviously recognizes this as a vulnerability--unfortunately, Obama and his liberal brethren do not.

By now, we've all heard the quip by P.J. O'Rourke about health care:  If you think it's expensive now, wait till it's 'free.'  Well, we're all about to learn exactly how expensive it's going to be, because President Obama and his over-reaching allies in Congress are about to put us on a fast-track to nationalize one-sixth of our economy.

For a view from the socialist left, we turn to the Huffington Post, which at once vilifies our current free-market system and glorifies--read misrepresents--Obamacare.  As you'll see, they toss accusations, claims, and percentages around like the ACLU when its going after a creche scene at city hall, trying to convince the skeptics and assure the committed that although the IRS answers thirty percent of callers' questions incorrectly and Medicare continues to use an impenetrably arcane system to reimburse physicians, the government is primed and ready to provide you and your family with cutting-edge health care services--at a lower cost than you're now paying.

There are too many distortions and outright falsehoods in the Huff's expose to counter, but let's look at some of the more egregious.  Principle one is that health care is part of our economic system.  Well, so is the auto industry, and since Obama is looking to run that, it makes sense to toss heatlh care into the mix; and, let's add the real estate market as well.  But, seriously, when the authors write that "Obama correctly sees the economy as an integrated system...", we have to scratch our heads:  what exactly does that mean?  That it justifies nationalizing health care? 

Principle two is that health care is a moral issue.  In case you haven't picked up on the left's exquisitely selective ability to divine morality in all the wrong places, it might surprise you that they believe slaughtering an innocent unborn human is not a moral issue, but health care is.  Empathy, you see, is in the eyes of the post-modernist beholder.

Principle four asserts that the president's plan fits our principles and represents true patriotism.  Does anyone have an oxygen tank handy?  Which principles are they referring to, the ones in the Federalist Papers that describe individual freedom, or the ones in the liberal manifesto?  As for patriotism, that's yet another prop that liberals trot out at the strangest times.  You won't hear it mentioned in discussions about our military (unless the cameras are rolling), and you'll never hear any of them say how patriotic it makes them feel to wear a flag lapel pin, because it's just so anti-upper West side, so hostile to their Georgetown cocktail circuit sensibilities.

Another outright lie is principle five, which says HMOs stand between you and and the care you get; well, no.  You purchase a plan for a price that reflects a defined menu of benefits, and every HMO is required to provide a basic set of services, which, it shouldn't surprise you, are only accessible if they're medically necessary; then you or your broker compare them and make an informed decision based on your individual needs--now there's a 'choice' the left abhors.  Number six is the same canard--you're a victim of a ruthless bureaucracy--pabulum for the intellectually effete.

If you believe number seven--that the administrative costs would be about 3 percent under the Obama plan--we might ask how anyone knows this when they can't even track the billions we've spent on economic stimulus?

There's more, but since patience is a virtue I'm still working on, I have to let my blood pressure drop a bit.  Since I've logged two and a half decades in the health care business, both on the payer and physician side, I'm not insensitive to the fact that there are glaring problems.  However, they revolve around cost, something the feds are clearly incapable of addressing, without, that is, their favorite fiscal cudgel--price controls.

Anyone who's read this far deserves a break, so we'll save the market-based remedies for another day.  But it's only in our principle-free culture, where victimhood and entitlement are the twin pillars of our civic virtues, that Obama has such a rosy chance of pushing this behemoth through Congress and down the throats of the American people.  Calling it a travesty provides it with a generosity of spirit wholly undeserved.

When the premise of an argument is mischaracterized, either deceitfully or ignorantly, its conclusions are inherently suspect.  An annoying theme of moderate Republicans is that conservatives cherish freedom and individualism to their detriment.  David Brooks, the scrupulously moderate Republican, makes that case in a recent New York Times editorial, using the motif of Western movies as his backdrop.

He short-circuits his argument with the broad conclusion that Western directors such as John Ford didn't really celebrate rugged individualism, but rather, civic order.  Brooks continues down the rabbit hole with his observation that,

Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice.  They would once again be the party of community and civic order.

He goes on to describe how people build "orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation."  That takes him to the threats to achieving those goals, and, predictably, they land smack dab on the Obama administration's agenda:  energy costs, health care, public and private debt (mysteriously, he forgot education).  Brooks then lectures us that the party is out of touch with the "concrete relationships of neighborhood life."

Speaking about being out of touch, it's astonishing to read arguments that willfully overlook the fundamental principles at the core of conservatism:  First, that it's not government's job to mastermind the civic structure and fabric of our Republic, and second, that community flows from the natural relationships that develop as a result of people pursuing their individual interests, from work to worship, not the ersatz liberal construct that seeks to spawn 'community' through expansion of government intrusion, using tools such as mandated recycling to public health initiatives.

Indeed, it's much less a matter of individual freedom than it is conservatism's wholesale dismissal of the liberal notion that it's government's rightful role to provide cradle-to-grave services, in a manner which just happens to mirror the left's values.  It would apparently shock such urban moderates as Brooks--who truly has more in common with Democrats than he does with traditional Republicans--that Republicans are becoming angry as they see Obama and his liberal pals in Congress plotting to nationalize everything from energy to health care.

He closes his piece by juxtaposing his view of the liberal and conservative approaches to civic order, noting that the former "engineer order" and the latter allows "government to set the rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded."  We can only pray that the conservative agenda isn't limited to that second quote, because as vital as markets are, it's what conservatives demand the government doesn't do that is just as important--don't maintain its ideological monopoly in education, don't nationalize health care, don't create a regulatory energy edifice which will drive up costs, and don't appease our enemies.

These are challenging arguments to make in an age that seems so culturally inclined to accept the Faustian bargain of higher taxes and regulation in exchange for an alleged guarantee of a higher quality of life, of universal happiness.  What Obama et al seem to completely miss is that Americans have historically found happiness by living their lives according to their own values and principles, not by an engineered civic code undergirded by a liberal orthodoxy.

In brief, all we want of the government is a modicum of market regulation, then just deliver the mail and guard the borders.  Happiness is a personal concern, and we're quite capable of pursuing it on our own.

It's an article of liberal faith that race and gender are dispositive of values and principles, which is one reason so many Americans voted for an American of mixed African descent, a charismatic neophyte, who also happened to be a hard leftist.  We're about to repeat that exercise as President Obama begins the process of vetting candidates to replace Supreme Court justice David Souter.

If you breeze through the lists of likely candidates they're invariably a racial minority, a female, but, most assuredly, they're well left of center and they subscribe to the activist approach to jurisprudence.  In an informal discussion over the weekend with some attorney friends, a political mix from across the spectrum, the only area of agreement was that Mr. Obama will choose a stealth activist, someone who subscribes to the so-called "living" Constitution theory. 

As you can guess, that line of reasoning uses a version of post-modernist legal theory to argue that the Founding Fathers' conceptualization of law is inherently archaic, mired in 18th century intellectual conventions and ideas.  America in the 21st century, so they argue, is not merely different in degree but in jurisprudential genus, which is to say we've evolved to the point where a 'privacy right' can be divined in the Constitution to sanction the murder of the innocent unborn.

As Mark Levin persuasively argued in his book, Men in Black:  How the Supreme court is Destroying America, judicial activism has undermined the vision of our Founding Fathers and eroded our Constitution's separation of powers construct, which is so vital to justice and the rule of law.  So, when we hear Obama assure us there will be no litmus test for nominees we must suppress a chuckle because his blinkered endorsement of race and gender as indicative of values is wholly transparent.

The balkanazation of America in the past several decades demonstrates how the left conceptualizes our Republic, which is a nation with a multiplicity of visions, a rainbow of values, each of which is informed by a unique rendering of our Constitution.  That leads to the wholesale justification for either ruling out or exploiting racial or gender variables, based on their ability to realize a desired outcome. 

That's how we came to be saddled with racial quotas, which has seen such perverse outcomes as the son of a black orthopedic surgeon winning a scholarship over the son of a white bricklayer.  The list is as lengthy as it is hostile to the common good as it makes presumptions of aptitude based on race, something the Rev. Martin Luther King fought against his entire life. 

Add to this mix the internationalization of American law, which will surely be highlighted in the confirmation hearings, and you have the fundamentals in place to ensure the slow decay of our nation's sovereign authority, something no other nation would tolerate. 

With the potential for choosing a total of three members of the court, Obama's imprint will likely have a powerful impact on the cases it hears for decades to come.  That the left's arrogance is unbounded is unambiguous, which is why they're over-reaching so early in the game, both economically, and, in this instance, in fundamentally realigning the court to ensure its ability to legislate from the bench.  It's a stunning abrogation of our Constitution, but one they justify for the tandem goals of power retention and transforming America into a socialist state.

It's an article of liberal faith that race and gender are dispositive of values and principles, which is one reason so many Americans voted for an American of mixed African descent, a charismatic neophyte, who also happened to be a hard leftist.  We're about to repeat that exercise as President Obama begins the process of vetting candidates to replace Supreme Court justice David Souter.

If you breeze through the lists of likely candidates they're invariably a racial minority, a female, but, most assuredly, they're well left of center and they subscribe to the activist approach to jurisprudence.  In an informal discussion over the weekend with some attorney friends, a political mix from across the spectrum, the only area of agreement was that Mr. Obama will choose a stealth activist, someone who subscribes to the so-called "living" Constitution theory. 

As you can guess, that line of reasoning uses a version of post-modernist legal theory to argue that the Founding Fathers' conceptualization of law is inherently archaic, mired in 18th century intellectual conventions and ideas.  America in the 21st century, so they argue, is not merely different in degree but in jurisprudential genus, which is to say we've evolved to the point where a 'privacy right' can be divined in the Constitution to sanction the murder of the innocent unborn.

As Mark Levin persuasively argued in his book, Men in Black:  How the Supreme court is Destroying America, judicial activism has undermined the vision of our Founding Fathers and eroded our Constitution's separation of powers construct, which is so vital to justice and the rule of law.  So, when we hear Obama assure us there will be no litmus test for nominees we must suppress a chuckle because his blinkered endorsement of race and gender as indicative of values is wholly transparent.

The balkanazation of America in the past several decades demonstrates how the left conceptualizes our Republic, which is a nation with a multiplicity of visions, a rainbow of values, each of which is informed by a unique rendering of our Constitution.  That leads to the wholesale justification for either ruling out or exploiting racial or gender variables, based on their ability to realize a desired outcome. 

That's how we came to be saddled with racial quotas, which has seen such perverse outcomes as the son of a black orthopedic surgeon winning a scholarship over the son of a white bricklayer.  The list is as lengthy as it is hostile to the common good as it makes presumptions of aptitude based on race, something the Rev. Martin Luther King fought against his entire life. 

Add to this mix the internationalization of American law, which will surely be highlighted in the confirmation hearings, and you have the fundamentals in place to ensure the slow decay of our nation's sovereign authority, something no other nation would tolerate. 

With the potential for choosing a total of three members of the court, Obama's imprint will likely have a powerful impact on the cases it hears for decades to come.  That the left's arrogance is unbounded is unambiguous, which is why they're over-reaching so early in the game, both economically, and, in this instance, in fundamentally realigning the court to ensure its ability to legislate from the bench.  It's a stunning abrogation of our Constitution, but one they justify for the tandem goals of power retention and transforming America into a socialist state.

It's an article of liberal faith that race and gender are dispositive of values and principles, which is one reason so many Americans voted for an American of mixed African descent, a charismatic neophyte, who also happened to be a hard leftist.  We're about to repeat that exercise as President Obama begins the process of vetting candidates to replace Supreme Court justice David Souter.

If you breeze through the lists of likely candidates they're invariably a racial minority, a female, but, most assuredly, they're well left of center and they subscribe to the activist approach to jurisprudence.  In an informal discussion over the weekend with some attorney friends, a political mix from across the spectrum, the only area of agreement was that Mr. Obama will choose a stealth activist, someone who subscribes to the so-called "living" Constitution theory. 

As you can guess, that line of reasoning uses a version of post-modernist legal theory to argue that the Founding Fathers' conceptualization of law is inherently archaic, mired in 18th century intellectual conventions and ideas.  America in the 21st century, so they argue, is not merely different in degree but in jurisprudential genus, which is to say we've evolved to the point where a 'privacy right' can be divined in the Constitution to sanction the murder of the innocent unborn.

As Mark Levin persuasively argued in his book, Men in Black:  How the Supreme court is Destroying America, judicial activism has undermined the vision of our Founding Fathers and eroded our Constitution's separation of powers construct, which is so vital to justice and the rule of law.  So, when we hear Obama assure us there will be no litmus test for nominees we must suppress a chuckle because his blinkered endorsement of race and gender as indicative of values is wholly transparent.

The balkanazation of America in the past several decades demonstrates how the left conceptualizes our Republic, which is a nation with a multiplicity of visions, a rainbow of values, each of which is informed by a unique rendering of our Constitution.  That leads to the wholesale justification for either ruling out or exploiting racial or gender variables, based on their ability to realize a desired outcome. 

That's how we came to be saddled with racial quotas, which has seen such perverse outcomes as the son of a black orthopedic surgeon winning a scholarship over the son of a white bricklayer.  The list is as lengthy as it is hostile to the common good as it makes presumptions of aptitude based on race, something the Rev. Martin Luther King fought against his entire life. 

Add to this mix the internationalization of American law, which will surely be highlighted in the confirmation hearings, and you have the fundamentals in place to ensure the slow decay of our nation's sovereign authority, something no other nation would tolerate. 

With the potential for choosing a total of three members of the court, Obama's imprint will likely have a powerful impact on the cases it hears for decades to come.  That the left's arrogance is unbounded is unambiguous, which is why they're over-reaching so early in the game, both economically, and, in this instance, in fundamentally realigning the court to ensure its ability to legislate from the bench.  It's a stunning abrogation of our Constitution, but one they justify for the tandem goals of power retention and transforming America into a socialist state.

It's an article of liberal faith that race and gender are dispositive of values and principles, which is one reason so many Americans voted for an American of mixed African descent, a charismatic neophyte, who also happened to be a hard leftist.  We're about to repeat that exercise as President Obama begins the process of vetting candidates to replace Supreme Court justice David Souter.

If you breeze through the lists of likely candidates they're invariably a racial minority, a female, but, most assuredly, they're well left of center and they subscribe to the activist approach to jurisprudence.  In an informal discussion over the weekend with some attorney friends, a political mix from across the spectrum, the only area of agreement was that Mr. Obama will choose a stealth activist, someone who subscribes to the so-called "living" Constitution theory. 

As you can guess, that line of reasoning uses a version of post-modernist legal theory to argue that the Founding Fathers' conceptualization of law is inherently archaic, mired in 18th century intellectual conventions and ideas.  America in the 21st century, so they argue, is not merely different in degree but in jurisprudential genus, which is to say we've evolved to the point where a 'privacy right' can be divined in the Constitution to sanction the murder of the innocent unborn.

As Mark Levin persuasively argued in his book, Men in Black:  How the Supreme court is Destroying America, judicial activism has undermined the vision of our Founding Fathers and eroded our Constitution's separation of powers construct, which is so vital to justice and the rule of law.  So, when we hear Obama assure us there will be no litmus test for nominees we must suppress a chuckle because his blinkered endorsement of race and gender as indicative of values is wholly transparent.

The balkanazation of America in the past several decades demonstrates how the left conceptualizes our Republic, which is a nation with a multiplicity of visions, a rainbow of values, each of which is informed by a unique rendering of our Constitution.  That leads to the wholesale justification for either ruling out or exploiting racial or gender variables, based on their ability to realize a desired outcome. 

That's how we came to be saddled with racial quotas, which has seen such perverse outcomes as the son of a black orthopedic surgeon winning a scholarship over the son of a white bricklayer.  The list is as lengthy as it is hostile to the common good as it makes presumptions of aptitude based on race, something the Rev. Martin Luther King fought against his entire life. 

Add to this mix the internationalization of American law, which will surely be highlighted in the confirmation hearings, and you have the fundamentals in place to ensure the slow decay of our nation's sovereign authority, something no other nation would tolerate. 

With the potential for choosing a total of three members of the court, Obama's imprint will likely have a powerful impact on the cases it hears for decades to come.  That the left's arrogance is unbounded is unambiguous, which is why they're over-reaching so early in the game, both economically, and, in this instance, in fundamentally realigning the court to ensure its ability to legislate from the bench.  It's a stunning abrogation of our Constitution, but one they justify for the tandem goals of power retention and transforming America into a socialist state.